What UMS did you get in maths?

I'm guessing it was that impossible moments questions!??!

...

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 agree with this point and is why I was happy with the recent round of Edexcel Maths exams, which gave more opportunities to distinguish based on ability and not exam technique.

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 .

The difference between 90 and 100 UMS is exactly the same as the difference between 80 and 90 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.

High UMS usually correlates with mathematical ability, but not always. In addition, at the top end there exists a wide range of mathematical abilities. This is the reason for the existence of additional exams; you can have two people with 95% average in Maths UMS who are in completely different leagues mathematically.

Regarding STEP, it is not ridiculous - it is by far the most equalising thing in the Cambridge admissions process in my opinion, and an excellent test. It does not inhibit raw mathematical ability; in actual fact STEP can select between mathematicians of differing ability far more effectively than A Levels can. Also, the statement that "STEP doesn't represent University to well" is the most uninformed statement I've read in recent history given that Cambridge have done statistical analysis and found STEP correlates far better with Maths degree performance than A Level UMS does.

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.

GCSE's do not show true raw mathematical ability. Neither do A Levels. Which is why STEP, AEA, MAT, and the various Maths olympiads exist.

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.

First of all, Cambridge do not insist on 95% UMS and whoever has told you this is a liar. Cambridge provide data on the average UMS of successful applicants (Which is around 95%) but there are people with much higher and people with much lower. Cambridge themselves stress there is not a minimum UMS requirement.

Finally I'd just like to point out that I know of more than one successful Cambridge applicant with B grades in one or more modules. UMS is important but you seem to have blown it completely out of proportion.

The 80 UMS people have made quite a few mistakes on the paper( depending on the grade boundaries) so probably aren't 100 UMS ability where as the 90 UMS person may have only made one mistake and lost a few marks for it and due to high grade boundaries have dropped down to 90 UMS but could still be of 100 UMS capability and be a greater mathematician than the 100 UMS person.Its unlikely the 80 UMS person has the same capability as the 90 UMS person unless they had a really bad day.I have seen from GCSE that it can be easy to suffer from one bad mistake but two bad mistakes represents someone who doesn't have true mathematical ability.

Or they just had a bad day perhaps?

S1 didn't go my way at all but everything else was 90+, would you say I don't have true mathematical ability because S1 was just an off day?

Also we're using UMS from A-levels to determine true mathematical ability, I think STEP or university exams will show who has true mathematical ability and who doesn't.

We are looking at 90%+ in all 3 modules though and really C1 and C2 are the most important because they indicate whether you would get an A* or not.What you seem to be trying to say is that an A* doesn't distinguish raw mathematical talent in Maths and it does.A lot of students will have an offer requiring an A* in Maths(90% UMS in C3 and C4 combined).I will be disappointed with less than 90% UMS in both Maths AS and Further Maths AS next year.

Or they just had a bad day perhaps?

S1 didn't go my way at all but everything else was 90+, would you say I don't have true mathematical ability because S1 was just an off day?

Also we're using UMS from A-levels to determine true mathematical ability, I think STEP or university exams will show who has true mathematical ability and who doesn't.

We are looking at 90%+ in all 3 modules though and really C1 and C2 are the most important because they indicate whether you would get an A* or not.What you seem to be trying to say is that an A* doesn't distinguish raw mathematical talent in Maths and it does.A lot of students will have an offer requiring an A* in Maths(90% UMS in C3 and C4 combined).I will be disappointed with less than 90% UMS in both Maths AS and Further Maths AS next year.

I think what he means is people who generally get 80s in their modules compared to those who consistently get 90s. One or two modules out of the trend won't be a huge problem but if low 80s are a regular thing then it would raise some concern about the suitability to study a maths course at a top uni.

But yes I agree with you on the second point but while it may not differentiate at the higher end, UMS are used in the process of short-listing for the interview.

The 80 UMS people have made quite a few mistakes on the paper( depending on the grade boundaries) so probably aren't 100 UMS ability where as the 90 UMS person may have only made one mistake and lost a few marks for it and due to high grade boundaries have dropped down to 90 UMS but could still be of 100 UMS capability and be a greater mathematician than the 100 UMS person.Its unlikely the 80 UMS person has the same capability as the 90 UMS person unless they had a really bad day.I have seen from GCSE that it can be easy to suffer from one bad mistake but two bad mistakes represents someone who doesn't have true mathematical ability.

Firstly, I did not say that 80 UMS was as good as 90 UMS, or anything similar. I said the difference between 80 and 90 UMS is the same as the difference between 90 and 100. Basically, I do not understand how you can say that there is a marked difference between 80 and 90 but the exact same numerical difference is insignificant when between 90 and 100. It's inconsistent logic.

So, two bad mistakes shows someone doesn't have true mathematical ability? Damn, I had best break this news to the people I know who have B grades in multiple Maths modules but aced their STEP exams and will be studying Maths at Cambridge in October.