A-Levels choices - do we add maths or not?

[Wafflesandcrepes]

DD is going into year 11 and has started asking me questions about A-levels which I’m unable to answer as I’ve not been educated here in Britain.

DD wants to take Latin, History and Politics A-Levels. History is really her pet subject and has been from an early age. DD will probably want to do a history degree at university.

She thinks this combo might be a bit “basic” (her words) and is wondering whether to add maths to it.

I’m now wondering whether the history-latin-politics combo is not enough in itself. It sounds good to me!

And also if A-Levels Maths is much harder than GCSE. DD is predicted a 9 in maths but this has required quite a lot of support at home in the past.

Thank you in advance for any advice and insights.

To keep more mathsy options open to her later I’d ditch Latin and replace it with maths.

I know I’ll be shot down in flames but I really can’t see the point of learning a dead language. Maths would be so much more useful for a future career in almost….anything! It’s a very well respected A-level too.

And law and journalism with AI on the loose… look I’m not saying they’ll be no jobs but it’s not going to stay the same… loads of low hanging fruit will disappear.

Talking to an old friend who is a solicitor recently and she said law is changing, it’s dying. Perhaps this is dramatic but she lives in LA where they test this stuff out.

This says a lot about you. Latin is great subject to study. It is really shocking that you have no conception of its value as an academic discipline.

I think it’s realistic.

While thousands are studying engineering, medicine, law, dentistry, architecture etc that actually train you for a job after, studying Latin a-level is hardly bringing you closer to employability.

Could I be so bold as to say the same of History as a degree? What is its practical application.

Sadly a good friend’s son graduated from Cambridge last year with a degree in English and still has not yet secured a job.. not saying it’s like this for everyone but…

It means relying on milkround graduate jobs at the end of your degree which are fiercely fought over.

Latin is non negotiable. It’s her thing - along with history. I’m certainly not going to push her towards an A-level, let alone a career, that she’s not passionate for.

I’m aware of the impact of AI on jobs including law and journalism - but a STEM or computer programming career is not for her at all.

Just about to listen to the segment on Core Maths on BBC Money Box. Thank you for recommending.

Things like Latin and history train you to analyse ideas and make arguments and to consider causes and consequences. They train your mind.

Well...a few miscarriages of justice might have been avoided if lawyers and judges had understood some basic statistics.

Maths trains the brain to think logically and not jump to conclusions

I thought that was the point of Latin - although looking at Boris Johnson I can see I could well be wrong about that.

(1) that's basic numeracy, (2) examples where there was a miscarriage of justice because the lawyers didn't understand basic statistics (as opposed to the jury), and (3) are you aware how few lawyers are criminal lawyers?

I'm really shocked by this thread. The idea that people are recommending that someone changes from a subject that they're presumably on for an A/A* in to one where they're more realistically looking at a B/C just because of a bias towards STEM!

Do people sincerely think a judge who did A level maths perhaps 50 years ago will remember how to apply it?

I do think everyone should be numerate. But I also think everyone should be literate. No one seems to think you need A level English in order to be sufficiently literate.

OP some of these responses probably explain why your DD feels people might look down on her choices!

You are not a cleverer or better person if you do maths. This in itself does not make you the academic elite. She doesn't want to do one of the vocational degrees and so all is fine.

If her school offers core maths then she could look at it - but that isn't going to give her the 'ooo' factor she is concerned about.

Have you looked at the A Level maths syllabus recently?

"Basic statistics" is covered by lower secondary school

I have a maths degree. A lot of people used to ask me if that was just very large times tables.

Having read this thread, I now realise that they weren't joking - so many people seem to think maths just involves manipulating numbers.

How can you decide criminal cases on the basis of statistics? Many miscarriages of justice are revealed due to DNA. Should lawyers also have a biology A Level? In any case a jury convicted, not judges and lawyers.

I didn't mean to imply anyone should take maths a level just for stats, my comment was too throwaway and unclear - apologies! My thought was more that stats is the only aspect of A level maths which is likely to be of relevance to law.

However...
Understanding the meaning of DNA evidence etc often is more about understanding the statistics rather than the chemistry of it, I think rather beyond 'basic numeracy'. (I'm a scientist in a mathsy field, for context.).
While obviously it's juries who convict, they do so on the evidence presented and so the lawyers ability to understand and present this clearly matters. I sincerely hope they're sufficiently taught what they need to do this for modern forensic data in their training not rely on what they may or may not have covered at school!

The Royal Statistics Society has a whole section devoted to "Statistics and the Law" and has produced several reports: rss.org.uk/membership/rss-groups-and-committees/sections/statistics-law/

Core Maths will cover applied stats to an appropriate level for a career in law. It will also help with interpreting tax rates, interest rates and other practical things that are generally useful to young adults.

There was a programme about DNA on a while back yesterday dealt with lie detector probability. Really interesting. It was about the fallout from that awful Jeremy Kyle but there was stuff about court cases and probability, too.

This is what experts are for. As has been said, a basic level of numeracy is absolutely useful (Core Maths may help people gain that, I don't know as I didn't do Core Maths to know the syllabus). The types of statistics taught at A-level maths will not materially help a lawyer understand detailed points of DNA evidence. It won't hurt of course but it won't make a big difference. And that's for areas of law where statistics are useful.

I am very strong in maths. Of the maths I learnt during A-level and degree, I think I have once or twice found it useful to display an understanding of confidence intervals, which is the only thing I can think of that was in the A-level syllabus but not in the GCSE one. When I say 'found it useful' - I'm in house and it helped me explain how a system worked to someone in the business. And if I hadn't been taught it, I'm could have taught myself it very quickly as is the norm to do with lots of things! Talking about confidence intervals was stepping a (long long) way out of a legal role and that can sometimes detrimental in reality.

General numeracy, very very useful. A-level maths? Not so much. Don't regret doing it but that's because I like maths and it was an easy A.

See also...when people talk about mortality rates from diseases and attendance rates at school.