[Chief Wiggum]

(Original post by 0404343m)
...and therein lies the problem. Having been around the houses at different universities both studying and teaching, my own impression (and the general impression I get from others who have experienced the same thing) is that actually about 75% Oxford and Cambridge students are just like 75% of other RG/leading university students. The difference being where the other places have, say, 5% really smart people and 20% of a weaker tail, it's the other way around, as you would expect given their entry procedures, there. More of the outliers, fewer weaker ones at the other end. Rest are much of a muchness on the whole- the difference between AAB and A*A*A at school is sometimes just a bit more discipline when you're quite young and still developing (or the school itself)- in a competitive university environment once people start applying themselves, I've found lots of smart and capable students. At very new universities, it's more of a problem and can be quite patchy, but if we're talking the next couple of dozen in terms of selectivity (say the Sutton Trust's list of the 30 most selective) you'd be hard pushed to notice for the most part.

This does seem to be the complete opposite of what Cambridge's research shows. You are suggesting that difference in the top end of A Level results matter little, and that schooling could perhaps influence this. (Please correct me if I have misunderstood.)

Cambridge's research shows that A Level results (number of A*s) and UMS percentages at AS Level correlate well with degree performance (and this is obviously at the very top end, given that the correlations hold even for Medicine, where the average student would have an AS average in excess of 95%):

http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/offices/a...erformance.pdf ("In Sciences, students with achieved grades A*A*A* or better have significantly better prospects in first-year University exams than those with lower grades.")

http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/offices/a..._admission.pdf

and that school attended does not really influence success at Cambridge:

http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/offices/a...erformance.pdf

Therefore, if we take the intake at a "good Russell group" and transport them to Cambridge, I don't really see how they're going to cope anywhere near as well as the existing Cambridge intake.

[0404343m]

(Original post by Chief Wiggum)
This does seem to be the complete opposite of what Cambridge's research shows. You are suggesting that difference in the top end of A Level results matter little, and that schooling could perhaps influence this. (Please correct me if I have misunderstood.)

Cambridge's research shows that A Level results (number of A*s) and UMS percentages at AS Level correlate well with degree performance:

http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/offices/a...erformance.pdf

http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/offices/a..._admission.pdf

and that school attended does not really influence success at Cambridge:

http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/offices/a...erformance.pdf

It doesn't contradict Cambridge's own research- as I said earlier on- in response to below:

I'll illustrate this point with a quote from the Trinity (Cambridge) website: A student needs an average of 80% for an A, but a student with an average of 95% in three appropriate A levels is ten times more likely to achieve a first at Cambridge than one with 85%.

...as the 95% in three or more A-levels crowd are extreme outliers on the ability curve. Saying that the people who did the very very best in the country are likely to continue to do the very very best in certain degrees is a different thing from saying that on the whole there isn't that much between most good students. I'd be interested to see the difference when we aren't talking about the tiny fraction of people getting nearly full marks at school as they're a very rare breed, even compared to AAA and AAB students that make up about 20% of those sitting 3+ exams.

The school attended is another one that people often think about the wrong way. It's not surprising that the student who has had the discipline and ability at that age to get very good grades and get into Cambridge then does as well as their peers. This doesn't say anything about the difference between schools other than that the very highest achieving are still able to achieve at Cambridge. The (different) question I'm addressing is whether those who didn't have quite the same schooling or lacked something at 16 and got AAB-ABB are still off the pace when they catch up and grow up. I don't think they are.

Therefore, if we take the intake at a "good Russell group" and transport them to Cambridge, I don't really see how they're going to cope anywhere near as well as the existing Cambridge intake.

Cambridge student in saying 'students at other universities aren't as capable as ours' shocker. Well stone me dead. The paper's key findings are for first year in a few indicators. I think there'd be catching up to do, obviously, and I think there'd be a longer tail of poorer students and a shorter tail of exceptional students, but I certainly think they'd cope. I've taught and mentored at Oxford and two other Russell Group universities. You've been to Cambridge and are full of assumptions about how much better you are than everyone else. There's a difference there.

[py0alb]

(Original post by Dorito)
Well the OP mentioned Cambridge and Lincoln, not difficult to tell which is the good uni and the poor uni there.

My post was essentially saying work as hard as you can to get into the best university you can, rather than moaning about wanting standardized exams.

That's not even remotely true. Lincoln is better than Cambridge at as many subjects as Cambridge is better than Lincoln. There are many rational reasons to pick Lincoln over Cambridge.

