Universities do not regard Sociology as a "soft" A-Level

I don't understand what you're saying here?

op studies both english a levels /endthread

I'm talking about sociology!

Posted from TSR Mobile

Common to... everyone? That's the implication of the term 'common', isn't it?

Okay perhaps it's true that positivism and anti positivism, for example, are not commonsensical theories. However, these elements of the course are only studied in the kind of depth that you could gather from a trawl of Wikipedia. They don't justify a whole A-Level.

But every subject sees some degree of interpretation in this sense. In History one looks at Marxist historians, in English, Feminist critics etcetera. You might accept that Sociology is less rigorous than these subjects, which is fine, but it's the fact that it doesn't offer anything that another subject doesn't provide in a more effective way. History, obviously, provides skills of analysis far superior to any other A-Level. English provides the ability to assess texts and extract meaning. Maths, the ability to draw complex logical conclusions. All Sociology does is provide some skills of analysis, outstripped by History, and a little different content. By no means enough to justify ever taking it.

What does it matter? Well it means that they ignore the truth in favour of their own biases and, as such, they invalidate their entire subject area. If all Sociology does is reflect how much a particular Marxist hates all wealth, or a particular radical feminist hates men, then it isn't a legitimate form research, it's just a form of expression.

It's problematic to suggest that 'as long as they can back it up with empirical evidence then they are no less valid than any other researcher'. In this case, are the claims that 'all women are oppressed by all men', and 'the proletariat is oppressed by the bourgeoisie' equally valid? Because that would suggest a contradiction.

You don't sound like a 'prejudicial bastard', but you are wrong. Logical thought is something that one is not trained in, except for a few specialist subjects. Certainly Sociology isn't one of them. Perhaps the average McDonalds worker does not have the mastery of logic that the average PhD in Mathematics or Philosophy does, but I fail to see how he would think any less logically than the average Sociologist?

Unless by 'logical thought' you just mean something really vague and indefinable, which I suspect you may...

Fair play, most of the syllabus is bull****. However, my original argument apropos whether, generally speaking, good universities see it as 'soft', was correct.
Edit : And as commonsensical as it may be, Research Methods will be very useful.

What of it?

Unlike the A Level and universities, the story for the degree and employers is rather the opposite.

I'm still not convinced, however I accept that you were correct about how Cambridge classifies it etc.

My point is not that it won't be 'very useful', indeed it will! But so is walking useful, so is being able to speak, and so is cycling: we don't have lessons in all these things because they're simple enough to warrant only a few demonstrations. Similarly, we don't need lessons for 'research methods', because they only reinforce the bleeding obvious.

What's the point sir?

What do you mean by this?

Well, for me, different approaches to research in terms of reliability and validity according to theoretical perspective weren't 'obvious.' mho, a lot of what I learned wasn't really THAT obvious. Then again, I am kinda retarded (sarcasm).

Oh, and regarding the debate I was having lozasauras99 about whether the content of the syllabus is 'useful': for me, studying Sociology has given me new outlooks and ways of interpreting society, although I accept that the academic rigour of the A-Level won't be of much use compared to traditional subjects such as History. Fair play, you and many others won't find it useful, and a lot of it is bull****, but other people, to some extent, do.

Having thought about it, I really have no idea why good universities don't regard it as 'soft.' But at the end of the day, facts are facts, and in the past month I have received offers from RG universities to study Politics despite my combination of subjects which were picked in haste and without knowledge of the notion 'soft subjects'. But hey ho!

I can tell! (Not sarcasm)

Which ways has it given you of interpreting society? Marxism, Feminism..? What use is this? Why did you need an A-Level for that?

But my point is that anyone who finds Sociology useful will find almost any other humanities subject more useful in all the same ways. It is ridiculous as an A-level because other A-levels, e.g. History, provide exactly the same skills to a greater and more useful degree. There would never be any reason for taking it instead of History, or indeed in tandem with it, for this reason.

Good universities do regard it as soft. The fact that you've had an offer from some Russell Group universities despite taking it doesn't negate this. There are people who get humanities offers at Cambridge having studied an Art & Design A-level, and yet that is surely soft. And it's hardly as if Politics is a competitive degree, so obviously studying some soft A-levels won't preclude you from entry.

