The Student Room Group

Cambridge Offer Holders 2015 thread

Scroll to see replies

Original post by frigg113
same could be said of cambridge. tonnes of people with straight As rejected, people like physicsmaths e.g. getting accepted with AABD and terrible gcses.

Same could be said of any uni, the unis always have a lot more info at hand than we can speculate on. Ofcourse they dont always get decisions right, certainly oxbridge dont as theyre picking from the top of the top, and the same with warwick im sure.

but it rings true for every course and institution


The difference with physicsmaths is that Cambridge Maths admissions officers only care about maths ability and that alone. Check out his UMS in maths and his BMO scores, he isn't as bad an applicant as you present him. Straight A's could mean a UMS average of 100% or 80%. Even those with 100% UMS averages are called for interview at Cambridge and run the risk of rejection.

I am just confused as I thought I had a good chance of getting in. The only thing I can think of is GCSEs; my UMS isn't too bad and my PS was good enough for LSE (who place far too much emphasis on PS).

I'm not fussed that I didn't get in but I am just confused, that is all :P
Original post by frigg113
same could be said of cambridge. tonnes of people with straight As rejected, people like physicsmaths e.g. getting accepted with AABD and terrible gcses.

Same could be said of any uni, the unis always have a lot more info at hand than we can speculate on. Ofcourse they dont always get decisions right, certainly oxbridge dont as theyre picking from the top of the top, and the same with warwick im sure.

but it rings true for every course and institution


It's not the same thing in the slightest. Cambridge get UMS and interview performance in addition to your grades. Warwick gets what, your PS? Additionally if you actually have a good profile (i.e. 90%+ UMS average) then you are guaranteed an interview at Cambridge - they don't just reject those with 100% UMS and 14 GCSE A*s right off the bat.

An explanation for some of the rejections from other unis for those with near perfect profiles may be that some institutions do actually reject those who they feel will not take an offer from them anyway.
Original post by ClickItBack
It's not the same thing in the slightest. Cambridge get UMS and interview performance in addition to your grades. Warwick gets what, your PS? Additionally if you actually have a good profile (i.e. 90%+ UMS average) then you are guaranteed an interview at Cambridge - they don't just reject those with 100% UMS and 14 GCSE A*s right off the bat.

An explanation for some of the rejections from other unis for those with near perfect profiles may be that some institutions do actually reject those who they feel will not take an offer from them anyway.


you were rejected from cambridge one year and accepted the next

and you lecturing us on how cambridge dont make wrong decisions interesnting?
Original post by EHZ17
The difference with physicsmaths is that Cambridge Maths admissions officers only care about maths ability and that alone. Check out his UMS in maths and his BMO scores, he isn't as bad an applicant as you present him. Straight A's could mean a UMS average of 100% or 80%. Even those with 100% UMS averages are called for interview at Cambridge and run the risk of rejection.

I am just confused as I thought I had a good chance of getting in. The only thing I can think of is GCSEs; my UMS isn't too bad and my PS was good enough for LSE (who place far too much emphasis on PS).

I'm not fussed that I didn't get in but I am just confused, that is all :P


that is exactly the point im getting across, i can see on here that despite his grades he probably deserved that offer - his maths ability is strong indeed.

But boywonder is just portraying the guy with ABBB who got warwick offer in the way he wants. Warwick arent as academically focussed as cambridge, ofcourse, so to them maybe things on the PS like extracurricular are more important? No need for him to slate their admissions process because on the face of it it doesnt look like some decisions were right.

Just like Cambridge (even more so for cambridge ofcourse), Warwick will have a lot more info on a student than we have and can make the right decisions. same with e.g physicsmaths as they used his other info and interview to get a better view, same with the ABBB warwick econ guy im sure

And of course, important to remember, these institutions dont always make the right decisions!
Original post by frigg113
you were rejected from cambridge one year and accepted the next

and you lecturing us on how cambridge dont make wrong decisions interesnting?


