Russell Group phases out list of "facilitating subjects"

[TheFirstOHN]

BBC News - Teenagers given updated advice on A-level choices

www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-48358532

It seems that the list of facilitating subjects is being replaced with an online tool which includes more subject options.

I think the old list was perhaps a bit too rigid, but I do think it's important for pupils in Y10 and Y11 to be able to access clear information about the sort of A-level subjects that tend to come up in entry requirements for university courses.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-48358532

And here is the website itself. Hopefully (trying to do this from my phone).

I'm a bit hmm about thus.

It seems to be about preserving the reputation of some subjects in schools, not about making it clear whuchbsunjects universities really prefer to see.

The tool looks useful, but lumps in the old 'non facilitating' subjects with the ones that people really need in practice. Are people (who are not already clued up enough that they just know) really gong tomdo enough research before A level choices are made?

Of course the root issue here is not about which subjects are most useful for securing a place on a desirable degree course, but whether highly academic further education is in itself the right goal.

The subjects they suggest for Law are bizarre! No sciences or maths.

This seems like a backward step. The point of the "facilitating subjects" was that they were the ones that allowed you to keep your options open if you didn't know what you wanted to study. That very important aspect seems to have got rather lost.

whether highly academic further education is in itself the right goal

In a wider sense I agree with you, but this website is not aimed at every young person in KS4, only those considering A-levels and wondering about how their subject choices will affect access to university.

The new website seems more accessible to young people (they don't need to read through a long document) but I think the information given is less clear and could be misleading.

One example: someone interested in a degree in Computer Science is given the information that some universities may require A-levels in Computer Science or Maths, implying that either is fine, it doesn't really matter which. My Y10 child would look at that and think "OK, out of those two I'll pick Computer Science." If you look at the entry requirements for that degree at the universities on the list, several require Maths A-level but none require Computer Science A-level.

Yes, agree.

But if thise are just a subset, and other choices are really valued, why was the previous publication scrapped for not encouragungbthe uptake of subjects that frankly carry considerably less weight in securing a university place (especially if you take 2 or 3 of them)

The re-publication is not because the weight of those subjects has changed. It's just making it less obvious that some subjects open considerably more doors than others, so that numbers studying some subjects do not fall.

Are they falling because the path to university is very much the one most prized? I think it probably is, which is why I see important issue with the relative reputations of post-18 options.

"My Y10 child would look at that and think "OK, out of those two I'll pick Computer Science." If you look at the entry requirements for that degree at the universities on the list, several require Maths A-level but none require Computer Science A-level."

I agree at it stands but I wonder if this is signalling that by the time a Y10 is in Y12 the universities will ask for either. It's not clear enough that I'd risk that though.

I think there's an even worse point in the Comp Sci page, which is the inclusion of ICT at all.

It's a moribund subject, and will only 'count' as third A level the department doesn't care what it's in.

For CompSci you really need maths (and ideally further maths if your school offers it), the new-spec Comp Sci is gaining reputation, so that or physics.

(Plus either another STEM subject (chemistry useful, not for Comp Sci, but for keeping as many STEM options open as possible in case of change of mind) or possibly psychology (human/machine interface), or some other subject the student really wants to do. As philosophy is listed, somewhere must like to see that. And balancing STEM subjects with an essay subject is also a good combo)

It's just making it less obvious that some subjects open considerably more doors than others
This is what makes me uneasy. Unless a potential Computer Science degree applicant knows to look up individual entry requirements, how is he or she to know that Maths A-level will be more 'useful' for that aspiration than Computer Science A-level?

Are they falling because the path to university is very much the one most prized? I think it still is an an aspiration for a significant proportion of school leavers. For some of these, the university route may not be the most suitable pathway for them.
An increase in the availability of apprenticeships may begin to mitigate this.

I think the old list was perhaps a bit too rigid,

I don’t think it was too rigid. It was misinterpreted and misused.

Not impressed. A big gripe for me was the fact that facilitting subjects were meant for people who didn't know what they wantd to do to pick two of them to keep as many options open as possible but they hugely discouraged performing arts subjects despite music for example being pretty essential for anyone thinking of a music degree and drama being highly useful in many aspects.

But this only helps those who have an idea of what they want to do.

DD isn't entirely sure what she wants to do after A Levels, she likes the look of Information Technology Management for Business (ITMB) but is still trying to look at options.

She is fixed in what she wants to do for A Level though - Drama and Theatre Studies, Computer Science, and Maths (Plus Latin GCSE). Hopefully they will work out for her.

How long is it since the list was first published? I thought it was fairly new, and had been published in order to make it clear which A levels would generally be looked on more positively for those going in to academic courses.

It's all very well to click through a website if you know what you are looking for. It's not so easy to use if you're right at the start and wanting an overview.

which A levels would generally be looked on more positively for those going in to academic courses

That was the common misunderstanding, yes.

