The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

..

Scroll to see replies

Original post by RichE
I took mathematics, further mathematics, physics and chemistry



I don't know about it being "insanely" difficult, but in any I wasn't trying to be so literal and apologise as I should have said "extremely high" or similar.


Sorry I hadn't realize UMS marks exist for GCSEs.


I would guess it's fair to say there's a step up form GCSE to A-level in all subjects.


This practice continues at higher education firsts (and thirds) are more prevalent in quantifiably exact subjects.


Edexcel had UMS- june 2015 if you want to search it up- you took no humanities so you have no way of knowing if it`s easier to do well at A levels in humanities than in science- neither do I, hence why i needed the documents and some friends who take a combination maintain doing well in their sciences is much harder than in their humanities, that`s the source of my data- The GCSE step up is a fair point- though i mentioned it to illustrate that even at gcses- sciences are much more understanding based and so slightly harder.

I also should have rephrased- getting full marks in maths and even FM is much more doable than sciences as the questions are nearly identical year in year out-sciences are very very difficult to get 100% in, partly due to specific marking points too
Reply 81
Avatar for Doones
Doones
21
Original post by glad-he-ate-her
no way of knowing if it`s easier to do well at A levels in humanities than in science-


Knock yourselves out
http://www.bstubbs.co.uk/a-lev.htm

Apart from Maths (and FM) it's not at all so clear cut.


Posted from TSR Mobile
(edited 7 years ago)
Reply 82
Avatar for RichE
RichE
15
Original post by glad-he-ate-her
Edexcel had UMS- june 2015 if you want to search it up- you took no humanities so you have no way of knowing if it`s easier to do well at A levels in humanities than in science


This surely cannot be about my or your ability to do well at humanity subjects but about the relative ease of getting A* scores in quantifiably exact subjects. In 2016 18% of maths candidates got A*; 7% of history candidates. Seriously what do you believe this to be a measure of? Source:
http://www.jcq.org.uk/examination-results/a-levels


- neither do I, hence why i needed the documents and some friends who take a combination maintain doing well in their sciences is much harder than in their humanities, that`s the source of my data

You are joking, right?
Original post by GradeA*UnderA
I feel like in terms of alumni, faculty awards and entry requirements in general, that Cambridge is better. They also seem to have less of a rich kid culture, and more basis on academic attainment.

Oxford seems like it's closer to Imperial than Cambridge, IMO. I'd make the case that getting an offer is more difficult at Oxford, but meeting it is more difficult at Imperial (they have a few A*A*A* standard offers for courses now).


Only in the "TSR bubble" do you get this level of ridiculous.
Original post by Doonesbury
Knock yourselves out
http://www.bstubbs.co.uk/a-lev.htm

Apart from Maths (and FM) it's not at all so clear cut.


Posted from TSR Mobile


I wish statistical analysis alone could settle this question but it doesn`t take into account the actual difficulty of the content, is skewed in subjects like further maths and general studies and there are many other factors to consider:
-Grades in different subjects reflect different levels of achievement( To say one subject is harder than another means a student would have to demonstrate more learning to get the same grade)
-Candidates chances of success differ in dfferent subjects
loads of other factors
if youre interested and want to read more, knock yourself out :smile:
http://www.score-education.org/media/3194/relativedifficulty.pdf
Original post by RichE
This surely cannot be about my or your ability to do well at humanity subjects but about the relative ease of getting A* scores in quantifiably exact subjects. In 2016 18% of maths candidates got A*; 7% of history candidates. Seriously what do you believe this to be a measure of? Source:
http://www.jcq.org.uk/examination-results/a-levels


You are joking, right?


As i have previosly stated and the pdf which i ahve attached also explains- there are multiple factors at play- you cannot just look at % of A*s and make a judgement- there are many other factors to consider- see my reply to doonesbury above or read the pdf- my sources are the pdf, multiple websites, teacher`s opinions, friends experiences and others, as ridiculous as that may sound to you
Original post by GradeA*UnderA
Nope. Though if you're trying to insinuate inferiority, UCL med is harder to get into than most courses at Oxbridge.


did you do STEP
Reply 87
Avatar for Doones
Doones
21
I've just been cooking Cambridge and Oxford sausages on the BBQ.

