The Big &quot;Are My Grades Good Enough for Cambridge?&quot; Thread (Mk1)

Original post by Scrappy123

Hello,

I want to apply to Cambridge to study Economics in 2013, I am doing Maths, Further Maths, Physics and Economics. At my college, students who opt to take the full further maths course sit the full A level Mathematics course in the Lower Sixth. I was wondering how Cambridge calculate a UMS average for students like me. Do they average all the Mathematics A level modules taken in the Lower Sixth year, or do they ignore the A2 modules and solely average the As modules with my other subject AS UMS scores?

I would appreciate any help :biggrin:

Thanks

Taking AS & A2 in one year is common in maths and so the policy is that all maths & FM A2 & AS modules taken are averaged to provide one of the UMS module subjects. This is used to provide your ranking or "merit score". However the decision is holistic and will include your interview performance etc.

http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/offices/admissions/handbook/section1/1_4.html

Reply 9105

zxh800

Original post by Scrappy123

I'm almost 100% sure I will be applying to Pembroke :smile:

The only queery I now have is that, I went to a college open day and an admissions lady said that they take an average of your best 3 AS UMS scores and so is it possible they will effectively ignore my A2 maths module scores and just look at my Maths, Physics and Economics AS marks? The reason I ask is because this may work in my favour if my A2 modules bring my average UMS score down..

I'm pretty sure they look at everything and will take into account your A2 Maths scores. As a 2012 applicant, I think when I was looking into it myself I found that they'll just average all the Maths modules and take it as one subject, as opposed to treating AS and A2 as separate (which would have been better in my case, as a top 3 combo of AS, A2 Maths and AS Econ gave me the best average). However, as Colman mentioned they'll look at it holistically and a strong Maths score is crucial.

Reply 9106

Extricated

17

Any ideas on whether they count your original or resit score in calculating the avg?

Reply 9107

bb193

Original post by Extricated

Any ideas on whether they count your original or resit score in calculating the avg?

I'm not sure it answers your question, bt there is this - http://www.study.cam.ac.uk/undergraduate/apply/requirements/thefacts.html

'We recognise that even the best students can have 'bad' days when it comes to exams. We are therefore not concerned if an applicant has retaken or is planning to retake a couple of AS/A2 Level units for which the results obtained are clearly 'blips'.

We would be concerned about an applicant who seldom seems to have 'good' days and is therefore retaking large numbers of units, unless this number of retakes was justified by circumstances beyond the applicant’s control and explained in their UCAS reference.'

I think this is saying that there would be some debate about whether these are 'blips'. If that is reasonably proven, then they would be taken as the results.

Reply 9108

Original post by Extricated

Any ideas on whether they count your original or resit score in calculating the avg?

It is pretty clear that if you are applying at the end of the lower sixth/ yr 12 they will take the best of the resits although I agree with bb193 about multiple resits.

If you are applying post A-levels I think they average your A2 units too as if they averaged AS units only from yr 12&13 this would give an unfair advantage. In any case I think they will be looking for 3A* for competitive or science courses and 2A*+ for arts courses because that it was the average offer holder achieves, subject to interview & all the usual caveats.

(Evidence for this is the previous link plus what they say under "admissions research" with the evidence linking Tripos performance with A* at A2).

Reply 9109

Original post by Colmans

In any case I think they will be looking for 3A* for competitive or science courses and 2A*+ for arts courses because that it was the average offer holder achieves, subject to interview & all the usual caveats.

They're looking for A*AA, that's what the offer is, that's what they state they look for an applicant achieving. Beyond that it's completely down to the admission's tutor's discretion. Hell, they regularly take applicants who fail to meet A*AA!

Successful applicants are a 1-tailed distribution, so the average will always be higher than what the grades they are looking for are. As many successful applicants failed to meet that average as exceeded it, but they all still got in! It's a totally useless figure for a prospective applicant!

(It only includes people who met or surpassed what they were "looking for" - we want a lower bound, not an average)

Reply 9110

Original post by The Mr Z

They're looking for A*AA, that's what the offer is, that's what they state they look for an applicant achieving. Beyond that it's completely down to the admission's tutor's discretion. Hell, they regularly take applicants who fail to meet A*AA!

