This thread is closed
Oxford v's Cambridge
Scroll to see replies
Just to point out many Oxford colleges did ask for UMS marks last year. It is not a form which is sent out to EVERY applicant at EVERY college like Cambridge do, but I was asked for my UMS marks during my interview and I know other people at other colleges doing different subjects who were also asked for them. Just because Oxford don't do it formally on a piece of paper like Cams, doesn't mean they don't consider UMS marks.
But who cares about UMS? Yes indeed many tutors will look at UMS marks, but it isn't all about how well you do/did in your exams - it's the potential they look for.
<sighs>I wish we could have a separate forum for "applying to Oxbridge" and those who just want to talk about the univerisites themselves. I'm soo fed up of hundreds of "what are my chances?" and "ums posts" - I only stumbled on this one by mistake!
But who cares about UMS? Yes indeed many tutors will look at UMS marks, but it isn't all about how well you do/did in your exams - it's the potential they look for.
<sighs>I wish we could have a separate forum for "applying to Oxbridge" and those who just want to talk about the univerisites themselves. I'm soo fed up of hundreds of "what are my chances?" and "ums posts" - I only stumbled on this one by mistake!
Jools
A lot of people "have it" though - the majority of Cambridge rejects these days would get a (good) 2.1 or better in finals there if they'd got accepted. But there's too much competition - around 3 top calibre applicants who'd be good enough for Cambridge per place.
I don't think is true at all. Most people do not have what it takes to thrive in the Cambridge environment and with the Oxbridge (although, from what I understand, its becoming less 'Ox' since Oxford are discontinuing some tutorials) teaching style. Certainly 75% of applicants (going on 4 applications per place of which you think 3 are suitable) would not reach the standard required to be awarded a Cambridge 2.i.
I also disagree strongly with the idea that the weaker candidates (with poor module results or those who want to hide un-cashed AS levels at B/C/D/E/etc - on a side note, people need to realise that asking for UMS marks is quite a lot about the latter!) heading towards Oxford is beneficial for Oxford. Yes, you might get one or two candidates with 'raw talent' who would have applied to Cambridge but didn't because they were asked for UMS marks. But the last thing Oxbridge needs is more weaker candidates to interview - you should already know that Oxford is struggling to interview everyone who applies with AAA predictions. All that will happen is Oxford will not be able to interview effectively, so you'll have poor interview data AND less data about exam performance, thus making your admissions decisions worse and admitting fewer of the best people. That, in turn, will cause more of the better people to apply to Cambridge (where assessment would be more accurate) and lower the standard of the Oxford course.
jcw
I don't think is true at all. Most people do not have what it takes to thrive in the Cambridge environment and with the Oxbridge (although, from what I understand, its becoming less 'Ox' since Oxford are discontinuing some tutorials) teaching style. Certainly 75% of applicants (going on 4 applications per place of which you think 3 are suitable) would not reach the standard required to be awarded a Cambridge 2.i.
I also disagree strongly with the idea that the weaker candidates (with poor module results or those who want to hide un-cashed AS levels at B/C/D/E/etc - on a side note, people need to realise that asking for UMS marks is quite a lot about the latter!) heading towards Oxford is beneficial for Oxford. Yes, you might get one or two candidates with 'raw talent' who would have applied to Cambridge but didn't because they were asked for UMS marks. But the last thing Oxbridge needs is more weaker candidates to interview - you should already know that Oxford is struggling to interview everyone who applies with AAA predictions. All that will happen is Oxford will not be able to interview effectively, so you'll have poor interview data AND less data about exam performance, thus making your admissions decisions worse and admitting fewer of the best people. That, in turn, will cause more of the better people to apply to Cambridge (where assessment would be more accurate) and lower the standard of the Oxford course.
I also disagree strongly with the idea that the weaker candidates (with poor module results or those who want to hide un-cashed AS levels at B/C/D/E/etc - on a side note, people need to realise that asking for UMS marks is quite a lot about the latter!) heading towards Oxford is beneficial for Oxford. Yes, you might get one or two candidates with 'raw talent' who would have applied to Cambridge but didn't because they were asked for UMS marks. But the last thing Oxbridge needs is more weaker candidates to interview - you should already know that Oxford is struggling to interview everyone who applies with AAA predictions. All that will happen is Oxford will not be able to interview effectively, so you'll have poor interview data AND less data about exam performance, thus making your admissions decisions worse and admitting fewer of the best people. That, in turn, will cause more of the better people to apply to Cambridge (where assessment would be more accurate) and lower the standard of the Oxford course.
we do seem to starting yet another oxford vs cambridge grudge match. I await Drogue's parry and repose.
