Choosing IB HL and SL subjects: a workload comparison

A student wants a demanding HL combination, a parent worries about closing doors, and a teacher asks whether the workload is realistic. Those concerns can turn into an argument about ambition before anyone has identified what the choice needs to accomplish. Separate the required conditions, the student's interest in the work and the week they would actually have to manage.

For international-school counselors, the aim is a subject decision whose demands and trade-offs the student understands. Neither “choose the hardest set” nor “avoid the difficult subject” answers that question on its own.

Use the two complete plans to ask what changes when Physics and English swap levels. Then test the illustrative ordinary week: changing the kind of work does not prove a lighter total workload, and IB teaching-hour allocations are not homework estimates.

Ask what each proposed HL is doing in the plan

For every subject, ask the student to explain why they want it at that level. The reason might be a verified course condition, interest in the additional work, preparation for a possible direction or an assumption about prestige.

Try: “If this subject did not carry an HL label, which part of the work would still make you want more of it?” Then ask which later route, if any, depends on the level. Those are separate reasons and may need different evidence.

Do not dismiss family concern about keeping a pathway available. Ask which pathway and what official information supports the concern. A vague fear of closing doors should become a checkable question before it determines the whole combination.

Distinguish programme structure from the student's full workload

The IB curriculum overview states that students take three or four HL subjects. It lists 240 teaching hours for HL and 150 for SL. Those are programme teaching allocations, not a prediction of an individual student's total weekly study time or stress.

The school must confirm what combinations and levels it actually offers. Subject teachers can explain the current course's learning, assessment and independent work. Keep those local realities beside the student's other commitments.

A student who says “I can work harder” may be sincere but still need a practical plan. Ask what would change in a normal week, which support they would use, and which demands tend to arrive together. This can expose an unrealistic assumption without treating difficulty as evidence that the student should lower their aspirations.

Make workload specific enough to discuss

• “It will be too much.” Which tasks, assessment periods or fixed commitments create the concern?
• “I'm good at the subject.” What work have you enjoyed and sustained, and how will the next course differ?
• “Universities will prefer it.” Which exact official course condition or guidance supports that?
• “I can drop something later.” What does the school's actual change process permit, and when?

A grade is one piece of school evidence. Put it beside the student's experience of the work, access to support and willingness to do more of it. Performing well in an activity does not necessarily make it the activity they want to pursue.

Compare a normal week, not an ideal one

Invite the student to sketch a representative school week, including lessons, travel, study, responsibilities, rest and activities they intend to keep. They do not need to share private personal circumstances in a group or provide a minute-by-minute account.

Then ask a subject teacher where the proposed course adds new kinds of work. Use the sketch to identify a question, not to calculate a universal safe workload. The student may need to revise a commitment, seek support or investigate the course more closely.

If wellbeing concerns need a pastoral response, use the school's normal route. A subject-planning sheet should not become an informal clinical assessment.

Compare complete plans before rehearsing the week

Here are two illustrative plans at a hypothetical school that offers and can timetable both. They contain the same six subjects and three HLs, so the question is not “ambitious versus easy.” It is where the student wants the additional depth and what work that would involve.

Both fit the linked IB subject-group pattern on their face; the coordinator confirms the real school plan. No university prerequisite is assumed here. If the family says Physics HL is necessary, check the actual intended course before using that claim to prefer A. If no such route matters, examine the student's reasons for more physics or more language-and-literature work.

Put the proposed work into an ordinary week

This is a completed illustrative student's planning sketch, outside lessons. The times are chosen examples, not IB homework expectations, teacher recommendations or a safe workload threshold. Travel, meals, sleep and unscheduled time remain outside these proposed study slots. Ask the student whether these windows actually exist before using them.

The sketch reserves 7.5 hours, not a full or recommended weekly homework total: it deliberately has not located every task for six subjects and the core. Teachers must help identify the omissions and whether the tasks fit. The IB's published 240/150 hours are teaching allocations over the programme, not the source of these weekly estimates.

Now add one complication: Tuesday's window disappears for a school event. “I'll do everything later” is not a revised plan. The student needs to identify what can move, ask about the task's real scope, or acknowledge that both proposed weeks still need work. Switching Physics and English levels changes the type of work; it does not establish a smaller total workload.

A completed decision note might say: “I want to investigate Plan B because sustained reading appeals, not because I have proved it is lighter. I will ask both teachers for a representative task and revise the missing study periods before selecting it. If a verified future course needs Physics HL, that becomes a separate trade-off with Plan A.”

Copy this HL decision note

The subject-level decision I need to make:
Why each proposed HL matters to me:
A later course condition already confirmed, with its source:
An assumption about requirements still needing a check:

What the subject teacher says the work involves:
A related activity I have enjoyed and one I have found draining:
Demands already present in my ordinary week:
Support or changes I could realistically use:

The trade-off between the two plans:
The school's actual decision and change process:
My next check, its owner and the date we will review it:

Ask the student to explain the trade-off in words. A total score for ambition or difficulty would conceal the different functions the subjects serve.

Let the family hear the student's reasoning

Invite the student to begin the explanation: which work interests them, which route matters and what they have checked. Ask the family to name the specific concern that remains. A concern about an unverified prerequisite needs a different response from discomfort with an unfamiliar subject.

The Counselor's Desk perspective on self-knowledge can support that conversation. If the student needs more experience, ask the relevant teacher for a representative task before asking for a more confident explanation.

Use reflection to prepare the question

Lyra's profile organizes interests, values and influences that may be tangled together in an HL discussion. If a student describes enjoying a subject but also worries about how a choice will look to family, ask them to separate those reasons in their own words. You can then take the learning question to the teacher and the future-pathway assumption to an official source.

The student explains what the subject is doing in the plan; the counselor checks the conditions and the school checks what can be provided. To explore that preparation for a meeting where ambition and workload are pulling apart, request a counselor demo.