This thread is closed
A Levels are Meaningless. Can you honestly Disagree?
Scroll to see replies
I agree with the OP 100%. I had a similar experience with Physics - I remember as I got to the end of my A2s it turned out I only needed 14 marks on my final exam to get the A (which is in itself ridiculous). The last module was a self-taught one, and for some reason my school didn't even have any textbooks, so it basically came down to me learning the whole module the day before the exam, entirely from past papers! (coupled with the marks schemes). I got 87%, not great but comfortably an A. There is no way this ought to be possible, regardless of intellect, in Britain's "Gold Standard" examination. As the OP said, it makes me angry because I feel like my Physics A-level is not worth the paper it is printed on.
Something people seem to miss is that if we make A-levels harder (say, so only the top 10% get As), there are no losers. Sure, he who would previously have got straight As may now get straight Bs, but universities would adjust their offers accordingly. And whereas it might be nice for particular individuals when they get into universities that are perhaps above their ability, it is hardly fair on the more able students who miss out. It's an open and shut case, surely?
Something people seem to miss is that if we make A-levels harder (say, so only the top 10% get As), there are no losers. Sure, he who would previously have got straight As may now get straight Bs, but universities would adjust their offers accordingly. And whereas it might be nice for particular individuals when they get into universities that are perhaps above their ability, it is hardly fair on the more able students who miss out. It's an open and shut case, surely?
Alewhey
Something people seem to miss is that if we make A-levels harder (say, so only the top 10% get As), then there are no losers
That just makes the middle grades bigger, and makes it harder for a different class of universities to differentiate, a class of universities that don't and, practically speaking, can't have the benefit of interviews with applicants.
Currently, nationally, about the same number of people get As, Bs, Cs and Ds at A2 level, I don't really see any reason to alter that as it allows the full spectrum of universities equal ability to gauge and compare their applicants.
Also, as I've said before, I don't think national exam papers are actually capable of splitting those at the top. An effective test needs to have questions pitched at or around the candidates' level of ability, ask any examiner. When the questions are too easy you can't simply differentiate by pedantically picking on mistakes. GCSEs use seperate papers for various ability levels, but that does create problems at the seams. I remember in the year I took them it was regarded as much easier to get a B on the higher maths paper than it was on the intermediate (they overlapped), and that kind of thing isn't acceptable with qualifications as important as A levels.
The only way to seperate these people is with a test designed for them, like an AEA, and I do hope these become more widely adopted so everyone good enough has the opportunity to take one.
And why is it ridiculous to be left with only a few marks to get to achieve an A when you've earned it with performances in the previous 5 modules? I was in a similar situation at the end of my physics A level, but the other four students in my class were on C,C,D and E, if I'd have suggested the A level was too easy I'd have got a slap in the face and justifiably so. Not sure I understand your point here. You might find it easy to get an A, but the statistics show that the vast majority of the nation doesn't, and the exam system has to serve everyone taking it.
The A level hasn't been a gold standard since everyone and his dog has been encouraged into post-16 education (a 'good thing', I'm told). It can't be, and we shouldn't expect it to be, for the reasons IseethroughWalls puts so neatly and I find myself repeating.
I understand what you are saying Robert. How about my earlier proposal though of simply splitting AS and A2 qualification in two, so that they are actually separate? In that case your exams would still mean something in the summer of year 13, and there is much more evidence for unis about who are the best candidates, and there is no less information than now for the other unis.
I think they are half implementing this next year by making people put all their module results on the UCAS form.
I think they are half implementing this next year by making people put all their module results on the UCAS form.
Yeah well as you say universities do make some use of AS and module results already, and will do more in the future. I do think there's merit in what you suggest, would I be right in thinking that's something like the Scottish Higher / Advanced Higher split?
As long as a single year's work is enough to assess and award an accurate grade I think having a distinct AS/A2 could be a positive step. Most importantly I think it'd stop AS marks, often achieved with resists, propping up the grade and hiding the fact that a student struggled with the extra difficulty of A2.