Successful applicants are a 1-tailed distribution, so the average will always be higher than what the grades they are looking for are. As many successful applicants failed to meet that average as exceeded it, but they all still got in! It's a totally useless figure for a prospective applicant!

(It only includes people who met or surpassed what they were "looking for" - we want a lower bound, not an average)

I think it depends whether you think people are asking the question "have people ever got in with this (low) grade" to which the answer is almost invariably "yes, give it a try". Or, "have I got a realistic to good chance" which is what I was looking for when I first came to TSR. The advice I might give is probably right for the typical applicant from a grammar or selective independent in the south of England but might be wrong for the state comprehensive in a less advantaged postcode.

The evidence shows that only 115/1137 science students who got in achieved only AAA/A*AA. Most of those will have been pre, not post qualification. The Cambridge publicised research then shows that high tripos performance is correlated with high UMS average & high A* at A2 regardless of school background etc. Admissions tutors are advised to rank on the basis of UMS. I think many if not all admissions tutors are going to factor this in and someone who achieved only A*AA including maths for an Economics degree would be, in my experience, rare as hen's teeth. Not impossible, but not likely.

Reply 9111

Original post by Colmans

I think it depends whether you think people are asking the question "have people ever got in with this (low) grade" to which the answer is almost invariably "yes, give it a try". Or, "have I got a realistic to good chance" which is what I was looking for when I first came to TSR. The advice I might give is probably right for the typical applicant from a grammar or selective independent in the south of England but might be wrong for the state comprehensive in a less advantaged postcode.

The evidence shows that only 115/1137 science students who got in achieved only AAA/A*AA. Most of those will have been pre, not post qualification. The Cambridge publicised research then shows that high tripos performance is correlated with high UMS average & high A* at A2 regardless of school background etc. Admissions tutors are advised to rank on the basis of UMS. I think many if not all admissions tutors are going to factor this in and someone who achieved only A*AA including maths for an Economics degree would be, in my experience, rare as hen's teeth. Not impossible, but not likely.

Yes, that is the question, and giving averages doesn't answer it.

You say "only" 115/1137, that's 10% of people - and you're advising that he should be aiming for A*A*A* to have a realistic chance?

Yes, UMS correlated with Tripos (Poorly, just better than any other exam indicator) but that's completely different from saying this average value is what you need to be aiming for.

You want a realistic chance, you just need to be above the lower tail. A*AA gives you a realistic chance. You just told someone they needed A*A*A* because that's the average. You might as well tell 30% of students currently studying at Cambridge that they shouldn't have applied because their chances of success were unrealistic! (back of envelope figure from that means table in the research analysis)

Again, you're looking at a 1-tailed distribution and ignoring a HUGE wealth of other factors.

People want advice on whether they have a realistic chance and you are giving bad advice.

Reply 9112

Original post by The Mr Z

Yes, that is the question, and giving averages doesn't answer it.

You say "only" 115/1137, that's 10% of people - and you're advising that he should be aiming for A*A*A* to have a realistic chance?

Yes, UMS correlated with Tripos (Poorly, just better than any other exam indicator) but that's completely different from saying this average value is what you need to be aiming for.

You want a realistic chance, you just need to be above the lower tail. A*AA gives you a realistic chance. You just told someone they needed A*A*A* because that's the average. You might as well tell 30% of students currently studying at Cambridge that they shouldn't have applied because their chances of success were unrealistic! (back of envelope figure from that means table in the research analysis)

Again, you're looking at a 1-tailed distribution and ignoring a HUGE wealth of other factors.

People want advice on whether they have a realistic chance and you are giving bad advice.

The point is not that 10% of applicants who go on to get A*AA get a place but 10% of those given offers get A*AA. We know that 4,000 candidates who didn't get an offer go on to get A*AA. So less than 1 in 20 applicants who end up with A*AA achieves get in. Not impossible but not likely. And the research was not available before so its influence on offers may grow.
UMS may not be a perfect predictor, nothing could be, but it beats any of the alternatives.

I didn't say somebody with an A*AA prediction shouldn't apply, I said that somebody who had already got their grades would need to have done better to have a realistic chance. Economics applicants already have only a 13% chance, I took that chance and got in. But knowing it was tough was an advantage.

