I don’t think we can really make any fair comparisons between languages and maths, as some of you have done. Firstly, for an A-level in maths you have to it several papers. For a modern language, you normally sit only 1 or occasionally 2 papers, which means it is far easier to mess up and lose your place at university by dropping very few marks, especially if a paper throws you a curved ball. On top of this, language exams tend to be quite unpredictable and thus difficult to prepare for. The way they are marked is also annoyingly dependent on which examiner you get. Take Edexcel for example: the marking guidelines for the mini essays go something like: “excellent structure: award 17-20” and “good structure: award 14-16”. Students are thus at the mercy of whoever is marking their paper. Of course, one examiner’s idea of good might be another’s idea of excellent. Some examiners might decide that some candidates who are clearly better than average deserve an A* whereas other examiners might award very few A*s. A-level maths is studied by far far more people than study any given language, or even all language A-levels put together. Therefore those who have learned maths from a younger age and are brilliant don’t really have an effect on the grade boundaries in the same way a native speaker would for a modern language.
Now my objection to having native speakers studying language A-levels is that oral examinations are notoriously difficult to do well in as someone who has just learned the language at school. This is because native speakers significantly raise the grade boundaries artificially. Assuming a native speaker can argue reasonably well (and the idea of a debate or tit-for-tat discussion is really quite token anyway; it’s just a good way of showing oral aptitude) he or she should get full marks. Oral exams are worth roughly a third of A-level UMS and for that third there are very few raw marks. So a few simple mistakes and you could end up paying a heavy price. If it were just a question of reaching a certain set standard then it would not be unfair. After all, even if a native speaker can do well, you wouldn't then be in competition with him or her. The problem is that everyone's grades are influenced, to some extent at least, by how well everyone else does.
Another reason I think this is unfair is because there is no reason why a student can’t simply take a quick A-level in a language they are a native speaker in to gain more UCAS points and give themselves an unfair advantage when applying for courses which ask for a certain number of UCAS points, especially if there are no indicators (name, nationality, etc) to suggest that this is what they are doing.
One possibility would be to introduce a separate language qualification for those who are native speakers, although this could raise questions about where to draw the line on “native”.
Native speakers are really really annoying at University too. I don’t know why people are allowed in to study a language they are already native speakers in. Fair enough, they want to study/ write about the literature etc of that country, but there is still a significant language element which they will ace with little or no work in any university - Oxbridge included. Now while this is no skin off my back, since I’m not competing with them at university in the same way I am at school, it’s nonsense that someone doing my course (where you have to study two languages) can get a 1st in their native language – despite having written less than convincing analytical essays - and then only a 2.2/3rd in their other language. They clearly are either not working hard enough, or simply don’t have the actual language and critical aptitude that universities should be looking for in new students. Although there are no quotas for my course, at a uni where there are, this makes it even more unfair. Students who would benefit much more from the course are probably losing out to native speakers.