As long as a single year's work is enough to assess and award an accurate grade I think having a distinct AS/A2 could be a positive step. Most importantly I think it'd stop AS marks, often achieved with resists, propping up the grade and hiding the fact that a student struggled with the extra difficulty of A2.
that's why Cambridge once said A-level is rubbish .. but you can't do anything .. A-level is a general qualification and they need to consider everyone, and make sure most of them get into university; not oxbridge .. like what mentioned above, u need AEA and STEP test to distinguish them .. if A-level were made harder, more ppl will be discouraged to continue their study which is a thread to both economic development and economic growth ..
A Levels aren't meaningless if you're of the age to do them, but I don't attach much importance to them, they just show you can jump through hoops. Look at the example of philosopher Stephen Law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Law
I did the international baccalaureate because I was wary of these problems with A-levels, and with taking six subjects, doing the extended essay and theory of knowledge courses, and compulsory extra curricular activities, I reckon I had at least half as much work again as my A-level friends. Between 3 and 10% of people get a top grade in each subject, and only a fraction of people get the highest possible score of 45 points, so oxbridge entry is 39 or 40 points normally. This means the admissions tutors can truly distinguish between top candidates - in a sense this is because the overall IB is 'harder' than most 3/4 a-level courses.
The IB also means you leave school able to write long essays even if you're predominantly a scientist and do maths even if you are an arts student, you can cope with ridiculous amounts of work and manage your time well and have critical thinking skills (not saying a-level people don't have these skills, but a good mark on the IB is pretty much a guarantee of this)
So, in conclusion, I personally think the IB is the way forward for the most academic 16-18 year olds in this country. However, it's not suitable for everyone as it is very academic, so we still need another system, which at the moment is a-levels.
Oh, and for the IB you finish all your exams in May so I've already had nearly three weeks off!
The IB also means you leave school able to write long essays even if you're predominantly a scientist and do maths even if you are an arts student, you can cope with ridiculous amounts of work and manage your time well and have critical thinking skills (not saying a-level people don't have these skills, but a good mark on the IB is pretty much a guarantee of this)
So, in conclusion, I personally think the IB is the way forward for the most academic 16-18 year olds in this country. However, it's not suitable for everyone as it is very academic, so we still need another system, which at the moment is a-levels.
Oh, and for the IB you finish all your exams in May so I've already had nearly three weeks off!
At the end of the day, what does it all matter anyway?
The ones that simply aren't good enough to end up at Oxbridge are the ones that struggle, let them handle it.
The ones that simply aren't good enough to end up at Oxbridge are the ones that struggle, let them handle it.
Athena
If you want to read English at Oxbridge, and are crap at maths, then being forced to take maths could, conceivably, do you out of a place at Oxbridge. The same applies for a lot of humanities students. I don't think that's right.
I agree. Although IB does seem a much "fairer" system, and arguably produces much more rounded candidates, what does it matter in the grand scheme of things if a languages student would only be able to achieve say the equivalent of a B/C (sorry I'm not too familiar with the scoring system) in IB.
Athena
I think Oxbridge should go back to their own entrance exam, which better reflects the skills needed by Oxbridge, not what the exam boards/the government think A level students should know.
In many cases they are already doing this: LNAT, BMAT, HAT. Although these are not the only testers, they are put together with your A Level predictions, your reference etc. Having said that, I think the bottom 20% were wiped out before interview by the HAT and a much higher proportion by the BMAT. I don't know whether I'm comfortable with reintroducing the old entrance exam because there again we have the problem with poor exam technique, or just a bad day ruining your chances of getting into Oxbridge. If it were to be reintroduced I think it would have to be done alongside interview as well, rather than being the deciding factor, or working out who would be called to interview.
Alewhey
Something people seem to miss is that if we make A-levels harder (say, so only the top 10% get As), there are no losers. Sure, he who would previously have got straight As may now get straight Bs, but universities would adjust their offers accordingly. And whereas it might be nice for particular individuals when they get into universities that are perhaps above their ability, it is hardly fair on the more able students who miss out. It's an open and shut case, surely?
