Uni admissions discriminating against good predicted grades? (urgent)

(edited 2 years ago)

They’re certainly not discriminating against higher predictions.

When you’re assessing applicants with multiple A*’s, the Level 3 academic margins are so narrow that other factors, (personal statement, ref, GCSE profile, interview etc), end up being the differentiators.

In brief, “they’re looking at other stuff”.

NB. You’re predicted 3 A*’s and are taking both of their ‘useful prep’ subjects. You don’t need to be second guessing the selection process. Just apply.

Reply 2

999tigger

Original post by br2611

So I'm targeting land economy at Cambridge, and am currently predicted 3 A*s (geography economics maths)
Looking at land economy applications however, I've found that those predicted A*A*A in maths econ geog (with the A in maths) are getting a reasonable percentage of offers, but of all those applying with 3 A* (maths econ geog) none got an offer
These rates are similar for 2017 and 16 entry, and are also similar from what I can see, for the geography with economics course at LSE. furthermore I know of 2 people predicted A*A*A (same subjects), and one is at LSE and the other E&M at Oxford.
Looking at the way land economy is giving out much much more offers for the A*A*A, is there a reason for this?

Note - I'm asking this particular for maths econ geog, with the A in math

Why dont you ask them?
Maybe there are other factors at play in terms of the actual predication and differences in candidates. If you feel you are unhappy and there are grounds for complaint then make one.

Reply 3

br2611

Original post by Admit-One

ah ok, thanks for the advice - I just keep coming back to the fact (in last years cycle), predicted A*A*A* in Economics Geography Maths, 8 people got a rejection and 1 got an offer, but yet when this was A*A*A, 4 people got an offer and 4 rejections.
This stat is almost identical to the LSE course

Could there be any other possible reason for this?

thanks for your help

Reply 4

Sinnoh

Original post by br2611

Schools are very inconsistent with predicted grades so they know there's not much point differentiating between two or three A*s - that information alone doesn't tell them much.
Also there are so few applicants for land economy that you're bound to get some strange results.

Reply 5

Oxford Mum

Original post by br2611

No, nobody is discriminating against you. Predicted grades are just part of the story, and applications to Cambridge are taken holistically. Maybe the successful candidates were more impressive at interview.

You need to apply if you want to. Trust the tutors to make a full and fair assessment of each prospective candidate.

Reply 6

br2611

Original post by Sinnoh

ah ok - so you think it could just be that the 2 A* people were more successful at interview, and not - for example - that Cambridge was distrustful of the 3A*s as being overpredicted?

thanks

Reply 7

threeportdrift

Careers Forum Helper

Original post by br2611

ah ok - so you think it could just be that the 2 A* people were more successful at interview, and not - for example - that Cambridge was distrustful of the 3A*s as being overpredicted?

thanks

Even if Cambridge was distrustful of the 3A*s being overpredicted, that's no reason not to make an offer if the candidate seems suitable and competitive for the course. You can make a 3A* offer and presume the candidate will fail to make their offer, if you think it was an over-prediction. If you don't think the entire package is suited to the Cambridge teaching style, pace, tempo etc then you don't make an offer.

Reply 8

artful_lounger

Universities Forum Helper

My impression is that an applicants predicted grades are merely part of the "box-ticking" part of the application - are they predicted at least the minimum requirements of the course, do they any required subjects (e.g. maths & physics for engineering), etc.

The pre-interview admissions assessment (if there is one; some courses have at-interview assessments only, or none), any submitted work, and the interview itself tell them a lot more about the applicants academic ability than a set of purely hypothetical grades set out by the teacher (even assuming there is no pressure for teachers to overpredict).

Also as noted above, land economy is an extremely small course, so even small differences between years can distort the statistics significantly; if they just made two more offers to those with A*AA than A*A*A* it could heavily skew the averages for a course with less than 100 students per year.

Something else to consider is selection biases; those who are being predicted A*A*A may be more likely to apply for single honours economics, for example, than land economy, so there may simply be fewer applicants with very high predicted grades.