[TauMuon]

Hi guys,

From the start of my A-levels I've always really wanted to apply for Oxbridge, probably Cambridge. However, there's a chance my grades won't be up to scratch

I'm doubtful whether I'll actually achieve a predicted A* (so 90% UMS in a subject), and my question is this: Are they vital for Oxbridge applications?

Can you apply with A's at AS and get an offer on the condition you achieve that A* at the end of A2?

The actual requirement for A*s is an A grade for AS and A*s in A2, so it's not like I'm not on track (so long as I put the work in for A2)

Thoughts/experiences will be really helpful, thanks!

[TimmonaPortella]

If you're asking whether you need 90%+ in your AS levels, it's not a solid requirement. It's one influence, but if you make a strong interview performance and pull off a strong admissions test you could get in with mid 80s, even low 80s.

edit: though this is to some extent subject dependent. I find it hard to believe that you'd get an interview for maths with low 80s in the core modules and no excuse. Not too sure though.

[TauMuon]

(Original post by TimmonaPortella)
If you're asking whether you need 90%+ in your AS levels, it's not a solid requirement. It's one influence, but if you make a strong interview performance and pull off a strong admissions test you could get in with mid 80s, even low 80s.

edit: though this is to some extent subject dependent. I find it hard to believe that you'd get an interview for maths with low 80s in the core modules and no excuse. Not too sure though.

It's actually physics I'm worried about. What you said about maths kind of applies to physics though, doesn't it? But I guess it's slightly more subjective - longer, written answers and essay questions etc.

I just have a really bad feeling about the exams I've just done - I might end up doing quite well

[TimmonaPortella]

(Original post by TauMuon)
It's actually physics I'm worried about. What you said about maths kind of applies to physics though, doesn't it? But I guess it's slightly more subjective - longer, written answers and essay questions etc.

I just have a really bad feeling about the exams I've just done - I might end up doing quite well

Hmm if I had to guess I'd say physics would be more forgivable, for the reasons you've identified and because I think a great physicist could mess up an exam through timing etc, whereas with maths it's just... do it. If you're good enough at maths you've got plenty of time and no real excuse for messing up. I'm not sure how far that would apply with physics. Still, neither way do I think it would be impossible for you to get an offer; you'd just have to really show how good you are both pre- and post interview, get your tutors to say that your marks don't reflect your ability and hope you get a chance at the admissions tests, at which point the ums scores will lose some of their importance.

Anyway, I thought I'd got, like, Cs in a couple of my papers at AS level, and I ended up with averages of like 92/3% across my subjects. You may well be overestimating what's required of you. (Although I didn't do any marked practice papers at AS, so I had nothing to base my ideas on).

[Intriguing Alias]

(Original post by TauMuon)
Hi guys,

From the start of my A-levels I've always really wanted to apply for Oxbridge, probably Cambridge. However, there's a chance my grades won't be up to scratch

I'm doubtful whether I'll actually achieve a predicted A* (so 90% UMS in a subject), and my question is this: Are they vital for Oxbridge applications?

Can you apply with A's at AS and get an offer on the condition you achieve that A* at the end of A2?

The actual requirement for A*s is an A grade for AS and A*s in A2, so it's not like I'm not on track (so long as I put the work in for A2)

Thoughts/experiences will be really helpful, thanks!

If all your UMS are under 90 then you'll be pretty disadvantaged for Cambridge I'd think. Also, this tine for Oxford too, if your teachers don't predict at least 1 A* I'd imagine you'd find it nigh-on impossible unless you had mitigating circumstances.

Sorry to sound harsh but just being honest.

P.S. What I said is just generally; there will obviously be exceptions.

[DisturbingKand0R]

I went to Cambridge earlier in the year, they said that they preferably want a 94-3% UMS average across your best 3 subjects or the 3 subjects that are most related to what you want to apply for. If you are applying for a science based subject and took one humanity and the rest sciences for AS. They wont mind too much about the humanity being lower.

The compitition is high though, so i would try my absolute best to get as far into the 90s as possible. I'm sorry to say many applicants to oxbridge do actually attain a full UMS (100%) in at least one module.
This info is for mainly science based subjects.

But there are other factors, personal statement, GCSEs (not too focused by cambridge btw, but 4A*s for a science based subject minimum), interview, and any other admission tests...
So dont be disheartened, try your best. Interview in my opinion most important!
You can get predicted an A* even without great AS grades, depending on GCSEs and your school.
Physics is probably the most difficult A level, they will be forgiving towards it, i think
Don't aim for 90%, aim for 100% that way you dont lower your chances of getting into the 90s, its really all about self motivation
Good luck

[Colmans]

(Original post by TauMuon)
Hi guys,

From the start of my A-levels I've always really wanted to apply for Oxbridge, probably Cambridge. However, there's a chance my grades won't be up to scratch

I'm doubtful whether I'll actually achieve a predicted A* (so 90% UMS in a subject), and my question is this: Are they vital for Oxbridge applications?

Can you apply with A's at AS and get an offer on the condition you achieve that A* at the end of A2?

The actual requirement for A*s is an A grade for AS and A*s in A2, so it's not like I'm not on track (so long as I put the work in for A2)

Thoughts/experiences will be really helpful, thanks!

The average successful student at Cambridge achieved 2.6A* at A2 last year. It is difficult to see how someone who expects to scrape A*AA (or not) is not going to be at a disadvantage. Science student typically achieve higher than Arts so many will be A*A*A* or even 4A*.
Cambridge are not interested in school predictions-they can make their own. Someone with 95% at AS predicted A by their school may be a better bet than someone from a different school with 85% predicted A2, unless there are clear reasons for assuming the student will score more in the harder A2 component of the exam.

