A Level Religious Studies (RS) has a reputation for being demanding — but how “hard” it feels mostly depends on your confidence with essay writing, analysing arguments, and using scholars and sources of wisdom accurately.

If you enjoy big questions, building clear arguments, and evaluating different viewpoints, RS is hugely rewarding. If essays or abstract ideas feel new, the right habits make a big difference.

Why Religious Studies is considered challenging

• Essay-led assessment (AO1 & AO2): You must explain key ideas and scholars (AO1) and evaluate them to reach justified conclusions (AO2) — not just memorise notes. See how RS exams are marked.
• Three strands to balance: Philosophy of Religion, Ethics, and a religion/theology unit (e.g., Christianity) — each with its own concepts, terminology and debates.
• Precise use of scholars & sources: Name-dropping isn’t enough; you need short, relevant references woven into your evaluation.
• Timing & structure: Clear plans, concise paragraphs and decisive conclusions under timed conditions.

Who tends to find RS easier?

Students who:

• Like reading arguments and saying what follows from them.
• Are comfortable writing structured paragraphs under time pressure.
• Can compare viewpoints and reach a reasoned, supported judgement.
• Enjoy linking Ethics/Philosophy ideas to real scenarios and modern debates.

How to make A Level RS manageable

• Master the AOs early: Know what AO1 vs AO2 look like in practice with sentence frames. Start here: Assessment Objectives explained.
• Use a simple essay structure: PEEL/PEACE — Point → Evidence (scholar/source) → Analysis/Application → Counter → Evaluate/Conclude. See our RS essay guide.
• Build a scholar bank: 8–12 “anchor” scholars per strand with a one-line thesis and a sample quotation or paraphrase.
• Make knowledge organisers: one page per topic with key terms, core arguments, strengths/weaknesses, and a model conclusion.
• Little-and-often timed practice: two 25-minute essays each week; mark them quickly against AO1/AO2.

Common pitfalls to avoid

• Listing knowledge without answering the question (weak AO2).
• Name-checking scholars without using them to support or challenge a judgement.
• Vague applications in Ethics — keep scenarios specific and theory-driven.
• Missing cross-links (e.g., using Philosophy insights to strengthen Theology evaluation).
• Leaving structure and timing to chance — examiners reward clarity and control.