[Dorito]

(Original post by py0alb)
That's not even remotely true. Lincoln is better than Cambridge at as many subjects as Cambridge is better than Lincoln. There are many rational reasons to pick Lincoln over Cambridge.

[Chief Wiggum]

(Original post by 0404343m)
It doesn't contradict Cambridge's own research- as I said earlier on- in response to below:



...as the 95% in three or more A-levels crowd are extreme outliers on the ability curve. Saying that the people who did the very very best in the country are likely to continue to do the very very best in certain degrees is a different thing from saying that on the whole there isn't that much between most good students. I'd be interested to see the difference when we aren't talking about the tiny fraction of people getting nearly full marks at school as they're a very rare breed, even compared to AAA and AAB students that make up about 20% of those sitting 3+ exams.

But the point is that given that the absolute minimum you get into Cambridge with is A*AA (in reality, average student has 2.5A*), even the "poor" Cambridge students are extreme outliers. And people were claiming that most students at Russell Group unis are just as good.

[Aeschylus]

(Original post by 0404343m)
...and therein lies the problem. Having been around the houses at different universities both studying and teaching, my own impression (and the general impression I get from others who have experienced the same thing) is that actually about 75% Oxford and Cambridge students are just like 75% of other RG/leading university students. The difference being where the other places have, say, 5% really smart people and 20% of a weaker tail, it's the other way around, as you would expect given their entry procedures, there. More of the outliers, fewer weaker ones at the other end. Rest are much of a muchness on the whole- the difference between AAB and A*A*A at school is sometimes just a bit more discipline when you're quite young and still developing (or the school itself)- in a competitive university environment once people start applying themselves, I've found lots of smart and capable students. At very new universities, it's more of a problem and can be quite patchy, but if we're talking the next couple of dozen in terms of selectivity (say the Sutton Trust's list of the 30 most selective) you'd be hard pushed to notice for the most part.

Best post in this thread.

[0404343m]

(Original post by Chief Wiggum)
But the point is that given that the absolute minimum you get into Cambridge with is A*AA (in reality, average student has 2.5A*), even the "poor" Cambridge students are extreme outliers. And people were claiming that most students at Russell Group unis are just as good.

I'll repeat this from the other comment in case you didn't catch my edit:

Cambridge student in saying 'students at other universities aren't as capable as ours' shocker. Well stone me dead. The paper's key findings are for first year in a few indicators. I think there'd be catching up to do, obviously, and I think there'd be a longer tail of poorer students and a shorter tail of exceptional students, but I certainly think they'd cope. I've taught and mentored at Oxford and two other Russell Group universities. You've been to Cambridge and are full of assumptions about how much better you are than everyone else. There's a difference there.

I am claiming that. And it's based on experience. But, you know, I suppose telling yourself over and over again that you must be much better is fine too.

[Chief Wiggum]

(Original post by 0404343m)
I'll repeat this from the other comment in case you didn't catch my edit:

Cambridge student in saying 'students at other universities aren't as capable as ours' shocker. Well stone me dead. The paper's key findings are for first year in a few indicators. I think there'd be catching up to do, obviously, and I think there'd be a longer tail of poorer students and a shorter tail of exceptional students, but I certainly think they'd cope. I've taught and mentored at Oxford and two other Russell Group universities. You've been to Cambridge and are full of assumptions about how much better you are than everyone else. There's a difference there.

I am claiming that. And it's based on experience. But, you know, I suppose telling yourself over and over again that you must be much better is fine too.

But I'm confused here.

You've looked at the research I posted. People with more A*s at A Level do better at Cambridge.

This then simply comes down to: do students at other Russell Group universities have as many A*s as the Cambridge students? If they don't, they'd do worse at Cambridge than the current Cambridge students, so how can they be considered equally able?

I cannot state for sure if they have less A*. I'd have assumed it was obvious that they do; presumably the stats exist somewhere. It'd be interesting to see the stats (who knows, they may even prove me wrong, and Russell Group students could have an average of 2.5A* at A Level aswell).

(Incidentally, implying I'm biased because I go to Cambridge is pretty immature. Everyone is biased, including you. That's why I'm posting the research papers, to have evidence to back up what I'm posting. Not simply "I go to Cambridge, therefore I'm right.")

[0404343m]

(Original post by Chief Wiggum)
But I'm confused here.

You've looked at the research I posted. People with more A*s at A Level do better at Cambridge.

