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...

incase
still wanting evidence to support changes in the SCHOOL curriculum

remember that the top 5% are what MN cares about
the bottom 60% are who keep the economy ticking along

This year's new undergrads will have done ASs as will the current Y13s. I would expect a significant decline in the number of 5A*s attained from 2017 onwards - it's probably not helpful to compare results.

molio you asked me why the demise of AS might impact on widening participation.

Rather than give my own ramblings , I will dig out an email a colleague from LSE sent to me and cut and paste ( if he doesn't object) tomorrow.

Right now I am pouring my second glass of fizz and settling down to an episode of True Blood.

Oh really, talkin. The bottom 60% are the net beneficiaries of taxation, the ones that drain the economy...

I'm rather more interested in your own ramblings SGADM because you posted as though this was your own take on how things will go - but in your own time! I completely understand your more pressing matters . In fact I have some too (not dissimilar!).

LSE has the most tortuous and tortured UCAS-form sorting process there is. Other universities are much better at selection. The demise of AS ought to provide the impetus to LSE to get its house in order...

The bottom 60% are the net beneficiaries of taxation, the ones that drain the economy...
ROTFLMAOPMPL
Your bubble is really thick

Given that the specs are significantly more difficult than they were

I hadn't given this much thought at all. Yes 4 subjects sound more sensible when you highlight the increased difficulty. And it's news to me that there is funding for able students. I should ask at the interview in January (yes they interview).

Her fifth subject was going to be a MFL, not another science.

Does it get any students into Cambridge for other subjects?

I have only seen NatSci for Cambridge. They do have a fair number going to good RG unis for all subjects.

Actually it was lucky DN found these two schools with help from teachers at her current school. 4 other schools in the area including her current school will offer FM only at AS.

^incase
still wanting evidence to support changes in the SCHOOL curriculum^

Not sure why you are asking me, like Molio I like the idea of direction and the loss of emphasis on exams rather than education. I do know anecdotally that for the top end of students the preU students are well prepared for independent less formulaic learning.

GoMilou when my DD1 was in the sixth form last year, at a midrange pretty successful independent, it never once occurred to me that she might be at a disadvantage by studying the standard offering of 4 AS in Y12 followed by 3 A2 in Y13 (had she been a maths/science person, she could have added further maths). It was what all the universities said they wanted, and all the children in her sixth form did what was asked for (with lots of extra curricula stuff etc) and achieved their goals. I remember rather tragically stalking the oxford applicants student room thread this time last year and discovering a hard core group of children who seemed to be taking multiple extra qualifications, but my DD's (admittedly anectodal) experience now that she is at university (oxford humanities) is that the students who are there do not seem to have multiple extra qualifications.

It would be interesting to know whether there is actually any statistical analysis that shows whether, consciously or otherwise, universities do award places to students who 'beat' the standard offer by adding extra unasked for qualifications, preferring them over those who offer the number and range of qualifications actually requested. My own hunch is that they don't, but this issue will probably seem a lot more pressing as a result of school responses to these changes. I've got a second DD coming through Y11 now and it annoys me that she is going to feel under pressure to take on extra qualifications.

GoMilou yes you should ask about the funding. The funding for a broader offer is conditional on grades, which is why I say it's targeted at the more able. It wasn't the DfEs suggestion, it had to be fought for, but at least that particular battle is won.

I do know anecdotally that for the top end of students the preU students are well prepared for independent less formulaic learning.
the multiple of anecdote is not evidence

so few schools do the Pre U (and they do not publish their grades) that they are an utter irrelevance to the 6000 secondary schools who provide the staff to the employers who keep the country running

What's the problem with admissions at LSE Bobo? (I wouldn't have a clue, but curious given what you say).

I'm not sure why SGADM needs to call in a speechwriter from there in any event. Presumably it will be a particularly mellifluous diatribe against the new reforms in particular and the government in general. Hopefully it will be very impressive indeed :)

GoMilou according to the Cambridge website just under 60% of successful applicants in the 2014 cycle got at least A A A. The stats only report the three best scores, nb that Gen Studies & Critical Thinking are excluded, so yes these candidates may have taken more than 3 subjects at A2, however the average tariff points on the CUG tables suggest those getting 5As are not that common. See table 3.1 in the link below for all the figs

www.undergraduate.study.cam.ac.uk/sites/www.undergraduate.study.cam.ac.uk/files/publications/undergrad_admissions_statistics_2014_cycle.pdf

fwiw DS1 successfully got a place at Cambridge from 3 subjects at A2, as did all the other successful applicants from his school.

Talkin but they are of relevance to the university staff who teach them as a pilot of what to expect with the new style A levels and the advantages these may bring for university students.
There was no evidence of benefit from the old system (unless you have some rather than just wanting to posture) and direct comparison with the new system has to wait for at least 5 years. You as others bemoaned the unfairness of the old system. The new system will cost less for exam administration at the least and should relieve students from the stress of this present exam biased system. The new A levels are separate from the problems of funding in education.

specific to the OPs question though. DS2 now in Y11, plans to attend same sixth form as DS1. Their standard offer will be 3 x A2 subjects, not 4 - these could of course include subjects that will not yet be linear, so still AS at the end of Y12, when he starts. They also push the EPQ. DS1 did one, enjoyed doing it and did not find it either onerous or distracting.