If A levels, at the extremes, test ability. I never got very high on maths or economics at A level - low-mid As on both. Yet I'm perfectly able here. Indeed, I find my university course easier than my A levels, because the way it's taught and what they're looking for suits me better. I'm far, far better at economics than I am at History, yet I got virtually full marks in History. How is that so if A levels are a good test of ability at the top level?
They aren't. A levels are only accurate in the middle of the range, if that, as all tests are. At the extremes, testing between a low A and a high A, you need a seperate, harder exam. I liked the SATs way - you can get up to a certain level in the normal exam, then if you get the top mark you take an extension paper to see if you get an even higher grade.
Don't be as presumptuous to assume that getting a higher A makes you more able than getting a lower A. It doesn't. All it does is bias it strongly in favour of public schools who get the vast majority of very high As, and against students who are very bright but find it harder to conform to the A level way of thinking and writing exams.
Because oxford and cambridge don't ask for full marks on the IB, it is perfectly possible to get the equivalent of a b/c in a subject and still easily make your offer. Although some degree of natural ability is required for the highest marks, just being intelligent and working hard can get you a resonable mark in almost any subject - and you can also take subjects you are not so strong in at a lower level. One of my class mates has been given an offer to do history at Oxford despite only being predicted a 4-5/7 in biology. So being bad at one thing is not the end of the world.
I had an exam at my interview, and I think it was definitely a good thing. It meant that for one you could bond with the other applicants over how crap you thought you did, it provides interviewers with the chance to see how you can think through problems they know you had trouble with or couldnt do, and if you do get an offer it means you feel more like you might actually deserve the offer and didn't jsut get in by blagging the interviews.
As for Alevels, I dont necessarily think exam boards should go out of our way to make more people fail, but I think they should definitely stop dumbing the syllabuses down (the new GCSE science syllabus anyone? My teacher says the syllabus has gone from 32 pages down to 5!
), and maybe bring the standard of the papers back up again a bit (e.g. put calculus back into physics Alevel. The people who dont do maths Alevel can be taught the basics in physics lessons)
As for Alevels, I dont necessarily think exam boards should go out of our way to make more people fail, but I think they should definitely stop dumbing the syllabuses down (the new GCSE science syllabus anyone? My teacher says the syllabus has gone from 32 pages down to 5!
), and maybe bring the standard of the papers back up again a bit (e.g. put calculus back into physics Alevel. The people who dont do maths Alevel can be taught the basics in physics lessons)
Popa Dom
(e.g. put calculus back into physics Alevel. The people who dont do maths Alevel can be taught the basics in physics lessons)
Teaching people the maths element of physics in physics lessons doesn't work IMO. I did physics to A2 without doing maths at AS or A level, and I had to have 'maths for scientists' lessons outside of physics lessons to bring me up to speed. As it happens, the current physics A level has barely any maths in it (as far as I can see), so I wasn't at too much of a disadvantage, but I wouldn't say that I learnt any mathematical concepts - it was more 'pressing the ln button on your calculator does this.' Ultimately, GCSE maths in no way prepares you for the level of maths you should have to learn to study physics properly, so anyone not doing A level maths wouldn't be able to grasp the concepts if taught them as part of physics lessons. Which, I suppose, brings us back to the main point. The entire system has to be brought up a notch.
The one problem with splitting the AS and the A2 is the offers system. Personally, I feel more secure about my offer knowing that I took half my A levels last year. I think that many more people would miss offers, and therefore the chance to go to the university of their choice, if everything was dependent on one set of exams at the end of Upper Sixth. The solution might be, as other people have said, to bring in more admissions tests and make all offers unconditional, making A levels a separate qualification.
Just to make my position perfectly clear, I don't in any way agree that A-levels have got easier or are now worth less than they used to be. It really annoys me when smarmy reporters and older people say things like that around results day because a) they have no experience of the current system and b) it undermines all the hard work and stress thousands of young people go through every year to achieve their grades. I believe simply that teachers have got better, more resources are available like the Internet and past papers and people are working harder because education is now more valued.