Willa
we do seem to starting yet another oxford vs cambridge grudge match. I await Drogue's parry and repose.
Sorry - that wasn't my intention at all. Academically, I couldn't choose between them (except in certain subjects where it is relatively clear one excels over the other) and they are both wonderful places for two different sorts of people. I just wanted to point out that sometimes the effects of an admissions-related decision aren't as obvious as they'd seem!
jcw
I don't think is true at all. Most people do not have what it takes to thrive in the Cambridge environment and with the Oxbridge (although, from what I understand, its becoming less 'Ox' since Oxford are discontinuing some tutorials) teaching style.
I heard this too, so I inquired at my interviews. The tutor hadn't heard of this happening, and said there were no plans for my subject (E&M) to do this. IIRC, it was only reported as a trial thing for a few colleges in PPE, a subject that may benefit from discussions in groups of 4-8 more than individual supervisions. The fact that it costs less too is a happy coincidence, and does go somewhat to explaining Oxford's higher library and facilities spend.
Having said that, I'm not about to go bashing Cambridge. I will admit that without skewing tables (a la the Times), overall, Cambridge is probably the better university, if you really want to split them. But overall doesn't really matter, since it all depends on subject and tutors. That's why I chose Oxford, I love the course, I met some tutors who I wanted to learn under and who had similar research interests to what I wanted to study, not to mention the better (IMHO) nightlife. My brother's been at Cambridge for 4 years and I know it's a great place to be. When we were talking about our experiences with interviews and being at the different places, we realised there's probably a bigger difference between individual colleges than the two universities, in many respects.
jcw
Certainly 75% of applicants (going on 4 applications per place of which you think 3 are suitable) would not reach the standard required to be awarded a Cambridge 2.i.
I'm not sure. People are getting better, and getting higher marks. I think soon, they'll have to up the mark required to get a first, because students are getting better. More students are applying, competition is getting harder each year (even with other universities, their offers are much higher than 3 or 4 yars ago). I think with this, many Oxbridge applicants, if they worked hard enough, could get a 2:1. However many won't work that hard, and some will be able to do it on natural talent. Having said that, I was amazed on my interviews that some of the people there got straight As - PPE students who couldn't discuss current affairs or such, economics students who's arguments read like a text book. There were many did seem very intelligent too, but the 4 straight A applicants per place isn't quite as hard as it sounds to whittle down a bit.
jcw
I also disagree strongly with the idea that the weaker candidates (with poor module results or those who want to hide un-cashed AS levels at B/C/D/E/etc - on a side note, people need to realise that asking for UMS marks is quite a lot about the latter!) heading towards Oxford is beneficial for Oxford. Yes, you might get one or two candidates with 'raw talent' who would have applied to Cambridge but didn't because they were asked for UMS marks. But the last thing Oxbridge needs is more weaker candidates to interview - you should already know that Oxford is struggling to interview everyone who applies with AAA predictions. All that will happen is Oxford will not be able to interview effectively, so you'll have poor interview data AND less data about exam performance, thus making your admissions decisions worse and admitting fewer of the best people. That, in turn, will cause more of the better people to apply to Cambridge (where assessment would be more accurate) and lower the standard of the Oxford course.
That is a possibly situation. However I don't believe that either Oxford or Cambridge want fewer applicants, since both still actively recruit, and except in heavily oversubscribed subjects, like economics, they seemingly have no trouble interviewing everyone. I also don't agree that candidates with As but lower UMS marks are 'weaker' to any significant degree. Marking is quite a lottery, and invisible has shown the disparity between boards, making the comparison between candidates based on UMS marks flawed at best.
What will likely end up happening is very little - few people will change their choice due to one requesting UMS marks and since they don't (or claim not to) look at AS grades that much, I doubt it will be a big factor, as well as it being a somewhat flawed factor. If people do abandon Cambridge for Oxford based on this, yes, they are people who have lower UMSs, but still As. I don't believe these candidates will be much worse at all than a normal candidate, but since both universities are actively asking for more applicants, I don't see a few who are *slightly* weaker than average being a problem, especially considering that there may be some there who interview well, and are a lot better than their UMS marks would suggest. If Oxford were stretched to breaking point with regards to interviews, then it could be a boon to some small extent, however IMHO, having more applicants who have As is a good thing, regardless of how high an A they have. It's just more people to choose from.
