[Tsukuyomi]

There are pros and cons to this idea, but i can understand this, instead why dont they make 90+ A, instead of 80, that should stop people from getting A so easily, but then again im not affected

[300mg]

(Original post by j09)
Something that Glasgow does for it's science subjects which is quite good is say if you only have one science/maths subject you need BBB, if you have two science/maths subjects you need BBC and if all three are science/maths you need BCC. This makes it fairer to people taking harder subjects which are more relevant to the course.

Yeah that's much fairer, actually. It gives the advantage to those who stuck out the science subjects for two years.

Honestly I don't think undermining certain subjects will have an impact of how many people take them. It's just going to offend people and make teachers pissy with little impact.

[cpj1987]

(Original post by 300mg)
Honestly I don't think undermining certain subjects will have an impact of how many people take them. It's just going to offend people and make teachers pissy with little impact.

Do you genuinely not think it'll make a difference, considering the number of people on this site alone who follow league tables blindly?

[wer343lit]

(Original post by 300mg)
Yeah that's much fairer, actually. It gives the advantage to those who stuck out the science subjects for two years.

Honestly I don't think undermining certain subjects will have an impact of how many people take them. It's just going to offend people and make teachers pissy with little impact.

Why do you assume everyone will find the science subjects hard?

[thefish_uk]

Haven't read through the entire thread in detail but this caught my eye:

(Original post by Cup of Inspiration)
On top of this, I'd like to see someone who works well with maths or physics try and do a philosophy class, or produce a photography portfolio to a-level standard

Actually:
1.) I did A-level double maths and physics (and chemistry) and also did AS-level Philosophy which I got an A in. I would have done A2 Philosophy had I not decided to focus more on the subjects more directly relevant to my uni application. A lot of scientists take an interest in philosophy as it's logical. (I nearly did History instead, by the way.)
2.) I know several people who are sciencey and are very good at photography. Perhaps you chose the wrong kind of art here to use as an example as the techniques involved in photography require a lot of science to fully understand.

In addition, plenty of people I know studying things like Medicine and Engineering are actually quite well read and have at least one arts subject or foreign language A-level, and lots and lots of scientists I know take a keen interest in history and current affairs.

My point is that a lot of people into sciences are quite capable of creativity and also of writing essays as the analysis skills applied in arts subjects are found in the sciences too; they just choose not to.

[JW92]

I've read through everyone's posts here and this would be my suggestion to solve the "problem" the Tories have mentioned.

Obviously, there is not an unquestionable list of "hard" and "soft" or "hard" and "easy". Rather, there are some subjects which are more traditional, academic and which prepare you better for university as opposed to some subjects which are more modern, vocational and too specialised to provide an adequate preparation for university.

This distinction should be transparent, because bright students are losing out by taking "soft" subjects. A levels could be termed "Vocational" and "Academic", or become two seperate qualifications such as "A levels" and "Diplomas", whatever. Standards need to be rigorously maintained in academic areas like Psychology and Law. There should also be clear guidance as to taking specialised and unspecialised subjects - when me and my friends chose our A levels there was definitely no such guidance.

[yesioo]

I don't like it and I think it's going to create a large rift.

[300mg]

(Original post by cpj1987)
Do you genuinely not think it'll make a difference, considering the number of people on this site alone who follow league tables blindly?

It really isn't going to have an impact. If they make a change, it won't be colossal. Making an A in Maths worth 130 points instead of 120 won't push that many people further - people will still prefer soft A levels than the taxings ones.

TSR really can't be used as a generalisation for the normal student population. It tends to be the top band of people who post here - I know in my school that not many people obsessed over leagues tables and the percentage of people getting top grades was much lower compared to the TSR consensus.

[*MJ*]

(Original post by Jonty99)
No, I disagree, because some people could find Media Studies incredibly difficult and Physics very easy.

Yeah I know, I disagree too.

But i'm saying it won't bother me.

I would prefer them both being 120 but if Physics is 140 for an A it ain't going to make me work any harder, I'm just going to work hard normally and hopefully get an A.

