If you're a teacher who advises students on their A Level options ...

[inthisvehicle]

... which of these factors influence your advice, and in what order?:
1.The student's stated interests or career aspiration (and your confidence in their ability to reach their goals).
2.The student's predicted KS4 grades?
3.Attracting good students to your own subject area? (Please say what that is).
4.The school's need to fill up undersubscribed courses.
5.The school's aspiration to retain students that might otherwise go to college or elsewhere.
6.The Office for Students' guidance to HE institutions on its strategic priorities, and their categorisation of some courses as low value.
7.Trends in the graduate job market which show that some courses are more likely to lead to "graduate-level" jobs than others.

Fwiw, my personal experience as a parent (which might not be typical) is that 1-5 are all influential but that not all teachers have visibility of or interest in 6 or 7. As a consequence, they advise based on their own past experience of university, which can be out of date.

Ex teacher

I have advised students whether maths is a reasonable choice for them. I have no ir very little awareness of 6 and 7.

my advice is usually based on whether the student is capable of it. You do get students who get a 5 on foundation who want to do a level maths. For those students graduate level stuff isn’t relevant - realistically they are never going to pass a level in the first place.

I advise based on interest and capability (gcse results but also attitude in class, application etc), the conversation about future plans can also influence - especially if engineering/medicine etc.
getting the right students on the right course is really complex!

Grades are obviously important, no point in advising a kid to take A-level maths if they're only predicted a 5, for example. There's also no point in advising kids to take A-levels if their predicted grades show that they might be better suited to vocational courses.

So grades first, then interests.
If they're good at maths (grade 8/9) then I will always plug A-level maths (I'm a maths teacher), particularly with girls, sometimes they need someone to tell them that they're good enough to do it.
No idea about 6. But for 7, maths is always a good shout.

I advise English Lit rather than Lang to very bright students because it's more academically rigorous and the cohort of students in Lit tend to be harder working which raises the attainment of the whole group. Neither are hugely desirable in today's job market unfortunately, even though the skills they develop are desperately needed in society.

Retired this year after many years of teaching GCSE and A level.

Always, pick the subjects you enjoy most for A level. A levels are hard work, don't pick a subject you don't enjoy.

Most universities and courses are offering ABB or whatever. Grade is more important than subject choice - unless it is something like medicine you are intending to do that requires Chemistry, for eg. The majority of courses do not specify what A level subjects you must have.

History - my subject - is a good academic A level to take, whether you are interested in medicine, law, journalism, or whatever. Please don't pick it unless you get a minimum of a grade 6 at GCSE or you will struggle. 2) Predicted grades (for my subject) are frequently a load of bollocks that bear little resemblance to what I think the student will achieve.

4, 5, 6 & 7 are of no interest to me. I'm interested in what is best for the individual student, not SLT or the school.

Yet 6 & 7 are in the interests of the student.

I mention them because I'm seeing a lot of young people coming out of uni with good degrees in things they love, like History and English Lit, and finding that the "any degree" job market that was very buoyant when their parents/teachers were young has greatly shrunk, especially compared to the increased numbers of students.

It depends on whether you think education is a purely utilitarian pursuit I suppose.

Most universities and courses are offering ABB or whatever. Grade is more important than subject choice - unless it is something like medicine you are intending to do that requires Chemistry, for eg. The majority of courses do not specify what A level subjects you must have.

That’s a bit glib though.

Lots courses offer at ABB or thereabouts (AAB/BBB). But masses of others offer at AAA. Or Astar AA. And some offer a lot lower like 96 UCAS points.

And I cannot agree with the last sentence – there are certainly a good number of courses that do not require specific A levels for obvious reasons - things like criminology or journalism or law or social policy. But there are masses that do specify. I would be willing to bet that those are in the majority.

Every year there are parents on MN whose DC have realised that they want to do engineering and should have done physics A level. Or medicine and chemistry. Good luck getting a degree place to do maths, biology, engineering, chemistry, physics, Eng lit, French, German, Spanish, economics, CS, medcine, vet sci, dentistry (and other choices for sure) without specific A levels.

