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 As a consequence, they advise based on their own past experience of university, which can be out of date.

"5 years ago everyone said Cyber or coding. Now AI is doing all that."

@titchy no it isn't.

Coding (aka computer programming) is a skill that is enhanced and facilitated by AI, not replaced by it. Coders can write code faster using AI, just as journalists and copy writers can generate text faster, but they still need to be able to understand and sense check and mould what is written. The outcome is that they will build more features faster.

If by "Cyber" you mean cybersecurity, then you'd be naive to think that role will ever be replaced by AI. On the contrary, it will be about understanding and defending against AI. The Government is strategically aiming to build an army of cybersecurity specialists, so have been subsidising courses.

1. what do you need to do - subjects and grades
2. what do you enjoy
3. gcse performance

My approach is identical to that of @Hatty65I’m also a History teacher. 😄 The recommendations in 6 would more likely be within the purview of a careers adviser or a teacher with a pastoral role in the 6th form, rather than a classroom teacher.

This.

Predominantly what is the student good at and what do they enjoy.

You're going to end up with a very miserable population if everyone is bashing away at STEM subjects they hate for the good of the economy. Meanwhile the Arts wither and no one has the social research, analysis or communication capabilities to work out we've all been turned into drones for the capitalist machine.

That’s for the careers advisor/ head of 6th form to know, not individual subject teachers and certainly not for A level choices.

If the decision is as stark as love versus hate then students don't need advice because the path is clear. Nobody wants the arts to wither, and students with talent and passion for those subjects will continue to choose them. But for many students, the decision is more nuanced, so they need a fuller picture to help them decide.

Very interesting post OP - I've been wondering where to go for advice relating to 6 and 7 as I'm just not convinced that any of this is available via school. The Student Room and Mumsnet have so far been my go-to's!
"Facilitating subjects", which I know are not strictly a thing anymore, is something I've been reading up on. Equally "soft" subjects.

It also depends on whether you think it is a purely aesthetic or self-satisfying pursuit. For some people it is purely one or the other. For the majority, it is somewhere between the two and they need information to help them find the right balance.

I remember one of my DC's friends (who was very well rounded academically, with good grades) discussing options and saying "I don't care if I'm on minimum wage so long as I'm happy". Now, 6 years later, she is on minimum wage but doesn't seem particularly happy with it. She is still enjoying her arts and drama as enriching hobbies, but she didn't need a degree for that and, although she is not paying off her student loan, she still feels it as a millstone, and her parents obviously had to contribute financially to that outcome too.

@titchy There’s not a medicine degree in the country that’s not oversubscribed many times over. We always listen to the noisy doctors but of course others do like their work. Some dc do want a job with good earnings as they progress through. A consultant earns more than most primary heads and more than many secondary heads. It’s seen as a good career by many. If it was so awful it would see a sharp decline in applicants and be easy to get into. That hasn’t happened but maybe the wrong dc get the places if they then don’t like the career? Maybe they are not weighing everything up before applying ? So where are the rose tinted glasses coming from? Schools snd parents probably.

Although this year is a blip, doctors get jobs. Not so many graduates do get grad jobs who are taking the low value degrees described above. Their careers are held back to lower salaried work.

I accept the humble maths teacher sends dc to careers (what careers the rest of us might well ask?) but many teachers do offer opinions when asked. They should have some basic knowledge of what careers their subject might lead to apart from teaching and make some evaluation beyond what makes dc happy.

Ive also noticed some teachers champion dc doing what they are notionally interested in without good advice on a range of options. They say some jobs pay well (law) but ignore how difficult it is to actually get them. They are not aware of competition or over supply. I guess this does suggest that careers advice should be a lot more robust. Eg DN was told environmental science pays well. That’s mostly rubbish when compared to other scientists. Maths teachers or environmental engineers earn a lot more.

Certainly some dc should study arts and humanities but the variety of courses and number of students on the courses is probably too many. Definitely on low tariff courses. We should consider very carefully whether other avenues of study are more worthwhile for them and the taxpayer.

Not a teacher, but currently got a son plus his friends just sat his GCSEs, so Alevels have been a big conversations this year.

DS plus his girlfriend are both set to get 7-9s in every subject. BUT, getting DS to do English, MFL A levels would be self destructive. Equally, his gf will flourish with her arts A levels, and would detest a STEM direction. Is DS likely to out earn her long term with his Chem, phys maths direction? Yep. Would she be miserable following his direction? Absolutely. Whatever the earnings, you need to follow your interests. It's not just about straight achievement.

@DongDingBell I don’t think arts and humanities students should do stem. Obviously not. However within arts and humanities there are very good options and poor choices. Both with subject combinations and university courses. That’s where relevant up to date advice is needed. Interesting it’s the DD who is expected to earn less. She won’t be a highly paid solicitor in London then?

I think this is key. I haven’t looked af the reports yet but I imagine the general trend is humanities/ arts are less likely to lead to grad jobs. I saw a stat the other day that over 50% of grads are not in grad jobs. Higher for non- STEM subjects. I imagine part of the problem is so many going to Uni.

In of AI apparently grad accountancy jobs are down by 1/3

This is also true. I think it’s really tough for young people as Uni will leave them with 50k debt (unless parents pay) and then costs are so high after. You need a reasonable level of confidence if will affect your job prospects. Although that said, it probably does even in a less direct way than getting a grad job, ie through the skills and abilities you develop.

