Bright child, good school, Year 11, got to choose A Levels. Tell me - 3 or 4?

[nonnomnom]

If your child is reasonably bright and at a good school, can you tell me if they will be expected/are expecting to do 3 or 4 subjects, now that AS Levels are largely going? (Not counting those doing Further Maths or General Studies here.)

DD's school surprised me by saying they needed to do 4 - even if essay subjects - but dd now saying she's only going to do 3 as there only 3 she really wants to do and better to get 3 good results than 4 mediocre ones.

But will decent unis expect 4 now? Or at least 3.5?

What will most Year 11s be doing? National guidance seems unclear.

Thank you...

Rogue dad you are categorically wrong - universities couldn't care less about the 4th A level, if taken. (Further Maths may be the exception.) But There is no disadvantage to dropping a fourth subject at the end of lower sixth, or not starting one in the first place (as long as you're sure about those three).

Please ignore the tariff points on the league tables - look at university websites to get an idea of offers.

Have to laugh at roguedad's 'anecdotes' about someone who got into a RG on the back of 3 A levels - that would be pretty much all of them then! Hardly anecdotal!

Rougedad. Pls go and have look at websites of courses which you claim favour 4 ilor more subjects.

Perhaps applying to Medical schools want to impress their unis with 4th subject but not all.

Would Durham or Exeter be of those unis who you suspect want 4 subjects? Then you are wrong because my dd got offers for 2016 doing 3 subjects this year y.13).
We are waiting for reply from Warwick but they also never mentioned 4th subjects to be "nice to have".

Roguedad has commented on earlier threads about physics.

Many entrants for top courses in maths/physics/engineering will have 4+ A levels (not necessarily including FM) but in most cases offers are still made on the basis of 3. (However, to be a strong candidate for an offer you may need 4 A levels if your school offers the opportunity to take four).

There are a very small number of such courses who quote standard offers in terms of four A levels e.g. Imperial

www.imperial.ac.uk/study/ug/courses/chemical-engineering-department/chemical-engineering/

Note however that even they say that although the majority of offers are based on four subjects there is the possibility of an AAA offer. The latter is presumably for applicants who only had the option to take 3 subjects.

Relative to 20 years ago, it is far common nowadays for science students to take four subjects to A2 (not necessarily including FM, e.g. maths, physics, chemistry and biology or three sciences and one other subject). It is quite common to see science students with five A levels, which would have been virtually unknown 20 years ago.

However, I don't think any institution could impose a policy of insisting on four subjects, even for a top course, when many schools won't be allowing students to do four (excluding FM). Moreover the new A levels will contain far more content, and it may become much rarer for science students to have four plus subjects, whatever type of school they attend, unless the fourth is FM.

disquis
but you are also talking about what has gone on the past
NOT what this thread is about.

DD did 5 x AS and is doing 3 x A2 plus an EPQ

that option is NOT ON OFFER to the kids starting next year
because the situation has changed

DS will do 5 x AS but one of them will be FM

the private schools that offer the Renaissance Education that disquit values above all other may be able to have the resources to carry on along that path
but in the real world of £4000 per year budgets
3 A levels is likely to become the norm again

As I wrote above, 3 A levels has been the norm, except for at a handful of top science/engineering courses. Even these courses have always allowed for kids coming in with 3 A2 because that's what their schools offered.

I do think the primary trigger in dropping from 4 A to 3 A for many of the schools which currently have many students doing 4 A2 will not be just budgets, but the increased difficulty of the new exams. Many "high achieving" state schools which regularly feed pupils into such courses are indicating that their top science students will be doing 4 A levels next year (despite budgets). This will drop off if the new maths A level turns out to be as hard as draft specifications suggest, and other science A levels are similarly made much harder.

(And I'm not sure what erroneous opinions of my views on education have to do with this thread. For the record, I work extensively in improving access and strongly oppose entry requirements which discriminate in favour of schools with more resources.)

disquisitiones I agree that this transition stage is resulting in some schools move to a more in depth approach (with some additional component for general education). The feeling that is being communicated is that although some students may still be capable of doing 4-5 A levels with the new two year syllabus there may little point in taking the risk and more to gain by focussing on 3-4 subjects with harder extension work. It is also refreshing to see that some schools are also commenting that the lack of a qualification in a subject studied for a year does not negate the educational value of what has been learnt. Budgets for sixth forms are a problem though whether high achieving state school or not.

