3 A Levels or 4?

[grinkle]

My year 11 dd was going to start 4 A Levels in Sept but has just been told that due to funding cuts, and a teacher leaving, one of her choices will not be available. She's been offered one of her other options instead but doesn't really want to do it.

Year 11 parents - how many A Levels will your dcs be doing from Sept? Will 3 be enough, in these post-AS level days? Enough in terms of getting into a good uni to do a competitive subject?

Ricardian
The Universities are not at fault here.
The fault is that schools are not accountable any more and school careers staff are often utterly carp.

Schools that are geared up to getting kids into unis give them good advice about subjects from year 9 onwards
They give them opportunities for interview and work and extra curricular experience.

Schools that are not geared up utterly let their brightest kids down.

One nice thing about using AS grades is that they are empirical (especially linked to the contextual data sets)
Anything that involves unusual timescales (like Oxbridge and the Med schools)
or travelling to interviews
will cut out kids who might really shine but have been dealt a bad hand from the start.

If we move back to interviews and individual tests, it will be like the state selective schools in London who get the sharp elbowed rather than the sharp brained.

Universities are under huge pressure to widen participation at the same time as the government is ripping accountability and comparability out of schooling.

Maybe the Unis should kick off rather more loudly about the changes

You need to say what you want instead TIP. I don't want to pick it apart, but really, what would be a fairer system? Babies doled out to random parents? What?

There are different definitions of equality or equity, but the best ones may be those that have to do with a minimum access to quality of life combined with minimising distance from bottom to top, rather than trying to pretend that bottom can ever have equal opportunities as the top.

sorry, xpost.
So you want NO interviews?
I have one colleague who favours that, just select the top academics and dispense with interviews. It would save us a fortune in staff time, that's fair enough.

Why believe that top academics = good situational judgement or good person to person skills, or ability to problem-solve when presented with new situations?

Medics anyway need to travel to placements. If they can't get to an interview, how are they going to have resources to travel to placements?

Medschool
What I'd like is the school careers / academic service to be properly funded again and schools to be accountable
there will always be social inequality
but the purpose of state funded education is to try to get the best out of everybody

anything that makes the playing field less level than it has already been is a "bad thing"

the UK has relied on importing skills for many decades so has become very lazy about training up its own stock
which makes the referendum outcome even more concerning
either way, getting the best out of what is already here should be a no brainer

Medics anyway need to travel to placements. If they can't get to an interview, how are they going to have resources to travel to placements?
That comment explains why more than 1/4 of Med students are from Private schools
Gotta be rich to become a med student.

I heard that anybody can get onto any university 1st yr course in the Netherlands.

No, this is not correct. Anybody who did the appropriate school leaving VWO course at grammar school can enroll on a university course. However, only around a third of pupils go to grammar schools and do the VWO. I would say that a passing grade on VWO is above C grade at A levels. So it's true that most courses cannot select based on scores at VWO, but the spread in incoming students level is akin to A star to B at A level i.e. not that wide.

While students can be thrown out after the first year there is big pressure not to do so in many subjects, to maintain sustainable student numbers and hence staff levels.

BTW pupils are filtered into three streams in Holland at secondary school level. The child of a professor/doctor/lawyer is almost certain to be in the grammar school, university track, school. The child of a non-EU immigrant working for minimum wage will almost certainly be in the least academic track, from which it is virtually impossible to enter university or polytechnic. I think that Holland has worse social mobility than the UK.

as selective schools predict high so get their pupils offers to top courses

Some may. Some don't .

I have been called insane on another thread as my Ds's school does not give out predicted grades pre UCAS , whether A2 or equivalent. (assumption - because they do not want anyone (neither pupils nor parents ) trying to muscle in and get too high predictions.

Any decent school, which has a fair number of pupils going to good universities will not compromise their reputation , surely ?

I'd love to know which these independent schools are which over represent their 6th form cohort. (and the resulting success)

One nice thing about using AS grades is that they are empirical (especially linked to the contextual data sets)

My honourable friends likes to joke, do they not?