Yes I know what AI does for coders - as you said it enables them to write it much quicker. Therefore you need fewer coders! And actually coders need a different skill set now from a few years ago. I don’t know so much about cyber, but again AI will (has?) changed what skills are needed in this area.

I don't think the 'therefore you need fewer coders' necessarily follows.

Computing demand increases much faster than we anticipate as new ideas come along. If some of the more turnkey stuff is done by AI then spaces for AI will open up and more coders needed to open those areas.

"Therefore you need fewer coders":
No you don't need fewer, because coders are needed to create the AI algorithms. Yes, that is a different coding discipline, so skills do need to evolve, but that has always been the way in software development. Nothing stands still, there is always something new on the horizon so adaptability has always been key to staying in front line employment. But, also, legacy systems need to be maintained or replaced, so legacy skills are always needed for many years beyond their peak.

"I don’t know so much about cyber, but again AI will (has?) changed what skills are needed in this area."

As above, these skills have always been in flux, and always will be, but the requirement for them is booming, so there is Government & industry funding available for re-skilling.

I work for a university and the admissions selection process - which you may or may not be surprised to learn is not always done by university teachers - mostly favours those doing solid and established subjects and almost always treats certain subjects as 'soft' unless they relate directly to the subject the student is applying for.

So if you want to study film or art etc. it's a good A Level option, otherwise not so much. The exception to this might be Law A Level and possibly Politics.

Safe things to study to keep your options open remain the traditional humanities, languages, sciences and maths. Economics, Psychology, Sociology all pretty solid too.

The Russell Group of universities used to publish a list of "facilitating subjects", but now they point students to course-specific admissions guidance instead. Some individual universities do still have their own lists of A level courses they favour or don't favour, and even if they don't, the individual admissions tutors will have their own opinions (as suggested by @Denimrules above).

Here are a few examples of university admissions preferences that are/were published (scraped together from last time I looked; I haven't checked recently) ...

University of Cambridge Trinity College:
Lists certain A‑Levels as suitable only as a fourth subject, deeming them insufficient preparation for core courses: e.g. Accounting, Communication Studies, Dance, General Studies, Photography, PE, etc.

University of Sheffield publishes a list of “non-functional” subjects. These are seen as less academically rigorous and should only supplement a stronger academic core (their list overlaps heavily with Cambridge’s)

London School of Economics (LSE) labels subjects like Accounting, Art & Design, Business Studies, Media Studies, Sports Studies, Travel & Tourism as “non‑preferred” for their typical degrees—especially economics, politics, law .

Bath emphasises “traditional A‑levels.”

Oxford, Imperial, UCL, Bristol, Durham, St Andrews anecdotally admit very few students with “non‑traditional” subjects.

Predicting the future job market is tough—who would’ve thought 20 years ago that careers like drone piloting or TikTok strategy would exist?
Cybersecurity and coding, however, seem poised to evolve with AI rather than be replaced by it. AI is transforming these fields, often increasing demand for experts who understand the core technology.
Take cybersecurity, for example: it’s thriving because of AI. More data brings more vulnerabilities and complex attack surfaces. Human experts are crucial for securing AI-driven systems, monitoring advanced threats, and outsmarting malicious actors using AI.
As for coding, while AI can generate snippets, humans are still essential to:
Grasp system architecture, verify logic, apply results to real-world scenarios, and most importantly, decide what needs to be built in the first place.
It’s like calculators—they didn’t replace math; they made it better. The same concept applies here.
Learning coding, cybersecurity, and AI together opens doors to the digital future. While jobs will change, core skills like problem-solving, logic, system design, and data understanding will stay relevant and in demand.
Change is always happening (when isn’t it?), but those with tech skills are primed to excel in dynamic and rewarding roles.

You could well be right - but my point still stands generally - we don’t know what the job market will look like in the next 40 - 50 years - the time frame that year 11s will be working over. To make decisions about A levels based on what OfS says is currently priority seems rather naive and irrelevant to that age group (incidentally it hasn’t re-banded Computer Science for years, so other than a handful of AI and Data Science scholarships there’s no extra cash to encourage supply side change).

Teachers should advise kids based on their aspirations and ability, not on some current Government policy nudges, or OfS saying Creative Arts at Poppleton has high non-continuation rates or best guesses as to what the working world will look like when they’re 50 or spurious surveys about graduate employment.

I was speaking to a client last week who used to hire tens of graduates a year to do coding. This year he is recruiting none as AI has replaced the role. And I can’t believe he’s the only company making this decision.

Roles are being removed in some compa ies and added in others - it is natural evolution and has always happened. Coding languages have evolved from 1st generation (binary) through to 5th generation (AI) and there has been movement with every shift, but you might have needed to be in the industry to understand this and not be frightened of it.

This is a very head-in-the-sand viewpoint Titchy.

Parents and teachers only need to know what's happening now, and have some appreciation of trends in the foreseeable future, not 50 years ahead. Careers are winding roads, so nobody needs a crystal ball to predict the final destination.

@inthisvehicle Cambridge produce excellent advice regarding which A levels to study. It’s on their web site: “How to choose A levels or high school subjects”. It lists their preferred academic A levels and recommends 2 are studied. It says at least 3 are needed for Cambridge and gives a second list which is more subject specific so includes a wide variety. So for arts, social sciences and humanities they want 2 from English Lit, a MFL, history or maths. Then candidates obviously then add a third or fourth. There’s another list for sciences. I believe this list is the best advice for academic courses at elite unis or for competitive courses. Teachers probably won’t agree but it’s how to maximise chances. Don’t be fobbed off by being told other subjects are just as good.