2009 Tompkins Table

Tompkins Score, % Firsts
1 (3) Trinity 68.83% 33.40%
2 (2) Emmanuel 66.99% 26.20%
3 (1) Selwyn 66.91% 26.80%
4 (4) Gonville & Caius 66.85% 26.30%
5 (11) St. Catharine's 66.58% 27.10%
6 (10) Pembroke 66.00% 28.10%
7 (6) Churchill 65.48% 25.40%
8 (5) Magdalene 65.35% 23.30%
9 (15) Trinity Hall 65.03% 22.90%
10 (9) Corpus Christi 64.88% 22.00%
11 (7) Jesus 64.81% 21.50%
12 (16) Queens' 64.08% 23.10%
13 (8) Christ's 63.88% 23.20%
14 (20) St. John's 63.51% 21.20%
15 (12) Downing 63.44% 19.70%
16 (17) Peterhouse 62.99% 23.60%
17 (19) King's 62.24% 20.20%
18 (13) Clare 62.18% 19.70%
19 (18) Robinson 62.16% 20.10%
20 (22) Girton 61.80% 17.30%
21 (21) Fitzwilliam 61.23% 18.30%
22 (14) Sidney Sussex 60.75% 14.40%
23 (23) New Hall 60.30% 15.70%
24 (24) Newnham 58.98% 12.20%
25 (25) Homerton 58.25% 13.10%
26 (26) Hughes Hall 56.30% 16.70%
27 (27) Wolfson 55.03% 7.90%
28 (29) St Edmund's 52.96% 9.40%
29 (28) Lucy Cavendish 52.90% 6.70%

Clare - embarassing!!!!! To be fair our Natscis did absolutely terribly by any standard, and they form the largest subject group.

Reply 1

Lidka

13

Great, this means the college is going to be even more reluctant to let us make freshers' week longer. :/

Emma

Haha. I wonder how long we can continue to get away with promoting ourselves as an academically strong college.

Reply 4

ukebert

13

Good result for us :biggrin:

No thanks to me of course :o:

Reply 5

around

13

I like how the top3 are exactly reversed.

Reply 6

SunderX

14

Pretty decent results for us, we boosted like 10 places last year.

I contributed :biggrin:

.

Reply 7

Arrogant Git

Just incase anyone is inclined to take the Tompkins table seriously, it should be pointed out that the table is biased against colleges with more women, more mature students and more arts students (and hence seriously biased in favour of trinity). If you weight the table giving equivalent weight to firsts and 2.1s (to perhaps shift the balance somewhat in the direction of arts students as well as colleges that get everyone to a high standard) the table looks like

1) Caius
2) Emma
=2) Jesus
4) Selwyn
5) Corpus
6) Magdalene
7) Tit Hall
8) Catz
9) Downing
10) Trinity
11) Churchill
12) St Johns
13) Sidney
14) Girton
15) Queens'
16) Pembroke
17) Christ's
18) Clare
19) King's
20) Binson
21) Newnham
22) New Hall
23) Fitz
24) Peterhouse
25) Homerton
26) Wolfson
27) Lucy Cav
28) Hughes Hall
29) Eddies

This table is just as objective as the tompkins table.

Reply 8

Arrogant Git

SunderX

I contributed :biggrin:

.

You didn't unless you graduated this year...

Reply 9

timelordess

9

Whyyy do the all-female colleges always seem to do worse? :frown:

Reply 10

BJack

19

Arrogant Git

it should be pointed out that the table is biased against colleges with more women [...] and more arts students

Are these not the same things? And if not, why is the table biased against colleges with more women?

Reply 11

Arrogant Git

timelordess

Whyyy do the all-female colleges always seem to do worse? :frown:

The main reason is that the table is biased. In tripos, (regardless of subject) men and women have roughly the same mean results, but men have have a higher standard deviation (getting more firsts but more 2.2s and below). Women also tend to favour arts subjects more than sciences and men sciences more than arts (History and Medicine/Vet Med are the only exceptions). Science subjects tend to award more firsts but also more 2.2s.

