Competition - post a photo you've taken of nature >>

This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Track and Cambridge

skelator

qwerty

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1

Lidka

skelator

Hi, my track offer does not mention the university matriculation requirements, which is good because I don't satisfy them. My college head explained that I didn't take a language other than English at GCSE, but there has been no mention of it at all; however, I did get an offer so I assume its okay. I was just wondering whether they usually put that you need to satisfy those requirements on the track offer and I was okay, or whether I should contact them to make sure.

Thanks. :smile:

No, they don't usually talk about matric. requirements on your track offer, AFAIK. If it had been a problem it would have been mentioned at your interview. What the university has probably done is taken note of the fact you don't have a MFL at GCSE and decided it doesn't matter (pretty common, as it's getting very normal now not to take a MFL at GCSE level). I assume also that you weren't going to take one anyway, hence why it isn't part of your offer - they rarely ask for grades in an exam you haven't yet entered yourself for, with the exceptions of the AEA and STEP. Basically, don't worry, and concentrate on meeting the grades for the exams that have explicitly been stipulated. :smile:

Reply 2

epitome

Hi Skelator,

Lidka's right -- don't worry. :smile:

It doesn't matter that you made an open application: whichever college looked at your file will have seen what exams you have or haven't done. The MFL requirement is waived in all cases now (except perhaps when people are applying for languages!), and is very much on the way out.
So, no worries. If there were a problem, it would have come up before you got the offer!

Reply 3

Undiscovery

By the way, when do Cambridge update Track? I'm still waiting for their reply on UCAS as I already know they rejected my application, and then I can accept my offer from London.

Reply 4

The West Wing

I'm waiting too :frown:

Reply 5

Undiscovery

You have an offer from them, right? Cambridge are delaying me replying to the university that has actually given me an offer.

Reply 6

jonnythemoose

jonboyyork

By the way, when do Cambridge update Track? I'm still waiting for their reply on UCAS as I already know they rejected my application, and then I can accept my offer from London.

withdraw it. I did. It makes no difference, and you can make your choices now. :smile:

Reply 7

Zoedotdot

epitome

The MFL requirement is waived in all cases now (except perhaps when people are applying for languages!), and is very much on the way out.

And this is after I told my school that they need to stop telling people they don't need languages! Ack, way to sabotage my push on MFL... :p:

Reply 8

epitome

Zoedotdot

And this is after I told my school that they need to stop telling people they don't need languages! Ack, way to sabotage my push on MFL...

No no -- by all means keep your campaign up. Frankly I think that a MFL and Latin or Greek should be compulsory in many cases (and that's coming from someone who has neither beyond GCSE, but who could very well do with them in her degree). Learning a language to any level is a very good skill -- GCSE is barely even basic language skills, but it's the least we can do to keep even just that up!

We need to hold on to the academic A Levels for those who want to do academic things -- and GCSE German/French/Russian/Spanish/Chinese/whatever will always look better, and be more useful, than Home Economics (in an academic context).

The reason the MFL GCSE requirement is waived is essentially because it would go against our Access work (that is, getting people from all backgrounds to apply, and keeping Cambridge open to as many bright people as possible) -- because many schools (like yours; and they're usually state comps) don't insist upon the traditional subjects (for both good reasons and bad), if we were to continue to require a MFL then those people who had been ill-advised at the age of 13/14 would have a door closed on them.
So, the requirement is waived not because it's irrelevant, nor because languages aren't immensely useful (both as practical skill, and academic discipline), but because many students aren't advised or given the opportunity to study one. It would be completely wrong to prevent them from trying for Cambridge just because of bad advice and wonky schooling.

That was quite a long post. in short: keep encouraging languages (especially the Classics, which are dying an awful second death, but which we need need need need in order to be able to understand SO much. *cries*)

Reply 9

Zoedotdot

). They only allow one class to do it at GCSE and it's put in an option block with other very popular subjects, meaning that the classes are always small. My sister, for example, can't take Spanish because it's in the same block as Geography, a subject that she's very good at. However, she's having to take a Hospitality and Catering BTEC because there's another block with very soft options in it.

