The Student Room Group

Pros and cons of re-applying to Cambridge?

Scroll to see replies

Original post by boodledoodle123
If it's any consolation, I'd be lucky to get 40. But then, I still think 2012 was a worse paper. What do you think?

Wait, for Cambridge, going down the NatSci route for Physics, would you have to do the PAT again??


Oh no it's the NSAA - that's a different kettle of scary fish. It's used as part of a range of different things that are taken into consideration before choosing to send offers to a given candidate.

But the nice thing is that they do give an interview which is a chance to show them who we are, instead of everything riding on one thing,

The 2012 paper was easy up until the last question and the report reflects that - basically lots of people got the same number of marks which indicates they probably got the same things wrong.
Original post by DrSebWilkes
Oh no it's the NSAA - that's a different kettle of scary fish. It's used as part of a range of different things that are taken into consideration before choosing to send offers to a given candidate.

But the nice thing is that they do give an interview which is a chance to show them who we are, instead of everything riding on one thing,

The 2012 paper was easy up until the last question and the report reflects that - basically lots of people got the same number of marks which indicates they probably got the same things wrong.


Yeah but Oxford interviews too?
Aren't the processes similar in that respect, for both Oxford and Cambridge?
(Sorry for all these questions - I only looked into Oxford.)

Ah.
Original post by boodledoodle123
Yeah but Oxford interviews too?
Aren't the processes similar in that respect, for both Oxford and Cambridge?
(Sorry for all these questions - I only looked into Oxford.)

Ah.


Oxford have a cut-off which means that only the top 35% (this year) will be called to interview - a cut off decided by a mark on their entrance exam.

I don't know how Cambridge decide who can't come to interview but their interview rates are significantly higher. The processes aren't at all similar.

Cambridge arguably care more about academic success in A-levels and whatnot so it's important to go in with strong UMS and at least 2 A*s predicted.

And then they look more at the whole individual from personal statement to entrance exam, to interview.
Original post by DrSebWilkes
Oxford have a cut-off which means that only the top 35% (this year) will be called to interview - a cut off decided by a mark on their entrance exam.

I don't know how Cambridge decide who can't come to interview but their interview rates are significantly higher. The processes aren't at all similar.

Cambridge arguably care more about academic success in A-levels and whatnot so it's important to go in with strong UMS and at least 2 A*s predicted.

And then they look more at the whole individual from personal statement to entrance exam, to interview.


I see - yeah I remember when I was going to apply for Maths, and the STEP requirements put me off the Cambridge course. It wasn't so much the paper, but it was the fact that you get these results right at the very end. Plus the UMS stuff. I did A Level Maths in Year 12 (C1-4 and M1-2) but like, I didn't want to cash-in straight away. :smile:

Why didn't you apply to Cambridge first?
Original post by boodledoodle123
I see - yeah I remember when I was going to apply for Maths, and the STEP requirements put me off the Cambridge course. It wasn't so much the paper, but it was the fact that you get these results right at the very end. Plus the UMS stuff. I did A Level Maths in Year 12 (C1-4 and M1-2) but like, I didn't want to cash-in straight away. :smile:

Why didn't you apply to Cambridge first?


I think I would have preferred to not do chemistry in the first year of university so even if I prefer Cambridge (I say that because Grampy went to Clare to do music so I'm naturally biased! :P ) and in the end I quite liked how Oxford did physics. Nevertheless, as I said in the OP I really want to be an academic so if I do decide to apply to Cambridge next year, the first year might be a little hard but apparently the physics catches up with Oxford by the 4th year which sounds fine by me!
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by DrSebWilkes
I think I would have preferred to have not done chemistry in the first year of university even if I prefer Cambridge (I say that because Grampy went to Clare to do music so I'm naturally biased! :P ) and in the end I quite liked how Oxford did physics. Nevertheless, as I said in the OP I really want to be an academic so if I do decide to apply to Cambridge next year, the first year might be a little hard but apparently the physics catches up with Oxford by the 4th year which sounds fine by me!


You can be an academic wherever you go. You need the dedication and the passion - and you clearly have those things. GOOD LUCK WITH EVERYTHING
(lol see you in the PAT thread when we can all discuss that hideous paper)
Assuming one does well in their own studies and is on track to get a good first, how does applying for a 4th year master's degree at either Oxford or Cambridge compare to trying to get in on the undergraduate courses?
Reply 27
Original post by DrSebWilkes
Assuming one does well in their own studies and is on track to get a good first, how does applying for a 4th year master's degree at either Oxford or Cambridge compare to trying to get in on the undergraduate courses?


Cambridge MAST/MPhil offer rates are a bit higher than undergrad.
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by Doonesbury
Cambridge MAST/MPhil offer rates are a bit higher than undergrad.


Well that's reassuring. Actually I found this https://www.graduate.study.cam.ac.uk/sites/www.2018.graduate.study.cam.ac.uk/files/graduate_admissions_report_2016_17.pdf

... Which backs up what you said. And reassuringly for me, the physics stats don't look too bad!

How different would Oxford be -if you know at all - (just trying to get a full picture)?
Reply 29
Original post by DrSebWilkes
Well that's reassuring. Actually I found this https://www.graduate.study.cam.ac.uk/sites/www.2018.graduate.study.cam.ac.uk/files/graduate_admissions_report_2016_17.pdf

... Which backs up what you said. And reassuringly for me, the physics stats don't look too bad!

How different would Oxford be -if you know at all - (just trying to get a full picture)?


No idea, tbf. But I expect it's similar.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by DrSebWilkes
I think I would have preferred to not do chemistry in the first year of university so even if I prefer Cambridge (I say that because Grampy went to Clare to do music so I'm naturally biased! :P ) and in the end I quite liked how Oxford did physics. Nevertheless, as I said in the OP I really want to be an academic so if I do decide to apply to Cambridge next year, the first year might be a little hard but apparently the physics catches up with Oxford by the 4th year which sounds fine by me!


In natsci you don't actually have to do chemistry, you could do materials science and computer science as your first year options if you wanted to for example.
Original post by DrSebWilkes
I think I would have preferred to not do chemistry in the first year of university so even if I prefer Cambridge (I say that because Grampy went to Clare to do music so I'm naturally biased! :P ) and in the end I quite liked how Oxford did physics. Nevertheless, as I said in the OP I really want to be an academic so if I do decide to apply to Cambridge next year, the first year might be a little hard but apparently the physics catches up with Oxford by the 4th year which sounds fine by me!


It catches up by second year really and the difficulty of physics papers is comparable I'm p sure.

Quick Reply

Latest