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

They won't be harsher, and they wont be critical because they know that many people go to extraordinary lengths to make Oxbridge applications, with a mistaken view of the necessary standard of entry.

They may view it as being a tactical mistake, but admissions are not done on how good at exam tactics someone is - far from it, admissions try to sift out those who have done well from good tactics from those who have done well because they're good. It's why they look down on taking a lot of resits. The candidate was unprepared two years early - so what?

If an candidate got a B or C in an exam taken two years early then they would be given the opportunity to improve on that at the correct age, and if they did better then the early sittings would probably be ignored. If they didn't resit then Oxbridge would try to hazard a guess at what they would have got if they had sat them with the correct preparation. In this respect a B or maybe a C would probably be fine, but a D or low C would probably indicate the candidate would not have managed a high A/A* if sat at the correct time.



There wont be repercussions - Cambridge isn't going to penalise a candidate for being "too keen" and taking their exams too early, for trying to punch above their weight and putting huge amounts of extra work in - the people that do that are the same people who go on to get starred 1sts.
And there wont be repercussions for trying to be extremely outstanding and ending up being just mostly outstanding instead.

These things will only be mentioned in your Personal Statement.

For Oxbridge, or any Russel group uni, good advice is that a personal statement should be AT LEAST 4/5ths directly subject related.

That really doesn't leave you much to write about those other things with. And they'll most likely be ignored. (None of these really mark you out as a good doctor either)

You're not trying to fool a job interviewer with your "transferable skills" rubbish that's all the fashion in HR at the moment - Oxbridge are looking specifically for pure academic credentials.

Long and short - reading around subject, work experience, public lectures, masterclasses and summer courses - Desirable. Music, Duke of Edinburgh, Charity work, Sport - not desirable.

This however is problematic.

Your choice of subjects is very poor for a law application - law wants to see essay subjects like History, English lit, Religious Studies and Philosophy, Economics.

You only essay subject is also your worst - B in English Lit at AS.

Regardless of taking things early, this is a weak application for Law.

Good applicants tend to have taken subjects at A Level (or equivalent) that develop a careful, analytical approach to reading and which require them to present information in a way which is well structured and thoughtfully argued. In our experience, applicants with backgrounds in Mathematics and science subjects perform as well as those whose background is in humanities subjects. Many Colleges are pleased to see applicants with a mixed background in these subjects.

And yet it's marked as an art not a science so the possibility of failure is consideably decreased. I think in my year about 20% of philosophers got less than a 2.i compared with nearly 35% of mathmos.

Not sure it's such a big deal:

But in any case I suspect the fact that this person doesn't have an A* means it's extremely unlikely they'll give them an offer. That's the real problem.

Well you're clearly in a better position to comment about such matters so if that's the case, then I apologise, I was wrong.

Yeah, but don't 30% of the mathmos get a 1st? In philosophy it's always about 15%. Also, it's harder to be really really good at Philosophy. Just look at Descartes, Leibniz, Russell, Turing, etc. Got it right in maths, screwed it up in philosophy (yeah I know, it's a cheap argument).

well in my maths modules like C1 and C2, i think i have almost 100%, even in my M1 (probably like 96) but in my D1, i only got 83. and D2 i just did and i probably got near 90 if the ecf applies in a friendly way. it was just fp1 which i know is the main fm course. didnt go so well. the reason for that is (i know it sounds cheap) i wanted to focus on all my subjects because AAAB would look worse than AAAA wouldnt it? especially for oxbridge. luckily im going to drop law which was causing all the bad ums in my maths.

so what im trying to say is that i hopefully will be able to handle step if i just focus on that. but hey thats only if i get an interview at least...

also i dont understand why people would find oxbridge maths hard because thats the only thing you have to concentrate on isnt it? there would be no distractions with other useless subjects which means you can keep practicing more and more. well obviously thats coming from someone who barely gets 90s...

Applying for Computer Science
GCSES: 9.5 A* , 2.5 A
As Levels: (Maths, F.Maths, Physics, Chemistry, Biology)
98% in modules so far, expecting similar results for the rest
Extra-Curricular: DofE Gold (Coaching Disabled Children, Gym, Motor Biking)
Further Reading: The new turing omnibus, the pleasures of counting, the code book
Never done any resits.

What are my chances like for getting an interview/offer at Cambridge?

You're just wrong. However you try and spin it, maths is the hardest subject at Cambridge.

Also, for the academic year 2009-2010 (latest one with results available).

Philosophy Part II
1st 30.2 %
2:1 65.1 %
2:2 4.7 %

Maths Part II
1st 30.9 %
2:1 40.1 %
2:2 18.4 %
3rd 3.9 %
Other (fails/non honours) 6.8 %

6x more people come out having failed to get a 2:1. Definetely the easier subject... Maths Part III is not a valid comparison as you're only allowed to do it with a 1st/very high 2:1 at Part II.

x

Standard arts subject student taking offence when told their subject is easier than a science. I honestly don't care what you believe. Ask anyone else whether maths or philosophy is the harder subject to excel in at Cambridge and you will be told the answer is maths.

These things will only be mentioned in your Personal Statement.

For Oxbridge, or any Russel group uni, good advice is that a personal statement should be AT LEAST 4/5ths directly subject related.

That really doesn't leave you much to write about those other things with. And they'll most likely be ignored. (None of these really mark you out as a good doctor either)

You're not trying to fool a job interviewer with your "transferable skills" rubbish that's all the fashion in HR at the moment - Oxbridge are looking specifically for pure academic credentials.

Long and short - reading around subject, work experience, public lectures, masterclasses and summer courses - Desirable. Music, Duke of Edinburgh, Charity work, Sport - not desirable.

Yeah, but don't 30% of the mathmos get a 1st? In philosophy it's always about 15%. Also, it's harder to be really really good at Philosophy. Just look at Descartes, Leibniz, Russell, Turing, etc. Got it right in maths, screwed it up in philosophy (yeah I know, it's a cheap argument).

Sorry what's HR? I've done various different work experiences (hospital/GP/care home), I'm also registered to MEDWALES and I attend lectures and conferences and work shops at Cardiff Uni.
I'm planning to attend the Cardiff Summer School in July. It doesn't matter that it isn't at Cambridge? I will definitely look into Masterclasses! How many words is a PS roughly?
Thank you so much for your help btw, appreciate it

this is literally the first time i've ever seen anyone claim that turing is a philosopher, or that he 'screwed it up' despite not really doing it.

i think you just secretly have an inferiority complex tbh.

Erm... Ever heard about machine state functionalism? Trust me, I know my stuff better than you. Mathmos just think theirs is the hardest subject because they are so ignorant about other triposes and just can't grasp the concept of verbal intelligence.