MFL rules in university (Ebacc)

[Grrrrrsnarl]

My Ds has just chosed his options
We went to a meeting at the school to talk about them
The school spent 10 mins telling the year group and parents why they should take a MFL. (it's not compulsory)
They were saying that if they wanted to attend universities (especially the Russell group) MFL was a must and it was doom and gloom if they didn't.

I would just like to point out to the parents that a MFL is NOT needed to get into any university - russell group or otherwise - unless of course they want a degree in languages

This is the link to the Russell Group homepage
russellgroup.ac.uk/for-students/school-and-college-in-the-uk/subject-choices-at-school-and-college/

Scroll down to the FAQs

Q) Do I need to have passed the English Baccalaureate to get into a Russell Group university?

A) The English Baccalaureate includes academic subjects highly valued by the Russell Group but it is not required for entry to any Russell Group university. With the exception of English and Maths, and in a few cases a Modern Foreign Language, most universities have no universal entry requirements in terms of specific GCSE subjects. Subject choice is ultimately much more important at the post-16 or A-level stage.

Q) Is it true that a modern foreign language at GCSE or equivalent is required for entry to Russell Group universities?

A) Our institutions very much value language skills but there is no universal entry requirement that students must have studied a modern foreign language at GCSE or equivalent. However, there may be course-specific requirements, so we strongly encourage students to check universities’ websites for details of these.
Currently University College London (UCL) is the only Russell Group institution to require a modern language GCSE at grade C or above for all of its programmes. However if you did not take a Modern foreign language GCSE, or if you got a D grade or below you can still apply to any UCL degree programme, and it won’t negatively affect your application. You will not be rejected just because you don’t have it but 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, to catch up.

And here is a link to the Governments website
www.gov.uk/government/publications/english-baccalaureate-ebacc/english-baccalaureate-ebacc

The EBacc is a school performance measure. It shows how many pupils study the core academic subjects at key stage 4 in state-funded and independent schools..

I felt the need to share this as so many children are about to choose options.

I do agree a MFL is an important skill and is incredibly useful in the world of work. Who knows - it may be needed in the future
But many children hate it and are being pressured to study GCSE because the school says their future university place relies on it.

Please do not flame me for this post I just want you to be aware of the situation.

On MN vast numbers do not do an MFL at GCSE and parents know only UCL wants it. The numbers sitting MFL GCSEs are getting lower and lower every year so there is no evidence that everyone is being pressurised. The opposite in fact.

However, to have a broad education, a bright child should include an MFL. If fewer and fewer children take them, fewer and fewer schools will offer them and this is already happening. There is a reason why the most competitive university’s MFL courses have many privately educated children on them. There’s little competition from state educated pupils. Everyone gives up!

GCSE MFL is virtually useless in the world of work. You need a degree preferably. The GCSE is a building block, like every other GCSE. It is also academic and not necessarily vocational. It is also a challenge and lots of children don’t want that.

However, to have a broad education, a bright child should include an MFL

^^ absolutely this.
it's not just about having 'another boring lesson', leraning languages has been shown again and again to be benificial to learning in general.

All children have to do lessons in subjects they don’t enjoy. I didn’t enjoy most of the compulsory GCSEs: English, Maths, Science... tough if they “hate it”. They need to learn to suck it up. The number of people doing MFL in this country is dire. What with all the recent pushing of STEM it’s been totally sidelined (although has been bad for years).

The Tories have set a target of 75% of children taking the full Ebacc by 2022 and 90% by 2025. I've no idea how they intend to enforce this, but if they do, then we're going to see a lot more DC forced to take French.

Although I do understand what you mean by “their university place depends on it”. No university (bar UCL I think) requires a language GCSE. But my other point still stands.

UCL does have MFL as a requirement. Others may have it as a course requirement e.g. English at Durham required B at GCSE French.

Personally I think students should be encouraged to take MFL. Very few private school students leave with a GCSE in MFL. UK plc needs more people who have at some basic communication skills.

Ebacc is on school league tables as well

MFL is a waste of time for many kids. b/c they won't engage & will get a lousy grade at expense of a good grade they would have achieved in another subject they preferred.

Not everyone benefits from "a broad education."

