The truth about those "soft" A levels

Of all the posts that have been written for School Gate, one sticks out in my mind for the passion of the comments, and the "popularity" of the topic. It was on so-called "Soft" A level subjects, and how two universities in particular had drawn up a list of subjects which they considered to be in this category.

The reaction was unexpected, not just in comments posted, but in emails to me. Many of those studying were incensed at the suggestion that their choice of A level subjects was not seen as "good enough" for some universities. Meanwhile a number of teachers contacted me to say that this was a topic which particularly infuriated them. Some feel strongly that the government is failing students, particularly those in the state sector who are more likely to take these subjects, by suggesting that all A level subjects are seen as equal. When it comes to university offers, they say, it's clear this is not the case.

"State School Year 11 Pupils don't do 'research' into courses prior to A level selection and they are convinced by a number of misinformed teachers that they all have the same value," one teacher told me. "The government is doing the same, but it means they are flying in the face of the evidence from pupils, universities and employers. The approach is causing damage to the future success of comprehensive school pupils to the advantage of the non-state sector."

Another teacher, who is responsible for A level law, is also upset by the situation, and doesn't understand why his subject is not rated more highly.

And today it seems that these fears have more than a fair bit of truth to them. As Alexandra Frean reports, it appears that top universities value some subjects more than others.

David Willetts has said that this A level divide is a barrier to social mobility, and the teachers I've spoken to agree.  The Department for Children, Families and Schools think differently, however. A spokesman told me this morning that they don't "recognise" a distinction between soft or hard A levels and that all A levels require rigorous work. I was also told that it's for universities to decide their own admission policies - and that perhaps they should be more transparent about this. I agree with that, but also think that the DCFS must take some responsibility, and that teachers should keep their pupils better informed. Otherwise choices will be made, and it will be too late.

Read School Gate on:

Which A levels are too soft to take?

Are the diplomas already a failure?

Are you a novel or a poem? Oxbridge interview questions - and answers...

Why do so many of our bright teenagers drop out of education?

  _____

Comments

[Frances]

So, in saying that Drama/Theatre Studies is a "soft" subject the possibility of looking at drama such as Shakespeare in the way in which it was intended is removed. This is frankly ridiculous. When all of these plays which are considered to be the creme de la creme of literature are only seen as a text and not in the way they were intended to be seen.

[LGG]

All subjects have transferable skills; if you supplement a science A level with an IT A level,or an economics A level with a business studies A level it will put you in good stead to study the more academic subject at university. It's too simplistic to say these are good subjects for university, these are bad subjects for university, there will inevitably be more factors involved. I've been accepted by Oxford and I have an A level in Drama, by the way.

[Nick]

My predictions:
A English literature- fun
A Economics- interesting
B Drama and Theatre studies- fun, hard!
B Media Studies- hard, dull!
Ok? Can we move on now?

[Martin]

It's total nonsense to suggest that the "A level divide" is a barrier to social mobility. The "hard" subjects are open to everyone and there is no law to prevent anyone studying for any subject they wish.

[vanessa]

I finished college in June, in my first year I took as-levels in, Law, Psychology, Biology and Chemistry. For me psychology was the hardest course and the one which revealed my lowest grade. In my second year I changed subjects to Biology, English Lit and Geography. Looking back at my entire college experience Psychology was the hardest subject I undertook. But that is because we aren't all the same at everything, alot of my friends doing A-levels in art would struggle with Biology, but I would definately fail an Art A-level.
My friend Tom got 100% in his further maths A-level and got an E in media studies, sense shows this doesn't mean further maths is a soft subject and neither is media studies.
You will find the majority of people claiming certain A-levels to be soft, would probably fail them, themselves.

[Jessica]

At school I took A-levels in Latin, Biology, Chemistry and English Literature, why because they interested me and I needed them for my course at University.
An A-level is only soft where someones intelligence is concerned, too my an A-level couldn't be easier than Chemistry, yet most people find this subject hard, give me and art project to do and I'll probably fail. Normally those claiming certain subjects are soft, would fail them themselves.

[Jenny]

I am 17 and have just finished my first term of A levels, and already do notice the different leveles of work with different subjects. I take Maths, French, Further Maths and Economics, so none of them considered soft subjects, but I still seem to get an awful lot less work with economics than any of the other three,and the class seems to move at a much slower pace, which has got to say something. And speaking to my friends the case seems to be true with others as well. So I must agree that some subjects are 'soft' but it is not to do with the course subject, as obviously, economics can be just as hard a subject as maths, but the course syllabus, as it is that whcih is much easier for one than the other. Examiners need to make all of their subjects similar standads of learning to reduce the 'soft subject' stigma.