I have no idea what my school think they're doing in getting rid of languages. I know I'm slightly biased, but I honestly do think that learning a language helps you to understand the basics of grammar and can only encourage a greater understanding of English. Plus, it's great to be able to communicate while on holiday - my Spanish assistant says that Spanish people think we're all really rude because we can't be bothered to learn foreign languages.

I'm glad that it's not being waived because it's irrelevant, which is what I had assumed... and I'd hate to think badly of Cambridge! I definitely understand the need to waive it in those circumstances, but I really think that schools themselves should be better advised, and that the government should reinstate MFL to GCSE level as mandatory. I will definitely continue to encourage languages - they tried to say they weren't going to run my Spanish A2 course on timetable, after I'd already finished the AS, but I won that battle :biggrin:

Thank you for the clarification (and apologies for the long post... I get heated on this issue!)

Reply 10

jcb914

epitome

The MFL requirement is waived in all cases now (except perhaps when people are applying for languages!), and is very much on the way out.
BAD decision. :frown:

Reply 11

jcb914

jonboyyork

By the way, when do Cambridge update Track? I'm still waiting for their reply on UCAS as I already know they rejected my application, and then I can accept my offer from London.

My track didn't update until mid-February.

Reply 12

Zoedotdot

jonboyyork

By the way, when do Cambridge update Track? I'm still waiting for their reply on UCAS as I already know they rejected my application, and then I can accept my offer from London.

Mine's already been updated, so I guess it's just pot luck.

Reply 13

epitome

Zoedotdot

My school is a state comp and not at all geared up for Oxbridge. They only offer Spanish and French: we did a six week taster course of each in Year 7, and then the language we continued with was decided on the basis of which test we did better in (I got 99% in French but 100% in Spanish and therefore had to drop the French ). They only allow one class to do it at GCSE and it's put in an option block with other very popular subjects, meaning that the classes are always small. My sister, for example, can't take Spanish because it's in the same block as Geography, a subject that she's very good at. However, she's having to take a Hospitality and Catering BTEC because there's another block with very soft options in it.

I have no idea what my school think they're doing in getting rid of languages. I know I'm slightly biased, but I honestly do think that learning a language helps you to understand the basics of grammar and can only encourage a greater understanding of English. Plus, it's great to be able to communicate while on holiday - my Spanish assistant says that Spanish people think we're all really rude because we can't be bothered to learn foreign languages.

I'm glad that it's not being waived because it's irrelevant, which is what I had assumed... and I'd hate to think badly of Cambridge! I definitely understand the need to waive it in those circumstances, but I really think that schools themselves should be better advised, and that the government should reinstate MFL to GCSE level as mandatory. I will definitely continue to encourage languages - they tried to say they weren't going to run my Spanish A2 course on timetable, after I'd already finished the AS, but I won that battle Thank you for the clarification (and apologies for the long post... I get heated on this issue!)

This has little to do with your school not being geared up for Oxbridge -- it's to do with the fact that the politically-governed education system fails (or refuses) to recognise that academia is not synonymous with social elitism, that educational worth is NOT something that changes just because policy says it should, and that one size does NOT (and should not) fit all.

This is, largely, not the fault of the schools themselves (though sometimes very bad decisions are made by people running the schools, they don't always have a particularly good set of options to choose from) -- certainly in the case of many state schools, the pressure [and need] to prove themselves in the absolutely ridiculous league tables (which are determined by pretty much arbitrary criteria, if not wholly reprehensible ones), coupled with significant financial restrictions, leads to damaging cuts being made. Furthermore, the seeming necessity to comply with new government initiatives (such as the BTECs and the Diplomas) leads to more traditional options being axed, for the sake of innovation and seeming-progression.

You are absolutely spot-on that learning languages, as with any rigorous subject, helps in all kinds of ways. Not least with English. It is most notable that very few people studying English at Cambridge have a clue about the technicalities of grammar, unless they have a solid foundation in another language, or have taken an extremely active individual interest in that area.

You say that the schools should be "better advised", but by whom? Very often, they are acting on the advice and influence of the government. This makes sense, to a great extent: education, after all, is not all about Oxbridge; and the educational system (particularly the state system) does have a duty to cater for everyone. As, indeed, does the political system. What seems to be going wrong is that schools often seem to be being encouraged to cater for government objectives and 'bright ideas', rather than for the genuine enlightenment/equipment of every child and teenager.

