The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1
Original post by fnatic NateDestiel
Would the 95 UMS+ be needed in just the three most relevant, or across all AS's, and if say its like 95 95 95 83, but the 83 is a relevant a level would that be looked upon badly - and the highest three taken?

Also for a post a level applicant, would they hence require 95+ UMS across the whole A Level.


It depends on the subject you're applying for: for sciences it is generally the most relevant subjects, for humanities it's your 3 best subjects.

Also, where have you got this 95 UMS figure from? If you're looking for the autopooling figure- it's 93% UMS- this is from the cambridge pooling document - 'All applicants in this round (except those for Mathematics and Medicine) who are not offered places by their preference Colleges but have attained an overall average of 93% or more in their three best AS Level subjects [or SUMS for named courses, see below] MUST be pooled'.

For humanities a lower 4th subject is fine- as it's your top 3 UMS that matter. It would probably be more of an issue if it was a relevant science subject, so you'd have to be more specific.

For your last question: if you're talking about auto-pooling it's A*A*A* for post-alevel and so there's no UMS requirement as such for auto-pooling.
Reply 2
Original post by fnatic NateDestiel
Would the 95 UMS+ be needed in just the three most relevant, or across all AS's, and if say its like 95 95 95 83, but the 83 is a relevant a level would that be looked upon badly - and the highest three taken?

Also for a post a level applicant, would they hence require 95+ UMS across the whole A Level.


If its for Economics (as per your other posts) then Maths & FM are combined so unless you are taking five subjects its (83+95) + 190 all/3 =93% That's a perfectly respectable score to apply with.
Yes it's a worry if your FM is 83 & maybe I would say don't bother with Trinity because you won't get in there. But you stand a chance of getting in somewhere (if you put down Trinity you will qualify for auto-pooling unless the UMS qualifying % changes.)

UMS averages give you an idea of how strong your application is but every applicant is looked at individually with their strengths and weaknesses and their background/disadvantages and so on. Its not a purely mechanistic process.

(If on the other hand your maths plus FM combined UMS is much below 90% I think you will be lucky to get an offer at any college .)
(edited 9 years ago)
Look at pages 4-7 of this presentation: http://www.study.cam.ac.uk/undergraduate/teachers/docs/student_conference_teacher_forum_presentation.pdf

you don't need 95% UMS - that is a myth

Most successful applicants don't have an average of 95%. Quite a lot don't have 90%.
Original post by smile:D
It depends on the subject you're applying for: for sciences it is generally the most relevant subjects, for humanities it's your 3 best subjects.

Also, where have you got this 95 UMS figure from? If you're looking for the autopooling figure- it's 93% UMS- this is from the cambridge pooling document - 'All applicants in this round (except those for Mathematics and Medicine) who are not offered places by their preference Colleges but have attained an overall average of 93% or more in their three best AS Level subjects [or SUMS for named courses, see below] MUST be pooled'.

For humanities a lower 4th subject is fine- as it's your top 3 UMS that matter. It would probably be more of an issue if it was a relevant science subject, so you'd have to be more specific.

For your last question: if you're talking about auto-pooling it's A*A*A* for post-alevel and so there's no UMS requirement as such for auto-pooling.



Original post by Colmans
If its for Economics (as per your other posts) then Maths & FM are combined so unless you are taking five subjects its (83+95) + 190 all/3 =93% That's a perfectly respectable score to apply with.
Yes it's a worry if your FM is 83 & maybe I would say don't bother with Trinity because you won't get in there. But you stand a chance of getting in somewhere (if you put down Trinity you will qualify for auto-pooling unless the UMS qualifying % changes.)

UMS averages give you an idea of how strong your application is but every applicant is looked at individually with their strengths and weaknesses and their background/disadvantages and so on. Its not a purely mechanistic process.

(If on the other hand your maths plus FM combined UMS is much below 90% I think you will be lucky to get an offer at any college .)



Original post by fluteflute
Look at pages 4-7 of this presentation: http://www.study.cam.ac.uk/undergraduate/teachers/docs/student_conference_teacher_forum_presentation.pdf

you don't need 95% UMS - that is a myth

Most successful applicants don't have an average of 95%. Quite a lot don't have 90%.


Thanks for all your help and advice.

