>University admissions for computer science is mostly demonstrating a strong ability in mathematics and reasoning, and an interest in the subject. Both were ab

>University admissions for computer science is mostly demonstrating a strong ability in mathematics and reasoning, and an interest in the subject. Both were abundantly clear with my application, with a high grade in maths (the one they wanted) and a personal statement about what programming work I've done. I would have met the grade boundary had I gotten a slightly better mark in "IT". Requiring "mathematics and reasoning" is already demonstrated by the requirement of a maths A-level and a science A-level. It is in no way demonstrated by the ability to set up a Joomla website. My point still stands. >I'd guess you have a lot more interest in Japanese than French An alternative reading, which accords with the curriculum and common method of teaching, would be that the teaching style is not fit for purpose. >Because it's better to learn the fundamentals, before using tools to take shortcuts. I agree. That doesn't explain why no computer-assisted learning happens at any point during the course of the whole under-18 maths curriculum. >Seems unlikely. The example exam paper at [1] asks for pseudocode. Fair enough, thanks for the link. I must have misremembered. The fact that you need to write a program without access to an interpreter is similarly silly.