Cambridge is doing its best to not have to 'dumb down', but it does have to adapt to changes nationwide. It can't cling to it's old rules regardless, but has to watch what's happening in society and education more generally, and try to retain and advance its central tenants of educational thoroughness and ambition, whilst simultaneously remaining relevant. There are, after all, ways to assess ability and potential in students without having to refer to a MFL GCSE for 'proof'. (And given that the GCSE level of languages is pretty pants anyway, it doesn't seem too much of a sacrifice to axe that requirement...along with all the other formal examinations, for that matter!).

As you can probably see, this issue winds me up too. :wink:

jcb914

BAD decision.

Not so much "bad", as regrettable. It was a necssary decision if this university is going to be able to continue admitting students from all backgrounds -- quite a while ago the MFL criteria became problematic, and was more and more frequently having to be ignored in the cases of many bright students who hadn't had the opportunity or right advice.

Reply 14

Zoedotdot

epitome

The languages issue is just one factor in the not being geared up for Oxbridge really. I know that I shouldn't really demand too much, it being a state comp with a very large and varied intake, but I wouldn't have minded just a little more support in my application (not that it mattered in the end). I absolutely agree with that though, the education system too often tries to cater for the middle ground, and the extreme ends of the spectrum have less of a focus.

epitome

This is, largely, not the fault of the schools themselves (though sometimes very bad decisions are made by people running the schools, they don't always have a particularly good set of options to choose from) -- certainly in the case of many state schools, the pressure [and need] to prove themselves in the absolutely ridiculous league tables (which are determined by pretty much arbitrary criteria, if not wholly reprehensible ones), coupled with significant financial restrictions, leads to damaging cuts being made. Furthermore, the seeming necessity to comply with new government initiatives (such as the BTECs and the Diplomas) leads to more traditional options being axed, for the sake of innovation and seeming-progression.

Again, I entirely agree. I've found that the BTECs and a desire to progress in league tables have gone hand in hand: a BTEC being equivalent to 4 GCSEs boosts the statistics of people who have 5 passes at GCSE. Certainly I can understand the necessity for more practical subjects, because not everyone learns in the same way, but trying to impose those subjects on people who they are plainly not suited to is an issue. Although I suppose you could argue that the other way and say that trying to impose academic subjects on people who find them more challenging is also wrong. Personally, I'm terrible at anything with a practical angle - my lowest GCSE grades were in Applied ICT and Electronics, and the only reason I got As in those was sheer hard work. There should be a wide variety of options open to everyone.

epitome

You say that the schools should be "better advised", but by whom? Very often, they are acting on the advice and influence of the government. This makes sense, to a great extent: education, after all, is not all about Oxbridge; and the educational system (particularly the state system) does have a duty to cater for everyone. As, indeed, does the political system. What seems to be going wrong is that schools often seem to be being encouraged to cater for government objectives and 'bright ideas', rather than for the genuine enlightenment/equipment of every child and teenager.

Hah, good question. I did think when I was writing that there really is no-one to give them advice but the government, and if the government says that languages are unnecessary then they have to go by that. Clearly, however, there are schools that educate their pupils more successfully than others - even state comps! The problem is finding the balance. As much as I've moaned about my school, my problem has only really been in the Sixth Form - up to GCSE I always found my lessons engaging and there were thousands of opportunites to indulge my nerdy side. I don't know whether that indicates that the problem is national, but since starting my A Levels I've felt a lot more constricted by a system that doesn't really suit me - I suppose at GCSE I had a lot more time to do my own thing. And I do whinge too much about Oxbridge: I know that it's a minority who go there. But even so, that minority have a right to be catered for in the rest of their educational life.

epitome

Cambridge is doing it's best to not have to 'dumb down', but it does have to adapt to changes nationwide. It can't cling to it's old rules regardless, but has to watch what's happening in society and education more generally, and try to retain and advance its central tenants of educational thoroughness and ambition, whilst simultaneously remaining relevant. There are, after all, ways to assess ability and potential in students without having to refer to a MFL GCSE for 'proof'. (And given that the GCSE level of languages is pretty pants anyway, it doesn't seem too much of a sacrifice to axe that requirement...along with all the other formal examinations, for that matter!).

