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 have 15 and 14 year olds who are on track to get good grades in variety of traditional academic subjects. They have supportive family etc.. and my gut feeling is that whatever they choose it'll all be ok in the end. Is this naive?"

Our DCs (now 19 and 23) both did traditional GCSEs and A Levels - even the less academic one. It certainly hasn't hindered either getting to decent universities (or the elder one getting a highly paid job at the other end). Friends of the younger DC who were probably more academic but got lured along the diploma path haven't done so well (so far).

medmum, completely agree.

The problem is things like three As at A level and first class degrees are just so common now vs say 20 years ago. So how do you differentiate? For employers internships or post grad qualifications make a big difference. For unis, the sort of characteristics you mention become important.

The problem is that the introverted academic child won't often have these extra elements and can't differentiate academically because GCSE/A levels are too easy. I hope that things like Pre-Us and STEP papers catch on across unis to allow these children a fair chance.

The trouble with threads like these, is that so much of it relies on personal assumptions and presuppositions, and it is difficult to quantify what makes a 'harder' or an 'easier' subject.

The most recent research into difficulty of different subjects was the 2008 Durham survey which was a meta analysis on whether STEM subjects are really more difficult than non stem subjects. Interestingly, that in opposition to many of the posters on this thread, they ranked psychology A level as being harder than English Literature and Geography. It claims IT is a harder 'A' level than History, Spanish, Economics or English Lit.

At GCSE, their research is equally interesting - they place Short course Religious Studies as being harder than GCSE maths, physics, history or Geography. It also claims IT short course GCSE to be the hardest GCSE to get!

It makes interesting making, and I don't accept the research, I think there are serious problems with its validity (not least that it was funded by a science in education group - vested interest!), but it does raise the question as to how we define these so called 'harder' subjects. Do with go with the "research" or do we go with University perceptions - but if we go with those, we have to ask what they base their conceptions on - After all, Cambridge cites English Literature to be an A1 (harder subject) but puts Politics and Psychology in their B (slightly easier) list. Yet the 2008 score report claims that Politics and Psychology are harder than English Literature.

So I would ask all those who moan that teachers do not give good advice about 'fluffy' A levels, on what basis should we be giving this advice? The Research? Cambridge University's Acceptance list? People's (mis)conceptions of A level difficulty??

Raises some interesting points!

It is interesting, youngjoly. I take it that this is the list you're talking about:

Trinity A level list

You're assuming that A levels of more limited suitability are easier. Couldn't it just be the syllabus they have reservations about?

"Couldn't it just be the syllabus they have reservations about?"

But they don't cite any specific syllabus that they have issues with - if that were the case, then surely they'd do this? I know my own subject has four different exam boards for my subject, and the syllabus requirements between them differ massively. Then the syllabus changes depending on the modules chosen - so if it were down to reservations about the syllabus, then I'd be surprised to see a blanket ban against all syllabus within the subject when they vary so greatly.

There's an article in today's Guardian about soft/hard A levels with university responses about preferred A Levels.

"I tried to research what A-levels would give me the best chances of getting on to those courses, but it wasn't easy to find. I spent ages on the websites ... but on many I just found lots of links, with the information all over the place, or not there at all. Because there was often no clear list, I ended up looking up lots of individual courses"

Are we supposed to feel sorry for the little dears? If they are not capable of research then they should not be applying to Uni. I know they are only Y11 but the attitude that things should be signposted and handed to them on a plate will not get them far!
They don't know how easy they have it with the internet; wasn't like that in my day.

I suppose what I find most surprising is that when you look at most of the decent independent schools they all seem to take the time to educate the parents as to what the process is like now, and why it isn't the same one they went through. Presumably this is easier to do when 99% of the pupils will head to uni.

As an example have a look here at an example of the sort of written advice available on choice of A level options, obviously supplemented by both presentations and open evenings for parents and boys.

This is all rubbish, do subjects you enjoy. A first in media studies for example is much more attractive than a third in Chemistry. I work in media, and the ONLY thing we ask for is aptitude and a keenness to learn. If I knew someone was chucking my CV in the bin as soon as they found out I had a media studies degree, I think legal action would be in order.

If you have a definite career in mind at 16 then by all means investigate the best qualifications to gain access to your chosen subject. Ask the University or company what they require, don't ask the Internet. As far as GCSEs are concerned, it doesn't matter what you study, as long as you have the required A -Levels, and Maths & English.

My advice - STUDY SUBJECTS YOU ARE GOOD AT AND ENJOY - anything else is a waste and you are more likely to drop out or get a poor result.

Sorry, Durutti, but I have to disagree. I have worked for the best part of 20 years on national newspapers and magazines and people are pretty scornful of media studies - it is seen as a very soft subject and, in terms of hiring people based on their CVs (rather than through whom they know which seems to be increasingly the manner of recruitment), I don't think it would be very helpful. It's not really a choice between a I in Media Studies or a III in another subject is it? It's such a competitive area that most candidates even for internships will have good degrees in academically rigourous subjects and probably some experience and post-grad qualifications too.