If you refer back to my original post, you will see that good universities clearly DONT regard it as soft. I never said I needed an a level to see society from different perspectives, but nonetheless that is what Sociology has provided me with.

"But my point is that anyone who finds Sociology useful will find almost any other humanities subject more useful in all the same ways."
I agree, but at least Sociology has some use.

And my offers are from universities highly ranked for Politics, which thus have considerably more competition than the rest.

Why? I don't know... but generally speaking, universities don't regard Sociology as a soft A Level. Now go prove me wrong.

They don't say they regard it as soft, that's not proof that they don't regard it as soft. Neither of us believe that University tutors are stupid, and we both recognize that it is an easy A-level, doesn't it seem rather likely that they would recognize it as soft? Yes, it's possible that they are so out of sync with the rest of the world that they think Sociology to be a 'hard' subject - doesn't seem likely though.

Having some use doesn't legitimate it as a subject. Food Technology at GCSE has some use, BTEC Level 2 Music has some use - it doesn't mean that these subjects are worthwhile or are not regarded as soft by Universities.

However highly ranked the Universities are, unless you're applying for Harvard or Yale I'm not really sure there's a competitive Politics course you could apply for.

I can't prove you wrong: all I can do is establish that it is far more likely that admissions staff and tutors recognize the actual value of A-Level Sociology, than they are misled in regard to it. Your contention can only be that these tutors are so blind in regard to the whole A-Level process that they don't see the limited value of a subject which is recognized by pretty much everyone as limited - this is obviously ridiculous. Even most A-Level Sociology teachers wouldn't pretend that it is a 'hard' subject, so I doubt very much that University staff would.

At the open day at Sheffield, the admissions tutor said that Sociology would be useful preparation, so obviously at least ONE tutor believes it is worthwhile. Put yourself in the shoes of an admissions tutor. If you believed Sociology was less adequate, surely you'd say so instead of deceiving hopeful applicants and not only wasting their time but also your own having to sift through ineligible applications? Furthermore, whether a subject is 'legitimate' is relative to one's viewpoint, and thus highly subjective.

I've already established several times that I don't think it's wise to put a massive amount of stock in what admissions tutors say in these cases. Of course they cannot write off whole courses as useless and tell people not to take them.

It depends which University I was an admissions tutor for. If I was one at Sheffield University, I wouldn't bother warning against taking Sociology because course entry isn't so competitive that they must write off people for taking subjects that are easier. If I was one at Oxford University, I wouldn't bother warning against it because probably it would attract a lot of criticism, and few people apply there who take Sociology anyway. If what you mean to establish is that the best explanation of why tutors don't condemn Sociology as a 'soft' subject is that they don't believe this, then I'm not sure you've been particularly successful: most universities aren't competitive enough to warrant it, and those that are can remove those who do take it with a limited negative impact.

Whether a subject is legitimate or not is about as subjective as whether Oxford is a good University or not.

...and Bristol too. If you don't believe believe me email the SPAIS admissions department. And see the post just above this ^
Btw from the beginning of this thread I accepted that Oxbridge isn't too keen on Sociology. What I won't accept is that the main 'bulk' of good universities have a problem with it. They clearly don't.

I'm not saying I don't believe you, I'm saying it's totally irrelevant. I didn't want to make disparaging comments but if I have to I will: Bristol and Sheffield, good as they are, are not really competitive in terms of subjects like Politics. With the exception of totally irrelevant subjects, e.g. Product Design, AAA in pretty much anything will get you a place tThehere. The fact that admissions tutors in those places don't reject an application immediately because the person studied Sociology says nothing for how 'hard' or 'soft' the subject is.

The post above yours is irrelevant too. I'm not saying universities won't accept you if you've taken Sociology A-Level, I'm saying it's a soft subject.

Okay, I'm not saying that the ''bulk' of good universities have a problem with it' though, I'm saying it's a soft subject. The fact that Oxbridge do not like it is indicative of this - these are two of the only universities with courses so competitive (in this area) that they have to distinguish by the value of certain subjects, and this is why they (and perhaps some London universities) can provide the best indication of the rigor and value of the subject.

I'll reiterate my earlier point: someone last year was accepted onto the Cambridge Philosophy degree course with an AS level in Art and Design. This alone doesn't demonstrate that this is a 'hard' subject anymore than that person being accepted with Sociology would.