If one college has two students one of whom gets a first, the other of whom gets a 2.2. The Tompkins score from this is 70% [(5+2/10)]. If another gets two students who both get 2.1s, the Tompkins score is 60% [(3+3)/10].

The other reason is that the colleges admit fairly heavily from the pool and because they are all women's colleges their choice of who to admit is limited still further. So academically they're slightly weaker. But it's mainly just because of the way the tables are compiled.

Reply 12

nuodai

17

Arrogant Git

Just incase anyone is inclined to take the Tompkins table seriously, it should be pointed out that the table is biased against colleges with more women, more mature students and more arts students (and hence seriously biased in favour of trinity). If you weight the table giving equivalent weight to firsts and 2.1s (to perhaps shift the balance somewhat in the direction of arts students as well as colleges that get everyone to a high standard) the table looks like

...

This table is just as objective as the tompkins table.

So objective that Robinson disappeared in a flash? :p:

Reply 13

timelordess

9

Arrogant Git

The main reason is that the table is biased. In tripos, (regardless of subject) men and women have roughly the same mean results, but men have have a higher standard deviation (getting more firsts but more 2.2s and below). Women also tend to favour arts subjects more than sciences and men sciences more than arts (History and Medicine/Vet Med are the only exceptions). Science subjects tend to award more firsts but also more 2.2s.

If one college has two students one of whom gets a first, the other of whom gets a 2.2. The Tompkins score from this is 70% [(5+2/10)]. If another gets two students who both get 2.1s, the Tompkins score is 60% [(3+3)/10].

The other reason is that the colleges admit fairly heavily from the pool and because they are all women's colleges their choice of who to admit is limited still further. So academically they're slightly weaker. But it's mainly just because of the way the tables are compiled.

Ooo, I'm intrigued now... so the bias against colleges with mainly mature students, that's probably for similar reasons to the women's colleges, right, like a more limited intake?

How come science subjects tend to award more firsts?

Reply 14

Nebuduck

6

Arrogant Git

You didn't unless you graduated this year...

According to Wikipedia, it's no longer final year results, but results of all examinations for which a class is awarded.

Reply 15

Arrogant Git

nuodai

So objective that Robinson disappeared in a flash? :p:

Number 20, my friend. Below King's but above Newnham.

Reply 16

Scipio90

Arrogant Git

Just incase anyone is inclined to take the Tompkins table seriously, it should be pointed out that the table is biased against colleges with more women, more mature students and more arts students (and hence seriously biased in favour of trinity). If you weight the table giving equivalent weight to firsts and 2.1s (to perhaps shift the balance somewhat in the direction of arts students as well as colleges that get everyone to a high standard) the table looks like

The women standard deviation thing might be true, but the scores are adjusted for the higher proportion of firsts in science subjects, I think.

Reply 17

Tobedotty

7

who gives a ****? Cambridge is Cambridge...

Reply 18

Arrogant Git

timelordess

Ooo, I'm intrigued now... so the bias against colleges with mainly mature students, that's probably for similar reasons to the women's colleges, right, like a more limited intake?

That's probably less significant there. Yes, they do have a more limited intake, but nearly every mature undergrad applicant applies to one of them. They tend to do worse partly because a lot of mature students have been out of education for some time (rather than undergrads from other colleges who've spent the last four or five years training at exam passing), partly because a lot of them have had non-traditional educations and partly because some of the colleges (ahem, Hughes Hall and Eddies) are prepared to admit to Land Economy degrees people who can't read or write but have Olympic medals in rowing.

How come science subjects tend to award more firsts?

I don't know. They just do. Part of the reason is that there's much more objectivity in sciency subjects. Something is either wrong or right with no middle ground. Whereas in arts subjects it's all middle ground. It's much harder to differentiate a good essay from a poor one than a right answer from a wrong one. It essentially comes down to that.

Reply 19

Chewwy

17

in case anyone actually took in what Arrogant Git said about being biased against women, it's incorrect, and is equivalent to saying the olympic sprinting is biased towards black people.

the tompkins table is of course biased towards science-heavy colleges though.

2009 Tompkins Table

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you