I strongly advise people to look at the data documenting the achievement of kids who have been successful getting into courses of interest, and thinking what those numbers mean in terms of securing a similarly successful profile. The university websites, that people love to quote, document minimum standards for admission that by definition are well below the average standard of those who made it in. Kids on the Student Room love to brag when they get a low offer from somewhere. It all creates a false impression that you can USUALLY get in with fewer subjects, and is compounded by Access waffle designed to appease Les Ebdon.

It will change a bit with the new system - my comments were calibrated against the old, for sure, but it's important to note that there are a large number of courses at better universities when even after dropping the points from an odd AS level only taken for one year, the average score left was (agreed, under the previous system) massively higher than what you get from 3A* (420) in both Arts and Sciences. So will it all change? I am not convinced. Ask yourselves if the large numbers of academically driven kids from the Far East are suddenly going to be allowed by their parents to aim lower in terms of numbers of A levels? No - they will keep doing four or five (five for top Russell STEM) and just work harder, and shut out even more of the badly advised Brit kids plodding along doing 3.

Nobody is obliged to agree with me. Just ask yourselves this question - on what planet is aiming low a good plan for success? It's hard to think of a worse strategy than aiming for minimum published entry requirements based on what is on uni web sites! The right strategy is to make yourself look better than average, and the Complete Uni Guide gives some pretty damn clear data (take off 70 is my rule of thumb to count A levels).

By the way, I did maths at Cambridge starting in 1977, pre all AS-level stuff. Maths and NatSci was littered with kids with 4 or 5. My offer was based on grades in 4 being taken in 6-2 having already taken one A level in first year 6th. No idea where the notion of 3 historically comes from and likewise why we would "go back" to that. Arts side folk from the old days might have different view though.

Roguedad I have seen the data from the sector on the tariff scores provided to the league table compilers. You are VERY wrong. As a high tariff means you move up the league tables, universities list EVERYTHING tariffable that entrants come in with. It's worth their while in the same way that awarding large numbers of 1sts and 2:2s moves you up the league tables Anything on this list will be counted:
scroll down

3 A levels, with the standard website offer is exactly what people should aim for. A few extra tariff points (music, drama exams, an EPQ, critical thinking, general studies, a community volunteering award, a random BTEC etc.) won't do any harm, but 4 lower grades at the expense of the three standard offer ones is a waste of everyone's time.

Oh and the tariff scores are changing for 2017 entrants!

The university where I work is currently going through the admissions/interview process.

My batch of applicants all have 4/5As (I'm not STEM). I suspect this is common across the board.

However, the 2016 cycle will see applicants with divergent profiles. Some will have free standing AS UMS, some won't, some will have taken 4/5 subjects in L6, some 3.

It will be interesting to see how we decide to proceed.

Oxford tutor here. Arts/Hum subject. Definitely not interested in 4 A-levels over 3, provided appropriate subjects. Can't speak for all subjects.

4/5 AS for clarification. Those many have A grades in those AS too.

irregular have you guys decided what to do in the next cycle after decoupling?

I feel like we're being very slow to make a decision.

By the way, I did maths at Cambridge starting in 1977, pre all AS-level stuff. Maths and NatSci was littered with kids with 4 or 5. My offer was based on grades in 4 being taken in 6-2 having already taken one A level in first year 6th.

Maths at Cambridge also. 1990s. Top ranked college. Knew lots of Nat Scis and Engineers but never heard of an offer based on 4 A levels (although many offers included STEP). Those who had 4 A levels almost always had FM as the fourth; occasionally students had maths plus 3 sciences. I was the only STEM student I came across in a large college who had more 4 A levels. My offer was ridiculously low (Bs) and was not based on all the A levels I was taking.

I do agree though that 3 A levels in STEM is not likely to be the norm at the top courses under the new system (at least, until changes in difficulty kick in). Doing 3 A levels in sciences would be probably a mistake for the strongest students. On the other hand, with good grades they would still get into plenty of very good universities, even if not the very top universities.

3 A levels with the standard website offer is emphatically not enough for highly selective courses. Cambridge maths offer: AAA plus STEP grades. Typical Cambridge maths entrant: 4+ A levels, mostly A*s plus STEP grades. But only for a very small number of courses such as this do you need to exceed the stated offer to get an offer in the first place.

