What UMS did you get in maths?

Sorry to say it but it is a maths thread, that equals 276 (same as what i got :P )

C1 - 98
c2 - 92
c3 - 96
c4 - 94
m1 - 79
s1 - 90

Maths:
C1 - 97
C2 - 90
D1 - 80

Further Maths:
FP1 - 90
M1B - 100
S1B - 100

Can't understand how I got lowest UMS in D1, I thought that would be 100 UMS

Has someone pointed out that after you hit the high 80s, your UMS says little about whether you're good at maths or not?

Funnily enough that's exactly what I told Chief Wiggum on the Cambridge Maths thread.

Has someone pointed out that after you hit the high 80s, your UMS says little about whether you're good at maths or not?

I think thats ridiculous and Cambridge would completely disagree because they insist on 95% UMS across the 3 most relevant subjects- a score in high 80s wouldn't even be on target for an A* so obviously doesn't show as much ability as a secure 90s score.

Not for maths. Whilst successful applicant will typically have UMS in the high 90s, there are also plenty of candidates with the odd howler which brings their average right down. Cambridge maths has a separate exam, STEP, to separate the wheat from the chaff. There is no auto-pooling for maths, and frequently people with high UMS will be rejected for people with raw mathematical talent, which sadly is no longer easy to spot using A-Level maths.

I was also making a subtle point about the reliability of UMS; whilst the idea of an A* grade is fine, I'm not convinced it works very well - for example the Edexcel C3 paper had such low boundaries, I'm not convinced someone who got 100 is a better mathmo than someone who got 89. Especially when it was entirely possible to skip the harder parts of the questions (which was actually testing) and still get 100 UMS.

The 89 UMS person missed more parts and generally I think that the higher the grade boundaries the harder it is to distinguish between raw talent because one tiny slip up will cost UMS but the lower the grade boundaries the easier and 100 UMS candidates have shown ability to handle tough questions, which must have been common across the paper for low grade boundaries.

I think that once you get into the 90s due to the generally high grade boundaries in Maths I think you'd have a good argument and I'd agree with you with some ridiculously small marks between 90 UMS and 100 UMS at times but a person with 90s UMS has clearly demonstrated more ability than one with low 80s UMS .

People who have high UMS have raw mathematical talent-I think its ridiculous the fact that things other than Academia are studied and STEP has to be self-taught, which can prevent raw mathematical talent from showing because self teaching can be really tough especially if you set as tough questions as in STEP and STEP doesn't represent University to well because the content is taught in lectures.

I suppose you could say my 295/300 UMS in GCSE Maths is hard to distinguish against someone who got 300/300 UMS but my raw mathematical ability test in IGCSE Further Maths with AQA in which I got an A^(174/175 raw marks) showed my true raw mathematical ability.