Matriculation Requirements

Exactly - if you found someone who got straight 300s in their AS levels - all of which were highly applicable to the subject, you wouldn't complain that they didnt know how to say 'i like playing football' in german!

Good point. I completely forgot about those statistics, sorry.


But surely a bad learning environment has a negative effect on people's performance in all subjects? Why would it affect language GCSEs any more than, say, Geography?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7297143.stm

Keeping up with modern education, or begging for state school applicants? Discuss.

It does have a bad effect on all subjects. I think you might be missing the point a bit -- I'm in a rush, but will try to make sense of it:

All schools are ranked according to success at GCSE level, and this ranking has a *significant* impact on the further success of the schools (for vairous reasons, unimportant here). There are core academic subjects which all pupils in all schools have to study. Maths, English Language, and a Science. No other subjects are compulsory. These subjects are the only ones where the best and worst schools are judged on a level plaing field, and - obviously - the better schools come out best. In order to even things out, statistically, the worse schools then opt for 'easier' subjects in order to boost their students' marks, and therefore the schools' statistics.

Those schools dodging MFLs will often not insist that their students do a Humanities subject either -- all time might be taken up with GNVQs in Leisure & Tourism, Health & Beauty, or IT or something along those lines. So, where there are problems with MFLs there are often problems with ALL traditionaly academic subjects, but the problem is hidden by slightly etter statistics coming from the softer courses. This is why a new ranking system has been brought in, which ranks according to marks in those unavoidable academic subjects (Maths, English, Science).
So, the problem is not MFL-specific, it's just that MFL used to be compulsory and now it's not. All academic subjects are suffering, it's just most obvious with those that were once a core part of secondary education (and a core part of uiversity entrance).

Sorry for the haste, but I hope that sheds some light?
Essentially, it's *not* that MFL is the only thing that's affected, it's just that that one is easier to measure (and it's hte one under discussion).

(NB: I've said things like 'better' and 'worse' schools. Obviously, I'm generalising. Use common sense...)

Getting rid of the CAF (Cambridge Application Form), and the associated extra £10 charge, was a move to abolish something that is a genuine turn-off for people from non-traditional backgrounds.

To be honest, though, while I agree it's a sensible move, I still think it's a bit ridiculous that the papers are making so much of this. Oxford got rid of formal matriculation requirements fifteen years ago, but I don't think I've ever heard it being praised for not having such a "significant barrier impeding access".

They're getting rid of the CAF? Sure it was a pain, but sometimes it does help to distinguish between candidates - and there is the extra bonus of the mini personal statement.

On a moot point - are you suggesting that applicant are being put off for want of the £10 fee?

They're getting rid of the CAF? Sure it was a pain, but sometimes it does help to distinguish between candidates - and there is the extra bonus of the mini personal statement.

On a moot point - are you suggesting that applicant are being put off for want of the £10 fee?

Really? Have you actually heard 'fifteen years' from somewhere, or was it a statement for dramatic effect?
I seem to remember them having matriculation requirements (or perhaps they were just recommendations?) when I applied...

Really? Have you actually heard 'fifteen years' from somewhere, or was it a statement for dramatic effect?
I seem to remember them having matriculation requirements (or perhaps they were just recommendations?) when I applied...

I don't see how the CAF distinguishes between applicants. With the exception of the unit scores sheet (which was on the SAQ until recently in any event), and the extra PS/reference which surely didn't add much, it simply repeated the information on the UCAS form.

The CAF, as I understand it, was principally administrative: it enabled interviews to be arranged before UCAS forms came through. If efficiency suffers, this will have been a bad thing.

I do disagree with abolishing the CAF. It's one thing to say that applicants from disadvantaged backgrounds should be encouraged to apply. It's quite another thing to say that someone who wants to have a huge amount of time and expense allotted to the consideration of their application (which will probably far exceed that put in by any other institution) should have the modest inconvenience of spending 30 minutes filling out an extra form.

I am also concerned that the advantage of putting unit scores in with the CAF (namely that the referee will get to cast an eye over them to make sure they are accurate/honest) will be lost.

Will e-SAQs (if they call them that then I officially came up with the name first!) go through UCAS advisors? I would think this would be necessary if they're going to keep the additional referee statement and declaration etc.

Yes. It's gone already, for this next application round. It was seen as a significant barrier for potential applicants from non-traditional, or non-supported backgrounds (as with the £10 fee, yes. That can be a lot of money in some situations (indeed, it was more than half my food budget per week in 1st year), and there's also the perception problem: "Cambridge charges more just to apply. So it must be full of people who have lots of spare money", etc.

The information that was put on the CAF, though, will still be reliably obtaned through other means (probably an online questionnaire). This -- if it works -- will also significantly reduce administration at this end: it will all be put on the database much easier. Hence the abolition, too, for the fee.

It is very easy to be unaware of the very real problems affecting many applicants, or potential applicants.

You are quite right to think that the CAF simply improved efficiency. UCAS doesn't send the info to Cambridge in time for the interviews to be properly organised for the end of Nov/beginning of Dec. I'm not sure if this is set to change, or whether the online questionnarie will simply serve the same function -- it's still all a bit up in the air at the moment, I think, but I suspect the latter will be the case. Efficiency is unlikely to suffer, unless there is a problem with the technology...but then that's not all that much different to there being a postal strike, as last year!

Which recommendations were these? I suppose there may have been course-specific requirements, but I'm almost sure the university has no particular matriculation requirements.