This then simply comes down to: do students at other Russell Group universities have as many A*s as the Cambridge students? If they don't, they'd do worse at Cambridge than the current Cambridge students, so how can they be considered equally able?

I cannot state for sure if they have less A*. I'd have assumed it was obvious that they do; presumably the stats exist somewhere. It'd be interesting to see the stats (who knows, they may even prove me wrong, and Russell Group students could have an average of 2.5A* at A Level aswell).

(Incidentally, implying I'm biased because I go to Cambridge is pretty immature. Everyone is biased. That's why I'm posting the research papers, to have evidence to back up what I'm posting. Not simply "I go to Cambridge, therefore I'm right.")

You're confused? I told you why there were problems with the research papers. You can find these reasons above. To summarise: They note the extreme disparity between 95% in three A levels against 80% in three. That's the difference between the 11% of students who get three As at A-level and the top 11% of them. That's a huge difference. They note their differences in FIRST YEAR (you know, when the 80% people are catching up). They note there's no difference between schools, which isn't surprising for the reasons I've outlined. It's a fundamentally different point to the one I'm making. Stop me if you think I'm repeating myself. I'm confused, too.

'Immature' isn't the word you're looking for. It's perfectly rational to have your views in your position- it doesn't serve you well to say others are just as good as you. I have biases too. I really don't much like Hamilton Academical Football Club, for instance. On this one though, I've seen it from both sides of the fence and been in the game for a while. Maybe my not being a clueless undergraduate makes me biased?

[0404343m]

(Original post by Aeschylus)
Best post in this thread.

It's not. For instance: 'We all know which are the good universities and students there must be better and brighter and sit harder exams than other ones' (I'm paraphrasing most of the thread, apologies) is surely a much more valid and reasoned approach than my own.

[Chief Wiggum]

(Original post by 0404343m)
You're confused? I told you why there were problems with the research papers. You can find these reasons above. To summarise: They note the extreme disparity between 95% in three A levels against 80% in three.

That isn't what the research papers are doing. "In Sciences, students with achieved grades A*A*A* or better have significantly better prospects in first-year University exams than those with lower grades". Note the words "lower grades", ie, anything below A*A*A*. So they are not just, as you state, comparing 95% in 3 A Levels against 80% in three. I can only assume you didn't read the first research paper.

I suggest you look at table 2 in the first research paper. "Since the mean differences are all negative, it is clear that there is a positive relationship
between A Level A* profile and mean Tripos performance: each group has a lower mean performance than all of the higher-ranked groups." Again, this is not simply comparing 95% in 3 A Levels against 80% in three. Your post is a complete misrepresentation of what the paper is showing. Again, I can only assume you didn't read it.

The paper's conclusions again make it crystal clear that they are not simply comparing 95% vs 80%: "there is statistically significant variation in Tripos performance dependent upon the number of A*s achieved at A Level" although they do acknowledge that more research that one year would be necessary for firmer conclusions.

That's the difference between the 11% of students who get three As at A-level and the top 11% of them. That's a huge difference. They note their differences in FIRST YEAR (you know, when the 80% people are catching up).

If you look at the second research paper I posted, some correlations between AS Level Percentages and Second Year performance are included, for example in the MedVet and NatSci Triposes.

You claimed there was "not much difference" between A*A*A and AAB, whereas Cambridge's research indicates that is incorrect.

[0404343m]

(Original post by Chief Wiggum)
That isn't what the research papers are doing. "In Sciences, students with achieved grades A*A*A* or better have significantly better prospects in first-year University exams than those with lower grades". Note the words "lower grades", ie, anything below A*A*A*. So they are not just, as you state, comparing 95% in 3 A Levels against 80% in three. I can only assume you didn't read the first research paper.

I suggest you look at table 2 in the first research paper. "Since the mean differences are all negative, it is clear that there is a positive relationship
between A Level A* profile and mean Tripos performance: each group has a lower mean performance than all of the higher-ranked groups." Again, this is not simply comparing 95% in 3 A Levels against 80% in three. Your post is a complete misrepresentation of what the paper is showing. Again, I can only assume you didn't read it.

The paper's conclusions again make it crystal clear that they are not simply comparing 95% vs 80%: "there is statistically significant variation in Tripos performance dependent upon the number of A*s achieved at A Level" although they do acknowledge that more research that one year would be necessary for firmer conclusions.

