subjects of death for chosen careers

[Appletrees]

Inspired by the English bacc thread I would like to know subjects would be advised AGAINST for particular careers.

Given that schools are encouraging children to take subjects that will boost league tables A-C results rather than into the unis/training colleges/courses the students actually need.

So I am starting with journalism after a great post from Basildon Bond on the bacc thread.

For journalism, don't take media studies.

Any more?

I'm sorry, TheFarSide, but that is not the impression I gained from your earlier posts. I'm very glad to hear it though.

I was pondering some people's disdain for media studies and found the following article which I think makes some interesting points. I would be interested in your thoughts, Glencora, Apple and others ... (tomorrow will do)

www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/aug/22/media-studies

I have just read the article. There is clearly an issue of some subjects not being sufficiently vocational. In order to be awarded a degree for fulfilling the requirements of a course, the work submitted has to meet certain minimum requirements.

In many subjects, the course will be designed to meet those academic requirements and as a consequence of that the time given to vocational skills will be reduced.

The obvious solution to that is that some subjects shouldn't be taught as undergraduate degrees. They should be taught as vocational courses in Higher education institutions and be awarded a vocational qualification.

The second issue is that media studies is deemed to be academic on the basis that it covers psychology, sociology, cultural studies and economics. That seems to me a bit jack of all trades. It leads to people overestimating their knowledge base. This to me is pretty much what defines something as a mickey mouse degree.

The third issue is the comparison to English and the fact that people who study English generally don't get jobs in the field of literary criticism. My answer to that would be that people don't go to university believing that they will get such a job; many people go to university believing that a media studies degree will get them a job in the media.

The reason that a media studies degree doesn't seem to fit very well with a degree in journalism is because good journalists require a firm knowledge base. If you want to train someone in political journalism, someone with a politics or economics degree is a better option. If you want someone to write about world events, you might look for a Geography or History graduate.

There is quite a lot of news that is generated as a consequence of reporting events that have been created by other media sectors, but probably not enough to justify hiring a lot of media studies graduates.

My very bright science orientated son is in the process of choosing his options. He quite likes the idea of astronomy but if he chooses this he will be unable to do history or geography, thus no Bacclaureate. I think it is a mistake - he can learn about astronomy outside school. He already knows quite a lot about it anyway. And studying a "hobby/interest" at school can just take the fun out of it!

How important do people think the Bacclaureate will be for entrance into a good Uni in the future? Personally i think he should do this to keep his options as open as possible. He will almost certainly do a science/maths based subject.

He has also been doing Latin as an extra subject - should he continue to GCSE?

These choices now have huge implications for his future and he has very little help from the school. They tell him to take advice from his parents!!!

Sorry to intrude on the media studies debate, but going back to the earlier topic, in my experience economics A level is quite highly regarded and shouldn't be lumped in with business studies and accounting. I did A level economics then went on to study Economics and Management at Oxford and the majority of the students on the course had taken economics A level (plus almost all had maths too). I would have struggled with the degree without knowing the basics that A level taught me, and a level of knowledge of the subject was certainly assumed.

Basically, this is how to do it-

1. Look in The Times and identify the top 10 Universities
2. Go to their websites and make a list of which A-levels they prefer- they all publish this info in their admissions info
3. Pick from these A- levels, excluding any whch dont appear on at least 5 of the lists.

GCSE's I dont think are such an issue if you have a couple of woolly subjects as long as you have good grades in the Ebacc and a few others. I mean, most kids do about 10 GCSE's so providing 8 are ok, I think you can afford a few outliers.

Agree with Silver 28 re economics, and most good universities include this within their core "preferred" A-levels

medmum there are a few options threads around and you might get better advice there.

I personally would advise history or geography rather than astronomy as that gives him a chance to do a humanities rather than more science. He can keep the astronomy as a hobby (my friends DS took it as an extra at GCSE, didn't actually enjoy it and got his lowest GCSE grade from it!)

The English Bacc is a guideline for a spread of academic subjects but by the time the current year 9's are applying for university it will probably will have been tweaked several times according to the whims of the various Education Secretaries. I doubt Universities will change any admissions policies according to what is essentially a league table measure.

