The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

Original post by sarah.102
Wow those are really good universities!
I have a friend who applied for Chemical Engineering and she applied to Cambridge, Imperial, Bath, Surrey and Birmingham :smile:


Wow!! Birmingham/Manchester I was considering :tongue: so :woo:

I don't think I'd actually go to any other though :/
Reply 21
Original post by welleducatedmoron
I got 10 A*s at GCSE, 97 average UMS at AS, and got rejected. High grades help to get you an interview and to get an autopooling spot but beyond that you have to do well in the interview. At Cambridge, where there are very few admissions tests, and for particularly competitive subjects (last year I applied for English), you need to stand out in interview. As for how one might do that, that's a completely different question.

That's kind of nerve-wracking to think, you had an outstanding academic record.
I guess there's a big factor of luck which comes to play.
Reply 22
Original post by shadab786ahmed
Wow!! Birmingham/Manchester I was considering :tongue: so :woo:

I don't think I'd actually go to any other though :/

Apart from Cambridge/Imperial?
Original post by sarah.102
Apart from Cambridge/Imperial?


And bath :smile: I'd go there as well!! :biggrin:

I'd want to study some French as well with it :smile:
I have 5A*, 2A and 4B

Probably A*A*A*A*a for A-Levels... Will this be criticised?
Original post by sarah.102
That's kind of nerve-wracking to think, you had an outstanding academic record.
I guess there's a big factor of luck which comes to play.


It shouldn't be intimidating at all, it only proves that grades aren't everything! I made the mistake of applying to the only college which didn't have a collegiate written test, so it came down to two interviews in the end. Also my written work was average and personal statement was shocking. I'm applying to Oxford (for Classics) this year, and just ensuring my written work is good, along with my personal statement, as well as hopefully doing well in the admissions test.

If you're applying this year you can't affect what grades you've got in the past so don't worry about them. If you want to apply, you want to apply, so go for it. But try and control anything you have control over:

1. Make sure the written work you said in is 1. quite good, 2. interesting to you (as they will probably bring it up).

2. If you have any collegiate admissions tests, find out what they entail and revise for them.

3. Make sure your personal statement is good.


It might sound ridiculous that I wasn't offered a place with my grades, but you've got to understand that grades are one of many factors. There was someone with higher grades than me also pooled and then rejected for English. If you are weak in the grades department, make sure you excel in other areas.
(edited 11 years ago)
Reply 26
Original post by sarah.102
I'm currently in year 12 and was browsing through the Cambridge website and saw how they put more emphasis on AS UMS module marks, whereas Oxford are apparently more known for looking in more depth at GCSEs. So I was wondering to what extent Cambridge do care about GCSEs just out of interest.


Very little. People get in routinely with no A*s, and some with Cs.

The correlation point isn't relevant to application decisions - when you apply they have your AS, so they don't use GCSEs to guess at how you'll do at A-level.

Compared to AS UMS, GCSEs hold very little weight. Compared to the interview, they hold no weight at all.

To address the point made about Law and Medicine - evidence shows that even on these courses GCSEs make very little difference. Statistics showing the GCSE and AS of all applicants and all successful applicants for medicine showed primarily that successful applicants were those who got higher AS UMS, and that while they also had on average higher GCSE A*s, this was because out of all applicants there was a correlation between A*s and AS UMS. Most notably, the statistics showed that the applicant with the highest number of A*s, 15 in total, has AS UMS of 88 and was rejected, while an applicant with 1 A* but 91 AS UMS was accepted.

Given the actual spread of accepted AS UMS was much wider than a difference of 3 and some applicants with around 85 were accepted, it would appear that the difference must have come at some other stage of the application process. However, it certainly shows that those 14 extra A*s did very little for the applicant's chances of acceptance.
Original post by sarah.102
Hypothetically speaking, if say someone got straight As at GCSE but a 95+ UMS average at AS would they stand a good chance or average because of a lack of A*s at GCSE?


You have a perfectly reasonable chance, assuming good interviews and admissions tests etc. A levels largely supersede GCSEs.

You've been given quite a lot of misinformation. Don't feel that you don't stand a chance because of your GCSEs. Tutors aren't stupid. If you have a very high set of results in more recently exams, the extent to which your GCSEs will lead them to believe that you aren't talented or dedicated at this time cannot be too high. The process is a human one; if you can demonstrate to them that you are good enough through your application as a whole, one part of the application won't necessarily drag you down.

Original post by ThatRandomGuy
However note if you're applying for Law or Medicine then you'll need really good GCSEs to be competitive, at least with some colleges anyway.


Your inclusion of law in this is straightforwardly incorrect.
Original post by The Mr Z

To address the point made about Law and Medicine - evidence shows that even on these courses GCSEs make very little difference. Statistics showing the GCSE and AS of all applicants and all successful applicants for medicine showed primarily that successful applicants were those who got higher AS UMS, and that while they also had on average higher GCSE A*s, this was because out of all applicants there was a correlation between A*s and AS UMS. Most notably, the statistics showed that the applicant with the highest number of A*s, 15 in total, has AS UMS of 88 and was rejected, while an applicant with 1 A* but 91 AS UMS was accepted.


