I know it seems like a stupid question because the 13 A*s and 3 A*-Bs looks better. But I heard some universities like Oxford care more about the A* proportion. In this case 100% A* vs 80(ish)% A*.
I know a person who got into Oxford this year with 3A*s and the rest A/B so I don't think you ought to worry - remember that it isn't all about academics when applying to the top universities...
I know a person who got into Oxford this year with 3A*s and the rest A/B so I don't think you ought to worry - remember that it isn't all about academics when applying to the top universities...
I know a person who got into Oxford this year with 3A*s and the rest A/B so I don't think you ought to worry - remember that it isn't all about academics when applying to the top universities...
I know it seems like a stupid question because the 13 A*s and 3 A*-Bs looks better. But I heard some universities like Oxford care more about the A* proportion. In this case 100% A* vs 80(ish)% A*.
Any ideas? Thanks.
I got rejected from Oxford with the reason being I had too small of a proportion of A*s as I had to include on ucas GCSEs taken early such as creative studies or something where the maximum you could get in year 9 was a C, but I don't think 80% instead of 100% would harm you
I got rejected from Oxford with the reason being I had too small of a proportion of A*s as I had to include on ucas GCSEs taken early such as creative studies or something where the maximum you could get in year 9 was a C, but I don't think 80% instead of 100% would harm you
Doesn't really matter both are good. The latter shows you've done more exams - I've met people who have gotten into camebridge and Oxford with 4 A*s, so 13 A*s is great
Lol. I don't have a firm answer because views are all mixed ^. Yeah I'm scared. So is it a yes or no?
the rejection i got from them included this
"We try hard to allocate the available places in a manner that is as fair and objective as we can make it. The two quantitative and objective measures used in the initial short-listing process were performance at GCSE and BMAT score. If you had not taken GCSEs, we gave more weight to your BMAT result. In order to get onto the initial short-list you had to fall in approximately the top 30% of candidates based on a combination of these two parameters."
This was for medicine so exchange BMAT for whatever exam it took to apply for your course but basically this would mean it depends on the other applicants as to how high your grades have to be
It's not the same with the OP's example then. By a higher proportion they meant, for instance, 8A*s and 2As.
What the OP is saying is definitely not the case (not by any logic at least).
Hence why I said having 80% A*s instead of 100% wasn't going to harm them, i was just giving mine as an example since someone else said having 3A*s is enough
"We try hard to allocate the available places in a manner that is as fair and objective as we can make it. The two quantitative and objective measures used in the initial short-listing process were performance at GCSE and BMAT score. If you had not taken GCSEs, we gave more weight to your BMAT result. In order to get onto the initial short-list you had to fall in approximately the top 30% of candidates based on a combination of these two parameters."
This was for medicine so exchange BMAT for whatever exam it took to apply for your course but basically this would mean it depends on the other applicants as to how high your grades have to be
So, by "performance at GCSEs" did it include A* proportion? Also, I find it bizarre you were rejected solely on these two factors and not 'mainly' your AS levels.