AS exams are taken within nine months, and until very recently started being taken within three months, of starting the course. They are massively biassed towards those that had a smooth journey through GCSE, and because they currently count as 50% of the A2 they make A2 grades hugely slanted towards those able to do well in the first six months (ie, those who didn't have to change institution and started with strong GCSEs). So a student who has a smooth journey through GCSE and the first few months of Y12 will have a better chance of an A at AS, and every point UMS they get over 80 (on AS-standard work) is a point UMS they can get under 80 at A2 (on A2-standard work) and still get an overall A. The whole system massively, massively benefits the middle-classes.

Anything that involves unusual timescales (like Oxbridge and the Med schools) or travelling to interviews will cut out kids who might really shine but have been dealt a bad hand from the start.

I don't disagree. But if you remove interviews and switch to pure A2 grades with a sprinkling of module UMSes, do you think that would be better?

Providing better education on admission processes, and funding for interviews (I intend, once my children have finished at Camford, to write up the subtle "you're all middle class with affluent parents, aren't you?" blocks on admission) is not hard, and is much easier than trying to change the system to remove the problems.

Telling comp schools to get the John Osborne (or do I mean John Braine) shaped chip off their shoulder would help. Speaking as an RG lecturer who had tried to get engagement from local schools, it's pretty depressing, and the schools themselves are a large part of the problem.

From what I can work out, the factors that lead to bright kids who underachieve are so much bigger than bad advice from school. There was an American study on gifted kids that found the overwhelming reason for those who dropped out of high school was the usual: family & personal problems. Schools can't fix society's bigger problems.

I kind of agree that importing skills is deplorable. Braindrain of the developing world, and all that. But then, there is a valuable industry for places like Bulgaria & Cuba, to train up kids from developing world to go work in high income countries.

Ricardian.

'Assume, and I'm not sure I think this is true, but arguendo, that there is some reified general intelligence that (a) predicts academic ability and (b) can be directly measured. This is the "let's pretend Cyril Burt wasn't a lying charlatan" position. That would mean that we could compare on this scale, which we may as well call g, two eighteen year olds, one of whom had been educated at Eton, the other of whom had been raised by wolves in the manner of Romulus and Remus. Suppose we determine that on our measure of intelligence, the latter is "more intelligent". How much more "intelligent" would they need to be in order to have a better chance of success in an MBChB programme than the former?

My answer is "they're disproportionate likely to fail, given realistic assumptions". Because the best predictor of success in exams is success in exams, and the idea that universities can fix in 66 weeks of teaching (in the case of the typical 3 year level 6 qualification) a deficit which has occurred over the 14 preceding years is farcical. Or, more crucially, can fix in the 22 weeks of the first year those self-same 14 years, such that the student passes the first year exams. BTECs provide Level 3 qualifications for people who can't take exams, but when they arrive in an environment where passing exams is the sine qua non of progression, they fail.'

The above is very much a reductio ad extremum argument.

I would say that schools like Eton are fantastically good at teaching students to dot the i's and cross the t's, to make sure an able but far from brilliant candidate can access the higher grades. I would say that an AABB from an ordinary school is probably the equivalent of AAAA from Eton, and that the former candidate would, on average, fare at least equally well in a university setting.

The reality is that, given small grade differences, it is maybe two years of teaching that need fixing, not 14. That can easily done in 66 weeks, assuming the candidate is motivated to do so. When I was at Cambridge (many years ago), I do remember the majority of the candidates from rough schools who had very ordinary A levels did just as well as those from the best private schools with the normal requirements (all A's as was then and a couple of S levels, or admittance via the entrance exam).

No, you cannot get there with a candidate raised by wolves, regardless of the 'g' score, but you can with carefully selected candidates with slightly worse results at A level.

No, you cannot get there with a candidate raised by wolves, regardless of the 'g' score, but you can with carefully selected candidates with slightly worse results at A level.

I don't disagree. But as I'm sure we all realise, there's a wealth of complexity to be unpacked "carefully selected". Because the more careful that selection becomes, the more you're ending looking for Emily Thornberry, who may have been "raised on a council estate" as she doesn't stop telling us, but her father was deputy secretary general of the UN (or whatever it is). That's the problem with the myth of the grammar school as engine of social mobility: it was quite good at providing a boost to people who were either the children of distressed gentlefolk or whose parents were people who would today be middle class (stalwarts of the WEA, houses full of books, etc). The careful selection will end up looking for interview skills (ie, "my parents are middle class"), cultural capital (ditto) and school reports (ditto, I think, although I have no evidence).

I suspect that if you admitted to university based on people's parents passing a simple exam you would get the same results, because the parents willing to take the exam are the parents whose children currently succeed.

That can easily done in 66 weeks,

That assumes you're willing to sharply contextualise first year exams. Oxbridge don't fail many people out after the first year, because the cohort is so strongly selected (and has other properties, like low first in family). Elsewhere, even in the RG, rates of non-completion because of failing the first year are distinctly higher. Are you willing to contextualise the first year exams?

you can with carefully selected candidates with slightly worse results at A level.

But this presumes that you can accurately carry out this "careful selection" i.e. you can work out what qualities in a candidate will lead to success on the degree course.

Moreover, a typical course might have 1500 applications for 250 places. It's already pretty time consuming making offers, even without interviewing or assessment beyond UCAS materials. Assessing 100 or so candidates in enough detail to carry out "careful selection" would take perhaps 2 hours of academic time per candidate, i.e. 200 hours = 5 working weeks of one academic. This would be prohibitively expensive, even if we assume that the results of such a process would be useful. Right now it wouldn't make that much difference, because students from "deprived" backgrounds often aren't applying for the top courses or don't have basic prerequisite subjects needed for top courses. (It's unrealistic to think that e.g. Engineering could drop A level maths requirement.)

Agree with Ricardian that rates of non-completion are often relatively high amongst kids coming in with lower grades and with no prior history of university education in the family, despite many initiatives and lots of support for such students.

OP - at the end of your post you asked about getting into a competitive course at a good university. There has been a lot of speculation on Mumsnet about how the new A levels will affect numbers of courses taken to full A level. The fact is that there is no evidence on that, only speculation. I strongly advise you to look at the UCAS point scores for successful applicants to courses of interest to your children. The Complete University Guide has them in an easy to access format. You probably need to subtract points for an AS taken to A2, and perhaps a similar number again for the odd ABRSM grade 8, but at least based on the recent data, that leaves many courses where the average number of points left cannot be achieved with AAA. That threshold of 400 after correction is a good indicator of the true level of competition. The tops of league tables for a few subjects have uncorrected averages over 600 - you can also ask how you would get to that or it equivalent with whatever portfolio of A level, EPQ etc your kid is doing. My view is that it is this sort of data that should be used as a basis for answering the relevant question "how does my child look like an above average applicant". Never forget that offer standards published on uni web sites, or what you hear from older kids, represent minimum levels for taking someone who has already been assessed against a highly competitive pool. They should never be thought of as a target. On what planet is aiming for the bottom a plan for success? The first reply from simbobs I think represents a common confusion: "no university expects 4 A levels". They do not put that on their web sites, but at the top their field of applicants is heavy with people doing 4 or 5 and completing them, and that's the real pool of people from which they are selecting to make their offers.

Who knows what will happen to those average standards of achievement once we have had several years of data under the knew system (I think the points calculation is going to be different too). Meantime, aiming high is the way to go. DS is in school where everyone is expected to start 4 (5 if further maths taken). Dropping to 3 might be sensible post offer in the light of the offer details. I'd avoid a school that does not allow more than 3 from the start.

In short, focus on the level of competition based on the data, properly interpreted.

Many universities are giving offers based on an EPQ plus 3 A levels.A EPQ is now considered a more useful indicator than a fourth A level.Many schools - good independent schools ( with a good track history of Medics,dentists,Vets) are now recommending their pupils do three A's only.
A levels are harder this year .You cannot compare against previous years.Schools are all giving very mixed advice and I think it will be very difficult to interpret which are the best applicants to choose for these prospective university places.

I must admit that I have some concerns about the decoupling of AS and widening participation.

First, those students who are not being given the option to suck it and see, might well see lower grades than those allowed to try 4/5. So may young people find the step up to A level greater than they imagined, even (perhaps especially) when they did well at GCSE.

Second, schools only allowing three are offering far fewer contact hours generally. Money saved. Again this might well have an impact on final grades.

roguedad isn't that all a bit complicated? My impression is that most schools are heading for three A2s (leaving aside further maths which is bound to be a not uncommon fourth) and that a good wodge are adding in the EPQ. That points stuff can be hugely misleading in any event with all manner of things contributing to the total. The competitive courses don't really seem to care about all those frills, simply about top grades in three A2s. I can't see why three good A2s won't be absolutely fine going forward - I'm not going to be pushing for my DC to do any more; three will work for anything I'd have thought.

roguedad lots and lots and lots of applicants are given offers having taken only three A2s, particularly in non sciences. Don't exhaust your DC unnecessarily!

I have been called insane on another thread - sorry wrong - not giving out predicted grades was called insane - apologies to whoever it was.

Two hypothetical girls, one from Barnsley who went through a poor state secondary, one from the Home Counties who had been privately educated.

Barnsley Girl
GCSE: A*, A, A, A, B, B, B
A level prediction A, B, B
A level: A*, A, A

HC Girl
GCSE: 8 As, 3As
A level prediction A, A, A
A level: A, A, A

Both get the same grades in the same subjects at A level.

How would they be ranked by university admissions?

Just an add.. Some Med schools provide transport for the students to their relevant placements. I work with UEA med students. They are all coached in to placement at hospitals. And to other smaller placements they are sent in taxis..
and talking to a lot of the students that come through.. They are not all rich kids.. Some are but the majority are not.

They also provide me with a lot of information on uni's for my 17 yr old son I quiz them all when they come through to me for placement!

Three A levels are fine. No University will ask for more. However if you are aiming for a competitive University it is worth making sure that subjects are suitable and at least two are considered "facilitating subjects"

Both mine did, or are doing, five. There are advantages as well as the obvious disadvantages.

1. It shows you can carry a heavier work load, which may help on some courses.
2. It gives you options. DD was unsure whether she would get a medical school place - 60% of applicants don't). More subjects at A level gave her more options if she chose to do somethng else, specifically maths and physics opened the door to biomedical engineering.
3. It gives scope for a bad paper. DS did poorly in one subject but this did not matter as he got the grades elsewhere.
4. More subjects can help ensure you retain more skills, ie numberical, essay, linguistic, or practical.

How would they be ranked by university admissions?

In your scenario the most relevant point is that the first student exceeded her predictions by one grade in every subject. Her achieved grades would get her into many top ten courses but her predicted grades wouldn't. Regardless of what kind of school she came from, somebody in such a scenario would be better off re-applying the next year as most top courses would not have places during adjustment.

And if her school were consistently that far off in predicting grades for many students then they should be failed by Ofsted.

roguedad
I just has a look at the Complete Universities guide.
I start to lose belief in it when there is a course where the average entry tariff is stated as being higher than 5 x A* at A2

hayita
And if her school were consistently that far off in predicting grades for many students then they should be failed by Ofsted.
One grade per subject is well within the stats

I've just done a bit of digging about the methodology of the Complete Universities guide and its become much clearer and thus much more misleading.

The UCAS point score shown on their tables is the total number of points the kids can prove.
So a grade 8 music with distinction , a grade 6 dance with merit, a spare AS or two and magically the numbers are sky high
when in fact the bulk of the students have the standard 3 or possibly 4 A levels
but are all rounders .

The UCAS point score shown on their tables is the total number of points the kids can prove.

Indeed.

If you have an A in an AS that wasn't taken forward, an A* in an EPQ, an A in an FSMQ, a couple of Grade VIII instruments at Merit or Distinction then you are a middle-class child then you have the equivalent of a couple of extra A or better A2s. Some universities collect this information more assiduously than others.