English lit a-level??

English Lit is a weird subject.

Enjoyable to explore old and contemporary poetry and prose.

But when it comes to the exams, if you want an A grade there is no room for creativity in writing, you have to write in a robotic structured manner to score good marks...

Coursework component of the course is enjoyable as you can really be creative and adventurous with your writing with the only boundaries being word-caps.

If you enjoy Literature then certainly go for it, no point doing Psychology if you won't enjoy it especially considering you have to learn countless theories/studies/cases/arguments.

That's not true about English Literature. A good English teacher would show you how to write. Creative thinking is essential for interpreting the questions at A level. You need to be able to write in a structured manner and to support your arguments with evidence in order to write convincingly. That doesn't mean robotic. There is a lot of room to develop your skills if you give yourself the space and appreciate what is being asked of you.

Psychology is interesting but the A level is quite superficial in terms of the level of detail you go into, but not superficial enough that it won't end up eating into all of your time when it comes to revision, unless you stay on top of it. Doing sciences will help, however, and if you've got good maths skills and an objective mind, you won't find it difficult.

They're both good choices, and both give you the chance to look at something new or something old in more depth at least.

I've got a graduate qualification in Psychology and I would still pick English Literature. I'd say my English Literature A level has been the most valuable A level I took and the one I remember the most.

English Lit is a weird subject.

Enjoyable to explore old and contemporary poetry and prose.

But when it comes to the exams, if you want an A grade there is no room for creativity in writing, you have to write in a robotic structured manner to score good marks...

Coursework component of the course is enjoyable as you can really be creative and adventurous with your writing with the only boundaries being word-caps.

If you enjoy Literature then certainly go for it, no point doing Psychology if you won't enjoy it especially considering you have to learn countless theories/studies/cases/arguments.

That's not true about English Literature. A good English teacher would show you how to write. Creative thinking is essential for interpreting the questions at A level. You need to be able to write in a structured manner and to support your arguments with evidence in order to write convincingly. That doesn't mean robotic. There is a lot of room to develop your skills if you give yourself the space and appreciate what is being asked of you.

Psychology is interesting but the A level is quite superficial in terms of the level of detail you go into, but not superficial enough that it won't end up eating into all of your time when it comes to revision, unless you stay on top of it. Doing sciences will help, however, and if you've got good maths skills and an objective mind, you won't find it difficult.

They're both good choices, and both give you the chance to look at something new or something old in more depth at least.

I've got a graduate qualification in Psychology and I would still pick English Literature. I'd say my English Literature A level has been the most valuable A level I took and the one I remember the most.

English writing skill will be benefited if you need to publish a book or you are willing to be a poet .. lol

English Literature, taught well, is one of the few subjects you will use forever. It teaches you how to read, how to unlock layers of meaning from wonderful literature that you could never have otherwise accessed. It will affect every book that you ever read and you will never stop learning those lessons. I like to think of my English teachers of having given me an amazing gift in that respect.

I've made a career in tutoring and writing and English Literature guides have been some of my favourite projects to write. I'm currently writing a book on the poetry of Wilfred Owen and, whilst it may never make a huge amount of money, has been one of the most amazing journeys for me. I feel privileged to be able to meet this amazing mind through his words, despite his life being cut hideously short.

It's a privilege to be able to study English literature, especially if your teachers are good. That's all I can really say on the subject. The practical benefits can also be quantified in terms of the practical skills it can teach you as well, essay writing etc. but I don't see that as the main benefit.

That's not true about English Literature. A good English teacher would show you how to write. Creative thinking is essential for interpreting the questions at A level. You need to be able to write in a structured manner and to support your arguments with evidence in order to write convincingly. That doesn't mean robotic. There is a lot of room to develop your skills if you give yourself the space and appreciate what is being asked of you.

Psychology is interesting but the A level is quite superficial in terms of the level of detail you go into, but not superficial enough that it won't end up eating into all of your time when it comes to revision, unless you stay on top of it. Doing sciences will help, however, and if you've got good maths skills and an objective mind, you won't find it difficult.

They're both good choices, and both give you the chance to look at something new or something old in more depth at least.

I've got a graduate qualification in Psychology and I would still pick English Literature. I'd say my English Literature A level has been the most valuable A level I took and the one I remember the most.

I disagree with you to an extent and I'll tell you why.

Creative thinking is definitely helpful in terms of interpreting the text how you wish. But A-level limits this, especially the exam because A-level is all about jumping through hoops in order to fit into a certain criteria in order to hit the marks to get the right grade. This formulaic way of making sure you are writing in order to tick off the right assessment objectives is very robotic. This limits you on what to say and how to say it. Of course there's a structured way and logical way for writing Literature essays. However, A-level has you jumping through hoops in order to write this way, thus limiting your creative response.

The skills you speak of is the way you analyse, look, read and interpret the text. Has nothing to do with how you write, because there is a systematic way on how to write a good A-level essay because you are being marked on hitting the assessment objectives.

No I simply compare my conclusion with that of English at degree level where that is open to whatever you wish. You have way more free choice, there's no assessment objectives, you're not placed in a band to decided what grade you get. You are marked on how well you can interpret what's being asked of you and not solely how you write, but what you write too.

I definitely agree with how A-level lit does hinder your creative response - you've just got to simply cater to the marker's will in order to get the grades. I've worked as an exam marker, a tutor and I was an ex student too so I think in my experience counteracts your opinion, although it doesn't disregard your opinion altogether.

Given that I have identical experience to yours I fail to see how that counteracts my opinion. I've marked, tutored and studied it so...hm. I've even written a book on the subject so I could trump you there, too. Would you be happy to let your argument stand as an example of why we don't base our arguments on assumptions?

I would also say that, taught well, as my students tend to be, you can write in a creative way that hits the assessment objectives by barely trying.

Just because you've apparently written a book on the matter doesn't make you superior to me in any way shape or form.

I'm not arguing with you; I'm just stating my opinion.

You can write creatively, but you can't write in a creative way - it doesn't work like that. At least not for AQA. "barely trying" - yeah that's what a good teacher would say(!)

Well you did say your experience counteracts my opinion...

Does your experience trump mine? Does your opinion trump mine?

And just so you know, I teach all exam boards for English. If you're teaching it right and encouraging students to develop their skills on a regular basis, creative thinking and good essay writing will go hand in hand. Yes, the timing is tight but that's the case in any exam. If they're skilled and experienced essay writers, however, that won't be an impediment.

There's a difference between writing efficiently and in a structured fashion and writing robotically and rigidly. A good teacher knows the difference and can teach it.

No I just said my opinion goes against yours...

No it doesn't - just makes me have a different light to your comment. It was my opinion. You acted as if your statement were mere fact.

You can't "teach" all exam boards. You must be a tutor - and a tutor is very different to being a teacher.

But you're not a teacher. "can teach it" - yeah you just contradicted yourself by saying "a good teacher.. can teach it".. Any teacher or any English teacher would know you can teach English - English as a subject is developmental - you develop skill, not teach or create it. It's all about developing what they know and bring it to the next stage. To "teach" how to write just proves my point that it's a systematic and robotic approach to English.

But that's my opinion and I have no patience for your ego and if you can't appreciate my opinion, then you should find a different job sweetheart. Goodbye.

I think the biggest ego here is yours.
You're the one who made this personal. You're the one who said that your experience counteracts my opinion without even stopping to think that I might actually have experience of my own. You also seemed to take offence at the idea that I've published and defend yourself from a non-existent assertion that I am a superior person. All I was doing was stating my experience for the record, as you made an incorrect assumption that I somehow lacked it and was making an assertion based only on opinion, brandishing your experience to "counteract" it.

You're getting very flustered for some reason and for no good reason that I can see. You can teach all exam boards. I have taught three different ones in two different schools and I have tutored four. That's just for English. I've also taught for history and psychology as well.

Your comments really are quite inconsistent and seem to be fuelled by emotion. You're lacking objectivity. The idea that you don't believe writing can be taught is frankly bizarre. Any skill can be taught in terms of the fundamentals and then developed through practice. A good teacher can seize opportunities to teach new vocabulary, ways of structuring sentences, and new critical approaches to the source material. Why you believe none of that can be taught is beyond me.