So basically I get 14+ a stars in gcse, 2400 sat, min 4 a stars a level with minimum 95+ UMS average in each a level and then I'm good to go..
Original post by fnatic NateDestiel
So basically I get 14+ a stars in gcse, 2400 sat, min 4 a stars a level with minimum 95+ UMS average in each a level and then I'm good to go..
No.
This guy from my school got an offer for economics (I think, or maybe it was PPE) and he had less than 97 UMS in his exams and a B in further maths.
Reply 7
Original post by daisychain_
This guy from my school got an offer for economics (I think, or maybe it was PPE) and he had less than 97 UMS in his exams and a B in further maths.


It does make quite a difference. FM is not especially important for PPE. I doubt very much it was for Cambridge Economics which is much more mathematical.


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by fluteflute
No.


Sorry to divert from the question on this thread, but is there any safe net grades at a minimum that you would need to be sure of an offer.

Would it be something ridiculous like 18 A stars at GCSE/ 8 A stars at A Level?
Reply 9
Original post by fluteflute
Look at pages 4-7 of this presentation: http://www.study.cam.ac.uk/undergraduate/teachers/docs/student_conference_teacher_forum_presentation.pdf

you don't need 95% UMS - that is a myth

Most successful applicants don't have an average of 95%. Quite a lot don't have 90%.


Thanks that is the presentation I was quoting. I don't think anybody was saying you have to have 95% intact I said 93% was worth applying. But it was specificaly with reference to Economics where very high UMS in maths & FM is normal. Cambridge have not released a GCSE UMS distribution for Economics yet but since it is more competitive than medicine it is likely to be at least as skewed towards high marks. Given that medics also have to show they have the work experience and character yo make a doctor one might suspect that high exam results would be even more heavily weighted for a economics


Posted from TSR Mobile
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by EmmaBxoxo
Sorry to divert from the question on this thread, but is there any safe net grades at a minimum that you would need to be sure of an offer.

Would it be something ridiculous like 18 A stars at GCSE/ 8 A stars at A Level?


Depending on subject you will get an interview with a minimum AS average (calculated correctly) of between 85-89%. If you get an interview there is the potential for an offer. But the reverse- can you ever be guaranteed- is not true. Chances of an offer go up with % UMS and few fail to get an offer in most subjects with UMS 97%+ But there will be some- look at the presentation linked by flute flute.


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Colmans
Depending on subject you will get an interview with a minimum AS average (calculated correctly) of between 85-89%. If you get an interview there is the potential for an offer. But the reverse- can you ever be guaranteed- is not true. Chances of an offer go up with % UMS and few fail to get an offer in most subjects with UMS 97%+ But there will be some- look at the presentation linked by flute flute.


Posted from TSR Mobile


Thank you, I remember reading that a NI student got 7 A stars and rejected by oxford.
Original post by EmmaBxoxo
Thank you, I remember reading that a NI student got 7 A stars and rejected by oxford.


A lot of these stories seem to be for Medicine, for which - although there is certainly a lot of emphasis on being a capable scientist - admissions tutors are also looking for people who are likely to be good clinicians/practitioners.

Also the relevance of a high number of A Levels is questionable. What does the fact that someone got A*s in Dance, Russian, General Studies, English Language, Food Studies and Film Studies tell you about how capable someone is at Maths? Almost nothing, apart from the fact that they are probably good at organisation and time management. Being well organised isn't enough by itself though. Cambridge would much rather see 100 UMS in 3 relevant subjects than 85 in 1 relevant and 6 irrelevant ones, or even 3 relevant and 4 irrelevant ones.

Finally, although grades do count for a lot, they are not by any means a perfect predictor of student ability. I'm sure most tutors/interviewers believe they can construct an interview that improves their ability to discriminate between those who would flourish at Cambridge and those who wouldn't (even if their belief in this is not necessarily substantiated).
Original post by ClickItBack
A lot of these stories seem to be for Medicine, for which - although there is certainly a lot of emphasis on being a capable scientist - admissions tutors are also looking for people who are likely to be good clinicians/practitioners.

Also the relevance of a high number of A Levels is questionable. What does the fact that someone got A*s in Dance, Russian, General Studies, English Language, Food Studies and Film Studies tell you about how capable someone is at Maths? Almost nothing, apart from the fact that they are probably good at organisation and time management. Being well organised isn't enough by itself though. Cambridge would much rather see 100 UMS in 3 relevant subjects than 85 in 1 relevant and 6 irrelevant ones, or even 3 relevant and 4 irrelevant ones.

Finally, although grades do count for a lot, they are not by any means a perfect predictor of student ability. I'm sure most tutors/interviewers believe they can construct an interview that improves their ability to discriminate between those who would flourish at Cambridge and those who wouldn't (even if their belief in this is not necessarily substantiated).