The intelligent applicant will take a range of opinions and make their mind up. Some will aim high even if the chances of success are low. In the sort of school I came from your advice would mean almost everybody could apply but academic record was the best predictor of who got in. Everybody I knew who got in did considerably better than one A*. Some of those who didn't get offers were people who just hadn't appreciated how tough it was and a bit of realism might have meant they worked harder.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 9113

Llewellyn

14

Original post by Colmans

The point is not that 10% of applicants who go on to get A*AA get a place but 10% of those given offers get A*AA. We know that 4,000 candidates who didn't get an offer go on to get A*AA. So less than 1 in 20 applicants who end up with A*AA achieves get in. Not impossible but not likely. And the research was not available before so its influence on offers may grow.
UMS may not be a perfect predictor, nothing could be, but it beats any of the alternatives.

I didn't say somebody with an A*AA prediction shouldn't apply, I said that somebody who had already got their grades would need to have done better to have a realistic chance. Economics applicants already have only a 13% chance, I took that chance and got in. But knowing it was tough was an advantage.

The intelligent applicant will take a range of opinions and make their mind up. Some will aim high even if the chances of success are low. In the sort of school I came from your advice would mean almost everybody could apply but academic record was the best predictor of who got in. Everybody I knew who got in did considerably better than one A*. Some of those who didn't get offers were people who just hadn't appreciated how tough it was and a bit of realism might have meant they worked harder.

You are mixing cause and effect with the A*AA against offers. That argument would only work if Cambridge gave out offers purely based on what they expected people's results to be. However, Cambridge have said that is not the case. You also ignore the fact that A*AA may not be that impressive at a private or grammar school, but at a "less academic" college A*AA is a noteworthy achievement.

Besides, that is irrelevant anyway. Even using your statistics, I would say 1 in 20 or 5% is still a realistic chance. I would define a realistic chance as anything above 1% or alternatively as grades good enough to get an interview (i.e. a chance)

I don't like the A level argument for most cases, A level grades are what you get due to a combination of teaching, ability, understanding and hard work. It is by no means directly related to likelihood of getting an offer. Getting an offer, at least how Cambridge describe it, is all about showing ability and more importantly potential. The A level grade offers are just a function of the UCAS system's ultimatum. So whilst I agree that getting A*AA doesn't mean you have a great chance (which some people assume because that is their standard offer) - I disagree that anyone should be discouraged from applying, or that anyone should be told that 1 in 20 is unrealistic.

Perhaps you may have a point in individual cases, but I don't agree with such a broad statement.

Reply 9114

Extricated

17

Original post by Llewellyn

You are mixing cause and effect with the A*AA against offers. That argument would only work if Cambridge gave out offers purely based on what they expected people's results to be. However, Cambridge have said that is not the case. You also ignore the fact that A*AA may not be that impressive at a private or grammar school, but at a "less academic" college A*AA is a noteworthy achievement.

Besides, that is irrelevant anyway. Even using your statistics, I would say 1 in 20 or 5% is still a realistic chance. I would define a realistic chance as anything above 1% or alternatively as grades good enough to get an interview (i.e. a chance)

I don't like the A level argument for most cases, A level grades are what you get due to a combination of teaching, ability, understanding and hard work. It is by no means directly related to likelihood of getting an offer. Getting an offer, at least how Cambridge describe it, is all about showing ability and more importantly potential. The A level grade offers are just a function of the UCAS system's ultimatum. So whilst I agree that getting A*AA doesn't mean you have a great chance (which some people assume because that is their standard offer) - I disagree that anyone should be discouraged from applying, or that anyone should be told that 1 in 20 is unrealistic.

Perhaps you may have a point in individual cases, but I don't agree with such a broad statement.

I think you've misconstrued his point. Colmans isn't discouraging anyone from applying with A*AA but is simply stating that obtaining A*AA will put you at a disadvantage for most courses. I know for certain that the vast majority of extremely competitive courses (medicine, economics etc) have most of their students obtain A*A*AA+. The point Colmans is making is akin to the one that "getting 88% across your top three should not discourage you from applying, but it certainly puts you at a disadvantage."