I do agree a bit with theFarSide, in that it would be quite possible for an A level in Philosophy or Psychology or Sociology to be rigorous and challenging (I'm using these subjects as examples because they are subjects I know very well at undergrad and graduate level, but I don't know really how they are taught at school level). And if they were/are, then perhaps it is outdated snobbery to view them as inferior. But the impression I get, which could be wrong, is that they are rather general, not indepth enough, their very popularity with many children who aren't hugely academic does suggest that they aren't that intellectually rigorous at A level.

but I could be wrong. as I said.

Also I do agree that not every 16 year old is going to aim for a prestigious university course, so they may not need the most respected A levels. That's OK as long as everyone is clear that the "softer" subjects do carry less prestige with them and may hinder certain paths. My 18yo niece did soft subjects for GCSE and A level, and is now happily studying Textiles. my 17 year old nieces are aiming for top universities and are sticking to the traditional subjects. The problem is if an academically oriented child does too many soft subjects without realising the impact.

medmum I think that your instinct is right - that your bright DS ought to try to get the EBacc. It demonstrates that a person can, simultaneously, master a variety of academic areas. I think, in time, it will become shorthand for 'a good all-rounder'.
If he is thinking of becoming a scientist then it is especially important for him to do a Humanity, so he gets a chance to hone his research and essay-writing skills. Beware of History: it can be spoiled if a student has to study a period in which they are not interested (eg DS loves History because they are doing Modern but says he would hate an older period. They also sometimes do weird things like 'the History of Medicine'. Check the syllabus carefully!).
Latin is a good GCSE, if he wants to do it, because it covers so many bases. It incorporates all the language / foreign language skills, all the History skills and teaches logic & problem solving too.

'I do see many able young people in college who were "encouraged" to do traditional subjects by their parents and ended up with U grades out of boredom with the subject'. I don't think the answer here is to come up with a story about the virtues of non-traditional subjects. Rather, it's to teach these lazy, self-absorbed, clueless-about-the-world young people that they don't have a right to be constantly entertained, and that they may well need to exert themselves beyond their comfort zone to get anything out of their lives in the big world.

I have to disagree with the posters who said don't do an accountancy degree for accountancy, and don't do anything called "studies". I did "Accountancy Studies" many years ago - it was the top accountancy degree at the time, requiring high A level grades. The course was well respected by all the big accountancy firms, who visited to teach some of the modules. It contained almost as much economics as the economics degree, as well as law, accounting, statistics etc. Everyone who wanted one got a job with a top accountancy firm at the end.

You can't generalise - not all degrees of the same name are equal!

There is no such thing as the Ebacc. You do not get a certificate in it atm. It's a league table measure sprung up from no-where as far as I can see.

I would, however encourage anyone doing options to do MFL (my DD didn't) and history or geography along with the sciences and compulsory subjects.

GSCE subject are important nowadays but there is nothing wrong with doing the drama, business studies alongside more academic subject if a pupil wants to get into a good uni.

It's a no brainer for A levels, decide what you want to do then look at the subject required. Often there isn't any negotiation on A level subjects.

Agree with others not all students who go to uni are going to get into the top ones and be capable of getting high grades in the academic subject so no point pushing them into it. They can get into a uni doing media/business studies etc. Have the experience and they may or may not get a job which earns enough to pay back the debt.

harrassed
they may have gone in with an accountancy degree
but how did they do in their CCAB exams and afterwards?
they will have had a narrower intellectual base on which to build a business career.

And the point is to WIDEN ones options not narrow them.

Every school should be forced to enter every child for the ebacc subjects - among others.
It is outrageous that whole cohorts of children are being denied access to modern languages or humanities or pure sciences because of an exam they failed at 11.

I don't think you should assume that kids that don't do a GCSE language have failed the 11+. A good percentage don't take the 11+ and have opted out of certain subject because they didn't enjoy them. Languages aren't taught particularly well in our schools.

to turn the question around a bit...there are some subjects that (at least at my school 25 years ago) are too tied to certain careers. I'm thinking mainly of languages. I've never quite forgiven the people who answered the question "what can I do with an A level/degree in French" with "you could be a translator. It's very highly paid you know". The answer should have been "anything you like...including compete with the millions of French people who speak fluent English". In my second job, I felt chuffed with myself for having a smattering of a (very hard) second language - until I realised that it was no way good enough to be useful and that virtually everyone else (ie all the ones who weren't English) were trilingual.