Also, I can see universities points about some of these subjects just because they are not typical 'academic subjects' which is why they are not wanted by Cambridge rather than teh softness. I mean, photography might be very gruelling, but it won't help you much studying maths, will it?

[Kieran]

I agree, the IB is easily the best system I know of, they test you no matter how good or bad you are. Very few people get the full points. It also teaches maths to a higher level. Leaving everyone's maths knowedge at GCSE is asking for trouble.

[Shrivan]

Soft subjects do not engage the student in any form of thinking.Accounting, business studies, art and design, computer studies, media etc etc are all soft subjects and cannot even be classified as being academic subjects.

On the other hand, literature, economics, natural sciences, history and the likes are challenging subjects and a student having read these is better prepared to do well at university.these are subjects which have a much broader scope and which do not lead to narrow thinking..

[Lisa]

It seems crazy that at the age of sixteen we are forced to decide what we want to do for the rest of our lives and to choose three subjects from among many for that purpose. Something like the Internation Baccalaureat keeps learning and skills broad, so that you can make such decisions when you are ready and well-informed.

[Sophie]

I agree with Matt on one thing - drama is the hardest subject I've ever studied! It's intensely academic half of the time, and the rest is not just creative on a low budget and within a small timeframe, you also have to do all of your work within a group, which often isn't of your own choosing! I'm very relieved now that I was hounded off my drama course after my AS level exam; I was able to dedicate the extra time to my more 'traditional' subjects and go on to university.

[Philip Dodd]

There is the same old snobbery from graudates of certain subjects towards so-called softer subjects. In my day it was the Sociology A Level students that were branded as softer than tissues, while the Art A Level students were let off for their perceived idiot minds for at least being creative. Today it's Media Studies and General Studies that are beaten down by aspirational middle class twits.

My A levels were Maths, Biology and Chemistry and that's largely irrelevant, because the purpose of education at that level is to teach to you how to learn. I still read about those subjects in books and what I've learnt since then far exceeds the pittance of information acquired at the time.

With my degree and masters degree again the subject wasn't that important as it more to do with teaching my mind to think in different ways, and later performing research for my own dissertations. Again I still read about the subjects and again the information I've acquired since graduation far exeeds the amount of knowledge acquired during the course.

There is a dangerous burden placed upon 16 year olds that there choices are for life, set in stone, and will gravely affect your future. This is complete rubbish. Not only does it frighten too many students into thinking that redbrick universities are the best (they are not) or even that university is for them (it's for very few people) but worse that once your enrol at university is somehow unalterable and beyond your control.

The most interesting people I know and have ever known are the ones who could never answer that awful staple question of post university interviews: where do you see yourself in five years time? A look also at the people who have innovated in business or changed views are the ones who saw no boundaries for themselves and moved freely beyond the expectations of others. This attitude is one that children have never got at school and still not getting.

Education is still geared towards thinking that the more qualifications you have and the higher level they are and in "the right subjects" the better person you are. Cobblers. Horses for courses is what it boils down to and I agree with other posts about providing excellent careers advice would be better than hearding the population towards further and higher education whether they want it or not.

[Helen]

I refuse to believe that my 2As and a B in German, Russian and French at A Level are equivalent to the same grades in (for example) Media Studies, General Studies and Critical Thinking. Fine, all A levels do require work, however, our government risks turning us all into ignorant, ill-educated 'graduates'. They want everyone to go to university, and refuse to acknowledge that university is NOT for everyone. A university is an academic institution and as such, should offer academic courses and require academic subjects for entry. If you are not an academic then don't go to uni, go to a college and get a vocational qualification that will help you get a job. Our government needs to stop giving off the opinion that only a university education is useful and start showing young people that a vocational qualification or apprenticeship can also be useful, if it is what you are good at.
Most Russell group universities will not seriously accept soft A levels, and people who get their degrees from universities that will accept these A levels, may sadly, have wasted 3 years of their precious time and money, on a degree that will not get them a job that is any better than the one they would have got without the degree.
School teachers are mostly ill informed about university choices, admissions procedures and career choices. The government extols the virtues of university, yet this is not for everyone, we need to stop denigrating vocational education, but must equally not try and say that it is the same as academic education. Vocational education and apprenticeships should be given their own weight, importance and place, which is distinct from, and yet just as valid as academic, university education.

