Can anyone explain to me why the ALCM (Performance) which is accredited at Level Five by the NQF is NOT an acceptable pre-requisite for the LRSM (also level 5) though the DipABRSM (accredited at Level 4) is.

The AB does accept the ALCM as a pre-requisite for the DipABRSM!

[Analogy: On the face of it is as though a University would accept its own B.Sc or B.A. as qualification to study for a Masters or Doctorate, but with a Bachelor's degree from elsewhere all it would earn you would be a shot at their own Bachelor's degree!]

Has the NQF just got it wrong? Or is the AB trying to create the impression that its qualifications are of a higher standard than in fact they are (and superior to other awarding bodies)?

Just curious?

Great point. However, I had understood that all the Licentiates (LRSM, LTCL/LGSM,LLCM) are now accredited as level 6 qualifications - correct me if I'm wrong!
But I entirely agree that the ALCM (Level 5) should be accepted as a prerequisite for LRSM; after all, there is nothing in the LRSM requirements which would come as a 'surprise' to an ALCM candidate; as I understand it, the ALCM includes performance, technichal work, viva, aurals, sight-reading and programme notes.
I think it would be very difficult for the A.B. to justify not accepting the ALCM as a prerequisite for LRSM now. (not to mention the level 4 qualifications from the other boards! - but that's another debate!)

I think I'm right in saying that the ALCM is an accepted prerequisite for the DipABRSM if you haven't got an AB Grade 8.

The LLCM/LTCL is accepted instead of DipABRSM to take the LRSM
and an FLCM/FTCL etc is accepted instead of an LRSM to take the FRSM

Why would anyone want to take another diploma at the same level anyway?

My reason is simple. I'd prefer to take the LRSM rather than the LLCM because it is more widely recognized. The line of least resistance is to first acquire a DipABRSM. Which will also be good practice after 27 piano-exam-free years.


But what is your reason? Or do you think the DipABRSM and ALCM are on different levels?

According to recent accreditation, the ALCM is one level higher than a DipAbrsm.

ALCM has a three hour theory paper, as well as the practical aspect (I am talking about performance here) so that is somewhat different to DipABRSM.

I was simply making a general comment referring to the AB's policy of expecting same-level diplomas as prerequisites

My ALCM is in performing and the DipABRSM is in teaching. I am currently in the process of deciding which L dip to go for in teaching. If I wanted to go for another performing dip one day I would have to go for another Associate before tackling a Licientiate simply because it is 20 years ago and I don't think I would ever be good enough to go higher - but I wouldn't want to spend the money on a same level, same subject diploma. I would rather try something a little different - perhaps something in the duet line, accompanying
or maybe the AMusTCL.

Sorry, I was talking about the new ALCM syllabus in performance which has been accredited at NQF level 5.
(ie. no theory paper as I understand it)

Ahhh. Now I see your point. (Either I was being obtuse, or you were being too subtle).

It is not just the DipABRSM. Whichever AB diploma you want to do, if you are coming from another board then they want to see that you already have a Diploma at the same level!

My ALCM exam had the theory paper in 1987 plus all the scales, sight-reading, aural and pieces. I wouldn't expect the old ALCM to have the NQF level as the new content and structure of the exam would have been assessed by the QCA for acceptance, and of course you can't change the certificate. Maybe this is the problem for the AB - it wouldn't be fair to accept an recent ALCM and turn down someone's else's taken years ago, so they go for the prerequisites at same-level diploma as a policy to ensure a high enough standard. Not saying this is right or correct though - my ALCM was very hard work and I didn't pass first time

I'm sure it was very hard work BusyBee; in fact, who's to say that the older ALCM exams were not marked to the same standard as the most recent ones? It could be that it has just taken until now for the A.L. to get the recognition it deserves - who knows? (would be interesting to find out! )

Unfortunately, the ALCM in the old days was considered not much harder than Grade 8, and I think it had a reputation as an 'easy' diploma. I'm not sure if the view of the old dip will change much but as you say it is good that the new ALCM is now up there in the levels table with all the rest. I have been aware of the anomaly since I was a child (my Mum used to be an LCM representative - I took my grade 3 in our lounge which was nice!) and I have been disappointed that the 'powers that be' have taken so long to standardise it all. I think one of the reasons was that in the ALCM we only had to play one movement of a Sonata, while a Grade 8 required the whole thing. I'm sure the extensive technical and theory requirements well made up for that!




