So this ebacc thing, does it matter for university?

[Neverthelessshepersisted]

School is saying DS should take the ebaac-qualifying GCSE subjects or he will be looked on unfavourably by "Russell Group Universities".

DH is a professor at a Russell Group University and has never heard of the ebaac. So he reckons it doesn't matter provided you take testing subjects.

I have politely pointed out the the undergraduate admissions team might know a bit more.

The issue is that DS can't speak French. I mean he has a "level 4" but trust me he can't speak French and we reckon him spending two more years passing tests about using the conditional whilst being unable to say "he is going" is a waste of time and he'd be better off doing computer science instead.

He is v.good at the core subjects and can pass French tests.

"Can you name one which would actually require a language at GCSE,"

No, because stated requirements was not what I was talking about. And I was thinking of selecting courses only. Which might be wholly irrelevant to OP's DC's hopes.

The only consideration is to look ahead to A level choices. If unsure of future pathways "traditional" subjects, which is what ebacc really is, keep more options open and if you don't do them at GCSE then you can't usually do them in sixth form.

I think it's important to have a decent core group of academic GCSEs so that you have more options when choosing A level subjects.

Nope.

DD chose subjects she would do well in, regardless of how soft they were. For example, DT, Media, PE. She got all A/A* and then did very well in her AS levels. Got really low offers for RG unis, including unconditional.

Ooh, so we could not do the French GCSE, go to UCL and get what would probably be a higher quality education in a wider range of offered languages....?

Sounds like a plan! :)

No, because stated requirements was not what I was talking about. And I was thinking of selecting courses only.

But if a language at GCSE was preferred it would be stated. I don't believe that any humanities courses are selecting on this criterion, but if they are they will state that they prefer language GCSE.

For example, physics is not obligatory for maths degrees at top universities. It is not in the stated requirements. It is however preferred by Cambridge and this is made clear in the admissions information.

There just aren't hidden selection requirements for university admissions. If there are requirements or preferences (for selective courses) these will be given.

I was not suggesting there were. I was making a prediction of how things are likely to move with the demise of the AS, on the assumption that extra focus goes to GCSE results. I said no-one has a crystal ball, which includes ruling out that scenario (which is based on the situation before AS).

Universities will do what they do now and use predictions to make offers. GCSEs really won't be looked at.

Crystal ball wise - admissions tutors pretty much know what they'll be doing for the next few years.

So A Level choice is much more important for Uni then?

Unless of course your GCSEs are noticeably "non-classic" as in lots of media studies/photography/dance other subjects that might not be valued in some unis.

As long as you have maths, English, double science & for some courses a GCSE in a subject related to the one you are going to study at degree level then other subject choices don't really matter.

great. thanks for all the helpful replies.

Of course, they could start teaching French well..... that would be an alternative!

Either lots of idiomatic conversation or lots of grammar, I don't care which but the current French system seems to sit awkwardly in the middle and do neither. But of course we can use the conditional....

So A Level choice is much more important for Uni then?

Yes absolutely true. Stop worrying about French and let him choose the options he is interested in. He will be happier and do better with those.

All I would say is that if all your gcse options are 'soft' and you don't love maths or science, you can be forced into soft A levels by default. I've seen thus happen to quite a few students. I'd take a humanity for this reason, as well as the excellent skills they confer.

DS doesn't have the EBACC because he didn't do a language, he's currently holding offers from 4 RG universities so in our experience it's not an issue if you aren't planning on studying a language. He's applied for a science degree.

My parents did. I did. My 5 children have. I think making sure you do the major subjecst at GCSE proves you are bright and have a well rounded education. I strongly feel that.

My sons did the following
English lang
English lit
Maths
French - people hate languages because they are hard and have to put their backs into it and actually learn something, all the more reason to force your chidlren into them
sciences - double or triple (obviously triple if they are bright and want to do science later)
geography
history (yet both geog and history both are very important and part of a rounded education - I would like everyone to do them both)

So the above is 7 or 8 and then do one (or 2 if you have time) other eg music, RE, art or whatever takes your fancy of that kind.

Is it just me that never understands why people think languages are "hard"? I always felt that they were relatively easy options, but I regularly see people describing them as difficult.

It depends on individual strengths & weaknesses.

Children with dyslexia can find languages hard for example.

My DS did triple science, engineering, maths, english lang, english lit, RE, geography, art and an AS level. I think that proves he's good academically and doing a language as well wouldn't have added anything except irritation as he hates languages. He's gone on to do science A levels plus English Lit. and the universities have been keen on that.

Languages are hard if you are confined to the English NC and GCSE syllabus. I defy anyone to learn a language on that basis!

So A Level choice is much more important for Uni then?

Vastly. Wrong A level choice can be a deal breaker for some subjects (not all)

It seems that there are some teachers (hopefully a minority) who come out with inaccurate or misguided information re universites. Some of it may just be badly outdated - I think there used to be more than just UCL who wanted a language O level.

If you want solid confirmation on entry requirements, just pick a few courses that you think your DS might want to do, and a few unis which he might realistically want to go to, and google their entry requirements. Most of them have clear info there.

I think imperial might as well.

I think imperial might as well.

No, they don't. (Why would an MFL GCSE be at all relevant to science, engineering etc?) They only ask for MFLs for degrees that involve MFL in some way.

"Languages are hard if you are confined to the English NC and GCSE syllabus. I defy anyone to learn a language on that basis!"

Exactly Bono.

The content of the lessons seems to be almost, though not completely, unrelated to any activity likely to result in a useful knowledge of French!

To be clear, DH and object neither to an old-fashioned verb tables and essays approach (since at least you get to read L'Etranger) nor to an immersion based approach (since you start to speak and understand when in the country).

So far as we can see, DS is being taught neither. However, his "Level 4" ability to nearly write things in the conditional mood is held up to us as worthy of celebration.

I pointed out that he still says j'ai when he means je.......

Sorry bobo not bono!