If you look at the second research paper I posted, some correlations between AS Level Percentages and Second Year performance are included, for example in the MedVet and NatSci Triposes.

You claimed there was "not much difference" between A*A*A and AAB, whereas Cambridge's research indicates that is incorrect.

Yes, I did read it. It's also nothing new, as Trinity have been saying since 2006, here: http://www.trin.cam.ac.uk/index.php?pageid=1063 The only difference here is that we can now insert A* where the old percentage scores once were.

You fail to quantify 'not much': You're telling me I should be shocked that there's a slight increase in attainment at the end of first year for every extra A* the student gets at school? As if they won't come into university with a slightly better grasp of what they're expected to know? I'm not in case you were wondering. It's still a fundamentally different question the one I'm addressing. But hey-ho.

Here's what the report (that I wasn't reading) says: "this study compares mean standardised Tripos percentage score". Percentage, the last time I checked, was out of 100. Again, feel free to pick up on that. The table shows, in the clearest and most startling terms, that the AAA student gets, on average, 0.247% poorer of a score at Cambridge than the A*A*A student. If you go right to 5 A*s, we're talking one whole percent, in first year.

...let's stop actually, my argument about has fallen all about my ears. I'm sorry for wasting your time.

[aeterno]

(Original post by stefl14)
Refer to my previous point about Einstein being smarter than a one year old. It is obvious that Einstein was better at maths than any one year old. We don't need statistics. The same is true for Cambridge students being better than Trent students. Stop being an idiot.

Wait...so your argument is because Einstein is smarter than a 1 year old (a ridiculously extreme example that cannot be measured) and this is an irrefutable fact without the need of statistics, you've somehow proved that you equally don't need statistics to show that Cambridge students are better than Trent students (a far less extreme example that can be measured)? Simply because you say so? Despite the fact that you haven't been to both universities (therefore you can't possibly compare the content of the two courses; you haven't sat the exams, done any of the assignments or graduated from both universities). Right. Well, you're the only idiot I'm seeing here.

[Chief Wiggum]

(Original post by 0404343m)
Yes, I did read it. It's also nothing new, as Trinity have been saying since 2006, here: http://www.trin.cam.ac.uk/index.php?pageid=1063 The only difference here is that we can now insert A* where the old percentage scores once were.

You fail to quantify 'not much': You're telling me I should be shocked that there's a slight increase in attainment at the end of first year for every extra A* the student gets at school? As if they won't come into university with a slightly better grasp of what they're expected to know? I'm not in case you were wondering. It's still a fundamentally different question the one I'm addressing. But hey-ho.

Here's what the report (that I wasn't reading) says: "this study compares mean standardised Tripos percentage score". Percentage, the last time I checked, was out of 100. Again, feel free to pick up on that. The table shows, in the clearest and most startling terms, that the AAA student gets, on average, 0.247% poorer of a score at Cambridge than the A*A*A student. If you go right to 5 A*s, we're talking one whole percent, in first year.
.

To be fair, if you DID read it (and you clearly have), I don't see why you wrote that the research was comparing 95% vs 80% as if that was all it was looking at: as you acknowledge in your latest post, it was comparing more. As you were clearly aware of this, I do find it puzzling you misrepresented this initially. But no matter.

Indeed, such differences can be small, but one must remember that if a Cambridge student has got in with AAA, they are likely to have shown exceptional ability elsewhere such as in an aptitude test. These aren't just random AAA students, these are AAA students who got admitted, and will therefore have had to have strong applications elsewhere, and are unlikely to have done lots of resits etc given that these would weaken an application. (Incidentally, the table is A*AA/AAA, not just AAA. We could perhaps be talking about different tables if I'm looking at the wrong one.)

I am not familiar with the entry requirements at other Russell Group universities, but I admit I would be surprised if they were asking for A*AA as a standard offer. (They could be doing so though, I'm sure some courses do, but I wouldn't have thought it was commonplace.)

[wezza]

(Original post by L-x)
What subject do you do? I can probably get past papers and some perfect answers.

I can send you some. Because it is utterly ridiculous that you could, given that the average of most of my papers is about 55% with some of the brightest students in the world sitting them.

[L-x]

(Original post by wezza)
I can send you some. Because it is utterly ridiculous that you could, given that the average of most of my papers is about 55% with some of the brightest students in the world sitting them.

I think you may have misunderstood me. I meant I can get hold of past papers for oxford and model answers to some of those past papers. I obviously wasn't claiming to be able to get 100% in any past paper sent to me.