I'm really convinced that if your dc is lucky enough to discover what they want to do at an early age that is the key. DS1 was fortunate enough to be advised to choose a branch of engineering when he was about to choose his A levels (by a Connexions adviser at a state school).

In a few weeks he will finish his Masters at a redbrick Uni (with a First) and has a graduate job to start in the field of engineering that interests him and in a location in the UK that he likes.

Along the way in his Uni and late school holidays he did relevant work experience, joined the right Uni Societies (and had positions in them) and joined and had positions in others that proved he was a well rounded person (i.e. not engineering orientated ones). He is dyslexic and although v good at maths + physics had less choice of career than some. Perhaps that helped!

I reckon the Connexions adviser was the catalyst that gave him the initial focus. I think careers advice in the early and later teenage years is v v important and he was lucky there. My DH and I have no engineering background whatsoever and know no engineers, however once he had expressed a preference we helped him research routes.

Generally, check with any professional body like e.g. Institute of chartered accountants which university courses they accept, then check with said univs which A-Levels they accept. Academic subjects which existed 50 years ago are always the safest choices, usually safer than anything which LOOKS vocational.

MrsGuy, schools often urge people towards easier courses to bump up their league table positions.

pippop your DS was extremely lucky with his Connexions adviser then. God knows where my eldest four or five would be heading now if they'd listened to theirs. 'Do you have particular career in mind?'. 'Yes, medicine'. 'Ooh, bad choice, very competitive. Have you though about....' etc. (x 5).

Ancient computer, sticky keys..

DH is a serious IT person and he'd certainly say Maths and hard science A levels (his degree is chemistry), only his postgrad qualifications are computing.
Also good english GCSE and keep your writing skills up to scratch there after. More senior technical jobs don't just require writing computer programs, but writing proposals, bids and reports on progress.

Very bad english to loose the "E"
I'm also a dyslexic who got very good O'levels by dropping MFL. I to worry about my DD1 who is also dyslexic and also finds MFL a struggle.
Neither of us are/were helped by the standard of our French teachers, which certainly needs to be addressed before MFL qualifications become compulsory.

Yes, Yellowstone he was a very lucky bunny. DH is an accountant, I teach art, we live on the edge of London so to be honest engineering wasn't really on our radar and culturally it's not us.

He dropped MFL too as it was a big waste of effort for him. We also paid for tutors to keep his English up at a reasonable standard until GCSE level.

I agree with the person that said you should do A levels that existed a long time ago. It's a safer bet.

We "encouraged" DS2 to take Maths as one of his A levels (also did History, English and Latin) in the hope that this will open doors, or at least not close them, in the future. If your DC can do it, it's a good one to have even if they don't know what they want to do (like DS2). He's studying history now at Uni.

I also think that students should think about which A levels "go" with each other. For example, it's difficult to study physics A level if you aren't doing Maths.

For Accountancy don't take Accountancy at GCSE, A level or a Degree.

To be helpful : either

1. Get an apprenticeship to train for AAT (at 16 or 18) then ACA or ACCA while working, or

1. Do broad, quality A levels (maybe including Maths) and make sure you have a high grade GCSE Maths, and then do a quality degree of interest and then pick up a training contract with a firm and do ACA ACCA with them.

First option you get paid more and no massive loan to repay. Latter you get a slightly free-er life when young and get to study something in detail you'll probably never get the chance to ever again.

Hi lalalonglegs,

I think your company is being pretty shortsighted. Any staff I hire or interview for work experience we take on is entirely based on the quality of the applicant. Not the subject of their degree.

Obviously this analagy breaks down when we talk about vocational careers like medicine and law.

I have had two excellent staff members with media studies, one rubbish with Drama and English and one excellent with a finance background, not to mention several with no formal 3rd level at all. My work experience have come from all walks of life.

We look for relevent experience, a history of working/volunteering in the industry, eillingness to work hard and ask questions. A degree is useful, it shows you can work at that level and you bring knowledge of a subject to your workplace.

I work for a national broadcaster and make TV programmes (NOT Science). I have a degree in Ecology, totally irrelevant to anything I am doing at the minute, one would think, but I have found it useful.

There has been a lot of debate regarding soft/hard subjects and I can see how this will soon escalate into soft/hard colleges, and when that happens the Degree system will break dow. We already have many applicants with excellent results, so for me Its all about expereince. And I do find a media studies background is useful, especially if its combined with a practical element.

I can't stress this enough, study something you enjoy. If your only reason for doing a degree is that you think you will get a high paying job at the end you will be mistaken, And who wants to spend their whole life working in something they hate.
If you enjoy a subject, you work harder, you get better results and your enjoyment shines through at the end.

And if you can't get a job at the end there is always teaching

J

On the accountancy discussion - when I was doing my ACA (many many years ago) - students who had accountancy degrees were more likely to fail the first set of professional exams than other students- partly because they had exemptions from the foundation year and were out of practice. The students most likely to pass were the classics students followed by Maths- This obviously fed in to the recruiting policies of firms.

The other key point is that it matters which University you go to- accountancy firms /city banks etc often are really selective about which universities they recruit from.

For me you don't need to do an accountancy degree to be an accountant - you are going to have years of studying accounting going forward so spend those 3 years doing something interesting!