I never said Cambridge don't make wrong decisions. I merely pointed out that you are making a false equivalence by suggesting that someone getting rejected with near-perfect grades from Cambridge is the same thing as someone getting rejected with near-perfect grades from, say, Warwick.
Original post by ClickItBack
I never said Cambridge don't make wrong decisions. I merely pointed out that you are making a false equivalence by suggesting that someone getting rejected with near-perfect grades from Cambridge is the same thing as someone getting rejected with near-perfect grades from, say, Warwick.


why is it not? Cambridge are completely academically focused, Warwick Econ are not - theyre going to have more of the career driven I-Bank kinda guys
Chill out lads. Who cares about warwick and there admissions! I think they rejected purely because they knew you were not going to pick them as you said yourself. Btw EH17, did you put your scores on your School reference or PS? UMS scores I mean.


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by physicsmaths
Chill out lads. Who cares about warwick and there admissions! I think they rejected purely because they knew you were not going to pick them as you said yourself. Btw EH17, did you put your scores on your School reference or PS? UMS scores I mean.


Posted from TSR Mobile


So all the oxbridge people who have Warwick offers, werent deemed good enough for Oxbridge (by Warwick purpotedly). No thats wrong - theyre going to be the better students as they managed offers from both
Original post by physicsmaths
Chill out lads. Who cares about warwick and there admissions! I think they rejected purely because they knew you were not going to pick them as you said yourself. Btw EH17, did you put your scores on your School reference or PS? UMS scores I mean.


Posted from TSR Mobile


I asked my tutor to put down my maths, eng and econ scores, not sure if he did tho
Original post by frigg113
So all the oxbridge people who have Warwick offers, werent deemed good enough for Oxbridge (by Warwick purpotedly). No thats wrong - theyre going to be the better students as they managed offers from both

Good point but who cares anyway.Hopefully EH17 has asked for feedback of some sort then we can know for sure. Why are we all arguing about this lol


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by EHZ17
I asked my tutor to put down my maths, eng and econ scores, not sure if he did tho


Have ou asked warwick for feedback? I would ask if you havent already.


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by physicsmaths
Good point but who cares anyway.Hopefully EH17 has asked for feedback of some sort then we can know for sure. Why are we all arguing about this lol


Posted from TSR Mobile


true, i was just trying to point out the stupidity of one of boywonders comments
Original post by frigg113
So all the oxbridge people who have Warwick offers, werent deemed good enough for Oxbridge (by Warwick purpotedly). No thats wrong - theyre going to be the better students as they managed offers from both


I don't agree
Original post by EHZ17
I don't agree


ofcourse you dont. youre butthurt atm
Original post by physicsmaths
Have ou asked warwick for feedback? I would ask if you havent already.


Posted from TSR Mobile


I might do. It would probably say 'very strong competition' or something :P

LSE had 13 applicants per place for economics in 2013, Cambridge is fairly competitive...

Moving on, how is your revision? :biggrin:
Original post by frigg113
ofcourse you dont. youre butthurt atm


Warwick was my 4th choice, I was just confused. Your ill-informed comments have kept this conversation alive pal
Original post by EHZ17
I might do. It would probably say 'very strong competition' or something :P

LSE had 13 applicants per place for economics in 2013, Cambridge is fairly competitive...

Moving on, how is your revision? :biggrin:


Nasay you want sepcifically why you were rejected and the lart of your application which did not appeal to them.
Havent done any A level revision yet. Just been doing STEP for ages lol. Still hard haha.


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by physicsmaths
Nasay you want sepcifically why you were rejected and the lart of your application which did not appeal to them.
Havent done any A level revision yet. Just been doing STEP for ages lol. Still hard haha.


Posted from TSR Mobile


STEP's easier than C1 I don't know why you're complaining.

You still need to get A*A*A don't you? I suppose STEP helps m and fm
Original post by NinjaPandaa
Yeah I did have a B in AS Chinese though :s-smilie:
Going to insure Warwick pretty happy that I'll end up with an a* in maths so it should be fine


Sweet! Yh but come on, you also had 4 As :P. Chinese is irrelevant.
Original post by EHZ17
STEP's easier than C1 I don't know why you're complaining.

You still need to get A*A*A don't you? I suppose STEP helps m and fm


Lol M FM is easy A* for me no revision purely to do with STEP (finished the content quite a while back). I need 90 in C3/4 and 85 in two A2 modules and Ive got A*A* and Lile 60 average. I got 100s in my mocks with little/no revision. I do papers every sunday for M n FM so i should be fine. I am starting my Physics notes tomorrow!
Yeh Bro, STEP is like GCSE. Walk in and hope for the best lol.


Posted from TSR Mobile

Quick Reply

Latest