Subjects, schools and gender – what the latest A-level data shows
Business studies and physics are booming, while entries for French and German have sunk to a record low, this year's A-level results show.
There is also evidence that the gap in performance between private and state schools is narrowing, but there remains a sharp gender imbalance among key subjects.
Here the PA news agency takes a look at some of the long-term trends in the latest exam data.
– Most popular subjects: What's up and what's down?
While there was no change this year in the top choices for A-levels, with maths, psychology, biology and chemistry once again occupying the first four spots, there were big changes further down the chart.
Business studies appears in the top five for the first time, up from sixth place in 2024.
The subject has gained steadily in popularity in recent years, rising from 13th in the rankings in 2015 to 10th in 2020, eighth in 2022, then climbing one place in each successive year.
Last year's fifth most popular subject, history, has dropped to seventh place, while physics has leaped from ninth to sixth.
It is the first time since at least 2000 – the earliest available archive data – that no arts or humanities subjects have appeared in the top five.
As in previous years, the top subject choices vary by gender.
For boys, the most popular A-levels this year were maths, physics, economics, chemistry and business studies; for girls, it was psychology, biology, maths, chemistry and sociology.
– French resumes its decline
The number of French A-level entries has resumed its long-term decline, more than reversing last year's unexpected rise and suggesting the long-term future of the subject is grim.
There were 6,858 entries in 2025, down from 7,544 in 2024 and the lowest figure since current data began.
Entries have fallen 34% in the past 10 years and 53% in the last two decades.
German has also resumed its descent after a small increase in 2024, with just 2,224 entries this year, down year on year from 2,431 and another new low.
Entries for German have dropped 45% in the past decade and 62% since 2005.
The one piece of positive news for the 'big three' foreign languages is a slight rise in entries for Spanish, with 8,325 in 2025, up from 8,238 in 2024, though below the recent peak of 9,139 in 2021.
Among the smaller modern languages, the most popular were Chinese (1,624 entries, down from 1,643 in 2024) and Russian (1,118, up from 1,044).
– State v private gap narrows
The gap between the proportion of A-level entries at private schools receiving top grades and those at state schools has narrowed slightly.
Some 48.5% of entries at independent schools – including city training colleges – were awarded A or A* this year, compared with 25.4% of entries at state-funded schools – a gap of 23.1 percentage points.
This is down from 23.9 points last year, when the figures were 48.6% for independent schools and 24.7% for state schools.
But it is larger than in the pre-pandemic year of 2019, when the gap stood at 21.3 points (43.9% for independent schools, 22.6% for state schools).
During the pandemic the gap widened considerably, peaking at 30.0 points in 2021.
– Gender imbalance persists
Computing recorded the biggest gender imbalance towards males for the sixth year in a row, with boys making up 81% of entries and girls 19% – a slight narrowing on last year, when the figures were 83% and 17%.
Physics (76% boys, 24% girls), accounting (73% and 27%) and further maths (also 73% and 27%) were the other subjects skewed most heavily towards males.
The biggest imbalance towards females was in the subject of health and social care, as has been the case each year since 2021.
In the double award for this subject, girls made up 96% of entries and boys just 4%, while in the single award the figures were 89% and 11%.
Performing/expressive arts (92% girls, 8% boys) and English literature (80% girls, 20% boys) were other subjects with predominantly female entries.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Medscape
an hour ago
- Medscape
ATOMIC Backs Atezolizumab+FOLFOX in dMMR Colon Cancer
This transcript has been edited for clarity. Hello. I'm David Kerr, professor of cancer medicine at University of Oxford. I'd like to talk about the ATOMIC trial that was presented recently at ASCO by a good pal of mine, Frank Sinicrope, from the Mayo Clinic. We don't often talk about the latest ASCO results on these Medscape videos, just because we get so much information. Those of us who are ASCO/ESMO members get bombarded — I think, appropriately — from these fantastic societies. I thought this was worthwhile given the fact that it's potentially practice changing. The ATOMIC study was of standard adjuvant chemotherapy for [patients with] stage III colon cancer, who had deficient mismatch repair/microsatellite unstable or MSI high tumors — those which we know are responsive to immunotherapy in the advanced setting. They were randomized to either chemotherapy alone for 6 months, 12 cycles of FOLFOX infusion (5-FU oxaliplatin chemotherapy), or the same chemotherapy plus the PD-L1 inhibitor atezolizumab. The atezolizumab was given in combination with FOLFOX for the first 6 months and then continued as monotherapy for a further 6 months. It's an NCI-sponsored trial from a fantastic collaborative group, and they managed to randomize 712 patients over 6 years. The trial started in 2017, and the last patient was recruited early in 2023. During that period of time, practices changed somewhat. We tend, by and large, to give 3 months