Thank you Mad Tom

A few days ago I chucked this into the Ask the Cheif Examiner thread.

So with Trinity exams only FTCL has a pre-requisite which is the LTCL, and it will accept other 'L's specifically LRSM as an alternative.

So by the same logic for FRSM, which has a pre-requisite of LRSM, LTCL should be an acceptable alternative, except it currently isn't.

And then LRSM accepts DipABRSM but doesn't accept ATCL.

Presumably its either poor planning or one upmanship.

After all FRSM and FTCL have the same QCA level, LRSM and LTCL have the same and DipABRSM and ATCL have the same.

Thanks. That is the phrase I was looking for in the original post!

I've said it before: it's the ABRSM's loss. I don't need to do dips, I've done one because it's my way of making sure I work at my music, and having found the ATCL repertoire more interesting than the dipABRSM, for my instrument, I did Trinity's first dip in preference. Since the ABRSM now doesn't want to know me unless I do dipABRSM first, I'm not going to bother - I'll go for the higher-level LTCL and the ABRSM loses any chance for a fee from me. But I dare say it rakes enough in from everyone else....?

Sounds good. I have found the LTCL syllabus, but not the repertoire list. The on-line syllabus has a content list that indicates 80 pages - including repertoire, but the document is actually only about 30 pages and does not include repertoire. I have found an "additional" repertoire list, and could construct a decent recital from that, but I'd like to see if there is anything I already know on the main list.

Do you have a URL to it?

I'm not sure how it works for the piano - for recorders, there is only the main syllabus list, Trinity and click on the related resources box nearly in the top right-hand corner for a pdf download - there are 130 pages, and should contain the basic piano repertoire. I've a feeling there may also be a supplementary piano list: there isn't for recorder, but what I did when putting together an LTCL application proposal was to trawl through the LRSM and equivalent lists from other boards, and pick pieces from them to supplement the ones I'd taken from the main LTCL syllabus. The problem then is getting approval - I didn't on the first attempt, but have now had a list accepted and at the moment am intending to apply for the next diet of exams. Annoyingly Trinity don't publish previously accepted programme proposals - now that would be helpful. If pieces are only taken from the Trinity syllabus, then it's not a problem, approval is automatic, though if candidates choose a piece from a higher diploma than is being sat, they can't then use it again if later sitting that higher exam.

'Pick your own' is what I am doing for a singing ATCL as the repertoire list is quite short, so I am looking at LCM and AB lists to give an idea, but then you need to cross reference to make sure they don't appear in a Trinity Grade or Performance Certificate list.

Hi Tom,

I follow the link above, clicked on the "diploma syllabus 2005-2008" link and the resulting pdf download had the list on Pages 27 and 28.

Thanks for the Szymanowski: I love it!! There I go - fiddling with the recital program again!

A new Trinity syllabus is due next month. It will start from Jan 2009 and there will be a one year overlap with the old syllabus. I wonder how much of it will change in terms of repertoire. I dropped their office a note to see if they could tell me anything, or indeed give a date for publication but they are noncommunicative. Pity.

Hmm, admin is something Trinity is maybe not so hot on, sadly. Similarly I find their website not too user-friendly: but the exams experience for me has been better than the AB - more flexible in their grades syllabus, more flexibility too with the diploma choices, and I was able to get an exam date well ahead, as well as results more quickly. The actual results for the exams I did were very similar, so I for one am convinced that they are fairly equivalent...