Cambridge Maths Students and Applicants

Hi guys, i'm in year 12 at the moment and am considering applying to Cambridge to do maths. The main reason i'm a bit worried is that i only got 3A*s at GCSE, the rest were A's and I've heard that for Oxbridge GCSE's are usually wanted all A* (or there abouts). For my A2's im doing maths, further maths and physics, predicted A*A*A. I have qualified for the UKMT Olympiad before and I am part of the UKMT mentoring scheme, I'm also doing STEP. My question is really is it worth applying, is there a half decent chance I could get a place, I don't go to private school, im the first in my family to even go to uni, so I'm not at a massive advantage from that perspective, but it's somewhere i really would like to go. So what do people think?Worth applying or not??

Thanks

Hi guys, i'm in year 12 at the moment and am considering applying to Cambridge to do maths. The main reason i'm a bit worried is that i only got 3A*s at GCSE, the rest were A's and I've heard that for Oxbridge GCSE's are usually wanted all A* (or there abouts). For my A2's im doing maths, further maths and physics, predicted A*A*A. I have qualified for the UKMT Olympiad before and I am part of the UKMT mentoring scheme, I'm also doing STEP. My question is really is it worth applying, is there a half decent chance I could get a place, I don't go to private school, im the first in my family to even go to uni, so I'm not at a massive advantage from that perspective, but it's somewhere i really would like to go. So what do people think?Worth applying or not??

Thanks

Since you're lacking in the final of those 3 you might want to try and enhance your application, do an extended project or try and be different on paper somehow.

Hi guys, i'm in year 12 at the moment and am considering applying to Cambridge to do maths. The main reason i'm a bit worried is that i only got 3A*s at GCSE, the rest were A's and I've heard that for Oxbridge GCSE's are usually wanted all A* (or there abouts). For my A2's im doing maths, further maths and physics, predicted A*A*A. I have qualified for the UKMT Olympiad before and I am part of the UKMT mentoring scheme, I'm also doing STEP. My question is really is it worth applying, is there a half decent chance I could get a place, I don't go to private school, im the first in my family to even go to uni, so I'm not at a massive advantage from that perspective, but it's somewhere i really would like to go. So what do people think?Worth applying or not??

Thanks

I don't go to private school, im the first in my family to even go to uni, so I'm not at a massive advantage from that perspective

What information goes on your transcript?

The "average" successful Cambridge applicant has 6 A*s

Do you have a source? The people I know generally did significantly better than that.

A presentation given to potential applicants by Oxbridge admissions tutors. The figure specifically referred to Cambridge, but not any particular subject. No idea where the figure came from or whether it's the mean or median etc.

What's the logic to how many questions there are in a Part III exam, and how many you're marked on?

In 2011, the rubric varied from 2 out of 3, 2 out of 4, 3 out of 5, 3 out of 6, 4 out of 6, to 5 out of 5 (with no. 3 carrying more weight), and at least one paper had 2 sections (answer 4 out of 6, and at most 3 out of the 4 in the first section).

When do you find out what the exam rubric is going to be for a given course?

It's up to the lecturer what format the exams take, how many questions there are, how many you're meant to answer, whether they're open or closed book, whether they're problems or bookwork, etc. They're not currently obliged to tell you what format the exam's going to take beforehand (this might change next year), but many do anyway -- send the lecturer an email if you want to know.

Thanks for this info. I don't know about other people, but if I had one exam which was wholly bookwork and another which was wholly problems, I'd compare for them very differently.

It's up to the lecturer what format the exams take, how many questions there are, how many you're meant to answer, whether they're open or closed book, whether they're problems or bookwork, etc. They're not currently obliged to tell you what format the exam's going to take beforehand (this might change next year), but many do anyway -- send the lecturer an email if you want to know.

the idea being that second guessing people's intentions is an important transferrable skill and has to be taught somewhere in the course?

This was discussed at the last Faculty Board meeting. The Part III committee recommended that the rubrics not be published because they think that some students might drop whole sections of a course if they know that they're going to have to answer, say, 3 out of 5 questions on an exam. But the FB disagreed and the possibility of rubrics being published on the Faculty website prior to exams is being looked into (maybe even for this year, but certainly next year), so watch this space...

The Part III committee's argument seems very strange. If they want students to study all sections of a course, why not examine them on them all? E.g. have every paper contain 5 questions all with the same weight, and answer as many as you like. On one 2011 paper students were marked on 3 questions - I don't recall out of how many, but think there were only 3 on the paper - and each was worth 40% of the mark. I've never seen an exam like that before. In effect you were marked on 2.5 questions out of 3. Maybe a case of giving lecturers too much freedom and independence?