The Cambridge ones took a lot longer.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Reply 88
Avatar for RichE
RichE
15
Original post by glad-he-ate-her
As i have previously stated and the pdf which i have attached also explains- there are multiple factors at play

I don't dispute this - but then again I am not the one trying to make a black-or-white statement, rather am looking to poo-poo the OP's sweeping generalizations.


you cannot just look at % of A*s and make a judgement

I concur, but relative performance in A-levels was being treated as a measure of something absolute earlier in this thread...a point I made on several occasions.

- there are many other factors to consider- see my reply to doonesbury above or read the pdf- my sources are the pdf, multiple websites, teacher`s opinions, friends experiences and others, as ridiculous as that may sound to you


Teachers' opinions and friends don't really cut any mustard though...be honest.
Original post by Profesh
Stereotypically Cambridge is more revered within the sciences (having fielded the lion's share of Nobel laureates), Oxford among the humanities (having fielded the lion's share of Prime Ministers); Cambridge in the East, Oxford in the West.

Of course, someone intelligent enough to be competitive at either institution would base their decision upon concrete data (e.g. representation and subject distribution of graduates operating within their intended sector of employment), rather than trafficking in spurious conjecture.


Yet, in Wittgenstein, Cambridge arguably has the most highly regarded philosopher of either university. More great poets, actors, comedians studied at Cambridge.
Reply 90
Avatar for RichE
RichE
15
Original post by Picnic1
Yet, in Wittgenstein, Cambridge arguably has the most highly regarded philosopher of either university.


What's he like as a teacher...
Original post by Doonesbury
I've just been cooking Cambridge and Oxford sausages on the BBQ.

The Cambridge ones took a lot longer.

Posted from TSR Mobile


That's because Oxford would burn out quicker under the same pressure. Cambridge holds its cool.
Original post by Picnic1
Cambridge holds its cool.

That's easy for Cambridge, what with being almost underwater :wink:

More important people went to Oxford - just compare the M40 to the M11! (Or watch "Yes, Minister":wink:)
Original post by Doonesbury
I've just been cooking Cambridge and Oxford sausages on the BBQ.

The Cambridge ones took a lot longer.

Posted from TSR Mobile


I have some pasta shaped like Oxford. It really nails linguini. Not like your inferior Cambridge-shaped pasta.
Original post by RichE
Do you even understand the point we're discussing? A university that does a wide range of topics with (nationally) diverse A* achievement rates is being compared with one that exclusively takes subjects with (nationally) above average A* rates. And you can't see the objective bias in this?



I am not saying you can't make that point in specific instances - I am suggesting you can't make a sweeping generalization (a favourite pasttime of yours, it appears).


Why does it matter that there's obvious bias between a general and specialised institution? My point was their grades were identical; the available data points to that. God forbid the sake of TSR if a single person at Imperial had better grades than an Oxford student; all calamity would break lose.

http://www.bstubbs.co.uk/a-lev.htm

Around a 2% diffence in attainment rates between traditional humanities (including MFL) and sciences; you make it seem like they're worlds apart. How much does ability factor in to that?
No, Oxford is the OG, Cambridge were founded by miscreants.
Original post by Picnic1
Yet, in Wittgenstein, Cambridge arguably has the most highly regarded philosopher of either university. More great poets, actors, comedians studied at Cambridge.


It is now time for Oxford to reveal its secret death ray and eliminate all traces of Cambridge. It's for the good of all humanity, so relax.
Original post by Fullofsurprises
It is now time for Oxford to reveal its secret death ray and eliminate all traces of Cambridge. It's for the good of all humanity, so relax.



Please marry me.
Original post by RichE
I don't dispute this - but then again I am not the one trying to make a black-or-white statement, rather am looking to poo-poo the OP's sweeping generalizations.


I concur, but relative performance in A-levels was being treated as a measure of something absolute earlier in this thread...a point I made on several occasions.



Teachers' opinions and friends don't really cut any mustard though...be honest.

i agree thought its a bit of a catch-22 when neither statistical analysis of large samples nor anecdotes of friends can give a representative view
Original post by StrangeBanana
did you do STEP


Did you have to get a vast majority of A* grades at GCSE, a high BMAT score, a lot to work experience, deal with greater competition ratios and have a practical ability to be empathetic? Because we all know why a lot of universities don't hold interviews for maths...

Pissing match aside, I did say most - look at classics for example

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you