My only concerns : DS1 could start with 4, and at the outset of Y12 was fairly sure as to which 3 he would continue in Y13. That changed over the course of the year. DS2 will have no such luxury. Secondly is that the AS results were a massive confidence boost and formally (in the context of being national exams) confirmed that DS2 could apply to any Uni with a high degree of confidence that an offer would be forthcoming. Whether internal y12 exams that DS2 will take will provide the same level of credibility and candidate self-belief I'm not wholly sure.

boys3 I agree about narrowing choices down too early. Similarly to many one of my DC's less favourite subjects of their A level choices (as thought rather tedious from GCSE) has become favourite after one term of sixth form. Funding seems to be driving the change to 3 at the outset rather than absolutely required by the new exam system. It would seem that just as now 3 for year 13 will be preferable.
Your comment about internal vs public exams might also act the other way for some one who has had a slow start and catching up to do from GCSEs.

oops getting my DS's mixed up :) AS results massive confidence boost for DS1 not DS2. I think DS1's experience might confirm your final point incase in that whilst his GCSEs were undoubtedly good amidst all the As the sprinkling of *s was not that liberal. His AS results then demonstrated an upward trajectory. Would he have achieved the same set of offers had he been doing linear A2s and been wholly predicted grades dependent? There is of course no way of knowing.

Molio - LSE have got some sort of Heath Robinson contraption of a UCAS form sorting & selection process. There are endless threads about it on TSR if you want to wade through illustrations of the anecdotal annual frustrations it throws up while keeping applicants hanging on. Insider info is that there have been some very skewed judgements where excellent applicants are rejected in favour of very middling ones due to the overly complex assessment process.

No one is using a speech writer.

I was simply going to use an email which I thought pretty thoughtful about the issues. I mentioned it's provenance not for kudos but because a. It would be wrong to pass it off as my own and b. For context ( LSE is highly selective and struggles with participation - more than Oxbridge I'd say).

But said mate hasn't got back to me so I can't c&p.

Thanks Bobo, I might take a look.

Ok then SGADM, how about your own views then?! You said in terms with some confidence that the new measures would impact negatively on widening access, so can you elaborate? I'm interested in what exactly it is that makes you think that. Never mind the LSE geezer, what makes you say that? You could be right, obviously (I hope you're not) but I'm not too sure why they would.

GoMilou has said that she now sees some wisdom in reducing numbers of subjects given the more difficult specs (which disquisitiones confirmed for her own subject upthread, quite forcefully) and in point of fact the school in the deprived area of London that GoMilou refers to is offering an AS plus three other subjects tot A2 plus FM to those who want it - so actually a fairly generous offering, certainly as good as many independents. And Boys3's point about a potential confidence boost is no more relevant to the disadvantaged than the advantaged (it's relevant generally of course but as another poster said, it can also go the other way).

Anyhow, over to you! None of this reduces the impact on the less able - as titchy says, it's the middling/ less able who need to watch out, across all social groups - but I can't immediately see the specific issue for the able. Maybe just crib off the LSE e-mail without attributing if you get stuck! . As I say, I hope both you and the geezer are wrong.

disquis I would suggest online part time foundation courses with materials online, lectures by videos and twice a week tutorials administered and examined by local HE establishment to student. The rest of the time they could work to earn some money. It would cost but less than a full time course and living expenses would n't be required. A lot of courses are being stretched out to 4 years now so some of these should be reduced unless it's a year out in industry or abroad.

I'm guessing you don't work in STEM?

Students doing a foundation course for maths, science and engineering need to do practical work. This is expensive and time consuming. And, leaving aside the fact that online education is ineffective in STEM subjects, the lectures are always the cheapest part of a course: the cost of two weekly tutorials and marking homework (which is completely necessary) is the main cost, so your proposal couldn't be made to work for much less than 6k per year. Moreover, it would be very hard for students to work part time and still cover the amount of material required.

Next "a lot of courses are being stretch out to 4 years now". This is a misrepresentation. Declining school standards over the last two decades mean that what used to be covered in a three year STEM degree is no longer covered: the fourth year is needed to cover what used to be done in a third year. For our STEM students to be remotely competitive with those from elsewhere in the world they absolutely need this fourth year. They absolutely need it for their professional qualifications also (chartered status).

University places are going to slump back to 20-25% of the cohort.

Why would you write this?

The government has a clear target to increase the number of undergraduates. University departments will close if the number of undergraduates is not increased (as fees are decreasing in real terms). So in reality universities will drop requirements rather than turn away students.

LSE attaches unusually high importance to the PS. If candidates don't adhere rigorously to the LSE PS model they get rejected at first sift. Significant extra reading around the subject being applied for is an absolute necessity. I think that rigid rules such as these, without an interview, (a) are off-putting to applicants who have little guidance (b) encourage use of professional PS and reference writers. With no interview to double check the veracity of the applicant's PR brochure, the less privileged are bound to be disadvantaged.

This is all very well but I don't think the ONLY purpose of A level study is about university entrance surely we need to think beyond that to make sure our dcs (or pupils) are equipped with both the skills and the academic knowledge needed for the workplace as well as more study.
As a former Science teacher, I have valued the broader qualifications the AS level has brought which have enabled many A level scientists to take a language or an essay subject e.g. History or English Lit further than GCSE. In the real world we need Scientists (and Engineers) who can communicate well e.g. by speaking other languages or being able to write clear reports. Valuable skills will be lost if most A level Scientists take 2 Sciences and Maths and have no opportunity to study other areas.