You will also need an A* for several other top choices such as UCL or Imperial.

[Bimbleby]

By no means would this make it impossible for you to get a place, but I think a lot of weight is given to high AS module marks, I'm afraid. I may be wrong on this, but I think it would be even more important for science subjects for the reasons you actually suggest about physics: arts are more subjective, it's conceivable that you could be great but get a weird mark. The sciences don't really permit that kind of subjectivity, even if physics is more subjective than maths. If there are real extenuating circumstances that might have influenced your exam performance then you should definitely flag them up, but in a sense flunking an exam because you had an off day isn't that different, in Cambridge's eyes, from just plain flunking. Your marks here are determined on exams, so they're not looking for people who are liable to have that kind of off day, they want people who perform consistently.

However, I don't think you should be worrying at all, since you don't know you did badly. Feeling that you've done badly really shouldn't make you think you have done badly. I felt devastated after some of my exams and often did much better than I expected. It's very different, but I cried after my final violin exam and was distraught for days because I wished I could go back and do it again, but I was completely worrying for nothing. You can't change anything at the moment, so it's best to save up any fretting you might have to do after you get your results, rather than doing it now when there may turn out to be no need for it. Good luck

[Sadsnail]

I think grades decide on whether you get an interview. (they interview 90%)

And I had AABB at as, with only one of them being over 90%

I am predicted a*a*a

and I have an offer

[Oglogski]

(Original post by Sadsnail)
and I have an offer

To do geography at Homerton

[Sadsnail]

(Original post by Oglogski)
To do geography at Homerton

It's still Cambridge


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

[Bulbasaur]

(Original post by Oglogski)
To do geography at Homerton

Hmm, what are you insinuating?

OP: For physics, you really do want to try and get your 90%+ in at least two subjects. The third if it's below slightly shouldn't matter all that much as long as overall its over 90, at this point I think the interview will become more important than a little more UMS would (apart from if it was much higher). Unfortunately I think UMS scores are more important for science than arts subjects, so I would try really hard to make sure you do get it.

[Oglogski]

(Original post by Sadsnail)
It's still Cambridge

Very true.

Can't really talk. I probably won't get an offer. And you must have done something very right at interview?

[Sadsnail]

(Original post by Oglogski)
Very true.

Can't really talk. I probably won't get an offer. And you must have done something very right at interview?

clearly.

[Intriguing Alias]

(Original post by Sadsnail)
I think grades decide on whether you get an interview. (they interview 90%)

And I had AABB at as, with only one of them being over 90%

I am predicted a*a*a

and I have an offer

But you were predicted A*A*A as you said. This person is saying they're predicted AAA or below (their school is probably stricter than yours with predictions or you had mitigating circumstances) - in which case I'd be surprised if they were even interviewed.

I don't mean to sound like a dick but most applicants (especially for physics/maths/comp sci etc.) are predicted A*A*A or better so AAA puts one pretty low down on that list.

[Sadsnail]

(Original post by hassi94)
But you were predicted A*A*A as you said. This person is saying they're predicted AAA or below (their school is probably stricter than yours with predictions or you had mitigating circumstances) - in which case I'd be surprised if they were even interviewed.

I don't mean to sound like a dick but most applicants (especially for physics/maths/comp sci etc.) are predicted A*A*A or better so AAA puts one pretty low down on that list.

Well if the offers are A*aa then why would they give an offer to an aaa? I can't see that part yeah it doesn't make sense why they would

[Intriguing Alias]

(Original post by Sadsnail)
Well if the offers are A*aa then why would they give an offer to an aaa? I can't see that part yeah it doesn't make sense why they would

The only situation I could see that happening is if they had mitigating circumstances. Either way, my point was that you shouldn't give yourself as someone in the OP's position who got an offer, because you weren't in the OP's position.

[Sadsnail]

(Original post by hassi94)
The only situation I could see that happening is if they had mitigating circumstances. Either way, my point was that you shouldn't give yourself as someone in the OP's position who got an offer, because you weren't in the OP's position.

I know but it might encourage him to apply and then he may get an offer rather than not bothering to apply...

[TimmonaPortella]

(Original post by hassi94)
But you were predicted A*A*A as you said. This person is saying they're predicted AAA or below (their school is probably stricter than yours with predictions or you had mitigating circumstances) - in which case I'd be surprised if they were even interviewed.

I don't mean to sound like a dick but most applicants (especially for physics/maths/comp sci etc.) are predicted A*A*A or better so AAA puts one pretty low down on that list.

They don't care about predictions. At all. With good reason. I literally chose my predictions,, and that sort of thing happens on a huge scale; it would be a deeply unfair disadvantage to those with strict or even simply honest teachers for them to care at all about predictions, and they don't need to, with the wealth of information they have on applicants.

OP's school seems to require 90% for an A* prediction. To say, therefore, that having no A* predictions precludes one from getting an offer would be to say, for OP's school, that having no modules over 90% would preclude one from getting an offer. This is manifestly false. Why do you think they collect essays, run admissions tests, collect ums scores and interview if they're going to allow their answers to be determined by the opinion of a teacher -- on the off chance they get the genuine opinion of a teacher? Sorry, but you are straightforwardly incorrect.

[Intriguing Alias]

(Original post by TimmonaPortella)
They don't care about predictions. At all. With good reason. I literally chose my predictions. That sort of thing happens on a huge scale; it would be a deeply unfair disadvantage to those with strict or even simply honest teachers for them to care at all about predictions, and they don't need to, with the wealth of information they have on applicants.

Fair enough, that makes sense. I'd argue that whilst I said most physics applicants are predicted A*A*A or better, it's usually for good reason. Most applicants have top UMS marks especially in Maths/Further Maths (where it's a fair bit easier to score in the high 90s).