I can't help thinking it is better to study 3 A levels really well and then using the remaining time focused on things then demonstrate self driven and independent study.

That must be the fairest way - and I expect it will be the way forward for, say, Oxbridge humanities, where access issues alone would, you would think, make rewarding extra qualifications, as opposed to extra depth of understanding, unlikely.

I really dislike the idea of an extra A level that may be given up part way through with no examination result.

I suspect that unless this is carefully managed, many children will be sent 'off course' by the prospect that one of their subjects can be abandoned.

I don't just mean students who are motivated by the instrumental goal of a 'grade' at the end - and by the generalised expectations under the current system that they will complete the course.

I also think many hard working and motivated children will struggle to 'give up' at the appropriate moment, and teachers are likely to struggle with this. Having, in the back of your mind, the idea that you can always (or may even be required to) give up one of your subjects is in my view not healthy.

And nobody has suggested that curriculum volume is going to diminish.

There are so many ways nowadays to achieve greater depth of study and to branch out in the sixth form. This change should be seen as an opportunity. The humanities focus should be on extra reading, writing, thinking, watching, performing, sharing ideas, or maybe eg a gcse in a new mfl, or keeping on maths at some level. Not on a default extra A level for the sake of it.

figment I suppose the difficulty is in deciding which applicants have that extra depth if understanding.

Do GCSE results tell us this? Having had two just go through that, I remain unconvinced. They seem more a test of mettle and organisational skills to me ( not that those are poor skills to have).

I don't think there is much appetite to increase the interview process. It's extraordinarily time consuming as it is ( both for staff and applicants alike). And do those interviews really tell us who has the depth? Perhaps. I dunno. I'm knackered and jaded from being in the middle of it at the moment.

So more pre tests? Even though we can see how this deters applicants from schools with little experience of the system?

It's all a bit of a bugger ( but as I say I'm probably not feeling the love this morning).

DD chose 4 subjects with an absolute definite choice for one of them. This is the one she is now thinking of dropping. If she'd only chosen 3, she would have chosen this subject and have to carry it on even though she hates it.

HSM - that was the benefit of the AS system which IMHO was abandoned by this government in a political move without enough consideration of its implications - surprise surprise!

Every uni we went this year confirmed they are interested in grades in 3 subjects. None of the courses were calculating points just expected grades in my dd case any subject.
They emphasised every time to read details of entrance requirements on each course websites.

Quite agree figment. She's lucky that she might at least get an AS out of the year if she can stand it that long

Thanks everyone - interesting discussions.

HSM - that was was worrying me, which is why I favour broadening the spread!

Interesting discussions on whether kids will like studying something they might drop and not take an exam in. I'm wondering if that could actually be really positive for dd - as I think she's hated feeling 'forced' through the sausage machine towards exam results, taking all the joy out of the subjects. I wonder if the opportunity to study with the possibility of dropping it might ironically actually increase her engagement??

I can hope...

DD is also Y11. At her school the sixth from offers 3 A levels plus EPQ all done in 4 days per week plus a 1 day/week work placement for the most able, or less confident candidates can drop the EPG and/or the work placement to concentrate on 3 A levels. Only the Oxbridge candidates will be allowed to do 4 A levels as they are not necessary for anyone else.
High proportion of Russell Group candidates (according to self-aggrandizing HT) and the school has taken advice from the Unis.

Figment Having, in the back of your mind, the idea that you can always (or may even be required to) give up one of your subjects is in my view not healthy

A view from one pretty academic private school that one poster on this thread knows well.

It has long been part of the school’s philosophy that we don’t confuse ‘education’ with ‘exams’. The boys will still have given themselves the experience and breadth that pursuing a subject beyond GCSE will bring and that is the key thing. Motivation will not be an issue because boys will not know which subject, if any, they’ll be dropping until after the summer exam in the Lower Sixth so any of the courses they follow in the Lower Sixth will need to be treated as if they were going to be followed through to A Level - they will certainly be taught like that. In our experience, the subject boys pick at their ‘4th’ when in 5th year often turns out to rank more highly with them when they’ve experienced it at A Level, so boys have always been encouraged to place equal weight on each subject.