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...

My ds is in y11. His selective grammar school said 3 A levels. They will in exceptional circumstances allow 4.
This message has been passed to us furing 6th form open evening few weeks ago and akso furing parents info evening in September.

My dd is in y13 in another selective grammar school.
As I said in her school EPQ wasn't encouraged. She decided against it as she is already doing History.
Better to have more time preparing for 3 subjects than 4.
More free periods and more time to study for exams.
They are doing lots and lots past papers. If your child does 4 subjects they have considerably less time for home study. Just think 25% vs 33% .

They also go to many birthday parties and out with friends.

I wouldn't want her to give up on social life.
Her Exeter and Durham offers are based on 3 subjects (and 2 others too, still waiting for the last one). She had to have sufficient predicted to get thise offers.

I can't imagine unis changing their system overnight expecting 4 instead of 3 subjects for next cohorts. They would be discriminating against all mature students snd those applying after gap year etc.

nonnomnom I really don't see that my not being massively exercised about the A Level changes makes me an 'outlier'. I could just as well say that you were an outlier since no-one I know is dissolving with angst. I haven't said it's been 'handled well' either but I do see various options that make sense for different DCs. The one out of all of them which doesn't seem to me to make sense is doing a new style AS as well as a linear A2 in that same subject. I think the schools which are opting for that are simply being too cautious and conservative and I doubt it will serve the interests of the DC particularly well. I actually quite like the direction of travel though, even if the road does have a few bumps.

It will cost Cambridge more money to administer pretestd which is why they were attached to AS levels. All the competitive universities have had to deal with predicted grades from the small sector of IB and preUs, now they will just have to scale up the process.
Which is exactly the problem

Top200 Unis want to pick the best of the best of : they have used UMS for it in recent years
with that taken away, what chance do kids from borderline schools who might turn out to be shit hot students have ?

folks who have put multiple kids through selective schools really have no comprehension of where the problem lies

Talkin those DCs will be predicted very good A2 grades by their schools, some over optimistically. They will have had time to develop their potential by the start of year 13 and receive offers based on those predicted grades with school context and some will achieve those grades and therefore offers. The very competitive courses will interview and pretest as many are already doing, even in the case of Cambridge some colleges are doing it.
AS levels versus linear do not favour selective versus non selective

Talkin all intelligent folks involved in education have a very good comprehension thanks.

Also, simply wringing hands isn't an especially productive approach.

AS levels versus linear do not favour selective versus non selective
I'd love to think so
but the schools who are borderline will be pushed back over the edge
unless the DfE allows HUGE amounts of VA to be included then grade predictions will revert by 20 years

round here all the schools stop at 16 and then its colleges
so if the school lacks ambition, the kids are screwed
with AS they could rise above it
without VA they are again screwed

and the selective and private schools will get back to where they were when I went to UNI
not good for the UK or the world

Oh TP do stop being so doom laden. You sound like Frankie Howard on Up Pompeii.

LOL
my kids are fine
but the kids that DH works with are not
and thus nor is the UK

you should read the Economist more : their views on selective schools have changed over the years

with AS they could rise above it but with A2 grade predictions the same type of DCs can also rise above it. The schools that help DCs to achieve their potential with good AS results will also deliver good A2 results. Why are AS levels more helpful than predicted grades?

Molio - even if you think the changes are an improvement (I don't, on balance), there is simply no logical argument for rushing the changes through, as they were. There should have been a much longer lead-in period so that syllabuses could be discussed and consulted on, papers piloted, schools informed etc. That whole process has been unforgivably and unnecessarily rushed.

I shouldn't have to be asking these questions on MN - policies should have been formulated with these things clear which is obviously not the case as even on this thread academics and admissions people at different unis cannot agree about how universities will view the new quals. That is wrong and poorly thought through.

Maybe your kids being older makes a difference re your 'outlier' status? But I'm not exaggerating when I say that I really don't know a single person who approves of the changes, among parents of those affected.

nonnomnom nothing will ever change if there's an absurdly long lead-in period. 'Unforgivably and unnecessarily rushed' is a wild exaggeration. There has been consultation. In terms of content, the DfE doesn't just conjure up new syllabuses on their own, ministers aren't equipped to do that. The fact that some views (those of Cambridge, for starters) were discounted in the structure of the new programme doesn't mean that there was no consultation.The new syllabuses are being taught to my DC and the teachers appear to know what they're doing.

I really don't see the problem in terms of admissions. Universities will deal with the lack of ASs just fine, I'm sure. DC have managed to secure places with Pre-U for a while, the IB for longer and when you throw into the mix all the qualifications of foreign students then it becomes pretty narrow to rail against the lack of AS and the mixed offer which the universities will get. They'll deal with it fine because they have to.

I can't comment on the views of your friends and acquaintances but I don't accept that I'm an 'outlier' (whatever that means - does it mean I'm not moaning?). The fact that I have older DC and a broad knowledge of the system may give me perspective but with two children at school (and both in the 'guinea pig' years), I can't quite understand how I'm not one of the 'affected'.