These threads are increasingly tedious and the credibility of most statements is severely ruined by them being made by people with no experience of actually applying to Oxford or Cambridge, save going there. That is not to say that there are no people, who have successfully applied, but these arguments are always going to be flawed simply because people's choice of University depends on much more than their UMS Marks or the precise ratio of applicants per place for some college. Factors like the towns themselves, the look of the place, the people you meet and even the weather on the day you visit the university may all play a crucial role in preferring one university to another. I'm sure the 3-hour paper at Oxford for maths, which looks nothing like the one on the internet, is almost as good a separator of talent as asking for UMS marks, if not better, together with 4 days of gruelsome interviewing.
Oxford vs Cambridge arguments are pointless, much like many others to do with ancient rivalries.
Oxford vs Cambridge arguments are pointless, much like many others to do with ancient rivalries.
jcw
Sorry - that wasn't my intention at all. Academically, I couldn't choose between them (except in certain subjects where it is relatively clear one excels over the other) and they are both wonderful places for two different sorts of people. I just wanted to point out that sometimes the effects of an admissions-related decision aren't as obvious as they'd seem!
Don't worry, it wasn't read as such. I agree completely
jcw
Sorry - that wasn't my intention at all. Academically, I couldn't choose between them (except in certain subjects where it is relatively clear one excels over the other) and they are both wonderful places for two different sorts of people. I just wanted to point out that sometimes the effects of an admissions-related decision aren't as obvious as they'd seem!
You're saying that the people who to to Ox. and the people who go to Camb. are completely different? Nahhh...They are more similar to each other than to students from any other uni., and they're not really different full-stop, either!??!!?!?!?
~U~Teedy~U~
You're saying that the people who to to Ox. and the people who go to Camb. are completely different? Nahhh...They are more similar to each other than to students from any other uni., and they're not really different full-stop, either!??!!?!?!?
No, I'm saying that, despite being similarly gifted intellectuals, I think it is good that we have Universities in two quite different places that cater for different preferences - Oxford being a bigger, more lively, town-like place. Nothing more than that was meant!
ok ;P
Yannis
These threads are increasingly tedious and the credibility of most statements is severely ruined by them being made by people with no experience of actually applying to Oxford or Cambridge, save going there.
I hope that wasn't aimed at me - I certainly don't fit into your categories!
Drogue
... IIRC, it was only reported as a trial thing for a few colleges in PPE, a subject that may benefit from discussions in groups of 4-8 more than individual supervisions. The fact that it costs less too is a happy coincidence...
Yes, my reference to that was perhaps unfortunate, but I knew I'd read some outraged piece of writing coming from Oxford arguing that this was the beginning of the end. As usual, probably overstated!
I will admit that without skewing tables (a la the Times), overall, Cambridge is probably the better university, if you really want to split them. But overall doesn't really matter, since it all depends on subject and tutors.
How true - if only everyone could see this. Although, at undergraduate level, it can be difficult to know about tutors (rather than lecturers).
I'm not sure. People are getting better, and getting higher marks. I think soon, they'll have to up the mark required to get a first, because students are getting better.
That'll never happen. The mark will remain fixed (at 70% for a first for Oxbridge) but they'll just make sure less people are hitting that mark. In fact, that is what already happens to avoid grade inflation - University academics don't like the idea of grade inflation! After all, certainly at Cambridge, the grades all have a descriptor and a first has to be 'exceptional for an undergraduate' and what is exceptional is, of course, changing over time.
More students are applying, competition is getting harder each year (even with other universities, their offers are much higher than 3 or 4 yars ago). I think with this, many Oxbridge applicants, if they worked hard enough, could get a 2:1.
IMHO, and going off-topic, this confuses two things. The increased competition is a result of widening access, and the higher offers a result of increasingly devalued A-levels (and don't expect me to believe the standard has really improved anything like as much as the A grade %ge has!). This doesn't mean that people are better, and are more likely to get a 2.i if that standard has remained roughly constant.
Having said that, I was amazed on my interviews that some of the people there got straight As - PPE students who couldn't discuss current affairs or such, economics students who's arguments read like a text book.
Yes, and this is what differentiates those who go to Oxbridge - they have proven they can do more than pass A-levels, but are capable (and interested in performing) independent thought rather than repeating spoon-fed material.