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 9115

Llewellyn

14

Original post by Extricated

I think you've misconstrued his point. Colmans isn't discouraging anyone from applying with A*AA but is simply stating that obtaining A*AA will put you at a disadvantage for most courses. I know for certain that the vast majority of extremely competitive courses (medicine, economics etc) have most of their students obtain A*A*AA+. The point Colmans is making is akin to the one that "getting 88% across your top three should not discourage you from applying, but it certainly gives you a disadvantage."

My point is that the blanket statement "A*AA isnt good enough" is too much of a generalisation. You can put that in context with medicine, but that is specific. Is applying with A*AA unrealistic generally? No. Will others have done better? Yes.

To give an example: under that general advice, a MML applicant with an A* in french and 2As isnt in a good position.

Reply 9116

Original post by Colmans

The point is not that 10% of applicants who go on to get A*AA get a place but 10% of those given offers get A*AA. We know that 4,000 candidates who didn't get an offer go on to get A*AA. So less than 1 in 20 applicants who end up with A*AA achieves get in. Not impossible but not likely. And the research was not available before so its influence on offers may grow.
UMS may not be a perfect predictor, nothing could be, but it beats any of the alternatives.

I didn't say somebody with an A*AA prediction shouldn't apply, I said that somebody who had already got their grades would need to have done better to have a realistic chance. Economics applicants already have only a 13% chance, I took that chance and got in. But knowing it was tough was an advantage.

The intelligent applicant will take a range of opinions and make their mind up. Some will aim high even if the chances of success are low. In the sort of school I came from your advice would mean almost everybody could apply but academic record was the best predictor of who got in. Everybody I knew who got in did considerably better than one A*. Some of those who didn't get offers were people who just hadn't appreciated how tough it was and a bit of realism might have meant they worked harder.

Completely missing cause and effect, also no Bayesian considerations. Also, we've had this research for a while, it's just a new year's data added in.

Admissions tutors only look at info they have about a candidate, which means this can't actually play any part in the majority of decisions, because the vast vast majority of applicants don't have A2s, and grades can change substantially between AS and A2.

If you have data on the ratios of people who applied having already achieved A*AA and offers, then that may have some use, but this is data for people who mostly applied before A2s and so it is logical fallacy to draw conclusions from it.

You haven't accounted for the effect having an A*AA offer firmed has on people's exam performance.

Even so, a 1/20 chance is still significant enough to make an application, especially when the applicant will have 5 choices the lower two of which will be towards the 1/1 end of the spectrum (with A*AA a lot of good universities will snap you up)

Which school? Given what you imply it's probably one of a certain select few, and if it's one of the ones I'm thinking of, then the staff there have a much better judgement than academic grades for working out who will get into Oxbridge.
But as you said, you yourself could tell the difference between those who got offers and those who didn't on non-academic grounds.

Your still advising someone with the entry requirements that he should only be applying if he's in the middle of a one-tailed, inapplicable distribution. The number of mistakes in the reasoning is bad enough, but given we know just how poor an indicator UMS is, and actually how much better an indication knowledge of the candidate is, we really shouldn't be calling this with the information we have.

We should be telling people if their grades are inhibiting, neutral or enabling, and for the latter two telling them to advise and giving advice on making as successful application as possible, and how to choose a good set of 5 universities to offset the uncertainty inherent in any Oxbridge application.

What you're advising is on the same level as trying to play a numbers game with which college to apply to.

Your biggest mistake is trying to quantify a chance of acceptance to such a degree of accuracy based on such lacking information.

Reply 9117

bb193

The issue is that the A2 grades are not the barrier. The main barrier is getting the offer.

My eldest daughter applied for History. She got A*A*A at A2. But she didn't get an offer in the previous January, so didn't get in.

The average applicant has a median of 90 UMS in the best 3 subjects at AS. The average applicant with an offer has a median 95 UMS at AS. That is the obstacle to beat.

It is not unknown for someone to get an offer and not get in. But it is quite rare.

Don't think about the A*AA. It is is pretty irrelevant. Think median 95 UMS for A2. Hit that and you can start to feel pretty confident.

Reply 9118