The Big &#x27;Which Cambridge College?&#x27; Thread

ICQ

but why would oxbridge rejects < oxbridge admits?

That doesn't necessarily follow--but there's a lot of Oxbridge rejects at Edinburgh who seem to feel like they should have gotten into Oxford or Cambridge. Some of them don't seem to do any work and just barely scrape a 2:i, but nonetheless seem to have a sense that they're entitled to do well. (Obviously there is also some overlap, and I've not studied at either and can't comment on the standard of students there. Still, there's a surprising number of people at Edinburgh who simply can't exercise critical thought.) Of course there are very intelligent people at both universities--some of my friends are incredibly sharp. But given Edinburgh's reputation, the general standard is often surprisingly low. I'm hoping it'll be higher at Cambridge.

Edit: Also, I'm hoping the people who weren't rejected might be a bit sharper than the people who were. Perhaps a pipe dream, but there you are.

Reply 1583

ICQ

6

well i would generally say that around 1/5 of the people are brilliantly clever certainly deserve their places, 2/5 are clever but not much more talented than many turned away, and 2/5 are not that impressive at all. admissions mechanisms are not fool proof, and it is possible to go through a 30 minute interview and seem more impressive than you are and thus bag a place, or alternatively completely fluff your interview and be turned down despite your talent because you don't work well in a confrontational situation, which is what interviews basically are. my 2p's worth..

Reply 1584

ICQ

well i would generally say that around 1/5 of the people are brilliantly clever certainly deserve their places, 2/5 are clever but not much more talented than many turned away, and 2/5 are not that impressive at all. admissions mechanisms are not fool proof, and it is possible to go through a 30 minute interview and seem more impressive than you are and thus bag a place, or alternatively completely fluff your interview and be turned down despite your talent because you don't work well in a confrontational situation, which is what interviews basically are. my 2p's worth..

Fair points all. And you have the experience of studying there to back it up...

Reply 1585

SunderX

ICQ

well i would generally say that around 1/5 of the people are brilliantly clever certainly deserve their places, 2/5 are clever but not much more talented than many turned away, and 2/5 are not that impressive at all. admissions mechanisms are not fool proof, and it is possible to go through a 30 minute interview and seem more impressive than you are and thus bag a place, or alternatively completely fluff your interview and be turned down despite your talent because you don't work well in a confrontational situation, which is what interviews basically are. my 2p's worth..

Funnily enough, those fractions are roughly the class boundaries :p:

Reply 1586

SunderX

Funnily enough, those fractions are roughly the class boundaries :p:

Yeah, but the vast majority of people at Oxbridge get a first or 2:i...

Reply 1587

TheUnbeliever

jjarvis

Yeah, but the vast majority of people at Oxbridge get a first or 2:i...

25th percentile is the 1st threshold, 60th is the 2.i threshold (for computer science, at least). These correspond closely to your 1/5 then 2/5, obviously - which I think is what SunderX was getting at.

Reply 1588

TheUnbeliever

25th percentile is the 1st threshold, 60th is the 2.i threshold (for computer science, at least). These correspond closely to your 1/5 then 2/5, obviously - which I think is what SunderX was getting at.

70% is the first threshold in marks, but only about 15% (even at Oxbridge) in most subjects get first. It's not *that* far off, but it's not that close either.

Reply 1589

TheUnbeliever

jjarvis

70% is the first threshold in marks, but only about 15% (even at Oxbridge) in most subjects get first. It's not *that* far off, but it's not that close either.

No, I don't think I was clear. The cutoffs I gave above are the percentile cut offs. If you are in the top 60% in computer science, you get at least a 2.i. If you are in the top 25%, you get a first. These are pretty close to your values.

Our grading is curved, there is no fixed threshold in marks except for the third and ordinary cut offs (which are something like 140 and 125/375, respectively).

Reply 1590

paneity

jjarvis

70% is the first threshold in marks, but only about 15% (even at Oxbridge) in most subjects get first. It's not *that* far off, but it's not that close either.

No, well, depends on what you mean by most. In sciences the percentage of firsts is about 20-30%. In arts subjects it is lower, but they also have fewer 2.iis and 3rds compared to sciences, i.e. the large majority get 2.i.
In terms of number of subjects, it might be that there are more subjects with 15% of people getting firsts, but as sciences are grouped together somewhat there are a lot of people doing subjects with higher percentages of firsts.

Reply 1591

AnonymousPenguin

TheUnbeliever

No, I don't think I was clear. The cutoffs I gave above are the percentile cut offs. If you are in the top 60% in computer science, you get at least a 2.i. If you are in the top 25%, you get a first. These are pretty close to your values.

Our grading is curved, there is no fixed threshold in marks except for the third and ordinary cut offs (which are something like 140 and 125/375, respectively).

If 40% get less than a 2.i in CompSci (and I'm guessing other subjects as well), how does the university end up with 90%+ of good honours (>= 2.i) according to league tables?

Reply 1592

TheUnbeliever