I also think some people need to get out of the TSR world and into the real world. Everyone keeps talking about the vast numbers of people getting straight As, but at my school, which is an average comprehensive, only 20% of our A-level passes are at grades A and B and the average points score per student is something like 220, the equivalent of CCD or DDDc. This is despite the fact that resits are very common. We never have more than 2 or 3 people in each year getting straight As and we also have quite a few getting Es and Us. To reiterate what others have said, A-levels aren't very good at distinguishing the top from the very top, but they're not designed to do that because the ability range they have to cater for is quite wide. It would be virtually impossible to write a single exam paper that catered equally well for the top A students and the bottom E students.
Having said that, I, like most people, do have some problems with the A-level system:
1) AS and A2. In a way, it's a good idea because it allows more flexibility with subjects and people who drop out after a year to get a qualification, but at the same time, I think it's ridiculous that I can get Cs in 2 of my A2s and still get overall As. A2s are harder than ASs, so why should one person who did well at AS and well at A2 get the same grade as someone who did well at AS but screwed up A2?
2) Unlimited resits. I accept that sometimes people have a bad day and might not do as well as they're capable of, but I don't think they should be allowed to sit an exam 4 times, come out with an A and be seen as equal to someone who got an A the first time. I think a limit of 1 resit per subject and the resit mark counting whether higher or not would be a good idea.
3) Entry requirements. Schools and colleges need to be more strict about letting people onto courses they're not capable of passing. 5 Cs in GCSEs, not GNVQs, including at least Cs in the subjects proposed at A-level, should be the minimum, and although it is in most places, some are unduly lenient. Same goes for progression from AS to A2. My school has let people do A2s in subjects they got Us in at AS, and if you can't even pass the easier half of the course, how can you possibly be expected to pass the difficult part?
As for universities distinguishing between candidates, I think interviews are the way to go for the top universities, but I realise this may not be practical in terms of time and cost, so:
1) There should be no option to decline AS grades.
2) Universities should recieve the UMS mark as well as the grade.
3) Teachers should make predicted grades more accurate by only predicting students grades they honestly believe they're capable of achieving.
On a slightly unrelated note, I also think university entrance requirements need to be raised because it seems ridiculous that EE can get someone onto an academic degree course. I'd personally set CCC as the lowest offer.
I also think some people need to get out of the TSR world and into the real world. Everyone keeps talking about the vast numbers of people getting straight As, but at my school, which is an average comprehensive, only 20% of our A-level passes are at grades A and B and the average points score per student is something like 220, the equivalent of CCD or DDDc. This is despite the fact that resits are very common. We never have more than 2 or 3 people in each year getting straight As and we also have quite a few getting Es and Us. To reiterate what others have said, A-levels aren't very good at distinguishing the top from the very top, but they're not designed to do that because the ability range they have to cater for is quite wide. It would be virtually impossible to write a single exam paper that catered equally well for the top A students and the bottom E students.
Having said that, I, like most people, do have some problems with the A-level system:
1) AS and A2. In a way, it's a good idea because it allows more flexibility with subjects and people who drop out after a year to get a qualification, but at the same time, I think it's ridiculous that I can get Cs in 2 of my A2s and still get overall As. A2s are harder than ASs, so why should one person who did well at AS and well at A2 get the same grade as someone who did well at AS but screwed up A2?
2) Unlimited resits. I accept that sometimes people have a bad day and might not do as well as they're capable of, but I don't think they should be allowed to sit an exam 4 times, come out with an A and be seen as equal to someone who got an A the first time. I think a limit of 1 resit per subject and the resit mark counting whether higher or not would be a good idea.
3) Entry requirements. Schools and colleges need to be more strict about letting people onto courses they're not capable of passing. 5 Cs in GCSEs, not GNVQs, including at least Cs in the subjects proposed at A-level, should be the minimum, and although it is in most places, some are unduly lenient. Same goes for progression from AS to A2. My school has let people do A2s in subjects they got Us in at AS, and if you can't even pass the easier half of the course, how can you possibly be expected to pass the difficult part?