If you are going for courses where the university selects you (rather than the other way round IYSWIM) you sometimes have to look beyond what is the absolute requirement, and see also what the 'typical' student on that course has.

Because although UCL might be the only one which requires it across the board, are there others which require or - crucially expect - an MFL for certain humanities courses? And absence of one might lead to no offer/different offer.

I think pupils will need to research what the courses they are interested in actually require (formally) and also expect. If that's too daunting or just looking too damned far ahead, then go for the subjects which keep options as wide open as possible. Learning a language is a good thing in a well-rounded education.

Even UCL doesn’t require a gcse in mfl. But if you don’t have one they will make you do a short MFL course in your first year.

The Tories have set a target of 75% of children taking the full Ebacc by 2022 and 90% by 2025. I've no idea how they intend to enforce this, but if they do, then we're going to see a lot more DC forced to take French.
31% last year
and that is where it will stay
kids who struggle with English should not be forced to take MFL

*MFL is a waste of time for many kids. b/c they won't engage & will get a lousy grade at expense of a good grade they would have achieved in another subject they preferred.

Not everyone benefits from "a broad education."*

You could say the exact same thing about any of the compulsory subjects eg English, Maths, Science. English and Maths I agree are needed for any further course/job, but I would argue that I did not need every science subject. Yet this is what my school required, that I take Biology, Chemistry and Physics. I would have much preferred to drop Physics and do another subject.
Everyone has to do subjects they dislike. They need to suck it up.

Horridemma: “very few private school students leave with a GCSE in a MFL”. Really? How do you know this? Given that there are so many on the degree courses, I feel this is not correct. Private schools, I believe, have better access to MFL and can pupils can frequently take two at GCSE.

I don't see why French or geography should be compulsory. English & science & math I get, we needs those to navigate in life. But French or German?

They need to suck it up.

Sucking it up can mean getting an E or G when they could have had a C, B or even A/A*. Punished b/c of the fervour to promote a "broad" education at all costs.

I think private school kids generally have st least one MIL if not more and many study a third as extra curricular such as mandarin, Japanese or Russian.

Most people on MN know that an my is not required by unis unless doing a language degree

lljkk you could say that about any subject beyond English, Maths and Science. Why do we learn anything beyond those??

A broad education is actually beneficial, believe it or not. There are plenty of reasons to study geography. There are plenty of reasons to study history. There are plenty of reasons to study languages.

The UK has an appalling track record in language learning. Languages are valued by employers, believe it or not.

Just looked up UCL entrance requirements - see here
www.ucl.ac.uk/prospective-students/undergraduate/application/requirements/a-level-gcse
You don't have to have a language GCSE to get in, but if you don't have one, you'll have to take a language course when you get there, as part of your general education. Seems reasonable to me.

ha! I AM a Geographer! I mean professionally. Many yrs experience.

I have some competence in at least 3 non-English languages (which is incredibly useful at work... I discovered one of these languages only last week).

But for some of my DC, compulsory languages are just a giant set of pitfalls. I'd feel a lot better if languages were taught consistently & steadily in English schools: but they aren't. Instead, they are taught in a haphazard poor quality way, so few people retain any working knowledge. Many kids disengage & get poor marks as a result. What a waste.

Two of my DSs have three GCSE languages (combo of Fr, Germ, It, Sp and Latin) ... although both their GCSE and A level results were not stellar, they both got five RG offers in competitive subjects. I think the sort of subjects you do, as much as the grade, can influence unis. Rather an A in Latin than an A* in media studies if you are after an academic course.

Sadly, I think lljk has a good point about languages, not because they are useless or unimportant things to have but because of this: "I'd feel a lot better if languages were taught consistently & steadily in English schools: but they aren't. Instead, they are taught in a haphazard poor quality way, so few people retain any working knowledge."

I grew up in a country where two MFLs were a minimum for most university courses, but it was also a country where pupils knew they would have a good chance of being able to speak and read those languages when they came out the other end. And where teachers knew there was a point in devising a course that achieved those ends even at a certain cost of hard work for the less naturally gifted pupils, because MFLs were generally viewed as a positive and normal thing.

(and no, it wasn't just about English being ubiquitous and a world language, that would hardly have covered the other MFL, which was normally French or German)