[cpj1987]

(Original post by JW92)
This distinction should be transparent, because bright students are losing out by taking "soft" subjects. A levels could be termed "Vocational" and "Academic", or become two seperate qualifications such as "A levels" and "Diplomas", whatever. Standards need to be rigorously maintained in academic areas like Psychology and Law. There should also be clear guidance as to taking specialised and unspecialised subjects - when me and my friends chose our A levels there was definitely no such guidance.

There are diplomas in existence already, but those are the properly vocational subjects as opposed to things like Media Studies which are largely academic with some vocational aspects thrown in.
I do think the re-naming might be a way forward though, both at A-Level and degree level, because it seems the people who're so avidly against these subjects are the ones who feel threatened by them; and perhaps they wouldn't if the same qualification had a different name.

[JW92]

(Original post by cpj1987)
There are diplomas in existence already, but those are the properly vocational subjects as opposed to things like Media Studies which are largely academic with some vocational aspects thrown in.
I do think the re-naming might be a way forward though, both at A-Level and degree level, because it seems the people who're so avidly against these subjects are the ones who feel threatened by them; and perhaps they wouldn't if the same qualification had a different name.

If not renaming, the distinction needs to be completely transparent. All universities should state their views on different subjects (not just LSE, and to an extent Cambridge) and all students should be made aware of the distinctions. I think the current system is arguably more damaging to students who go to state schools, who are more likely to lack guidance.

One problem is the culture of selling education. Sixth forms, sixth form colleges and colleges will all sell themselves, as will different subject departments. There's no one to say, hang on a minute, this might not be the best choice for you.

[300mg]

(Original post by Jonty99)
Why do you assume everyone will find the science subjects hard?

Well harder is the word. And really, they are harder. If someone can get an A in chemistry but not an A in media studies then something is going very wrong.

Also, to add, the better universities don't even go by UCAS points, which will lessen the impact even more.

[KingPrawn0356]

Something else that really pisses me off is when people who already speak a foreign language because one of their parents does or whatever reason, take it as an A level and get really high marks despite not needing to do any work. I think that should be accounted for also.

[cpj1987]

(Original post by JW92)
If not renaming, the distinction needs to be completely transparent. All universities should state their views on different subjects (not just LSE, and to an extent Cambridge) and all students should be made aware of the distinctions. I think the current system is arguably more damaging to students who go to state schools, who are more likely to lack guidance.

One problem is the culture of selling education. Sixth forms, sixth form colleges and colleges will all sell themselves, as will different subject departments. There's no one to say, hang on a minute, this might not be the best choice for you.

Just a question, though; do you not feel that the responsibility should lie with the individual student? People shouldn't need to be spoonfed at that level, I feel; they're more than old enough to do their own research.

[wer343lit]

(Original post by 300mg)
Well harder is the word. And really, they are harder. If someone can get an A in chemistry but not an A in media studies then something is going very wrong.

Also, to add, the better universities don't even go by UCAS points, which will lessen the impact even more.

What about French, History, English Literature; I wouldn't say the sciences are harder than them. I'd say they're all pretty hard, and then it's down to whereever your talents lie.

I find the sciences a lot easier than the humanities.

[0404343m]

(Original post by j09)
Something that Glasgow does for it's science subjects which is quite good is say if you only have one science/maths subject you need BBB, if you have two science/maths subjects you need BBC and if all three are science/maths you need BCC. This makes it fairer to people taking harder subjects which are more relevant to the course.

They did do that- but not since 2007/8. Now its BBB from A-Level but you must have two science subjects- no exceptions. If you were to have AAB to include further maths, you can do it in three years, like a degree from an English university. Essentially, universities were thinking along these lines years ago, but not phrasing it in the same way.

[JW92]

(Original post by cpj1987)
Just a question, though; do you not feel that the responsibility should lie with the individual student? People shouldn't need to be spoonfed at that level, I feel; they're more than old enough to do their own research.

Well this is my own experience - I went to a bog standard comprehensive school and we were given no guidance. We all assumed every A level is of equal worth (why wouldn't we?) and the only thing we thought about when choosing A levels was how much we would enjoy them and perhaps what we wanted to do at university. I picked quite traditional subjects, but I have friends who in retrospect would've picked more wisely. Even if you wanted to do your own research, it's still very opaque.

[300mg]

(Original post by Jonty99)
What about French, History, English Literature; I wouldn't say the sciences are harder than them. I'd say they're all pretty hard, and then it's down to whereever your talents lie.