As you can probably see, this issue winds me up too. :wink:

Absolutely :smile:

And I think it's excellent that it's doing that - if it had stuck to its old ways forever, I wouldn't be allowed to apply because I'm female and not especially rich! So I do agree it should move with the times. But I think that the times are not moving in the right direction - all this talk of globalisation and England abandons teaching languages in secondary schools! Yeah, GCSE level anything is not really amazing...

And one more thing - if all a degree at Cambridge teaches me is to express myself as clearly and eloquently as in your post, I'll be delighted :biggrin:

Reply 15

epitome

Zoedotdot

It's great that you've got an offer without that (excessive?) support some other schools offer. :smile:

And you can take it upon yourself to get all the information, clue yourself up about the whole process, and then go back to your school next year and help the 6th formers (and others) to be a little bit better prepared. Get involved in the access stuff! *recruits, with coloured banners and chocolate*

I'm not sure it's a bad thing that the system as it stands attempts to cater mainly for the middle-and-lower ground (those value-judgements based, of course, on the dodgy criteria that the govt/system itself applies, so forgive the crudeness). After all, that's where the majorty of people are. And it has to be said that the govt are trying to develop systems that cater for different needs, setting up specialist academies, and bringing in more and more vocational courses, as well as developing the Diploma. For all their faults, the intention I think is in the right place (though I think they're going about it in completely the wrong way, but that's a different matter!). The Diploma at the moment is being trialled with less traditional & less academic subjects, but the intention is that it should be able to cater for the very academic too. Why they don't just start doing the International Baccalaureate, I don't know...

Do remember, though (as you yourself say), that Oxbridge is a teeny minority -- we can't expect a state-led education system to think too much about the top end when there are so many problems with everyone else. If about 2% go to Oxbridge...that leaves a big proportion of people to deal with. It's a shame the brightest are being failed by the system as it stands at the moment, but I'd argue that no-one else is being particularly well-served by it either. So don't feel too disgruntled in a specific sense: the problems are widespread and affect everyone.

As much as I've moaned about my school, my problem has only really been in the Sixth Form - up to GCSE I always found my lessons engaging and there were thousands of opportunites to indulge my nerdy side. I don't know whether that indicates that the problem is national, but since starting my A Levels I've felt a lot more constricted by a system that doesn't really suit me - I suppose at GCSE I had a lot more time to do my own thing. And I do whinge too much about Oxbridge: I know that it's a minority who go there. But even so, that minority have a right to be catered for in the rest of their educational life.

The reasons for your discontent will doubtless be multiple, but the fact you're doing (a) fewer subjects, and are (b) constricted by a pressurised and entirely unnecessary series of exams will certainly be a factor. Assessment Objectives have quite, quite brilliantly encouraged a culture of non-education, non-thought and narrow-minded formulaism. It's is like watching a car-crash in slow-mo.

Much as I sympathise with your last sentence there, I have to object: you've done extremely well in the state education system, and that's not *just* because of your hard work, I am sure. It will have had its big and frustrating disappointments, but it hasn't damaged you. (It won't have advanced you as much as it theoretically/ideally could have done, either, but that's a slightly different concern). In my case, I wouldn't go back in time and swap my state education for a private/independent/paid one -- those systems have their disadvantages too. And anyway, you'll be catered for at Cambridge. :wink:

But I think that the times are not moving in the right direction

Well yes. Don't we all...

And one more thing - if all a degree at Cambridge teaches me is to express myself as clearly and eloquently as in your post, I'll be delighted

That's very flattering -- thank you. :smile:

(Use fewer parentheses and commas than I do! :wink:

)

Get a room!! :p:

Opsi

Get a room!!

Shove off, Opsi! :p:

Or: join in. It's good to have some kind of discussion around here that isn't...um...the other stuff. *is very diplomatic and polite* Ahem.

Reply 18

Chess Piece Face

epitome

Cambridge is doing it's best to not have to 'dumb down'

Just to go slightly off-topic for one post:

"Cambridge is doing *it's* best"? *It's*? Epitome! You are an English student! As a result of this typo, my respect for you is ebbing away as we speak... :p: