Philosophy is 15, but I'm resitting a module, but thatll be after my application goes in and potential interview. Biology was bang on an A so I've dropped that. Why?
Philosophy is 15, but I'm resitting a module, but thatll be after my application goes in and potential interview. Biology was bang on an A so I've dropped that. Why?
15?
They sound a little low for Cambridge, so you might want to just try your chances with Oxford.
Wasn't aware I needed 3 A*s, is possibly 2 not enough?
You don't need A* (obviously one), you just have to look like your capable of getting them, and seeing as A2 is harder than AS, if you're below 90 for the latter, you'll look unlikely to get them. It does not necessarily mean you won't, of course, but how are they gonna know that?
Not at A2, you only need A*AA. The 90% is just a guideline, people get in with more and people get in with less. 85%+ is usually seen as good, so I'd say you're well placed to apply. They usually consider your top three, and you have 2 over 90% which is good. Maybe consider applying to Downing, they promise interviews to anyone with an 85% average over their top three subjects.
I suppose, but it certainly helps. I mean, 90+ on three and then 80 on your fourth is okay, but there will obviously be more competitive candidates.
I saw a graph produced by the Director of Undergraduate Admissions which showed the AS average UMS that people achieved when they were offered a place and it ranged from 85 to 100, with some way below that (due to special circumstances).
This was for engineering, however, so I don't know if it's true for other subjects.
I saw a graph produced by the Director of Undergraduate Admissions which showed the AS average UMS that people achieved when they were offered a place and it ranged from 85 to 100, with some way below that (due to special circumstances).
This was for engineering, however, so I don't know if it's true for other subjects.
Fair enough. Like aforementioned by someone, the 90+ thing is just a guideline, so in no means is it absolutely concrete.
You don't need A*, you just have to look like your capable of getting them, and seeing as A2 is harder than AS, if you're below 90 for the latter, you'll look unlikely to get them. It does not necessarily mean you won't, of course, but how are they gonna know that?
I'd have to disagree with this, maybe if someone's just getting 80%, but if someone's getting 85% I'd say they were a fair shout to improve over the course of the year. Also, you only need 80% at AS for an A* in the most convential circumstances, so I don't get why people say you're less likely to, if you get below the threshold. Is A2 really that much harder? I've just started, so genuinely curious.
I'd have to disagree with this, maybe if someone's just getting 80%, but if someone's getting 85% I'd say they were a fair shout to improve over the course of the year. Also, you only need 80% at AS for an A* in the most convential circumstances, so I don't get why people say you're less likely to, if you get below the threshold. Is A2 really that much harder? I've just started, so genuinely curious.
So do Cambridge seriously look for 2-3 A*s, if not 2 with on within close range?
In AS' I got an A (190/200) in History, an A (186/200) in English and an A in Philosophy and an A in Biology. Do Oxford see UMS grades?
GCSE's were A*AAAAAAAB, which I'm aware are not the best grades for Oxford, so would these totally put me out of the race?
Should I look at Cambridge instead, even though they don't do History/Politics which is what I want to do, so I'd have to change my choices and PS to accomodate a single honours course in History, as this is all that Cambridge offer.
I'd be grateful of any advice.
your history ums is high as well as your English. A*A*A prediction is fine! If u can demonstrate passion in your interview you SHOULD get an offer. However the likelihood of you being auto-pooled is slim as their is a pooling based on UMS and GCSE thresholds but your college may put you through to the pool if they think you're a good candidate! GOOD LUCK
I'd have to disagree with this, maybe if someone's just getting 80%, but if someone's getting 85% I'd say they were a fair shout to improve over the course of the year. Also, you only need 80% at AS for an A* in the most convential circumstances, so I don't get why people say you're less likely to, if you get below the threshold. Is A2 really that much harder? I've just started, so genuinely curious.
Obviously you're less likely to, being mathematically possible and likely are two different things. Obviously you can, like I said, I infact did, getting 80% at AS and then achieving A*. This does not mean everyone will.