Can't do triple science unless you're predicted at least a C in MFL

With regard to UCL. I really don't know why people keep on trotting out these old cliches.

THis is what UCL actually say:-

If you did not take an MFL GCSE, or if you got a D grade or below, don’t worry! You can still apply to any UCL degree programme, and it won’t negatively affect your application

However, you will need to complete a short course in a modern foreign language, either on a summer school or in the first year of your degree

UCL runs a Languages and Study Skills Summer School for students who wish to study at UCL but who do not meet the MFL requirement. This is open to all year 13 students who attend a non-selective state school or college, who hold an offer from UCL but do not have an A-C in a modern foreign language. If they attend the summer school in the summer before they start at UCL, they meet the MFL requirement and do not need to complete any further language study during their degree.*

I'm speaking as a UCL graduate

Well, this would not work for my DS. He is predicted excellent grades in science, and every subject except PE, but would never have achieved a C in a language. Ever.

As far as I'm aware, it means he will not be able to study at LSE (I think that is the only uni which requires a language at GCSE - I'm happy to be corrected).

bruffin there is no requirement. However, there is a preference.

These are extremely selective universities with far too many applicants for the places available. Most successful applicants will have more on their CV than the basic requirements.

GCSEs requirement for Cambridge from their website

With the exception ofMedicineandVeterinary Medicine, there are no GCSE (or equivalent) requirements for entry to Cambridge.GCSE results are looked at as a performance indicator, but within the context of the school/college performance.It is generally expected that applicants will have achieved high grades in subjects relevant to their chosen course, and most students who apply have at least four or five As or As at GCSE. However, there are always exceptions and one of the strengths of the Cambridge admissions system is its ability to assess all applicants individually.*

No mention of mfl at all

Oxbridge are very keen on GCSEs. Oxford more than Cambridge- but still looking for 7 A*s!

Iirc, it is one of their general requirements. A C or above is needed, just to show a broad education.
It is not true that they pay no attention to GCSEs. They would be looking usually for at least 7 A*, as well as looking at the AS level UMS marks. Candidates with module results over 90 and 95 in particular are much more likely to get interviews.
There are so many kids these days with great GCSes and all As at AS that they need some way to cut the numbers down.

I didnt think it was needed. Cambridge dont seem that interested in gcses.

Oxbridge want it too, iirc.
Not relevant to most, I realise. Says something about the value of breadth at GCSE level though.

The only university i came across that wanted a C in mfl was UCL. They didn't even get a look in with DS as they dont have a that good reputation for engineering.

A few universities do require MFL for degree entry, UCL being one. However, I don't think not having one closes that many doors, and of course the majority of students taking GCSEs aren't aiming for entry at a top university.

I wonder if the reasoning for this is timetable based? That if you took triple science and a language you would have to be in the top language set, and someone predicted less than a C wouldn't cope so well in that set?

Oh and I agree about A level science. I wouldn't even suggest to DD or anyone with her (in)ability in maths to tackle them.

But GCSE is fine IMVHO.

red I think the idea that a good education includes maths, science, the arts/humanities and languages other than your own, goes way back doesn't it? To the ancient Greeks?

Also, in many other countries, the idea still pervades. The early specialisation of study in the UK, is anathema is many cultures.

But on a more specific note, our discipline interests itself in the communication of ideas between humans. The reflection of what it means to be human by way of language is where we focus. So it would be odd if someone wanted to devote themselves to that without having even a passing interest in how people communicate in other tongues, I think.

That's not to say no one ever gets an offer without MFL. But their reasons would need to be cogent.

The way it has been taught has been changed. For one thing we were given no preparation for o'level. Nowadays they are given the questions in advance and prepare a script. My dyslexic ds struggled because he couldn't remember a page of words. It took us all day for him to learn 5 sentences, yet he got a Gold in the Senior Maths Challenge. he is very analytical and techy minded. I do think we don't have the opportunities to be immersed in languages the way other Europeans are immersed in English through tv, film and music.
I did German O level. I understood the grammar, but was no good at remembering the gender of the word, so it would sometimes appear that I got the more difficult part wrong rather than the simple bit. I am also half Greek and could speak Greek as a child but I have no memory of speaking Greek. Saying that I am very good at the logically side of languages and can work out meanings of words in other languages and I can pick out words when listening to Greek, I just couldn't have a conversation in Greek.

*There is a strong correlation between ability in maths and ability in MFL. There are common analytical abilities at play.

However, the way MFL are taught in England is so bizarre and pointless that very analytical brains can be totally put off MFL and deduce that they are bad at them. Nothing could be further from the truth.*

I was just about to disagree quite strongly with your first sentence as I was one of the people above who got a low mark in French and As in everything else before going onto a RG university to study a heavily maths based course.

However, I then stopped and thought about your second sentence. I have worked in a couple of different countries - Spain and Russia - and actually found it reasonably easy to learn each language. OK, so I've got a terrible accent but at least I can speak the language.

So perhaps there is something not so good about the way MFL is taught - or should I say used to be taught, don't know if it's changed since my day - in British schools.

I agree that Latin is very analytical.

But teaching MFL as if they were a dead language is not the way to engage analytical minds.

"There is a strong correlation between ability in maths and ability in MFL. There are common analytical abilities at play."

I'd drop the "M" there - Latin is even more analytical and many mathematicians do well in it.

Economics is a humanity in the French bac ES. Sciences and economics can, up to a point, be taught verbally as a sort of general knowledge subject without addressing the underlying maths. But you cannot progress properly without a good grasp of mathematics.

TBH owl you don't even need to be that good at maths for triple science

You do if you are losing a maths session to allow for the extra science!

"Maths is definitely DD's worst subject. She'll be happy to get a B, ecstatic to get an A. Yet she sits at the top of her science sets. It seems to me that much of GCSE science is about graft."

That may be so, but beware that much of A level science is about maths. Physics particularly so, but statistics accounts for a fair few marks in Biology, and in Chemistry rates of reaction and other aspects of physical chemistry are tough if maths doesn't come easily.

But I cannot understand why Schools treat science differently from any other option - there is no reason why students who are good at science should take one more GCSE than those that aren't.

I expect your DH manages just fine without French, wordfactory .

"For example in my department (not MFL btw) any applicant without a GCSE in MFL can be expected to explain why at interview. And any vague comment about irrelevance, not being useful, or not liking it would go down like a cold cup of wotsit."

Why? Is there sound evidence confirming the correlation between success in your subject and affinity for a MFL, or is this just a prejudice?

I wish DD's school would make a language compulsory and drop RE/Citizenship as a compulsory subject.

I think it is odd making PE compulsory at GCSE.

Bonsoir that may account for my DH's utter failure in French .

He's absurdly analytical. Maths, economics, law...you know the type.

There is a strong correlation between ability in maths and ability in MFL. There are common analytical abilities at play.

However, the way MFL are taught in England is so bizarre and pointless that very analytical brains can be totally put off MFL and deduce that they are bad at them. Nothing could be further from the truth.

TBH owl you don't even need to be that good at maths for triple science.

Maths is definitely DD's worst subject. She'll be happy to get a B, ecstatic to get an A. Yet she sits at the top of her science sets. It seems to me that much of GCSE science is about graft.