Oxbridge warning

· A 2.1 will be easier to obtain. Given the importance attached to this by graduate recruiters why risk a £27 debt for a Desmond?

It'd be really interesting and useful to see some actual controlled evidence for difference in uni exams. We have anecdotes from friends, but its hard to tell if this is an accurate comparison (and the grass is always greener of course), we have anecdotes from people who have studied at two unis, but you're older at the second uni so not an entirely fair comparison. I wonder how much the difference really is.
Sorry to hear you've had a tough time. You're getting any support you need I take it? It'd be terrible to not use help provided, as the person in the op seemed to do.If its any consolation, I think just being a year more mature really helps people as they progress, even if the course itself doesn't get easier.

Sometimes just one data point is so extreme as to suggest that an hypothesis (in this case, equal exam difficulty) is incorrect. I submit the example of my mate who got a 2.2 in Cam maths and then came top of his year in Warwick for his masters. That's going from being ranked about 150th to being ranked 1st. No extenuating circumstances, equal effort (he claimed actually the Cambridge course was a lot more work).

Anyway, as pointed out earlier in the thread, incoming students from other universities perform worse on Part III than home-grown students despite the former requiring top firsts and the latter being allowed with high 2.1s or above - although to some extent this may be a stylistic issue. Don't think this data is publicly available unfortunately.

I can tell you I've seen his exam papers and compared with mine. His easy questions were like A level and for example one of the "hardest" questions was in my introductory problem sheet on the topic which I was expected to be able to teach mostly myself (partially my tutors quirky method). Some of the earlier questions can be similar in difficulty since the first couple of questions are usually free marks. In general though it's a different style, I completely understand how he scored 80+% because once you know the stuff there isn't much thought required in the exam... I had a relative (who's an academic in a similar field) compare the two exams and he agrees they are very different. Perhaps the exams will more closely align in the higher years.

I've not been proactive enough with getting support but 2nd years a fresh start, last year didn't count so this is the make or break year to see if I can continue here.

I can tell you I've seen his exam papers and compared with mine. His easy questions were like A level and for example one of the "hardest" questions was in my introductory problem sheet on the topic which I was expected to be able to teach mostly myself (partially my tutors quirky method). Some of the earlier questions can be similar in difficulty since the first couple of questions are usually free marks. In general though it's a different style, I completely understand how he scored 80+% because once you know the stuff there isn't much thought required in the exam... I had a relative (who's an academic in a similar field) compare the two exams and he agrees they are very different. Perhaps the exams will more closely align in the higher years.

Sometimes just one data point is so extreme as to suggest that an hypothesis

Anyway, as pointed out earlier in the thread, incoming students from other universities perform worse on Part III than home-grown students despite the former requiring top firsts and the latter being allowed with high 2.1s or above - although to some extent this may be a stylistic issue. Don't think this data is publicly available unfortunately.

Do you have the mark schemes and corrected grade boundaries for both papers? Without this you aren't getting the whole story.

Exams can vary significantly in difficulty even between years of the same subject at the same university, but you need to know how they are assessed and how grades are decided. This is often be done retrospectively based on the performance of the whole cohort and is likely to affect the difficulty of the following years exam if it is found to be too difficult/easy as a result.

well, almost every warwick maths student was not good enough to get into oxbridge (even though I have been told that the course is better than the oxford one, at least for analysis)

I think it is obvious enough that exams do not have the same level of difficulty, but that's alright: who needs to know this, does.

is true that oxford (can't speak for cambridge) especially some colleges, doesn't really care about bad students, or maybe it's better to say that the emphasis is on the top ones.

One boy in my school year got in for Cambridge NatSci. He got his 2.1 but had an almost non-existent social life for three years. Actually that is too generous. He had no social life for three years due to the demands of the course.

Based on the very unscientific sample of my Facebook friends list those who attended non-Oxbridge Russell Group universities seemed to have a little more time for the social side of university while grabbing their 2.1.

In my view there is really something to be said for Irwin’s advice in the History Boys about “Going to Newcastle and being happy” for two reasons.

· A 2.1 will be easier to obtain. Given the importance attached to this by graduate recruiters why risk a £27k debt for a Desmond?

· You are more likely to have a half decent social life. Yes I realise some manage to juggle everything but I think *on average* those at Nottingham, Bristol or Warwick have slightly more time to enjoy bar crawls and a fit of fun when not in the library.

I think some on these forums would do well to remember that Oxbridge isn't all dreaming spires.

Can I point out that it's very dependent on the person - I thoroughly enjoyed myself this year (out a few times each week), but worked when I needed to. I ended up getting 70% after working damn hard in the last term.

Some people can't cope with the pace, but from my personal experience, these people are definitely in the minority!

as a cambridge offer holder this has completely freaked me out

In case you didn't read beyond the first few posts: the OP is lying about the degree classification stats and the bottom line is that Oxbridge have the lowest drop out rates in the country at about 1%.

This is the problem with no negative ratings - you can only show the OP is provably wrong with a post buried down the thread that most people won't get around to reading.

If your son/daughter gets a 2.2 or worse at Oxbridge, as 50% do, when they could have won a 2.1 or better anywhere else.

A 2.2 at Oxbridge is better than a 2.1 at anywhere else (for the most part). Don't be so cynical.

Really quite ordinary pupils at school can disguise that fact with exceptional diligence and hard work at A level, particularly if they are polite, well behaved, conscientious, clean and tidy and outwardly pay little attention to modern life - tv, music, girls etc. "Model" pupils can achieve very good even outstanding results in this way even though they are not really very bright. Normally Oxbridge can spot those characters but not always. The truth is that A levels are not challenging enough to act as a reliable filter / barometer for academically gifted pupils (or otherwise).

Evidence?

A capable student can easily get the grades to go to RG with next to no work outside of lessons. What's the A/A* rate? 25% ish? A levels don't adequately separate those that are capable and those that are exceptional/capable and willing to put more work in. Make the top marks harder to get results in the capable having to do more work to get them, it means that those who have gone through education with a poor work ethic cannot do well unless they "get lucky" or truly are exceptional. I wonder, how often when people appear to excel at A levels because they are naturally capable of doing well and so don't have to put much work in go on to do poorly at university, to begin with at least, because of the higher demands?
The other flaw with the a levels is working the other way, an average student that puts in a lot of effort can also get the higher grades, so you can't distinguish looking at the marks somebody who is capable and didn't work and somebody who is average and did work. You could argue that it doesn't matter, the average has shown they have the correct work ethic, but they will still likely be less successful at university given that those with poor work ethics tend to improve when at uni.

Answer me this: If A levels were actually a good measure, why would top universities have entrance exams whether they be some form of pre-interview test or a STEP like exam?
If A levels were a good measure they shouldn't need these extra measures to separate the men from the boys.