If in doubt do a langauge, I say.

abouteve
Absolutely true, but it is scandalous that some non grammars do not offer MFL to any of their students.
Every child should have the opportunity to do the ebacc subjects - if they choose to opt out, the school should ensure that they still have a sound academic base.

I agree that economics A'level is not a waste of time (in the way that law A'level can be).

However, maths (and further maths in some cases) at A'level is also a good precursor to an economics degree, and, as others have said, a great addition to any CV.

About having a "fun" GCSE or two; I don't think this matters, as long as you have the time (and level of teaching available) to score a high grade. Oxford, Cambridge and Ivy Leagues will now NOT take a pupil who has a C at GCSE in ANY subject. I've seen really smart kids caught out by this year after year (often by picking up a second language at GCSE and then not having the time to commit to it.)

hatwoman - I agree with your point about other nationalities speaking several languages fluently in addition to having a vocational qualification.

I think MFL are great academic qualifications but you must have the means to actually spend time in the country of the language you are studying, and you must know more than just be able to speak another language.

About the "fun" gcse, my school tried to encourage this, many years ago, the academic kids resisted it strongly (we ended up being allowed to do Chemistry in the "fun" (i.e. non-academic) option block.

For an academic (non-musical) child, French or History is a whole lot more fun than woodwork (shudder), textiles (bleurgh) or music (my worst nightmare).

My dds are different, they are all very good at textiles, woodwork, design, graphics, all those subjects now called "technology". But it's not fun or relaxing if you're not that good at it.

Regarding MFL's - if the teaching starts at primary school and it is seen as important as numeracy and literacy, as it is teaching english in other countries, then hopefully it will become pretty automatic that children will go on to study it at GCSE level and actually be able to have a basic conversations in that language. That's what we meed to aim for.

As far as taking "traditional" subjects at A level, all children are different and for some this may not be the best way to succeed. I have maths GCSE but there is no way I could have done maths a level, it's just not where my talents lie. As I posted n a thread a few days ago, I did sociology a level, shock horror, alongside history and english. I then went on to do a sociology degree (at a top uni), but I'm confident I would have got a place on a history course if I'd wanted. I had a good idea of the type of field I wanted to get into and that these a levels and degree would be beneficial to me.

If I'd been "persuaded" to take maths a level I wouldn't have got a high grade, so wouldn't have met the standards needed to get into the university I wanted to. Ok so my mathematical skills may not be great but that's really not important for my career, and I know enough to get me through normal life. So there will be children choosing their alevels at the moment who also need to look at their strengths as well as the subjects needed to get into the uni courses of their choice.

Re: accountancy degrees - I have quite a few friend who took a level accountancy, some alongside economics too, and have excellent jobs with top firms (and one even did an accountancy degree, shock horror!).

Checkmate, so my DD won't be able to apply to Oxford because she has GCSE grade C in Drama?

she can apply- anyone can apply- but they have to discriminate somehow and they will probably have enough candidates who have never dropped a grade at GCSE or A-level to fill their places.

For Oxbridge, the question is not "is my child bright enough for Oxbridge" but, "is my child brighter than all the other people who want to go Oxbridge" because there are more people who are bright enough to do a degree there than there are places.

Well she is from a disadvantaged background and it's post 2012 entry so that might help . Not sure she will even apply there anyway, depends on A level grades.

I'm starting to feel a bit sorry for our DC's generation. When I went to Cambridge, the standard A-level offer was AAB, I knew people who had got in with less, and no-one cared about O-levels.

When my father went to Oxford, he got one A-level, and had to retake the equivalent of Latin O-level in his first term, as he had failed it three times at school and you needed an ancient language to matriculate. He did pass the entrance exam, though.

And now they are all expected to get close on 100 per cent for everything. I know that exams may have got easier, according to some teachers/academics I know, but even so, there is so much hard slog - my 16-year-old nephew is doing more work for his GCSEs at the moment than I did in my final year at Cambridge (and I got a first).