There were many did seem very intelligent too, but the 4 straight A applicants per place isn't quite as hard as it sounds to whittle down a bit.
Exactly, which is why I am saying that saying 3 of every 4 applications could get a 2.i at Oxbridge must be wrong!
However I don't believe that either Oxford or Cambridge want fewer applicants, since both still actively recruit, and except in heavily oversubscribed subjects, like economics, they seemingly have no trouble interviewing everyone.
Oh, 'we' (Oxbridge) do want fewer applicants, but we need to make sure they are the right applicants. And, of course, we can't select applicants for interview by A-levels, because the government (and OFFA eventually) would say that disadvantages state school pupils. What we really want is less applicants, but only to exclude those who aren't Oxbridge material from applying.
Hence the LNAT - that will eventually, I am almost 100% sure, be used by both Oxford and Cambridge to 'deselect' candidates for interview. One of the main reasons for these tests is to reduce the impossibly large drain that interviews present. At my college, every lawyer who applies is given two twenty minute interviews with two staff in each interview. If we have about 50 applicants (about right) - that's a cost of 66 man hours or about half a full-time week per interviewer. And that doesn't allow for the committee meetings, any discussion time about applicants, sorting through paper applications. It was certainly true that Oxford were talking about vastly reducing the numbers they interviewed.
The reason for active recruitment is that we still struggle to attract the best candidates, especially from disadvantaged schools. We need to keep working to raise their aspirations.
I also don't agree that candidates with As but lower UMS marks are 'weaker' to any significant degree. Marking is quite a lottery, and invisible has shown the disparity between boards, making the comparison between candidates based on UMS marks flawed at best.
There is some truth in this, but one can see trends. Most of the people in my year who are getting firsts did very well in UMS terms in their A-levels. Having consistently higher UMS marks does show that you have a mind that you can work hard, can adapt to different subjects, etc. That said, I personally think the reason we are requesting UMS marks is to discover which applicants who are getting BCC at AS-level but not declaring (and getting AAA predictions).
What will likely end up happening is very little - few people will change their choice due to one requesting UMS marks and since they don't (or claim not to) look at AS grades that much, I doubt it will be a big factor, as well as it being a somewhat flawed factor.
This seems to be the truth to me!
If people do abandon Cambridge for Oxford based on this, yes, they are people who have lower UMSs, but still As.
Unfortunately not true! They could quite easily have done very badly at AS, got good predictions, but not cashed in their AS levels. In that case, you will still be required to declare your AS unit marks so Cambridge will see the reality.
If Oxford were stretched to breaking point with regards to interviews, then it could be a boon to some small extent, however IMHO, having more applicants who have As is a good thing, regardless of how high an A they have. It's just more people to choose from.
The problem is, Oxbridge is honestly at breaking point with interviews. I can say that from knowledge, and it is the truth in the big subjects (such as law). Unfortunately the drive to increase aspirations is encouraging people who aren't Oxbridge material to apply, as you'd expect, and it is really placing too great a demand on academics who are already working well over the hours they are paid to work. It is so hard to raise the aspirations of those who are Oxbridge material without doing the same for those who don't, in reality, stand a chance but are doing rather well (and can certainly aim top 20).
You've got to remember, and you will see, that higher education is grossly underfunded, especially at Oxbridge where tutorials are exceptionally demanding on time and staff are expected to be very research-active. This means we're already at breaking point with staff, and taking out a week of term to do interviews is becoming impossible. If Oxford get many more applicants, especially those who lack any realistic chance of securing a place, they will have to start culling who they interview and that's very bad for access. Similarly, if you have 10 places and 60 students, could you remember the first interview five days ago to compare with the final interview and decide who was 10th (and in) and who was 11th (and out)? An increase in numbers will be (i) impossible and (ii) a very bad thing for accuracy.
jcw
I just had a look at the papers they'd written (punlished online) and what i thought of them on open days. But it's hard to get a decent picture
jcw
Exactly. Making the papers harder or marking more harshly. Either way, I'm not looking forward to it
jcw
Although in many subjects, getting a 2:1 is about pure exam performance, rather than intellect or knowledge. Admittedly Oxbridge seems to be far better at removing that, but I think it's fast becoming harder to get in than to get a 2:1. More of a lottery at least, as you showed below with the overworking of interviewers.
jcw
Hence the LNAT - that will eventually, I am almost 100% sure, be used by both Oxford and Cambridge to 'deselect' candidates for interview. One of the main reasons for these tests is to reduce the impossibly large drain that interviews present. At my college, every lawyer who applies is given two twenty minute interviews with two staff in each interview. If we have about 50 applicants (about right) - that's a cost of 66 man hours or about half a full-time week per interviewer. And that doesn't allow for the committee meetings, any discussion time about applicants, sorting through paper applications. It was certainly true that Oxford were talking about vastly reducing the numbers they interviewed.