I was for Chemistry which was most surprising..

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2395440/A-Level-results-Student-7-A-s-heads-Stanford-REJECTED-Oxford-University.html
Original post by EmmaBxoxo
Thank you, I remember reading that a NI student got 7 A stars and rejected by oxford.


Didn't he get those grades after being rejected though? If he already had 7 A*s then it's a bit strange but not ridiculous. There's a difference between being incredibly good at a subject and being incredibly hard working and that is what the interviewing process is there to determine.
Reply 15
Original post by ClickItBack
A lot of these stories seem to be for Medicine, for which - although there is certainly a lot of emphasis on being a capable scientist - admissions tutors are also looking for people who are likely to be good clinicians/practitioners.

Also the relevance of a high number of A Levels is questionable. What does the fact that someone got A*s in Dance, Russian, General Studies, English Language, Food Studies and Film Studies tell you about how capable someone is at Maths? Almost nothing, apart from the fact that they are probably good at organisation and time management. Being well organised isn't enough by itself though. Cambridge would much rather see 100 UMS in 3 relevant subjects than 85 in 1 relevant and 6 irrelevant ones, or even 3 relevant and 4 irrelevant ones.

Finally, although grades do count for a lot, they are not by any means a perfect predictor of student ability. I'm sure most tutors/interviewers believe they can construct an interview that improves their ability to discriminate between those who would flourish at Cambridge and those who wouldn't (even if their belief in this is not necessarily substantiated).


Yh this is absolutely true.
I only got 4A* at GCSE and 91% ums at as but still got an offer for medicine at fitzwilliam. I must have smashed the interview
Original post by Pterodactyl
Didn't he get those grades after being rejected though? If he already had 7 A*s then it's a bit strange but not ridiculous. There's a difference between being incredibly good at a subject and being incredibly hard working and that is what the interviewing process is there to determine.


That's what I don't get.

The lowest at Oxford for chem is potentially AAA/A*AA and he got way more. Is interview really that important despite someone who has consistently done well on all exams?

Like he must have been on 5a's at AS at least (I don't know for sure, so don't quote me) but it seems ridiculous at least imo.
Original post by EmmaBxoxo
That's what I don't get.

The lowest at Oxford for chem is potentially AAA/A*AA and he got way more. Is interview really that important despite someone who has consistently done well on all exams?

Like he must have been on 5a's at AS at least (I don't know for sure, so don't quote me) but it seems ridiculous at least imo.


It is incredibly important, the likelihood is that the majority of people making it to the interview stages for any subject at Oxbridge will get A*AA/AAA so they really do need another factor to cut down the number of applicants. Unfortunately some incredibly able students will miss out but the majority of them will make it through.
Original post by EmmaBxoxo
That's what I don't get.

The lowest at Oxford for chem is potentially AAA/A*AA and he got way more. Is interview really that important despite someone who has consistently done well on all exams?

Like he must have been on 5a's at AS at least (I don't know for sure, so don't quote me) but it seems ridiculous at least imo.


For many competitive subjects, Oxbridge could probably fill up their spaces 3x over with people who have 4A*s or more. So yes, the interview matters.

Also specifically for Oxford they place a lot of emphasis on their entrance tests - and they don't ask for UMS like Cambridge do. I assume he did poorly at those tests, as well as at interview (if he got to interview that is).
Original post by EmmaBxoxo
Would it be something ridiculous like 18 A stars at GCSE/ 8 A stars at A Level?


those who achieved those grades are indeed beyond sheer brilliance.
they're something else altogether.
every now and then you get students from Pakistan getting those sort of results.
and their next step would be to walk through the gates of Oxbridge.

Original post by EmmaBxoxo
Thank you, I remember reading that a NI student got 7 A stars and rejected by oxford.


i'm just an observer.
nowhere near Oxford quality, to begin with.
but i was wondering.
if im an admissions tutor and i have 5 candidates before me who look the same, sound the same, think the same then how am I going to differentiate them?
hearts will be broken, some will be rejected whilst others leap for joy.
but is there any truth when people say about Oxbridge in that 'oh its not the be all end all'.
or are they merely consoling themselves?

Original post by K_o_46
Yh this is absolutely true.
I only got 4A* at GCSE and 91% ums at as but still got an offer for medicine at fitzwilliam. I must have smashed the interview


congrats. so happy for you!

Latest