[Sara]

Of course A levels vary. You can't tell me that my As in Latin and Ancient Greek are worth the same as Business Studies. Of course then the problem is that I only got those A levels because my school taught them, State schools waste their time with soft A levels which are no good to anyone, they should start teaching Latin again.

[Matt]

I am currently working through my A2 courses at a state funded college. This year, I have opted for Philosophy, Law and History - 3 highly academic subjects that require lots of background reading and essay writing - I have never been good at art or Maths, my non academic output comes from owning and riding horses, something that stops me being totally about the books - I am also completing an AQA Extended Project (very basically a very mini dissertation [5000 words]) on the question "Is the Bank of England safe?" which looks at various moral, legal and economic issues surrounding the current credit crisis; all self-set and researched. On top of this, I am also running a Mock Barristers Trial at my college. This gives you a view of how broad my academic life is.

Now, as to my future career, I have applied to 5 universities to study the Law (LLB M100/1) course, and thankfully, all of my subjects put me in a good position to get a placement, as well as a good start at developing the skills I will need at university - research, cohesive and structured writing as well as debate skills.

While I am not trying to be overly verbose on how wonderful I am (before anyone flames me, its sarcasm and almost self-deprecating), I feel that before having a good rant about A levels, a bit of background is needed so I don’t appear uninformed. I am informed, I am living it.

Given my time again, I would not have gone to the college I am at. It is underfunded and their are too many students. The pastoral support (or lack of it) for anyone who is an intelligent, high achiever is basically non-existent, something which I feel very underdone by – even now, even after much nagging on my part, I am still waiting for my UCAS application to be approved by the college (I had it checked by 3 members of staff before it being officially submitted), after a week and half of pestering.

I was allowed to take 5 AS-Levels, to the detriment of my grades last year (BBBCC), which effectively scuppered any chance of an Oxbridge application. From a more mature position this year, I proactively took only 3 courses, and changed a course 4 weeks in when I wasn’t doing well. I am now getting straight A grades.

To be frank, with the effort I put into my academic subjects, I am glad that universities make distinctions between Law and Home Economics, History and Film Studies, Philosophy and Critical Thinking. I am not however, in favour of Drama being tarred with the same brush – the amount of work that has to be put in; hard work – both academic and practical – merits more recognition than I think it currently gets. Given this, I would not award the same amount of UCAS points for grades in these subjects – I could be getting off-the-chart marks in appropriately name ‘doss’ subjects for half the work I put in now, I would just be unable to pursue any kind of academic life afterwards. These subjects are soft, and an awful lot easier than anything I have undertaken. I am lucky insofar as I have some idea of what I want to do and how to get there, whereas those offered ‘careers’ advice, are poorly advised. If someone is not academic – why not recommend some form of apprenticeship? Why try and squeeze people through a sausage-system where one size doesn’t quite fit anyone? On top of this – people who turn up to lessons under the influence of drugs or alcohol should be barred (and reported to the police), as I fail to see why MY education should be impacted by this (My vocal rant is more colourful), and the fact that it is disgusts me, the fact that it is tolerated horrifies me and the fact I can do nothing about it worries me.

[Alex Brassey]

I teach both traditional "A levels", Economics and Philosophy and non-traditional A levels "Business Studies" and "Applied Business Studies" at a comprehensive school in London.

A levels must be looked at in so far as they help students achieve a particular goal. If that goal is to get to Art school or Drama school then choosing those sorts of subjects for A level is fine.

If however the objective of the student is to go to a Russell Group (Oxbridge/Redbrick) they need to be made aware that these subjects will lead them down the road of rejection.

In terms of how difficult the different subjects are - speaking from experience - working out how to assess rationalist foundationalism (Philosophy) or analysing the Expectations Augmented Philips Curve (Economics) is not the same as stating how supermarkets make their revenue (Applied Business Studies) or looking at advertising (Business Studies).

The problem is that pupils who do not have the benefit of ex-University graduates to discuss their future with at home, and who are condemned to pathetic careers advice (which is the norm in Secondary state comprehensives - with a few notable exeptions) often make poor choices. They are guided by DCSF advice that all A levels are equal (which is obviously false).

I am unsure why Ed Balls and Jim Knight are prepared to continue making this claim. They are both ex-Oxbridge. They are not daft - they know that this advice will lead directly to ill-advised pupils being rejected from the Universities they have benefitted from. The question is - why are they prepared to make these sorts of statements?

They should take some responsibility and recognise that their advice is actually taken seriously by poorer state school pupils - who during February and March realise that their Art or Media Studies A level wasn't quite what Manchester Law School or Medical School at Liverpool were after.