And of course there was a reason for hurrying things up. It was called an election.

nonnomnom it has been interesting observing schools deciding what to do in this transitional phase. Teachers have been so used to the formulaic exam-driven recent AS system but now they are able to exert their professional judgement and find their own school's path to steer through this transition stage for the students rather than have it spoonfed to them.

BTW admissions at different universities still disagree about how they view the IB and the balance of its positives and negative academic qualities. The IB has been the equivalent of a very long pilot so I think you are being optimistic if you think that a pilot stage would iron all this out for the new qualifications.
As far as I understand it the new A levels will not be modular and perhaps have more stretching material and questions but otherwise basically the same . Basically more like preUs which the universities do have some experience of dealing with.

At DSs school they all start off with 4 and most drop one at the end of y12.

DS decided hated one subject a few weeks in to term so dropped it. School initially weren't happy but I put my foot down. Something was muttered about him not being in sufficient lessons for school to get maximum funding if he only did 3 subjects, which makes me think schools suggesting only three offer more lessons per subject.

Very like Pre-Us incaseithelp.

My DD is in Y12. Her college requires them to do 4 AS levels and then drop to 3 A levels in Y13. There is a lot of confusion though, as many of her fellow students have already dropped down to 3 (with the school's permission).
I was unhappy about them having to do AS levels as they will be judged against people with just straight A levels who will have benefited from more teaching time.
However, we were told explicitly that the new AS/A levels would be co-teachable. Is there any evidence that they are not?

I'm surprised so many schools are still recommending 4 a levels for students entering y12.

If all goes to plan, ds1 will be going to a highly selective sixth form that routinely has 50+ students gaining Oxbridge offers. He is a potential stem Oxbridge applicant and has been strongly advised 3 a levels only plus epq unless he wants to take further maths as a 4th choice.

wincy the new AS are not strictly co teachable but in the subjects Ive looked at, there is significant overlap.

In terms of content, the DfE doesn't just conjure up new syllabuses on their own, ministers aren't equipped to do that. The fact that some views (those of Cambridge, for starters) were discounted in the structure of the new programme doesn't mean that there was no consultation.

For somebody who claims to be so well connected these are quite surprising comments.

The syllabi were drafted with little consultation with universities and schools. In at least one subject (mine) the committee that drafted the new curriculum was extremely unrepresentative, and the outcome reflected their biases. Strong complaints were made to the DfE by many RG universities about this subject but they have (at least so far) been ignored. (Except that the implementation of changes to this subject has been put back.) The proposed changes to this subject are so severe in terms of increasing difficulty that it is hard to believe they can be implemented: we would suddenly lose a significant fraction of those taking the subject, when the number taking it needs to increase to compete with other countries.

Finally, an anecdote: before he left the DfE Gove had a meeting with Cambridge academics which was 100% critical of the speed of the changes and the lack of consultation. He came out of the meeting and briefed the press about how Cambridge was completely behind him and in favour of "toughening up school curricula".

I don't think the changes will have big impacts in terms of university admissions - remember that fees are not increasing with costs, so universities need to increase student numbers to break even, but demographics tells us that there will be shrinking numbers of 18 year olds over the next few years. Hence universities will be extra keen to take all students who are qualified. MN has a complete obsession with the top 1% of university courses, who can afford to be picky, and ignores the remaining 99% which take all students meeting the required baseline standards. For the 99% there are plenty of places for kids from all types of schools, and plenty of leeway to allow for the odd dropped grade.

Dd's college seem to be co-teaching AS and first year A just fine. Of course we'll have to wait and see if they really are just fine!

disquisitiones there was consultation - that was the point I was disputing when nonnomnom's wording suggested that there hasn't been consultation. Obviously there was much opposition within that consultation. And it's well known that there was particular opposition about the structure of the programme from Cambridge. But it's absolutely correct that ministers don't write the syllabuses in a vacuum and it's absolutely correct that they don't have the expertise and it's also absolutely correct that the thrust of the syllabuses are heavily influenced by policy and that the whole policy favours the most able. There's certainly a problem for the less able across the whole new curriculum but that has little or nothing to do with the existence or not of ASs.

Also disquisitiones, can I just say that I don't ever make any claims for myself (unlike quite a few other posters on here, some of whose claims of expertise are derived vicariously from their DHs). I think I once said the source of a particular view was very solid but that's as far as I've gone. You can assume I'm well connected if you like or you can assume I'm not - I'm easy both ways :)

For University entry last year DS did 3 Pre-Us (so no AS ) . Only 3 didn't seem to be a problem on any application, and nor did the lack of AS. However he wasn't applying to Cambridge. (Actually he started a 4th but dropped it within a very few weeks.) He was humanities so no Maths / FM consideration. I think most of his peers who were humanities only did 3. Universities might be geared up to AS and UMS but for DS & peers they could obviously cope with those without . Small sample I admit.

Hocus
TBH so few schools use the Pre U - and pretty much all of them are highly selective / private
that the issue of unknown quantity students is not an issue.
Not many Pre U kids will be getting contextual offers after all