Natives doing languages at A-Level

Profesh, out of interest, why are you so verbose? :P

I took A-Level English Literature because I had every confidence I'd be bloody good at it; because I'm more 'fluent' (i.e. conversant) in the skill-sets relevant to English Literature than in those relating to, say, Further Maths, and hence it would be more conducive to my getting an 'A', which would in turn be more conducive to admittance to [prestigious university] for [stupidly competitive subject]. I don't envisage the rationalisations of bilingual applicants (or, indeed, someone such as Generalebriety, who practically taught himself to A-Level standard in German) as being generally dissimilar.

If you studied your language as English people study it, it wouldn't count. If English people study English as a first language, it counts. If French people study French as a second language, it doesn't. Get it?

We have a girl from the Congo in our class and has lived in France for 5/6 years when she was little. She can speak really well but when it comes to writing, she struggles so badly. I suppose A-Level has helped her to grasp that part of a language that she speaks.

I don't see the difference between as English people study it and as a first language, could you explain? And also why UCL is absolutely unconcerned in my grade from my native languages?

Because you're doing a Slovakian qualification, therefore the your grade in your native language (Slovakian) is equivalent to the standard of A-Level English Lang or A-Level English Lit over here. That's why.

You didn't read my first posts (or didn't pay attention, whatsoever ). I was complaining that Imperial demands me to have 1(=A) in my language whereas UCL not. Anyway, I don't understand why Imperial is interested in my language when I'm going to study computing...

I think you're all being sore losers here. You're all clearly under the impression that because a French person for example, takes a French A-level, then they're bound to get As. That's not true at all. Whilst we have to write to A-level standard, so too do French people - they'd be hugely penalised should they write in colloquialisms throughout. They still have to prepare speaking materials too, which means they could drop just as many marks as you - on OCR (if I remember correctly) there are 10 marks inclusive of grammar and pronunciation in the Oral exam. The rest is down to how much and well you've worked and researched. You could also put forward the argument that should we not have such fierce competition in these 'natives', the standards of A-level languages would drop immensely - that would surely render language A Levels as useless and possibly blacklisted for university entry, no?

I say just leave this whole 'debate'. You can all rant away about how much you hate natives taking A Level exams in their mother tongue, but is it actually going to change anything...?

Are you really that stupid? English language is advanced level - it's challenging for native speakers as it contains advanced linguistics etc. It is in no way analogous to doing a foreign language as a native speaker.

. Just smells of sour grapes really and comes across rather bitter.

If you can't get an A, it's because you aren't good enough for an A, not because the French girl at the next desk is stealing your grades.

It's akin to sahying that people who are very good at a subject shouldn't do it. Being of French mother-tongue is no guarantee of a high grade at A level (indeed, several native speakers in my year didn't get As). Just smells of sour grapes really and comes across rather bitter.

This thread is confusing me. How can you have native fluency in a language and /not/ obtain an A at A-level, apart from dropping marks in whatever 'research' components there are? Native competence is way beyond what is needed for an 'A' at A-level. Or are we talking about shades here: natives who are not necessarily /speakers/, and who are picking their language up late, albeit with much help from home?

I always assumed the point of A-level languages was to demonstrate and teach skills, above knowledge. If your skills in a language are beyond A-level standard anyway, what is the point of taking it, other than to puff your CV? But then, nobody looks to A-level languages as tests of fluency; most people just list their languages and have to risk being called on it or not.

The main ways for someone who is native/fluent in a language to lose marks is through not enough exam practice (not knowing what is expected of them in the exam and how to respond to certain questions) as well as the fact certain modules place heavy emphasis on research and content and little on actual language/grammar.

Well, my German friend did no preparatio whatsoever except a quick presentation, and she got 297/300. Surely this illustrates my point? What research do you have to at AS?

Arguing that native speakers push the grade boundaries up is absurd. It's akin to sahying that people who are very good at a subject shouldn't do it. Being of French mother-tongue is no guarantee of a high grade at A level (indeed, several native speakers in my year didn't get As). Just smells of sour grapes really and comes across rather bitter.

If you can't get an A, it's because you aren't good enough for an A, not because the French girl at the next desk is stealing your grades.

(It's all slightly reticent of an "Immigrants are taking all our jobs !" Daily Mail rant...).

OK. I never did an A-level in French, precisely because I thought that rather than spending time on the language I'd have to force myself through lots of exercises I wasn't interested in, with no literature component whatsoever (my school refused to teach it!). But then, surely what you want is the language ability, not some knowledge of current affairs? So why would they be taking the qualification? I'm not suggesting that being good at a subject makes it unfair that you take it; rather, that it's fundamentally pointless to take a subject that won't teach you anything useful unless you have to do it.