What are &quot;respectable&quot; ALevels?

Original post by 5hyl33n

Biology
Chemistry
Physics
Mathematics
Further Maths
Computer Science

Hopefully you get the gist.

A-Levels that for some reasons are not regarded but should be in my opinion are:
English Literature
History
Government and Politics
Art

In my opinion, all A-Levels (excluding BTECs) are respectable.

Where are you getting this information from?

I presume OP is talking about Facilitating subjects?

Which are:

•

English literature.

•

History.

•

Modern languages – e.g. French, German, Spanish etc.

•

Classical languages – e.g. Latin, Ancient Greek.

•

Maths and further maths.

•

Physics.

•

Biology.

•

Chemistry.

•

Geography.

As defined by the Russel Group.

Reply 3

snazzy viking

17

Maths + Further
Bio
Chem
Physics
Eng Lit
History
Geog
Languages

are the most respected

Reply 4

Some universities post their own preferred subject list and they are usually far wider than above. In addition to those listed Economics, Psychology, Sociology, Law, Politics, Classical Civilisation and many others are shown
http://www.lse.ac.uk/study-at-lse/Undergraduate/Prospective-Students/How-to-Apply/Admissions-Information
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/prospective-students/undergraduate/application/entry-requirements/preferred-level-subjects

Reply 5

lhabgabdgbfa

12

Original post by killua.

A-levels and BTECs are separate things lol by saying "A-levels" you're already excluding BTECs??

a levels re better than btec ( unless its a subject that can only be offered at btec)

Reply 6

Original post by 5hyl33n

I also just listed the same subjects. However some people think that subjects such as Geography and English are easy subjects.

Hence, I stated that no A-Level is easy and in my opinion they should all be classified as facilitating subjects.

I've never met anyone that says English Literature is easy? Now, language, that's not respected.

The reason there are "facilitating subjects" is because they are general enough to take to most courses at University. I took Maths, Further Maths, Physics and English Literature, and I was better prepared for most courses I could do at uni than someone doing Psychology, Sociology, and Computer Science. Change my Physics to Chem or Bio and I would be better qualified to study any of those subjects at university than someone taking those A levels.

It's not that I think Psychology, Law and Computer Science are easy. They aren't. Heck, I reckon they're all more difficult than Geography. However, none of them are sufficiently general enough to "facilitate" adequate development in a student who wishes to study at the highest levels. They're good as a 3rd or 4th A level for someone looking to study at a competitive institution. But not as a sparring subject to lead an application.

(edited 4 years ago)

Reply 7

Perhaps all of you should read this :https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/may/23/russell-group-scraps-preferred-a-levels-list-after-arts-subjects-hit

And, then look up the actual subject requirements on some University websites for the degree you want to do.
It is pointless taking Chemistry, Physics, Maths if you want to read Music. It is equally pointless taking Art, Music and Dance if you want to be a Chemist. There is no 'better/best' A level subject - only the ones YOU want to do for the career pathway YOU have chosen. 'My A levels are better/easier than your A levels' is a bit childish.

Reply 8

Original post by vicvic38

I've never met anyone that says English Literature is easy? Now, language, that's not respected.

The reason there are "facilitating subjects" is because they are general enough to take to most courses at University. I took Maths, Further Maths, Physics and English Literature, and I was better prepared for most courses I could do at uni than someone doing Psychology, Sociology, and Computer Science. Change my Physics to Chem or Bio and I would be better qualified to study any of those subjects at university than someone taking those A levels.

It's not that I think Psychology, Law and Computer Science are easy. They aren't. Heck, I reckon they're all more difficult than Geography. However, none of them are sufficiently general enough to "facilitate" adequate development in a student who wishes to study at the highest levels. They're good as a 3rd or 4th A level for someone looking to study at a competitive institution. But not as a sparring subject to lead an application.

The facilitating subject argument has been going on for years and the Russell Group was withdrawing it. Most RG universities dont follow it. What the RG has attempted to do has been to cover ALL their universities entrance advice. The fact LSE and UCL are giving different advice speaks for itself. The only university's who actually follow this is Oxbridge. Your last paragraph simply isnt true and is disputed by 2 of the UKs top universities. It would be far better to follow the advice given by a university than following the former RG advice

Reply 9

username4878112

11

Original post by lhabgabdgbfa

a levels re better than btec ( unless its a subject that can only be offered at btec)

I know that?? I said they're not the same thing, hence "A-levels, excluding BTECs" doesn't make sense

Reply 10

Original post by swanseajack1

The facilitating subject argument has been going on for years and the Russell Group was withdrawing it. Most RG universities dont follow it. What the RG has attempted to do has been to cover ALL their universities entrance advice. The fact LSE and UCL are giving different advice speaks for itself. The only university's who actually follow this is Oxbridge. Your last paragraph simply isnt true and is disputed by 2 of the UKs top universities. It would be far better to follow the advice given by a university than following the former RG advice

I'm not really arguing on a application note, although I did throw that in. If it wasn't entirely factual, I do apologise. I'm no longer in the admissions game. I'm curious to see the advice from LSE and UCL! I love to keep on top of pedagogical changes.

I do wonder if the removal of the facilitating banner is more to do with the misunderstanding than what I was saying however. They've come to stand for elitism, which is not what I argue.

I truly believe in what I said. Not because the RG thinks it. I think that it is important to keep one's educational pathways as general as possible for as long as practical. In my eyes, it is still advantageous to take History over Law, Literature over Creative Writing, Physics over Engineering. Not because of any inbuilt superiority, but because I consider all the former subjects to be far more general than their latter, I consider the added flexibility to be better than the narrowed pathway (in case one changes their mind,) I consider wider subjects like the former to simply be a better preparation than the latter. There is a reason why most universities don't require law for a law degree, or engineering for an engineering degree. I believe facilitating subjects to be advantageous because you LEARN better. You gain a rich background.

That is why I think the latter subjects serve well as support. To deepen ones understanding of a subject, in increase love of it. I'm not saying that if you want to do law, you shouldn't study law, or if you want to be a writer, you shouldn't study creative writing. I'm saying that if you want to be a lawyer, you should have an elementary understand the history of our country to support your knowledge of the law, if you want to be an engineer, you should have an elementary understanding the physical significance of the formulas you use.

I argue from a point of better education, not of elitism. Now if that's wrong, and the RG is suddenly preferring Law, Psychology, Engineering and Politics A levels, please tell me.

Reply 11

Original post by killua.

I know that?? I said they're not the same thing, hence "A-levels, excluding BTECs" doesn't make sense

Original post by 5hyl33n

Yeah I know but some people still think A-Levels are the same as BTECs.
This is why they make it clear on university websites that they sometimes won’t allow BTECs.

He's saying that BTECs aren't A levels. They are both Level 3 qualifications, but not both A levels.

Reply 12

Original post by vicvic38

I'm not really arguing on a application note, although I did throw that in. If it wasn't entirely factual, I do apologise. I'm no longer in the admissions game. I'm curious to see the advice from LSE and UCL! I love to keep on top of pedagogical changes.

I do wonder if the removal of the facilitating banner is more to do with the misunderstanding than what I was saying however. They've come to stand for elitism, which is not what I argue.

I truly believe in what I said. Not because the RG thinks it. I think that it is important to keep one's educational pathways as general as possible for as long as practical. In my eyes, it is still advantageous to take History over Law, Literature over Creative Writing, Physics over Engineering. Not because of any inbuilt superiority, but because I consider all the former subjects to be far more general than their latter, I consider the added flexibility to be better than the narrowed pathway (in case one changes their mind,) I consider wider subjects like the former to simply be a better preparation than the latter. There is a reason why most universities don't require law for a law degree, or engineering for an engineering degree. I believe facilitating subjects to be advantageous because you LEARN better. You gain a rich background.

That is why I think the latter subjects serve well as support. To deepen ones understanding of a subject, in increase love of it. I'm not saying that if you want to do law, you shouldn't study law, or if you want to be a writer, you shouldn't study creative writing. I'm saying that if you want to be a lawyer, you should have an elementary understand the history of our country to support your knowledge of the law, if you want to be an engineer, you should have an elementary understanding the physical significance of the formulas you use.

I argue from a point of better education, not of elitism. Now if that's wrong, and the RG is suddenly preferring Law, Psychology, Engineering and Politics A levels, please tell me.

Whatever your personal view is nearly all universities do not discriminate between someone taking Law, Psychology and Politics and English, History and a language. That is what LSE and UCL are saying as do other RG universities. The LSE preferred subject list is far narrower than most. They are saying if you take these subjects they are preferred so you will not be at a disadvantage. The traditional facilitating subject argument used by RG has never been supported by most universities. What they want is academic subjects and subjects like Sports or Media tend to be accepted as a 3rd subject but they ones on the preferred list are just that. If you think that isnt the case then take it up with the university themselves

Reply 13

Original post by swanseajack1

Whatever your personal view is nearly all universities do not discriminate between someone taking Law, Psychology and Politics and English, History and a language. That is what LSE and UCL are saying as do other RG universities. The LSE preferred subject list is far narrower than most. They are saying if you take these subjects they are preferred so you will not be at a disadvantage. The traditional facilitating subject argument used by RG has never been supported by most universities. What they want is academic subjects and subjects like Sports or Media tend to be accepted as a 3rd subject but they ones on the preferred list are just that. If you think that isnt the case then take it up with the university themselves

As I said, I'm not really interested in how subjects directly affect university admissions. I still think that a student doing Lit, History and a language would be far better prepared than someone doing Law, Psychology and Politics. The universities don't discriminate insofar as they don't automatically reject applicants for the latter set, and if a candidate is promising, they will take them regardless of subjects. I think a student taking the former set is desirable because they are a more well rounded student.

I still think the background knowledge afforded by the traditional pathway you've given here would equal a far more rewarding study of Law or Politics, or any area where that combination of A Levels would be useful. I also think that someone studying Lit, history and a Language have a wider scope for the university courses they could consider. I don't think really about getting in, but about the journey of education.

I'm curious as to why you keep pulling the conversation back to admissions, when I am clearly talking about a deeper and bigger concept. From the way you're talking I reckon you probably haven't hit university yet, and you consider education a means to an end, rather than an enriching experience? I don't fault you. GCSEs and A levels are set up that way.

Reply 14

Original post by vicvic38

if a candidate is promising, they will take them regardless of subjects.

What utter nonsense.

Reply 15

Original post by returnmigrant

What utter nonsense.

^{Listen I don't believe it either, but I'm just trying to placate the kid.}

Reply 16

Original post by vicvic38

As I said, I'm not really interested in how subjects directly affect university admissions. I still think that a student doing Lit, History and a language would be far better prepared than someone doing Law, Psychology and Politics. The universities don't discriminate insofar as they don't automatically reject applicants for the latter set, and if a candidate is promising, they will take them regardless of subjects. I think a student taking the former set is desirable because they are a more well rounded student.

I still think the background knowledge afforded by the traditional pathway you've given here would equal a far more rewarding study of Law or Politics, or any area where that combination of A Levels would be useful. I also think that someone studying Lit, history and a Language have a wider scope for the university courses they could consider. I don't think really about getting in, but about the journey of education.

I'm curious as to why you keep pulling the conversation back to admissions, when I am clearly talking about a deeper and bigger concept. From the way you're talking I reckon you probably haven't hit university yet, and you consider education a means to an end, rather than an enriching experience? I don't fault you. GCSEs and A levels are set up that way.

The bottom line is that experienced admissions tutors are making decisions and do not support your view. You are entitled to your view but it is not supported by the universities themselves.

Reply 17

Original post by swanseajack1

The bottom line is that experienced admissions tutors are making decisions and do not support your view. You are entitled to your view but it is not supported by the universities themselves.

This.

(and vicvic38 is talking total nonsense)

Reply 18

goodgirl05

4

As someone who has gone through the education system gcse a levels and has just graduated this summer from university. The best advice I could give you is as long as its not general studies it doesnt matter what a levels you do. Pick the a levels that you will perform best in, unless you want to study a degree in uni that REQUIRES certain a levels (e.g medicine requires biology and chemistry at most universities). All unis care about is taking on students that can work hard and produce good results. If do art, music, english and get 3A* its alot better than doing Maths, F.maths, physics and getting 3Cs. dont risk it unless your 100% sure you'll get good grades A*s.

Alot of grad schemes and summer internships look at a level grade alongside if not more than uni grades to wager which students are excellent. they dont care what subject it is, again they want talent that can work hard and produce good results. Every subject is useful in its own way, and gives unique skills recognisable in the working world. (e.g History = good research skills and report writing, Maths = analytical thinkers, Languages = paying attention to detail).
A levels is the last exams that all students in the country are on the same level playing field fundamentally, at uni its harder to fairly assess people because e.g Economics at cambridge might be more rigourous than econ at uni xyz therefore a 1st class from both uni may not equate.
They dont see it as she got a c in physics but the fact she did physics must mean shes smart to some level. No, the degree that dont need physics will see it as she doesnt peform to high standards. A the degree that requires it will say the grade is too low your understanding isnt good enough and wont accept you. so its lose lose. This is the mistake so many people make and end up retaking.

As for Btechs, unis and employers etc DONT CARE!!! They only care about ucas points!!! I know people reading at Durham, UCL, Nottingham that did Btechs.

Dont misunderstand me though, if you plan to study hisory as a degree its good to study it at level so you can get your brain into the swing of it and gage if its for you, like wise with engineering degree = physics and maths a level, but its not compulsory unless stated by the uni. You just need to display passion for it.and maybe what you plan to do with it in the future.
If in doubt call the university and ask.

Reply 19