Yes, I read this too-the old list of ‘good’ vs ‘poor’ (what parents and pupils thought anyway) subjects have gone-apparently they marginalised some subjects. Who’d have guessed!?

At last!!

One example: someone interested in a degree in Computer Science is given the information that some universities may require A-levels in Computer Science or Maths, implying that either is fine, it doesn't really matter which. My Y10 child would look at that and think "OK, out of those two I'll pick Computer Science." If you look at the entry requirements for that degree at the universities on the list, several require Maths A-level but none require Computer Science A-level.

And the universities will change this as a result by the time he applies (so many already are), which is fantastic. This has been such a blow to those teaching Computer Science A Level in the past and finally, it is great that the qualification is being acknowledged in this way.

I think there's an even worse point in the Comp Sci page, which is the inclusion of ICT at all.

ICT doesn’t exist as an A Level so thankfully not an issue.

"ICT doesn’t exist as an A Level so thankfully not an issue"

Then why the fuck does this supposedly useful document include it?

I agree that the facilitating subject list was useful but missed and misunderstood.

Lots of people never really understood what the primary requirement to be designated a 'facilitating' subject was - which was that it had to be a specific requirement for degree level study in either that subject or a range of subjects. Maths is probably the biggest facilitator of all, because having A Level maths is a requirement for lots of degree level subjects. So for example, Maths is what is required to do an Economics degree, not Economics A Level. That doesn't mean A Level Economics isn't highly regarded, but it isn't a necessity.

It is true that facilitating subjects also then got used to indicate studying subjects with academic rigour as opposed to soft subjects. Lot of schools recommended their able students choose at least 2. This didnshownacademic rigour plus also meant that if these kids then chose tondo a subject which required that facilitating subject,nthey had kept the door open to it......only if it was the correct facilitating subject for what they then chose of course!

I think the new document is more confusing. It won't hinder those in independent schools and selective schools and those which are very geared up to highly selective universities and who advise their students at GCSE and A Level option time in a way which means they automatically have the right kind of subjects. It will be those who actually need most help who lose out from this - those who are able and capable of studying academic subjects at competitive universities but whose families don't know the system and whose schools don't press upon them the possible consequences of different choices or push them towards academic options at GCSE and A Level but instead allow them to make choices which close doors or just don't keep as many open.

I agree that this has been done because some subjects felt they lost status when the facilitating list was out there. Many softer subjects lost numbers, but also some academic but non-facillitating subjects which were highly regarded felt students didn't pick them or schools push them so much - such as Politics, Economics, RS. However, academic schools always offered these 3 at A Level and were able to explain they weren't lesser subjects in a mix of 3, even when they weren't specific requirements for individual degrees. But some schools didn't get this message out or perhaps parents didn't understand it.

"That was the common misunderstanding, yes"

So what is the correct understanding?

Because they really did say, with appropriate caveats, which subjects were generally looked on positively, and which were niche, and which would not combine into a weighting enough academic CV for many institutions.

What was the difference (accurate) between facilitating and non-facilitating subjects if not that?

"Facilitating subjects are the subjects most commonly required or preferred by universities to get on to a range of degree courses."

"They help you keep your options open when choosing a degree, and many of the top universities will ask you to have at least one A-level in a facilitating subject when you apply."

Sounds like a wordy way of saying 'looked on positively'

My Y10 child would look at that and think "OK, out of those two I'll pick Computer Science." If you look at the entry requirements for that degree at the universities on the list, several require Maths A-level but none require Computer Science A-level

Top performing universities want math,and normally an A grade. Many other unis will accept Comp sci.
Tell him to do what he loves.

The facilitating subject list didn't include creative subjects- glad it's gone

For many children who won't go to the most competitive universities or onto the most selective courses, it's all a bit irrelevant, but it is vital that children who are capable of the most competitive courses are clearly advised that the choices they makes at GCSE and particularly at A Level can open and close doors - that all subject choices are not seen as equal and that for some highly selective courses, they will need high grades in possibly a specific named subject, as well as an overall academic profile.

As well as hearing this, they also need to know that at GCSE it is fine to have a practical subject in the mix, as long as there is a good range of academic subjects at high grades (covering the Ebacc secures this) plus the fact that for most courses, they won't need 3 facilitating subjects or 3 specified subjects, and that as long as they meet any specified requirement, the other subject(s) can be anything else which is well-regarded. I believe it is absolutley fine to have Politics, Economics or RS as an A Level and apply to a highly selective course if any specific requirements have been met. In most cases, if someone has met specific requirements, then having one of subjects such as Sociology, Psychology, Classical Civilisation won't be a barrier. Suggesting that these subjects must categorically be avoided is poor advice and students need to know they can study one of them and as lomg as they meet specific requirements and have an overall academic profile (which 2 facilitating subjects provided) then they are absolutely fine. Sadly people didn't seem to be able to cope with the nuances of that message and instead the message turned into GOOD SUBJECTS =FACILITATING, BAD SUBJECTS=ALL OTHERS. That was never the intention but was the message many understood sadly.