Anyway @inthisvehicle to answer your question, in my subject (MFL) GCSE grades are key, and also I would seek to find out if the student had a specific aim post A level; yes encouraging MFL post 16 would be in my mind (I no longer teach in school but if I still did) as it is woefully undersubscribed. 5 & 6 would not be something I would consider (I know nothing about 6 tbh); 7 only in terms of the student’s possible aims for the future again. An MFL A level or MFL degree is always going to be worth doing (assuming the student is not aiming for a uni course which requires three different A levels, like engineering) and I would never advise a student keen on MFL A level that they should study physics and maths and do engineering at uni so they could be sure of a good job if that was not where there interests lay. If that's what you mean OP.

@noblegiraffe "No idea about 6"

The UK Government and the Office for Students (OfS) use specific criteria to identify "low value" courses — usually tied to graduate outcomes and economic return. E.g. courses that:

• Have low graduate earnings relative to tuition and public subsidy
• Have poor progression to professional employment or further study
• Have high dropout rates
• Offer limited contribution to national skills needs

It doesn't mean they're poor quality, but they're seen as not offering strong economic returns to students or the taxpayer. Examples that get quoted in OfS and other Govt docs are things like:

• Media Studies - Funding de-prioritised in 2025–26; seen as having weaker earnings outcomes.
• Creative Arts - Some subfields such as performing arts or music production are flagged for low earnings, but others (e.g. design, film tech) do better.
• Hospitality & Leisure - often has lower graduate earnings and employment rates.
• Some Social Sciences - e.g. Sociology
• Sports Science / Therapy - oversupply compared to demand
• Business Admin - ditto

In contrast, courses cited as "High-Value" are supported with targeted funding, growth incentives, and inclusion in national skills strategies.

• Medicine, Nursing, Health
• Engineering, Computing, Maths
• Teaching / Education
• Physical and Natural Sciences
• Higher Technical Education (Level 4/5)

You need to expand what you’re referring to in 6 - I wasn’t aware OfS had a list of low value subjects. In any case that’s for whoever’s in charge of uni applications to discuss sensible options with their year 12s, how is
it relevant for year 11s when they decide A level subjects?

I agree about MFL, though would add that it is also worth doing alongside sciences etc, if there is room for a supplementary subject..A joint science and MFL degree can open a lot of doors because some companies look for additional languages as a key skill.

Interesting thread. Where di you find info about 7 please?

Cross post. OfS publishes outcomes for subjects at specific unis. How is it relevant for a year 11 to be told English at Poppleton has a high drop out rate? Is it supposed to help them decide not to do English A level? Is a year 11 supposed to care about contributing to national skills needs when they decide their A level subjects? And lol at targeted funding. There’s a tiny bit for L4 and 5 - the STEM funding doesn’t remotely cover costs. Don’t kid yourself that the Gov is putting any resources into what it regards as important. It’s rhetoric, not substance. And certainly not relevant for 15 year olds trying to decide between History or Economics.

@inthisvehicle You are absolutely spot on and advice from schools can be shocking. Do what you are good at is questionable advice. So that could be media, film and photography. If you were AAA type of student in academic subjects, would this combination be good? For what? Where would it lead?

Most university courses that lead to the highest paid jobs are not ABB. Now we know why social mobility is poor. Surely a bright child should be advised to aim high? To achieve a place an elite university does make a difference.

Yes, schools do ignore 7 and 6. It’s a disservice to students that they do and students end up on courses employers don’t value. This is especially worrying if the student cannot access advice from home. It’s why people underachieve and don’t get the best jobs. Other people are better advised.

@inthisvehicle that detail on point 6 is interesting. I still think if a student was interested in taking (say) Eng lit, French and geography (so my DD), I would not want to encourage them towards maths, biology and physics (all of which she took at GCSE obvs and got good enough grades in for A level) so that they could do a degree in maths or science.