As for universities distinguishing between candidates, I think interviews are the way to go for the top universities, but I realise this may not be practical in terms of time and cost, so:
1) There should be no option to decline AS grades.
2) Universities should recieve the UMS mark as well as the grade.
3) Teachers should make predicted grades more accurate by only predicting students grades they honestly believe they're capable of achieving.
On a slightly unrelated note, I also think university entrance requirements need to be raised because it seems ridiculous that EE can get someone onto an academic degree course. I'd personally set CCC as the lowest offer.
kellywood_5
Just to make my position perfectly clear, I don't in any way agree that A-levels have got easier or are now worth less than they used to be. It really annoys me when smarmy reporters and older people say things like that around results day because a) they have no experience of the current system and b) it undermines all the hard work and stress thousands of young people go through every year to achieve their grades. I believe simply that teachers have got better, more resources are available like the Internet and past papers and people are working harder because education is now more valued.
I completely disagree. A levels have got much easier, and I can tell that by looking at past papers. It's always 'Oh, thats not on the syllabus anymore' or 'Don't worry about that, they don't expect you to know that any more'. I doubt that teachers have got better, and I doubt that people are working harder as a whole. Sure, the top 10% might be, because they are actually interested in their work and now have more sources to get information from. However, for the rest of the population I reckon that you would be hard pushed to find teenagers that look up work on the internet.
kellywood_5
Just to make my position perfectly clear, I don't in any way agree that A-levels have got easier or are now worth less than they used to be. ... I believe simply that teachers have got better, more resources are available like the Internet and past papers and people are working harder because education is now more valued.
I broadly agree with the rest of your post, but in my opinion that's just rubbish. Whether or not the decreasing standards are right/wrong/good/bad/inevitable/justifiable or purely political is a matter for debate. Whether or not they've got easier really isn't. I can't help but think that some people hold that 'belief' just to make themselves feel better.
The percentage getting an A has in fact doubled since only 1991 (that's as far back as I can find a statistic on), and that's on top of the fact that the numbers taking A levels has risen every year. When they were first introduced in the 50s they were only taken by the very top students, and the pass rate was below 25% (there was only pass or fail then). An AAA used to be achieved by 1 in 200 and was almost a guaranteed ticket into Oxbridge.
When I was revising for my maths A level I did it using an old O level textbook, not only were almost all of the topics I was studying at A2 covered, the questions were harder and more varied. Even while I was at school maths got easier. The syllabus is now exactly 1/6th shorter than it was 2 years ago, as one applied module has been dropped completely and nothing added. Physics A level textbooks from 20 years ago (I have a couple) are over my head, the subject is now almost devoid of any hard science and has shockingly little maths by comparison, considering that physics is a fundamentally mathematical science.
Need I go on? You can't explain away differences like that with improved teaching methods and resources. Teachers have been teaching for thousands of years, they haven't just cottoned on to how to do properly it in the last 30. Resources help, but honestly the bulk of the learning I did during my A levels was out of good old-fashioned textbooks, technology isn't all that useful.
I don't know about arts subjects, although I'd be surprised if the situation is really any different. Arts and science results are pretty similar to each other now and logically they would have been when A levels were conceived.
One thing nobody seems to have mentioned yet is the huge variation between subjects that all equate to the same qualification. I take Human Biology (OCR) A2 as an extra A level purely because it is ridiculously easy- my other subjects are French, German and English Lit which I agree don't compare very well with a science subject however I have to work at least four times as hard to achieve the same grade. Before christmas because of interviews etc I only went to about a third of the Biology lessons but still got 88/90 in the January module. The syllabus is so prescribed it's just a case of learning by rote from one particular text book.
You might be thinking I'm just good at memorising facts, which is true but how can this be worth the same as my other A level subjects (although it's not included in my offer). My friends to AQA Biology, which is supposedly the same level qualification yet they are expected to write research essays and do relatively complicated mathematical calculations. My course involves learning how to take people's temperature or what the role of a genetic counsellor is- important but worth the same qualification?
