The Big "Are My Grades Good Enough for Cambridge?" Thread (Mk1)

I was about to ask this! Halfway through my exams, I'm fairly certain that I've failed History AS, my other subjects are French, Italian and English Literature.

I want to do Modern Languages, and I am worrying slightly as History is kind of linked. Would it heavily work against me? I am predicted very high grades in my other AS subjects, and so far it seems I've doing well, but would it, for example, completely deter Cambridge from offering me a place, if indeed it got to that stage?

Applying for Law and doing History, Psychology, Law and Sociology (dropping)
I know, not exactly respected cept history and semi-psychology but I can't go back now so

http://www.study.cam.ac.uk/undergraduate/apply/requirements/thefacts.html

'UMS performance

We ask applicants to tell us the details of their uniform mark scheme (UMS) performance in every AS/A2 Level unit taken to date on our Supplementary Application Questionnaire. Our research shows that performance at AS/A Level as measured by average UMS percentages is a much better predictor of degree potential than GCSE results.

Our main measure of UMS performance is the average across three subjects: for Arts and Social Science applicants across the three best subjects (excluding General Studies and Critical Thinking); for Science applicants across the three most relevant subjects.

In the last admissions round the average Cambridge applicant scored about 90% on this measure, while the average successful Cambridge applicant scored nearer 95%. Note that both these figures are averages. There were successful Cambridge applicants who had UMS averages in their best/most relevant three subjects below 90%.'

The criteria for making an offer can be read in the prospectus- academic potential is the primary criteria for admission. Though academic potential may be gauged from UMS scores, interview performances, TSA etc!
Hope this was some help.

You lot should try having an A*AA+1,1 in STEP II and III offer.

If it is 90-95, then you need to get your head down and work like a trojan, and with a favourable wind, you may be lucky.

Well this women from Cambridge admissions came to our college and said apart from trinity other colleges don't mind Psychology etc,

Hmm, I think I generally agree with what you're saying, but I take issue with this^. You seem to suggest that for anybody with an average between 90-95% it is somehow down to lady luck as to whether you get in. Of course, providing ceteris paribus, somebody with 95% average is more likely to get in than somebody with a 90% average; however, a strong personal statement, reference and interview performance can certainly override a slight deficit of a few marks here and there IMO.

Of course, my apologies if I've wholly misinterpreted what you're trying to say.

It's fine. I applied to Cambridge earlier this year (for PPS) with 3 As and 2 Bs at AS...I still got an offer. As long as you have solid UMS in your top 3 subjects, you're absolutely fine

Personal statements count for nothing at Cambridge with the possible exception of medicine. Whilst they may influence initial interview questions they are not scored and don't increase or decrease the chances of an offer.

References of those who score 95% UMS are almost invariably perfect so there is little chance that somebody averaging 90% is going to be able to gain ground by their reference (unless perhaps it relates to mitigating circumstances).

It is true that an excellent interview especially in the context of an application which suggests the paper record may be inaccurate due to negative factors can secure an offer. But the majority of the high scorers also do well at interview. It isn't luck in the sense of being random, but it is true that for a competitive course things will have to go well.

Personal statements count for nothing at Cambridge with the possible exception of medicine. Whilst they may influence initial interview questions they are not scored and don't increase or decrease the chances of an offer.

References of those who score 95% UMS are almost invariably perfect so there is little chance that somebody averaging 90% is going to be able to gain ground by their reference (unless perhaps it relates to mitigating circumstances).

It is true that an excellent interview especially in the context of an application which suggests the paper record may be inaccurate due to negative factors can secure an offer. But the majority of the high scorers also do well at interview. It isn't luck in the sense of being random, but it is true that for a competitive course things will have to go well.

Hold on, I'd disagree - according to my DoS the PS actually counts for quite a lot - it's used to gauge how interested a student actually is in their subject, while exam results are used to measure raw ability and interview to examine thinking style. So PS actually makes quite a difference unless the candidate is a clear winner on the other parts.

They're not scored because there'd be no way to score them, but admissions are ultimately made by a value judgement and not on score - that's only a guideline.

References are not at all "invariably perfect" - in fact schools are often quite harsh when writing references (especially top schools where a significant proportion of those with really high UMS come from). Admissions tutors also look much more sceptically at flawless references than imperfect ones. (In fact having a reference that draws attention to some minor flaws is probably better than a spotless one)

pupils with 90% are easily able to gain ground from their reference, and equally pupils with 95% are easily able to loose it.


High score does not correlate as well with interview performance as you might think. If it did there would be little point in doing the interview, and you certainly wouldn't see more and more unis adopting it in addition to grades.

The truth of the matter is that it is possible to rote-learn for an exam, with limited grasp of the material beyond the immediate confines of the syllabus. (not that they don't understand it, just aren't able to apply it)

Also the interview tests for a style of thinking much more than knowledge of the subject. There's very much an Oxbridge-suited type of intelligence, and it's not the only one - there are plenty of very intelligent people who don't have the way of thinking needed for Oxbridge.

Different DOS say different things!

I have moved to a new country this year with my family and am attending an international school that offers A levels. I study:

English Literature
History
Geography
Business Studies

I am currently in the process of completing my AS year and have been thinking of applying to Cambridge to read Law. However, due to the fact that I didn't take GCSE's and studied at a school in a country outside Europe, which offered education that is not recognised, I wasn't prepared enough for my courses. Therefore, the effort that I had to make was considerably higher than my classmates and people from the UK. Thus, I am expecting B's/low A's in August (probably 1,2 resits).

I noticed that very few international students take up essay based subjects for A level, taking Maths, Physics instead. Will taking humanities subjects give me an advantage over other international applicants? Will Cambridge understand my circumstances and appreciate the effort that I had to make?

Also, when applying for a course as an international student, are we competing with other international students or with students from UK too?

Applying for Law and doing History, Psychology, Law and Sociology (dropping)
I know, not exactly respected cept history and semi-psychology but I can't go back now so