rather than 6 months of adjuvant chemotherapy. The trial was of its time, though, and it was well designed. Disease-free survival was a primary outcome. They demonstrated that, in the atezolizumab arm, the disease-free survival was 86.4% compared with 76.6% in the FOLFOX arm, showing a very high P value and a very decent hazard ratio, as one would expect. Frank and colleagues concluded that, given the advantages accrued by the addition of atezolizumab to FOLFOX, in terms of disease-free survival, this should be considered a new adjuvant standard of care for patients with mismatch repair-deficient colon cancer. Yes, but no. Yes, but as I said, we tend to give 3 rather than 6 months adjuvant chemotherapy. Do we need to give chemotherapy for that long? We would argue probably not. What about atezolizumab on its own? Could that be as effective as in combination with chemotherapy? One wonders. For atezolizumab, should it be 12 months or 6 months or 24 months? There's something very interesting about the duration of exposure to atezolizumab, and of course, we'd have to look at the cost effectiveness of how we do that. Well done, Frank and team, and to the ATOMIC study group. These are very provocative data and a highly significant finding in terms of disease-free survival. Let's see what happens with more follow-up on overall survival, that will be an important additional set of secondary endpoints. There are still a number of important questions to ask in terms of toxicity of the combination, duration of therapy, and possibly financial toxicity given the cost of an immune checkpoint inhibitor. This was an important study and possibly a landmark in terms of how we treat this. It's relatively rare. Remember, only about 10% of our colon cancers will be mismatch repair deficient. It was a good trial and well run. I'd be really interested in your comments. Am I being too hard? Or should we just accept this as a new gold standard? Thanks for listening, Medscapers. For the time being, over and out. Thank you.
CBS News
an hour ago
- CBS News
Former University of Michigan president picked for education role in United Kingdom
Former University of Michigan president Santa Ono has found a new role at the Ellison Institute of Technology's Oxford campus in the United Kingdom. The Ellison Institute of Technology announced Monday that Ono will be its new global president, working with others to develop and expand the school's science programs. The school focuses on topics such as health, medical science, sustainable agriculture, clean energy and artificial intelligence. "I look forward to collaborating with EIT's leadership teams worldwide to advance Larry Ellison's bold vision," Ono said in his statement. "I believe this innovative approach represents the most exciting investment in fundamental and applied research globally, and I am thrilled to be part of this collective effort to create solutions to humanity's most pressing challenges." Ono was named president of the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor in July 2022. At the time, he planned to stay for five years. This appointment came after the university's removal of former President Mark Schlissel, with Mary Sue Coleman serving as interim president. His career path took a twist when he announced his intention in May 2025 to become the president at the University of Florida. He was the sole finalist and earned approval from the school's board of trustees, pending approval from the Florida Board of Governors. That's when the bid stalled out. Ono's proposed contract included a number of stipulations and requirements, and some prominent conservatives raised questions about pro-Palestinian protests, climate change efforts and programs that focused on diversity, equity and inclusion at his former workplaces. The Florida Board of Governors then rejected his pending hire. The University of Michigan in the meantime said Ono would not be on its faculty and has begun the search process for its next president. Before taking the Michigan job, Ono was president and vice chancellor of University of British Columbia. He also had served as president at University of Cincinnati. His work in academic leadership spun out of his previous work in biomedical research and immunology. The above video originally aired June 20, 2025.
Medscape
2 hours ago
- Medscape
Reclaiming Innovation in Patient-Centered Care
Medscape 2050: The Future of Medicine Summary: In this wide-ranging, deeply thoughtful commentary, Professor Christina Pagel, professor of operational research at University College London, underscores why data and AI, while transformative, are not silver bullets for modern healthcare challenges. Drawing from decades of experience working directly with clinicians, Pagel illustrates how collaborative, multidisciplinary environments drive more meaningful innovation than technology alone. She cautions against overreliance on AI, noting its limitations in upstream determinants of health and long-term outcomes. Instead, Pagel champions a model of medicine that prioritizes well-being, long-term survival, and access to care — especially for populations often ignored by traditional metrics and research, such as women with chronic menstrual pain. From clean water access to systemic underinvestment in "unsexy" conditions, Pagel's insights invite a critical rethinking of how medicine should evolve: not by replacing human judgment with algorithms, but by strengthening the diverse human networks that define healthcare's most effective interventions. Key Takeaways:
