Cambridge University no longer requires a foreign language to meet its minimum entry requirements. The Director of Admissions for the Cambridge Colleges said: "This change would remove something which has, unfortunately, become a significant barrier impeding access to Cambridge."
Well, it would be wouldn't it? No French, German, Italian, or any classical language might be a bit of a handicap for anybody wishing to read philosophy, or history, or the history of art, or music, or archaeology, anthropology, divinity, mathematics, history of science.... you know - the sort of elitist faculties they have in Cambridge.
And while it might no longer be a formal requirement, being monolingual isn't going to help; formal requirements are the very least that is needed for entry into Cambridge.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
8 comments:
Indeed, people have been sworn in at the matriculation ceremony without their mathematics GCSE; yet have left Cambridge clutching the glittering prizes...
Precisely, H, any Admissions Tutor knows who they want to admit, and any College can admit who they choose - the admissions requirements are a sop to 'meritocratic' criteria. That's why Gordon Brown's intervention over someone with good A-levels was inappropriate. Good A-levels are indicative but not determining. And colleges are communities of all sorts of skills and capacities that are balanced by the Tutors and Directors of Studies.
This Director of Admissions, he speak with forked tongue. He would like to remove all minimum entry requirements which can be 'significant barriers impeding access to Cambridge', I bet. Then they can get back to choosing the people who will profit most from rare resources.
Bertrand Russell applied to enter Trinity College, Cambridge, and it was a choice between him and another applicant who had actually scored higher on the entry examination. They tore up the results and chose Russell.
Though I don't suppose it harmed his chances (having been orphaned young) to have been fostered by his grandfather Lord John Russell, who had been Prime Minister twice.
Puts me in a quandary, I normally support meritocracy.
Real ability will out, S. Think of Telemann deprived of his instruments by his uncle, writing music by moonlight in his attic at the age of 13.
Of Blake, considered at times half mad.
Do we trust the honesty and competence of those empowered to choose (and enriched by choosing) the best intellectual trainees, apprentices, and colleagues? Or do we treat the whole world as if we are staffing the ICS clerical division?
Is recognizing genius a minor genius itself, or do we take a ruler to the world?
Didn't know that about Telemann, must read about him. World's most prolific composer, I believe.
Either Blake was mad, or we are. I am tempted to the latter view, though he was certainly very eccentric. I think he did have visions, and while real to him, they may also have had some objective correlative (yes, I know, the Sirens are beginning to sing). He did after all watch his brother die - a very concrete thing - and saw his brother's spirit ascend Heavenwards, clapping its hands in joy. I understand that the Arabs used to think that madmen have been touched by God.
Once we start down the Romantic road, can we stop before the antinomian excesses described in "The Pursuit Of The Millennium"?
For the maximum benefit to our country regardless of race, sex, class is all I ever ask - no other criteria should be considered in ANY policy concerning British institutions.
I've commented under your excellent post 'Are we nearly there yet ?'
E-K
I put the comment up as a post, it seemed to go beyond this post.
Post a Comment