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?

That sort of points score must seem insurmountable. Only if you look it up .

Ds (humanities) (and I think a large number of his friends) just looked up the grade requirements for their courses at the universities they wanted to apply to. I have no idea what the UCAS point score is for the course Ds is on and I'm willing to bet a fig to a pound of oranges, nor does he. Blissful ignorance was a marvellous thing for us.

Which course is your DD interested in?

I'm really relieved as to where this thread is heading in its conclusion. dd is deeply interested in the subject she is likely to do a degree in, does a lot of extra work and does well in it - but her successes don't get awarded ucas points. It would seem highly unfair if she were to have to fit in a lot of irrelevant extra stuff just to jump through hoops.

Yes absolutely Hocus. roguedad's DC are going to be in for a shock when they get to uni and realise that their peers cruised in with five less A*s than them and enjoyed something akin to a life in Years12 and 13: poor roguedad's DC!

GetAHairCurl - fine if the course is not oversubscribed. However for the top 3-5 courses in popular subjects the basic entry requirements will normally not get you in unless you offer something else (eg doing well in a poor performing school). Having a look at the average entry tarriff can help as it gives a sence of the standards reached by the rest of the field. For example the average UCAS points for UCL, Warwick, St Andrews and LSE for economics hovers around 550. Relatively few, I expect, will have lots of music and drama awards, so most sucessful entrants are offering more than 3A*s at A level.

I am not convinced that this is discriminatory in the way that some seem to. DC were at a high performing school. (Better results than Eton!) DS was rejected by Cambridge, UCL and Warwick despite a 4A prediction and indeed achieving 700 worth of UCAS points (though is now doing very well at LSE). I am sure that other candidates will have been admitted who were only predicted the standard AAA entry requirements, and this seems reasonable. Universities are lookng for potential. If they are oversubscribed, they won't necessarily want to raise their minimum entry requirement, but will keep the pool wide and then sort by other factors including contextual data, aptitude tests including STEP, interview and personal statement. It will not go all the way to redressing inequality in education, but Universities also want to be satisfied that students have sufficient knowledge before arriving at University to cope with demanding courses.

FWIW Imperial seem to vary their offers on a candidate by candidate basis more than most. They usually interview and seem to give out individual offers, even for pupils from the same school and for the same course. These offers, and indeed some Cambridge STEM offers, will often be over four A levels and include more than one A*, though presumably a good candidate taking three A levels would get an offer based on three A levels.

It is accepted that if you want to get a place to study medicine you need to dig a bit deeper and identify how each medical school is selecting, and look to see where you have the best fit. The same probably now applies to top engineering, economics and law courses. Applicants should probably make sure they are not wasting a choice (Oxford may say their standard offer is 3As, but 3As on their own would probably not be enough) and that they do their best with the other factors which will be taken on board, like personal statements (follow any guidance given by the University), aptitude tests etc.

I'm not sure Oxford is a good example to work back from because their standard, relatively low, offer for arts and humanities comes after a sift via aptitude tests and interviews.

I think the real thing here is that the points system is in itself extremely misleading. Comparing the average grades of entrants for the most competitive courses might have some purpose, but not points.

I agree with most of what Needsmoresleep has stated.Apart from DD applying to vet.colleges has been told there is no advantage to getting higher than the minimum qualifications - whatever that is 6A*'s,A's in English/maths.They select via your statement/work experience,EPQ ,panel interview etc.There is no point whatsoever to be doing Gen.Studies (not recognised).Speech and drama is good as it helps you to interview well,as does proper constructive careers advice.She has also discovered a lot of students round here wanting to apply for vet. Science without the minimum requirements.Are they the ones who don't get an interview?
Finally lots of independent schools are recommending 3 A levels now( its not just due to lack of funding).I have personally spoken to admissions officers at several universities and they have said that many schools are only doing 3 this year and this will not prejudice their entry.

However for the top 3-5 courses in popular subjects the basic entry requirements will normally not get you in unless you offer something else

I'd need a lot of evidence for that being true. A department which routinely failed to make offers for candidates predicted the published standard offer, and even more so failed to routinely admit candidates making the published standard offer, would do so at its peril. If it is operating hidden criteria it does not publish it is asking for an awkward conversation with its university access and diversity team, and properly so. Do you evidence this is actually happening (ie, that the majority of students are not offered the published standard offer?)

Relatively few, I expect, will have lots of music and drama awards

They don't need to. Two A* and an A: 400 points. An A in the AS they didn't take forward (which for the current cohort is absolutely standard): 470 points. An A in an EPQ or AS Critical Thinking or AS General Studies (remember, these totals aren't for admissible qualifications, just for anything on the tariff tables): 540. How many students have more than this? Anyone with Grade VI in an instrument, anyone who did an FSMQ, anyone who picked up a second spare AS on the way, anyone who did further maths, even if only to AS. How many students have less than this? Not many, but some. Hence an average is 400 points of A + 150 points of other stuff just means that some students did better than the usual pathway, in what is probably a somewhat right-slewed distribution.

Finally lots of independent schools are recommending 3 A levels now

While the middle classes in state schools were worrying their children couldn't take 12 GCSEs and telling each other on MN that without this, their children would end up doing a Level 4 qualification at an FE college, private schools were doing 8--10 GCSEs to a high standard, with some extension work ready for A Level. The private schools have always understood the reality of admission: carefully chosen subjects, top grades, no diversion into things of little value. Meanwhile, state schools (is this the thread where TalkinPeace has been making the point about good careers advice? I forget) are insufficiently critical about rumours about what universities "really" want, and do all sorts of strange things.

You know that frustration you felt when your children were in Y5, and all around you parents and headteachers were talking nonsense about the operation of the Equal Preference system, and talking about "having to put the school first" or "if you only put down one school they have to give it to you" or "of course, the council say that, but they do something else, my aunt told me"?

At my children's school, there are in my children's cohorts alone three children whose parents are admissions tutors in two good universities, and many more who are lecturers or equivalent. They have tried, in vain, to stop the school talking nonsense about weird conspiracies in which if you turn thrice widdershins you can get a university place through magic inside knowledge. The main inside knowledge is "make sure you are doing the right A Levels at the right grade and meet the other published requirements". Everything else is, almost without exception, froth. And froth that Eton know is froth.

It's better to secure 3 good grades than 4 mediocre ones so a student concentrating their energies on 3 A levels is perfectly fine and a sensible choice for most students. A cv of supporting extra-curricular activities can be helpful in swaying a decision between two candidates with the same exam results.

goodbyestranger - dd is interested in history or politics - so both very popular courses.

She is also highly unlikely to have a load of impressive extra-curriculars to show (well, not unless she pulls her finger out quickly!).

Worcswoman, you are right if that is the choice. However students capable gaining competitive places at top universities can often take four A levels without dropping grades. Students at these Universities seem to have to work incredibly hard, a lot more than in my day. And will find that many of their peers from overseas see working hard as the norm. Certainly in STEM subjects a bright student with access to good teaching should be able to take 4 subjects without sacrificing extra-curricular (or gaming time...)

I think it's helpful to draw a distinction between STEM and humanities. 4 of the former appears to be reasonable (don't know, I didn't do them). 4 of the latter sounds incredibly hard to me, unless A levels are way easier than in my day.

grinkle she won't need to be predicted more than one A* to secure an offer at even the top most uni however well ranked her school, provided the department likes her profile.

STEM subjects will probably be less work if:

1. You find them easy. Maths and chemistry especially, can be torture if you are not a natural.
2. If you are well taught. There is a shortage of maths and science teachers and some schools end up hiring teachers who are mediocre at best, which then means that good students have to work hard to ensure they fill any gaps.

Also at University science does not divide neatly into seperate subjects and so having a fourth subject and so wider knowledge, gives you more options. Whilst having maths as a fourth can help with subjects like law and social science.

However students capable gaining competitive places at top universities can often take four A levels without dropping grades.

Even if they could with the current A levels, it is far from clear that they will be able to do so with the new A levels. The proposed maths A level content is far, far harder than the current A level, for example.

Even now, it is not true that bright students doing STEM are always able to take 4 A2 subjects and maintain their grades. Many pupils don't get the same level of support as students at private schools do i.e. they may have to self-study and self-teach more, which is time consuming.

In fact there are examples on MN of e.g. kids doing 5 AS and getting As/Bs where they might have gotten 4As if they had concentrated on only four. As Ricardian says, better schools understand that top grades in the right subjects is more important than taking a lot of "extra" subjects.

Sorry grinkle that should have read one A* and two As across three subjects (and that may end up being revised downwards with the new exams).

In fact there are examples on MN of e.g. kids doing 5 AS and getting As/Bs where they might have gotten 4As if they had concentrated on only four.

Things that some people don't appear to realise, but private schools do:

(1) There is no such thing as "Grade B, but I did it a year early so it's like an A". It's a B.

(2) There is no such thing as "Grade B, but I did lots of other things and got Bs in them too, so it's like a smaller number of As". They're Bs.

One of the most insidious things about schools that are, in their hearts, inverted snobs is making wildly inappropriate claims about UCAS points for courses which are not recruited on UCAS points. For the RG, UCAS points are only of interest to HESA. If your offer asks for A*AA (400 points), turning up and claiming that your 4Bs or 5Cs are also 400 points won't get you very far.

OP - DS is doing History at university. He did 3 A levels (well actually Pre U but equivalent). It was fine for everything he applied for (with the exception of LSE which he was ( I think my son is a curious inversion of Needmore's ) rejected for. He took 3 straight humanities through to completion. He started Maths (his school does Maths gcse - well igcse - a year early so he did a year and a half term of maths as a fourth and then dropped it. He wasn't as Needmore says a "natural" - he was good and could have got a creditable score. Given it was so disparate from his other subjects and would have taken a good deal of effort better spent elsewhere he decided to drop it. I think it was a good and pragmatic decision. Don't think it did him any favours with LSE but that's speculation and maybe he just wasn't good enough for them.

Needmoresleep Agreed. I've taught Chinese students and they were astonishingly good at maths. And their English was a lot better than my Chinese!

A cv of supporting extra-curricular activities can be helpful in swaying a decision between two candidates with the same exam results.

Not for university entrance: this would discriminate against those who haven't had access to extra-curriculars and moreover extra-curriculars have absolutely nothing to say about whether a student will succeed on e.g. a maths course.

grinkle General studies is one of the A level subjects that isn't being reformed so is only an option for current Y11s. It isn't highly regarded (and never was) by "top" universities. Most colleges and sixth forms no longer offer this subject for this reason. Taking an EPQ would be more valuable than General Studies imo.
With the exception of Further Maths, where many schools do allow pupils to take 4 subjects in Y13 there is no extra value in taking 4 subjects at A level in terms of university entrance.
IMO there is some value in taking 4 subjects in Y12 as some subjects are very different to GCSEs and this gives students the option to drop one either during Y12 or at the end of the year. The added benefit to the student is it can broaden their subject choice e.g. allowing pupils to take Maths with subjects such as History or a language (or essay subject) alongside Sciences. Given that in other countries pupils study a greater number of subjects til the age of 18, reducing the number of subjects at A level seems a retrograde step imo. In the IB for example pupils have to take Maths, a science, an arts subject, a language and English with an additional subject from any subject group (so 6 subjects) yet this course can also be taken over 2 years in UK schools.

Given that in other countries pupils study a greater number of subjects til the age of 18

Largely to a lower standard (unsurprisingly, unless you believe that A Level students are dossing about and could squeeze a couple more in, no problem). Here's the wording from one medical school.

We require that qualifications are not broad-based and are obtained through assessment of performance in formal, national examinations. For guidance, the following qualifications are not acceptable on their own without, for example, A-levels. These include: Bulgarian Diploma; French Baccalaureate (including OIB); German Abitur; Greek (including Cypriot) Apolytirion; Italian Esame Di Stato; Lithuanian Brandos Atestats; Netherlands "Voorbereidend Wetenschappelijk Onderwijs" (VWO) Diploma; Polish Matura; Portugese Diploma de Ensino Secundario; Romanian Baccalaureate; Spanish Título de Graduado en Educación Secundaria Obligatoria (ESO) and Título de Bachiller; Swedish Slutbetyg från Gymnasieskolan (School Leaving Certificate).

Ricardian, I certainly know one French mother who would claim that such wording is nothing to do with lower standards in French schools but a desire by British medical schools to put up barriers to entry to ensure they were not flooded by better educated candidates from Europe.

Where is Bobo Chic when you need her...I think she is also of the view that the French manage both breadth and depth.