Edit, it seems I misread your original post, I thought you were offering to try some Oxbridge past papers, so I said I'd be able to get hold of them, with model answers. In fact, you were telling me that I should try sitting the oxbridge exams I thought were so difficult. You'll be pleased to know that I have tried nearly all of the (physics) 3rd year past exams for the last decade over the last couple of weeks, because I'm sitting them for real at the moment.

[Quady]

(Original post by Giggy88)
Ofcourse he could but then again, it's much more likely that this person applies to oxbridge because of these A-levels and hence does very well in oxbridge.

Didn't say otherwise.

It doesn't mean all (or anywhere near all) go if they have those results.

[0404343m]

(Original post by Chief Wiggum)
To be fair, if you DID read it (and you clearly have), I don't see why you wrote that the research was comparing 95% vs 80% as if that was all it was looking at: as you acknowledge in your latest post, it was comparing more. As you were clearly aware of this, I do find it puzzling you misrepresented this initially. But no matter.

Indeed, such differences can be small, but one must remember that if a Cambridge student has got in with AAA, they are likely to have shown exceptional ability elsewhere such as in an aptitude test. These aren't just random AAA students, these are AAA students who got admitted, and will therefore have had to have strong applications elsewhere, and are unlikely to have done lots of resits etc given that these would weaken an application. (Incidentally, the table is A*AA/AAA, not just AAA. We could perhaps be talking about different tables if I'm looking at the wrong one.)

I am not familiar with the entry requirements at other Russell Group universities, but I admit I would be surprised if they were asking for A*AA as a standard offer. (They could be doing so though, I'm sure some courses do, but I wouldn't have thought it was commonplace.)

Let's assume it is really significant then, and accept the findings of the Cambridge paper, and also assume that this continues beyond first year. If the difference between A*AA/AAA (as you are right, it says) and A*A*A*A*A* is 1.003%, then what would be an appropriate level be- 2%, 3%, 4? If that were the case, what would happen is that people would get 64s rather than 68s in their exams, or 58s rather than 62s, or 70s rather than 74s. What we'd end up with is more 2:2s/3rds and fewer firsts. But, on the whole, aside from shunting everyone on the ability bell curve along slightly, most students would still end up doing well. As I said initially, I think you'd probably find a longer tail of those weaker students and a shorter tail of excellent ones. But, for the most part, 75% of the people would still graduate with the degrees that 75% of Cambridge students currently graduate with, we'd just see fewer at the top end and more at the bottom.

RG universities typically don't ask for A*AA- but again, I'm not sure that's the point. They're interested in filling courses, so drop entry to the lowest level that will achieve that- there's no point taking the A*AA students (that they do get) and having the classes half full, but that's part of the tail that we've talked about above. I've got no doubt at all an AAB student could cope at Cambridge, but I wouldn't be surprised if their grades were 3-4% poorer in first year or if they were much less likely to get a first or more likely to get a 2:2 than A*A*A* people.

[DynamicSyngery]

(Original post by 0404343m)
It doesn't contradict Cambridge's own research- as I said earlier on- in response to below:



...as the 95% in three or more A-levels crowd are extreme outliers on the ability curve.

I feel like this is also mostly measuring work ethic, rather than ability. Getting >95% in A levels is ultimately about grinding through a lot of past papers and mark schemes, and that's what my impression getting a first requires. If you're prepared to do that at school, you will probably keep doing it at university. On the other hand, I know a lot of people who coasted to low As at A level, retain that work ethic going forward and therefore don't do as well at university. I wouldn't say there's necessarily any difference in ability between these two groups.

[Joinedup]

(Original post by DynamicSyngery)
I feel like this is also mostly measuring work ethic, rather than ability. Getting >95% in A levels is ultimately about grinding through a lot of past papers and mark schemes, and that's what my impression getting a first requires. If you're prepared to do that at school, you will probably keep doing it at university. On the other hand, I know a lot of people who coasted to low As at A level, retain that work ethic going forward and therefore don't do as well at university. I wouldn't say there's necessarily any difference in ability between these two groups.

I agree, I think it's practically a syndrome. A level coasters get to 'good' uni and feel aggrieved that they're having to do some work or get bad marks and unilaterally decide that lower ranking unis must be handing out firsts and 2.1 for colouring in.

Seems more prevalent amongst students in the sciences, where perhaps a bucket filling model of education was more appropriate.