I mean I got great O level grades (ollllddd) and thus could have done maths, chemistry and biology for A level on that basis alone. I would have been deeply unimpressed if my French teacher had told me that that was what I should do (I actually did almost do maths) instead of the MFL I loved.

MFL alongside a science is interesting. I guess bio, chem and French would still allow you to do medicine; and maths, physics and French would still open engineering.

Apologies for the rogue “there” instead of “their” in my previous post aaargh!

I'm a teacher, in all honesty I just have it like a normal conversation (Eng lit a level), it all depends on the student and then I see where the conversation goes.

That said I work in a school with a robust careers and UCAS support system so I know the other technical careers stuff has been covered elsewhere.

I try to not let the kids get all worked up about target grades and uni places, I more tell them to do what they enjoy and take each step as it comes - again they have had robust careers advice elsewhere so they already know all that.

I do make sure they know there are alternatives to uni too, I think that's important.

Once kids are on the course, if they are desperate to get certain target grades I do everything I can to support them to get them as it's more set in stone then.

I then promote what I perceive to be the benefits of the course - it's enjoyable; promotes critical thinking skills; good as a 3rd A level if doing stem as it shows you're rounded; good for law.

I try to give sound advice without bias but don't put too much pressure on myself to give out perfect advice: if they're applying to do Eng Lit then they are savvy enough to work their way around Google and come back with questions.

Edited for typos.

There’s an IFS report from a few years ago. There’s also a graduate outcomes survey which asks grads what they’re doing 15 months after graduation. It’s VERY VERY VERY flawed, and tells you nothing about what the grad will be doing in the longer term. Then there’s LEO data from HMRC which shows for unis the earnings of their grads by subject 1, 3 and 5 years after they graduate - again flawed data.

And don’t get me started on the whole utilitarian idea that uni is only useful as a stepping stone towards a very small range of careers. It’s such a depressing view of education.

MFL needs to be prioritised more by society and by schools imo. At my child’s school the expectation is that a child will only opt for one language and if they want to study a second they have to take lessons after school but only if there is sufficient demand. Latin has been introduced as an additional choice instead of a fourth MFL
option. We moved from another country where most students at age 11 are starting on learning their third foreign language and I find language education in UK schools has changed little since my time (including the reliance on outdated teaching methods). It’s deeply disappointing.

@titchyI disagree about the ifs. They look at various years beyond university. Doctors still do best! They don’t often change career either. In fact well paid people don’t so much. They like the money! DD converted to law. She’s not going to earn what she does by being an English teacher. So the high paying professions do, mostly, require the academic degrees with the appropriate A levels. That isn’t floored info.

The ifs looks at degrees with poor returns and they are right to do so. What’s sad is where the best pupils make poor decisions because they are not given the best research data. Instead teachers either don’t know or guess. Even the Guardian is worried about grad jobs. They are in decline. Subjects and courses taken matter more than ever. Outdated advice is not helpful.

It's all buried in OfS guidance (I work in HE) but sometimes gets quoted in Parliament and makes it into news headlines too: https://www.officeforstudents.org.uk/for-providers/regulatory-resources/guidance-from-government/

@Masmavi Totally agree. My DD was so lucky to be offered 2 MFLs which she took as A levels. One is ok but if you are a linguist, it’s not good enough. No one thinks 1 science is ok.

1&2

My view is to not advise students what Alevels to do but ask them questions so they can figure it out for themselves.

Doctors NEVER recommend their profession though, particularly given the shitshow that is getting training places. So it’s not just about earnings. And yes I know the IFS report looked further ahead (again only from a salary view though - nothing about people quitting certain jobs due to stress, or doctors having to work in Tesco). The other two sources I mentioned are not particularly robust though, I certainly wouldn’t advise anyone uses them as the sole basis for deciding their future.

Also worth pointing out no one knows really what future jobs will be needed. 5 years ago everyone said Cyber or coding. Now AI is doing all that. Does anyone really believe the job market in 20 or 30 years time will be the same as now?