These Ministers are playing games with the lives of the constituent population they are supposed to represent. They should be ashamed of themselves.

[Oliver Latham]

Looking at which subject has a higher proportion of 'A' grades gives no indication of true difficulty. The reason is a phenomenon called selection bias.

Put simply only bright students take further maths whereas an array of not so bright and downright moronic students take Business studies et-al.

Not surprisingly a vastly higher proportion of further maths students get A's, but only a fool would suggest that further maths is the easier course.

[Sarah]

It simply isn't true that all state schools don't have this information and that they don't advise students on what A-levels to take. I took A-levels at a state sixth form college (there are no school sixth forms in my area) in 1994. I was advised by the tutors before enrolling that 'good' universities (ie Oxbridge and the redbricks) wouldn't look favourably on certain subjects eg industrial studies, classical studies, theatre studies, design, home ec, human biology, english language. I don't think I would have taken any of these subjects anyway but it was useful advice. If students stick to the 'traditional' subjects then they shouldn't have a problem.

I am now a qualified solicitor and my heart sinks when I have A-level students on work experience who are aiming for Oxbridge law degrees (or even Birmingham law degrees) who are doing 3 A-levels such as business studies, critical thinking and drama. They really have no chance at all and someone should have told them before they chose their A-levels. How are they going to demonstrate to an admissions tutor or a future employer that they are as bright as someone with the same grades who took physics, history or economics?

[Glen Thomas]

Lawteacher's right - when there are differing opinions, then the only way to go is to the data. The CEM Centre at Durham Uni runs the ALICE system for judging the value-added of student progress, and implicit in that is the differing grade-awarding habits for each subject.

Hard subjects (phys, chem, maths, MFL) typically award 2 grades lower than soft ones (photography, media studies etc), with many of the traditional humanities somewhere in the middle.

Students generally know which subjects will be the most difficult to get high grades in, but they do not believe that Unis take this into account.

I had one bright student telling me that he was thinking of dropping Physics (expecting a grade B) in favour of Religious Studies (guaranteed grade A) as he thought it would look better on the application forms.

There is some honest advice missing there.

[Lawteacher]

Great article Sarah.

Research doesn't always bear concerns about "soft" A levels out. English, cited above by one poster as harder than "soft" A levels, is in fact easier than A level law and the (oft-derided) psychology, looking at the data. A case of assuming that traditional = better, perhaps?

The evidence from Durham University is here: http://tinyurl.com/64eyth

Oh, and anyone who thinks Law is a "soft" A Level should have a look at the A2 Law of Contract Special Study Paper! Conceptual, nuanced, and challenging! Proper essays and problem solving too...

[L Porter]

If Art & Design is a "soft" subject that universities are not willing to accept, then what on earth does one do if one wants to study Art & Design (or a related subject) at University?

[Sally Marshall]

As an employer I throw any CVs from people who have taken 'soft' A levels or degree subjects. I want people who can think, who are not afraid of challenging themselves and are not lazy, and anyone who deliberately chooses 'soft' subjects is liable not to fit my requirements.

[j]

Its not having one "soft" subject out of four that matters, its when you dont take the core subjects that the Uni people need for the course that you want.

If you really want to go somewhere specific and do a specific degree, I dont think it is asking too much that you would go online and read what it says on the admissions guide about the subjects to do at A level.

The problem comes when people dont think that far ahead aged 16. Thats what schools need to do. They dont need any insider knowledge, just a willingness to devote ten minute of IT lessons to doing it.

But I am sorry, the pass rate and A/B/C rate of some subjects is much higher than of others. Schools that need to look good in league tables have no interest in letting kids pick physics and maths for A level if they can all get Bs in media studies.

[jim]

The reason some subjects are seen as soft is not due to less man-hours needed to be put in but in their actual difficulty, and the work put in leading up to them. A maths or english A level is for instance the culmination of work on these subjects built year on year since the start of numeracy and literacy training at the beginning of primary school. A business or socialogy A level can be gained within a few years from scratch. From that view point I don't think it's too hard to work out those subjects viewed as soft and those not.

[NB]

Surely we're missing the point here, "all A levels require rigorous work" - fine but not all A levels are relevant to all degrees. If you wish to study English Lit at University, its hardly unreasonable to expect that one of your A levels be English, similarly an engineering degree could be expected to look more favourably on a candidate with a good Maths A level than one with Home Economics, it doesn't make the subject 'soft', simply irrelevant to the intended course of study.