I think it's these dicrepencies that undermine A levels and allow people who don't deserve them to get AAA
You might be thinking I'm just good at memorising facts, which is true but how can this be worth the same as my other A level subjects (although it's not included in my offer). My friends to AQA Biology, which is supposedly the same level qualification yet they are expected to write research essays and do relatively complicated mathematical calculations. My course involves learning how to take people's temperature or what the role of a genetic counsellor is- important but worth the same qualification?
I think it's these dicrepencies that undermine A levels and allow people who don't deserve them to get AAA
A-level results 2004
AS-level results 2004
22.4% and 17.5% of students got A grades.
Oxbridge are special universities. A-levels are for everyone. You can hardly expect A-levels to cater fully and accurately for Oxbridge level students imo.
Students with 6+ A grades have been rejected from Oxbridge. A-levels test you to a certain level of intelligence. If you can attain that level easily, but not go beyond it, you can get amazing A-levels and not be suitable for Oxbridge. On the other hand, you could be amazing at one subject, and thus fully suited for Oxbridge, but still get ACC.
A-levels, imo, test intelligence and perseverance. You can either be intelligent and do comparatively little work to get and A, or you can work your arse off to get one. I don't see a lazy intelligent person as being any more or less deserving than a hard-working less intelligent person.
What school you go to also distorts A-level results. It's a lot harder to teach yourself half a course than have it spoon-fed to you.
Overall, my rather boring conclusion, is that A-levels, like every other form of assessment are useful in some cases, but useless in other.
AS-level results 2004
22.4% and 17.5% of students got A grades.
Oxbridge are special universities. A-levels are for everyone. You can hardly expect A-levels to cater fully and accurately for Oxbridge level students imo.
Students with 6+ A grades have been rejected from Oxbridge. A-levels test you to a certain level of intelligence. If you can attain that level easily, but not go beyond it, you can get amazing A-levels and not be suitable for Oxbridge. On the other hand, you could be amazing at one subject, and thus fully suited for Oxbridge, but still get ACC.
A-levels, imo, test intelligence and perseverance. You can either be intelligent and do comparatively little work to get and A, or you can work your arse off to get one. I don't see a lazy intelligent person as being any more or less deserving than a hard-working less intelligent person.
What school you go to also distorts A-level results. It's a lot harder to teach yourself half a course than have it spoon-fed to you.
Overall, my rather boring conclusion, is that A-levels, like every other form of assessment are useful in some cases, but useless in other.
Wez
A-level results 2004
AS-level results 2004
22.4% and 17.5% of students got A grades.
Oxbridge are special universities. A-levels are for everyone. You can hardly expect A-levels to cater fully and accurately for Oxbridge level students imo.
Students with 6+ A grades have been rejected from Oxbridge. A-levels test you to a certain level of intelligence. If you can attain that level easily, but not go beyond it, you can get amazing A-levels and not be suitable for Oxbridge. On the other hand, you could be amazing at one subject, and thus fully suited for Oxbridge, but still get ACC.
A-levels, imo, test intelligence and perseverance. You can either be intelligent and do comparatively little work to get and A, or you can work your arse off to get one. I don't see a lazy intelligent person as being any more or less deserving than a hard-working less intelligent person.
What school you go to also distorts A-level results. It's a lot harder to teach yourself half a course than have it spoon-fed to you.
Overall, my rather boring conclusion, is that A-levels, like every other form of assessment are useful in some cases, but useless in other.
AS-level results 2004
22.4% and 17.5% of students got A grades.
Oxbridge are special universities. A-levels are for everyone. You can hardly expect A-levels to cater fully and accurately for Oxbridge level students imo.
Students with 6+ A grades have been rejected from Oxbridge. A-levels test you to a certain level of intelligence. If you can attain that level easily, but not go beyond it, you can get amazing A-levels and not be suitable for Oxbridge. On the other hand, you could be amazing at one subject, and thus fully suited for Oxbridge, but still get ACC.