You keep posting this, and it's wrong.

GCSEs matter for medicine. They don't make "very little difference". Eg, from Selwyn College: "If you have taken GCSEs and are taking A-levels you might
like to know that those consistently successful in gaining an
offer have more than 8 A* grades at GCSE, an average AS
module score (relevant subjects) above 90% and at least
grades BB at BMAT sections 1 and 2. We do not just consider
exam grades when it comes to making offers, but these data
give an impression of the competitive nature of entry to
Medicine. Applicants whose grades fall significantly below
these levels may not be called for interview unless there are
special circumstances
."

You can't look at 2 applicants on a spreadsheet and infer GCSE policy based on that, it's nonsense.

Quoting from memory, is there not something like only 15 people got into Cambridge Medicine 2010 with under 6A* at GCSE?
Reply 29
Original post by Chief Wiggum
You keep posting this, and it's wrong.

GCSEs matter for medicine. They don't make "very little difference". Eg, from Selwyn College: "If you have taken GCSEs and are taking A-levels you might
like to know that those consistently successful in gaining an
offer have more than 8 A* grades at GCSE, an average AS
module score (relevant subjects) above 90% and at least
grades BB at BMAT sections 1 and 2. We do not just consider
exam grades when it comes to making offers, but these data
give an impression of the competitive nature of entry to
Medicine. Applicants whose grades fall significantly below
these levels may not be called for interview unless there are
special circumstances
."

You can't look at 2 applicants on a spreadsheet and infer GCSE policy based on that, it's nonsense.

Quoting from memory, is there not something like only 15 people got into Cambridge Medicine 2010 with under 6A* at GCSE?


I was going on the 2011 figures, and actually I did draw attention to the whole sheet. I'm trying to dig up the publication it was in (it was the power-point on advising teachers and HE advisers, you don't happen to have a link yourself)

Although those two applicants alone are sufficient to disprove any hard and fast rule, and any hypothesis which puts high weight on GCSEs, from a purely Bayesian perspective.

For example, if Selwyn's advice constituted an actual rule on application, the probability of the person getting in with 1 A* would be 0%. This is bellow the 5% threshold, so an 8 A* rule is disproven. In fact admissions statistics disprove anything other than a "1 A* or higher" rule.

I'm not saying that they don't look at GCSEs, but you have to accept that whatever weight they put on them is not enough to be distinguishable from the correlation between GCSEs and AS performance in the actual admissions figures.
Reply 30
Original post by TimmonaPortella
You have a perfectly reasonable chance, assuming good interviews and admissions tests etc. A levels largely supersede GCSEs.

You've been given quite a lot of misinformation. Don't feel that you don't stand a chance because of your GCSEs. Tutors aren't stupid. If you have a very high set of results in more recently exams, the extent to which your GCSEs will lead them to believe that you aren't talented or dedicated at this time cannot be too high. The process is a human one; if you can demonstrate to them that you are good enough through your application as a whole, one part of the application won't necessarily drag you down.



Your inclusion of law in this is straightforwardly incorrect.


Oh, these aren't my personal GCSE results I was just speaking on behalf of somebody I know and just out of interest on this whole "Cambridge and GCSEs" topic because there seems to be quite some contrasts in what people say. However I think I agree with you that if someone did score outstandingly well at AS with 95%+ UMS average then I think they would stand a good chance at Cambridge, regardless of their GCSE results. If they performed well at GCSE then that's all the more better but if they didn't then I don't think it should make a big difference but I don't know if I'm under some wrong impression in thinking that.
Original post by Chief Wiggum
You keep posting this, and it's wrong.

GCSEs matter for medicine. They don't make "very little difference". Eg, from Selwyn College: "If you have taken GCSEs and are taking A-levels you might
like to know that those consistently successful in gaining an
offer have more than 8 A* grades at GCSE, an average AS
module score (relevant subjects) above 90% and at least
grades BB at BMAT sections 1 and 2. We do not just consider
exam grades when it comes to making offers, but these data
give an impression of the competitive nature of entry to
Medicine. Applicants whose grades fall significantly below
these levels may not be called for interview unless there are
special circumstances
."

You can't look at 2 applicants on a spreadsheet and infer GCSE policy based on that, it's nonsense.

Quoting from memory, is there not something like only 15 people got into Cambridge Medicine 2010 with under 6A* at GCSE?


Whilst I'm not going to get involved in the medicine debate, I will point out that nothing in that quote says anything about their GCSE policy. The second section you put in bold talks about the aforementioned sets of "grades" collectively, not about "GCSEs"; it furthermore fails to define "significantly" and uses the word "may".
Reply 32
Original post by The Mr Z
Very little. People get in routinely with no A*s, and some with Cs.

