The Big "Are My Grades Good Enough for Cambridge?" Thread (Mk1)

The thesis 'if you are a good scientist, then it is implied that you have these skills' and 'it is impossible to be a good scientist without problem-solving skills and critical thinking' are actually very similar.
Please learn a bit of logic.

Furthermore, this is being a waste of our time. Reaching stalemate because of obtuseness is always something i wish to avoid.


Best of luck with your academic future.

You should check how these compare against your schools averages as well; as the UMS relative to your schools average performance is arguably as important as the objective UMS score itself.

Hmm, how is this possible to find out, for an applicant or a school?
Also, to what extent would this impact? If, for example:

Candidate A goes to a school with a 60% average and achieves 90%.
Candidate B goes to a school with a 80% average and achieves 95%.

Would these generally be considered equal, ceteris paribus?

tl;dr - Cambridge is not so much interested in candidates with specific UMS thresholds but for those who are significantly outperforming other candidates with similar backgrounds and circumstances.

I usually take a neutral position regarding admissions (because frankly, only the DoS of the college for your subject knows what he's looking for so for anyone else to guess or even generalise across the colleges is just futile). However if you want some insight, read this, probably one of the best articles on the Guardian about Cambridge.

I have read this article and found it very interesting; it's one of the few articles I have read which have managed to inspire a sense of optimism with regards to Oxbridge admissions. However, I would take it with a pinch of salt - it's only focused on one college in Cambridge, and the process probably varies quite a bit between them.

Hmm, how is this possible to find out, for an applicant or a school?
Also, to what extent would this impact? If, for example:

Candidate A goes to a school with a 60% average and achieves 90%.
Candidate B goes to a school with a 80% average and achieves 95%.

Would these generally be considered equal, ceteris paribus?

tl;dr - Cambridge is not so much interested in candidates with specific UMS thresholds but for those who are significantly outperforming other candidates with similar backgrounds and circumstances.

I'm not privy to exactly how Cambridge quantify their contextual data - I would assume that it's done based upon your percentile rank with regards to the kind of background and schooling you have experienced. For example, I think this might be a better example:

Candidate A is on free school meals and attends a comprehensive low down on school league tables. He comes from a background where few people attend higher universities. He has achieved a UMS average of 90%, which places him in the top 2% of students from similar backgrounds.

Candidate B comes from a family of doctors and has attended a prestigious private school all his life, one renowned for sending people to Oxbridge every year. He has achieved a UMS average of 95%, which places him in the top 10% of people from similar backgrounds.

Objectively speaking, Candidate B has better grades than Candidate A. However, Candidate A has significantly outperformed B relative to similar Candidates, resulting in Candidate A getting an offer.



Obviously, all the figures I just quoted are bogus. However, the important point is that Cambridge uses contextual data to find people who have performed exceptionally under the circumstances they were given in. To simply assume that being poor gives you a better shot at Cambridge is wrong. Cambridge are looking for the top group of candidates from all the groups who apply. However, the grades indicative of exceptional ability can vary dependent on the background the candidate is from - you might expect the top proportion of privately educated pupils to achieve higher than the top proportion of pupils from care homes, for example, due to their circumstances. However, if two candidates in different groups are ranked equally with regards to their respective backgrounds then they will be treated equally by Cambridge, even if there is a relatively significant difference in their actual scores.

tl;dr - Cambridge is not so much interested in candidates with specific UMS thresholds but for those who are significantly outperforming other candidates with similar backgrounds and circumstances.

i was told my an admissions persn at Newnham that Cambridge only contextualise GCSEs and not A levels

i was told my an admissions persn at Newnham that Cambridge only contextualise GCSEs and not A levels

I think there's something to be said for doing well under very poor circumstances (low socio-economic, family didn't go to uni, school performs badly, health issues, etc.)

However, if you're achieving 95%+ but that is below average, I don't think it matters because clearly that average is of a ridiculous standard.

So, in general, I don't think you can generalise. Each case must be looked at individually.

Well that sounds incredibly pointless to me, seeing as the role of GCSEs is nothing more than marginal...

In any case it probably depends on how important UMS is to each department and the opinions of individual admissions tutors, I guess..

It is an interesting point - I don't really know enough to form an opinion on how Cambridge weights different candidates' background, but the admissions tutor said to us "we have a formula intended to put GCSE / UMS performances on a level playing field depending on a school's background.

This caused a lot of stir amongst a lot of the other visitors (Myself and a friend were the only state school kids there). I'm not sure what I think about it really, I have never considered myself to be disadvantaged and do not believe people of high social classes are my "betters" so I think it would be hypocritical of me to hope for special treatment.