A-levels, imo, test intelligence and perseverance. You can either be intelligent and do comparatively little work to get and A, or you can work your arse off to get one. I don't see a lazy intelligent person as being any more or less deserving than a hard-working less intelligent person.
What school you go to also distorts A-level results. It's a lot harder to teach yourself half a course than have it spoon-fed to you.
Overall, my rather boring conclusion, is that A-levels, like every other form of assessment are useful in some cases, but useless in other.
I reckon I could accept that conclusion
Related discussions
- Sexual thoughts
- deleted
- Aqa gcse combined science trilogy 2020 grade boundaries
- What is the best university ranking table and why?
- Anyone else doing a pharmacy degree feel too stupid to be doing it ???
- MA or MBA?
- Job recommendation in my case
- UCAS points - A level equivelent
- UCAS Clearing 2023 FAQ and Help Megathread
- Got a Ucas or results related question? Ask a Clearing and Applications Advisor here
- Choosing my career
- Why are men more easy going and laid back?
- university offer
- DVSA not responding
- Exams are not an accurate way to grade students
- what subjects should i pick for accountancy
- Little life help pls
- Strangers call a girl ugly
- How hard is it to get to a 60k Salary?
- Women that sleep around with lots of men are attractive.
Trending
- University of Oxford 2024 Undergraduate Applicants Official Thread
- I don’t think I should have been accepted to oxford
- Oxford with bad english lit grade
- How bad is it to get 65?
- Oxford Step-Up Program
- Physics for Oxford Chemistry?
- Canadian Intl. Student Help
- 2023 Cambridge Assessment Admissions Testing tests and posting rules
- Personal statement
- TSA tutor
- how much do oxford and cambridge consider GCSEs?
- Oxford - how important are the entry requirements?
- Is a post-A level application for Oxford a good idea?
- Biomedical Science BMs Oxford
- Oxbridge application
- Ioan and Rosemary James Undergraduate Scholarships
- Oxford: If my main interest is Neuroscience, is biology BA my best shot?
- Oxbridge admissions process - which one cares most about GCSEs?
- Does taking 4 A-Levels help with university applications?
- Written work for Oxford uni
Latest
- BMAT 2024 Entry Discussions Megathread
- MSc Computer Science with AI course at Abertay
- Lloyds Banking Group 2024 Graduate Scheme
- is it worth transferring?
- EPQ ideas for physics/computer science
- 2024 HSBC graduate scheme
- Official: University of Leicester A100 2024 Entry Applicants
- Newham 2024 Applicants
- Why r bicarbonate ions removed from red blood cells
- University of Oxford 2024 Undergraduate Applicants Official Thread
- CTC vetting time frame
- Official: University of Nottingham A100 2024 Entry Applicant thread
- Scholarships and grants
- I have excess money for my student loans, what do you recommend i do with it?
- AstraZeneca Graduate Schemes UK 2024
- Imperial Computing Interview
- Want room in Eleanor startford
- i am really confused
- Natwest 2024 Graduate Scheme
- Dancing round a firelit cauldron under a starry midnight sky 🍁🌙
- Youtube channel alternatives for A-level
- Repeat Module
- Official Veterinary Medicine Applicants thread 2024 entry
- Last Person To Post Here Wins (Part 54)
- Ucas 2024
- The Official Cambridge Applicants for 2024 Entry Thread
- Editing the mRNA of a gene changes a UGA codon to AGA. what will this lead to?
- University of Nottingham removing health science course
- DWP Work Coach Interview - how long to hear
- 20% discount on popular postgraduate degrees
- PAT 2023 / for 2024 entry forum
- Exeter, Liverpool or Reading for (bio)medical sciences?
- Official: University of Cambridge A100 2024 Entry Applicants
- Graduate Entry Medicine (GEM) A101- Oxford University Entry (2024)
- QUB Dentistry 2024 entry
- Official: Keele University A100 2024 Entry Applicants
- Will he comeback or he has just moved on?
- still no girlfriend
- Official: University of Glasgow A100 2024 Entry Applicants
- ATAS certificate for UK for January 2024 intake