Compared to AS UMS, GCSEs hold very little weight. Compared to the interview, they hold no weight at all.

To address the point made about Law and Medicine - evidence shows that even on these courses GCSEs make very little difference. Statistics showing the GCSE and AS of all applicants and all successful applicants for medicine showed primarily that successful applicants were those who got higher AS UMS, and that while they also had on average higher GCSE A*s, this was because out of all applicants there was a correlation between A*s and AS UMS. Most notably, the statistics showed that the applicant with the highest number of A*s, 15 in total, has AS UMS of 88 and was rejected, while an applicant with 1 A* but 91 AS UMS was accepted.
.


I think your information fails to reflect the level of refinement that Cambridge has from their recent research. From this year's admissions handbook:

"The ranking formula for each subject will be based on the findings of the Multiple Regression Study, and will be primarily based on UMS data. The Rank Group indicates which model will be used to calculate a Merit Score. In some subjects, UMS and GCSE together provided a better fit to Tripos results than UMS alone: in these subjects, Merit Scores will be based on UMS and GCSE data for the UMS+GCSE Rank Group, and then on UMS data only for applicants in the UMS Rank Group. In subjects where GCSE performance was not found to add value to the regression model, all applicants with UMS data will be placed in the UMS Rank Group, and assigned a Merit Score on that basis, regardless of whether they have GCSE data."

Their admissions research indicates the tripos where GCSEs add predictive value. There are plenty of quotes from different colleges where they strongly imply that GCSE performance is taken into account in their overall assessment in some subjects.

In medicine http://www.study.cam.ac.uk/undergraduate/teachers/presentations/teachersforum2010.pdf the fact that three high GCSE scorers didn't get in does not tell us GCSEs are unimportant, just that they are never a guarantee of admission. These individuals may have done badly in BMAT or had no work experience or interviewed poorly or had the wrong A-levels, we just don't know. Likewise the one A* GCSE individual may have had outstanding reasons for only 1A* whether illness/Extenuating circumstances or education in a different system till 16.

It is true that people should not be put off applying because they have a couple of dodgy GCSE grades, especially in unimportant subjects or believe there is some automatic cut-off. But if I was applying for medicine the knowledge that almost half of the eliminated field had 6A* or fewer at GCSE would give me as much food for thought as the UMS spread.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by TimmonaPortella
You have a perfectly reasonable chance, assuming good interviews and admissions tests etc. A levels largely supersede GCSEs.

You've been given quite a lot of misinformation. Don't feel that you don't stand a chance because of your GCSEs. Tutors aren't stupid. If you have a very high set of results in more recently exams, the extent to which your GCSEs will lead them to believe that you aren't talented or dedicated at this time cannot be too high. The process is a human one; if you can demonstrate to them that you are good enough through your application as a whole, one part of the application won't necessarily drag you down.



Your inclusion of law in this is straightforwardly incorrect.


I'm pretty sure there was at least one college that had some sort of minimum GCSE A* requirement for Law. I could be wrong but I do remember people on the Camb applicant page talking about it.
Original post by ThatRandomGuy
I'm pretty sure there was at least one college that had some sort of minimum GCSE A* requirement for Law. I could be wrong but I do remember people on the Camb applicant page talking about it.


Oops! It's Churchill...
(edited 11 years ago)
Reply 35
Original post by ThatRandomGuy
I'm pretty sure there was at least one college that had some sort of minimum GCSE A* requirement for Law. I could be wrong but I do remember people on the Camb applicant page talking about it.

Aside from Law and Medicine, courses like Natural Science etc. don't have that do they?
Reply 36
Original post by ThatRandomGuy
I'm pretty sure there was at least one college that had some sort of minimum GCSE A* requirement for Law. I could be wrong but I do remember people on the Camb applicant page talking about it.


It's Churchill.


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
Original post by Colmans
It's Churchill.


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



Original post by shadab786ahmed
Oops! It's Churchill...


Knew it :tongue:
Original post by ThatRandomGuy
I'm pretty sure there was at least one college that had some sort of minimum GCSE A* requirement for Law. I could be wrong but I do remember people on the Camb applicant page talking about it.


I don't think Churchill sets down a concrete requirement, it just says "you are unlikely to get an offer..." etc. But yeah, the one you're thinking of is churchill.
Original post by welleducatedmoron
I got 10 A*s at GCSE, 97 average UMS at AS, and got rejected. High grades help to get you an interview and to get an autopooling spot but beyond that you have to do well in the interview. At Cambridge, where there are very few admissions tests, and for particularly competitive subjects (last year I applied for English), you need to stand out in interview. As for how one might do that, that's a completely different question.

Oh wow, that really impressive! And makes me doubt myself even more... Anyway, where did you decide to go then?

Latest