Exceeded my Cambridge offer, but missed my place (THANKS EDEXCEL)

I don't think there is a zero chance with lower UMS.

But clearly the lower the UMS the less chance of an offer. Anyone who has done any research knows this, and anyone who has listened to a Cambridge admissions talk will have been told it. But 20% of remarked scripts are shown to have been marked incorrectly, so all I'm saying is that it's not the most accurate measure. Which is presumably why no other university places so much emphasis on UMS but relies more on grades and in Oxford's case many more admissions tests.

If a company produced goods, 20% of which were known to be faulty, they'd soon go out of business. The exam boards are getting it wrong to the same extent year after year
yet Cambridge are relying on UMS to produce all sorts of averages (SUMS, best 3, most relevant 3) and then sorting applicants into quintiles based on those averages. If they're not playing a significant role in their decision-making why do they bother to do it?

Ok I'll withdraw now.

But just to remind you that most (85%+) get interviews, and that's a key source of information for the admissions process. Cambridge interviews much more than Oxford.

Yes UMS has a part to play, and yes they produce a worksheet with lots of averages on it, but it's not the only, or the most important, part of process that Cambridge invests many hours per applicant on. With multiple people reviewing each application. It's a human & holistic process.

Maybe @Christ's Admissions can do a better job of reassuring you

I think you are mistaken if you think we need reassuring. I am a Cambridge Economics Graduate, JNeil is a parent of a student. I think we both repeatedly stress that UMS are not the sole determinant of admissions but it is also a mistake to underestimate how the best candidates tend to have highUMS and high interviews scores and those with low UMS lower interview scores.. Most of the outliers in terms of high UMS no offer and low UMS offer have specific reasons for this.


Posted from TSR Mobile

I think you are mistaken if you think we need reassuring. I am a Cambridge Economics Graduate, JNeil is a parent of a student. I think we both repeatedly stress that UMS are not the sole determinant of admissions but it is also a mistake to underestimate how the best candidates tend to have highUMS and high interviews scores and those with low UMS lower interview scores.. Most of the outliers in terms of high UMS no offer and low UMS offer have specific reasons for this.


Posted from TSR Mobile

You quoted me not @Disco2000

Her concern is, I think, that
a) 20% of papers are marked wrongly by the exam boards
b) Cambridge relies on UMS for its admissions
c) therefore 20% of its admissions are wrong
d) Cambridge shouldn't rely on a product that is 20% faulty

(I'm probably paraphrasing unfairly but I'm sure she will correct me... )

You are paraphrasing unfairly, as I'm sure you realise. I've tried very hard not to make my argument as simplistic as you've reduced it to. So thanks for that.

Correct my mistakes then.

c) therefore 20% of its admissions are wrong

I haven't said this anywhere.

It's far more likely that good candidates will be put off from applying because their UMS doesn't put them in a strong position, often because of one subject. As I think I said, I'm sure interviews can iron out discrepancies but that's not much help if a candidate doesn't apply in the first place.

The system as it stands obviously works well for Cambridge and they get enough great applicants every year to maintain their position as one of the best universities in the world.

I was just wondering whether stories such as the OP's, and the stats regarding the inaccuracy of marking gave Christ's AT pause for thought. That's all.

a fundamental point is being overlooked here - 20% of remarks are wrong, not 20% of all ums marks. Clearly there is selection bias as you wont pay for a remark unless you think it's wrong. As remarks are usually only a small percentage of awarded grades the true error rate is a lot smaller. If 25% of papers are remarked the error rate is 5%, if 5% are remarked the error rate is 1%. If .5% are remarked the error rate in 0.1%. So not surprising if Cambridge dont worry too much about AS remarks - which can be completed before selection for interview anyway.

Do stories like the OP's (and many other examples on TSR of remarks resulting in drastically altered grades, as well as the official figures that show 20% of remarks result in a mark change) make you question the importance Cambridge place on UMS? I know you'll say that every application is looked at holistically but every presentation I've been in regarding Cambridge admissions has always stressed the importance of UMS in the application procedure.

In other words, is a large part of the Cambridge admissions procedure out-sourced to the notoriously unreliable markers for the exam boards?

Or maybe if you had done better in the first place and not put yourself in a position where a few marks could make the difference between making your offer and missing it...

Or maybe if you had done better in the first place and not put yourself in a position where a few marks could make the difference between making your offer and missing it...

I don't think it makes us question the fact that UMS is a good predictor for performance at Cambridge - all the research shows that it is as, indeed, is grade performance at A2 (the more A*s you get the better the averages person does). UMS is not perfect by any means, however, and we are very much aware of that which is why we try to get as much information as possible about candidates to give them the opportunity to show strength in a number of areas.

Cases like these do give one pause for thought and are very healthy reminders that A Level marking can be unreliable at times. It would be foolish of us, though, to discount those who have done really well because somehow less will not have got the mark that they deserved. Unfortunately this does have the side effect that some people are put off from applying because of the emphasis we place on UMS and that is certainly unfortunate but we do our best to stress the roundedness of our admissions processes. I would never claim that our processes our perfect, they simply aren't - we turn away thousands of people who have done really well at A Level or equivalent and who probably would have done well at Cambridge but we do our best to try to make the best possible decision that we can given all the information that we have at the time at which we make it.

I don't think it makes us question the fact that UMS is a good predictor for performance at Cambridge - all the research shows that it is as, indeed, is grade performance at A2 (the more A*s you get the better the averages person does). UMS is not perfect by any means, however, and we are very much aware of that which is why we try to get as much information as possible about candidates to give them the opportunity to show strength in a number of areas.

Cases like these do give one pause for thought and are very healthy reminders that A Level marking can be unreliable at times. It would be foolish of us, though, to discount those who have done really well because somehow less will not have got the mark that they deserved. Unfortunately this does have the side effect that some people are put off from applying because of the emphasis we place on UMS and that is certainly unfortunate but we do our best to stress the roundedness of our admissions processes. I would never claim that our processes our perfect, they simply aren't - we turn away thousands of people who have done really well at A Level or equivalent and who probably would have done well at Cambridge but we do our best to try to make the best possible decision that we can given all the information that we have at the time at which we make it.

Hmm, I don't know the remark stats at all (and have assumed Disco's 20% is correct - which I normally wouldn't in a discussion like this - so my bad for that).

But devils advocate...

Disco is referring to remarked papers that have UMS changes, rather than full grade changes. Importantly, you don't get a refund unless the remark leads to a full grade improvement.

Therefore someone with a low A is less likely to pay for a remark when it might only improve their chances at one uni, and they may also be concerned it may actually drop a full grade, which would affect their 4 other uni choices.


Posted from TSR Mobile

Thank you for this, yes this is exactly what I was saying. The stats regarding remarks are correct (for 2014) although obviously one can't extrapolate from them that 20% of all marks are wrong because we can't know that (and I never claimed this was the case)