I find the sciences a lot easier than the humanities.

I was talking in reference to soft A levels. I would say languages and English are tough but something like history doesn't compare to the sciences in terms of complexity and understanding needed.

[CatatonicStupor]

EDIT: I sat down with a pad and pen, and tried to map out my original post...so, now it makes even more sense and is more concise.
I think there should be a system that goes from GCSE right through to Degree level, to sort out the wheat from the chaff as it were. So, I came up with my own system, not that it'd ever be implemented:

At GCSE, people study English, Maths, Sciences, RE and PE as compulsory subjects. Welsh is compulsory in Wales. All of these subjects would graded at 0. They would hold no weighting on the final rating of the GCSE. Optional subjects would be scored at 10credits per A* for 'soft subjects' like Media or Art; 20credits per A* for Humanities like History or Geography; and 30credits per A* for socially useful subjects like Technology, or Languages. Students would take up to 5 optionals, making a total of 10subjects. A pass would be counted as 50credits.

Those who fail to pass would be offered the chance at an apprenticeship or an NVQ, in order to gain a useful job in manufacturing or offering a vital service (in plumbing, or construction, for example). This way, we're not leaving everyone with "No GCSEs" at the wayside, we're picking them up, brushing them off, and providing them with a job - in a sense, we're also cutting the jobseeker rate (well, in an ideal world where it was the government who said who stayed and who went from a job, unlike companies who can just fire someone willynilly adding to the unemployment rate...)

Those who pass, advance to A-level. Despite being 'young', they should have an idea of their preferred Uni course. The UCAS process would allow them to choose 2 Universities, and one course. The first University would offer a degree at "Level 1", and the second at "Level 2". Level 1 would be considered the 'creme de la creme' of courses, while Level 2 would offer a firm grounding in it. So, if someone wanted to do something with languages, they'd choose two Unis, and be told they needed to hit 340 credits to get into the Level 1 Uni (regardless of the Uni).

So, using the language example, the person is meant to choose two languages, and a humanity. 3 would be the minimum number of courses allowed, and 4 would be the maximum...so, they could choose a 'soft subject' like Drama, and get an A* in it, which gives them 80; and even if they don't get A*s in the other three, they might have the chance to get the desired credits.

On entering Uni, with reasonably standardised courses, it's just a case of passing each year. Fail the first year, do a resit. Fail the resit (or worse, fail second year), drop down to a Level 2 course and start from year 1. Fail Level 2 first year, do a resit. Fail that (or the 2nd year), drop down to NVQs/Apprenticeships (with a lot of competition for places).

I just thought that, it'd be so much easier to split the 'wheat' and the 'chaff' as the courses go on. It builds up a layer of Primary and Secondary workers from those who failed to pass GCSE; it then gives skilled graduates on two differing levels from Universities, not on multiple levels - Universities could be multi-tiered, depending on the courses they offer - Cardiff might be Level 1 for Medicine, but only Level 2 for Sport; while UWIC would be Level 1 for Sport, but non-existent on Medicine; example-wise.
Then, it only matters that the person did a level 1 course and got [degree] or a level 2 course and got [degree]. "Hi, I'm Bob, and I have a 1:1 from St Andrews" "Hi, I'm John, and I have a 1:2 from Oxford" "Hi, I'm Mark, and I have a 2:1 from Lampeter" - the difference here, Bob has done Level 1 and got a first, John has done lvl1 and got a 2nd, and Mark has done level2 and got a 1st. He'd be on the same pegging as John, perhaps. It's less on the names, and more on the marks.

[cpj1987]

(Original post by JW92)
Well this is my own experience - I went to a bog standard comprehensive school and we were given no guidance. We all assumed every A level is of equal worth (why wouldn't we?) and the only thing we thought about when choosing A levels was how much we would enjoy them and perhaps what we wanted to do at university. I picked quite traditional subjects, but I have friends who in retrospect would've picked more wisely. Even if you wanted to do your own research, it's still very opaque.

Fair enough. In my experience, I too went to a bog-standard comprehensive school, but I knew what I wanted to do and did a lot of research into it, choosing the A-Level subjects best suited to it.
I guess, though, that I perhaps assume too much and maybe people DO need to be spoon-fed a bit more. My mistake, if so.