The reason for active recruitment is that we still struggle to attract the best candidates, especially from disadvantaged schools. We need to keep working to raise their aspirations.
Point taken. It's a pity really, but it does seem to be turning like that. Applying for a course with only 2 places per college meant I didn't see so much of that, but it still seemed a little inundated, the first time having 28 applicants. I suppose that was easier for the tutors - unless you make a big impression, you're not good enough to get one of the places. With your example below, I can understand your point, and yes, reducing applicants may be the only solution. It's a pity it's got that far, as I'd much rather see extra funding than a cutting of accessability.
I do like the idea of LNAT, STEP and the medical tests, in trying to help distinguish in the most demanding subjects. Not only are these often a better test, the tutors can see your work, not just your grade, and thus see how your mind works, and how you work
jcw
All very true, and does seem to make it a sensible policy. Although declared grades migth be easier.
Another use for declared UMS, since they add to your A2 for your A level, it shows who's very likely to meet an offer.
Dynamite
Have people who were going to apply Cam now going to apply to Ox due to Cam requesting UMS Marks??
Yes or No??
Yes or No??
Sorry Dynamite; you just don't get it! Even now, Camb (and Ox) are ACCEPTING people with e.g. AAAB (typically) ahead of others with AAAA (say). So it CANNOT be solely grades-based.
If they're letting in people with Bs, they're hardly going to reject (as a matter of policy) someone because they have 85% As instead of 95% As!!!!!!
Right?
It's the WHOLE PACKAGE you present. (and maybe other stuff as well, but that's another (old) thread!)
toni
Requesting makrs will only be of issue to people who feel they are weak candidates. People who got several 100% modules at AS have always had these in the references anyway - I know as this was my own situation. I am not convinced this should put people off Cam as it will only be a further piece of data to help them decide - in situations like the one Jools mentioned earlier. Given that 24% of candidates gain a grade A these days, as opposed to 10-14% some years ago they do need a further way of selecting people. In some subjects such as medicine and law where the number of all A applicants is very high enterance exams, abolished in the 1990s as they were seen as unfair, have been re-introduced. This requesting of marks is similar to this- just another tool. At Oxford for Med. only the top 1/3rd are interviewed, unlike Cam. Would people rather have a system like this, where personal statements are not even read before they exam is passed or a system whereby you give an interview and can show what your made of and then and only then are marks used to aid selection?
Although I was aware of this when i applied I still chose Oxford as i prefered their medicine course and the place over Cam. even thoughi would have to pass the toughest exam of my career to get a 1in3 or 1in4 chance. If you are determied do not let these requests put you off.
Although I was aware of this when i applied I still chose Oxford as i prefered their medicine course and the place over Cam. even thoughi would have to pass the toughest exam of my career to get a 1in3 or 1in4 chance. If you are determied do not let these requests put you off.
house badger
The gap between Oxford and Cambridge, what are you talking about!?! Oxford have their own top applicants and won't need to pick up Cambridge's rejects. If you're not good enough you won't get into either regardless of your UMS scores. What a crap point, although it's what you can expect from a tab!
This is so naive: at my school they are almost forcing people with 'low' A grades (the inverted commas highlight my annoyance at this situation even arising, where the top grade loses any real distinction) to apply to Oxford over Cambridge. I'm applying to Cambridge (bites teeth really hard in anxiousness) at the moment (may change mind later), and have been encouraged to purely because Oxford have been very ambiguous about how they plan to use LNAT.
Further to the comments raised by JCW, it is undeniable that the vast number of people applying with no chance (and sadly these people generally come from state schools, though not exclusively) dilute the accuracy of the process. The problem Oxbridge finds themself in is when someone applies for the first time from a school; they can't desummon them for fear of turning the teachers at that school anti-oxbridge applications, but often find they simply don't have the necessary grades to apply. What would be better is if they [Oxbridge] actually demanded that candidates declared AS grades. Here however you face the problem of schools which operate under a terminal route, but these tend to be far and few between AND very good schools which do produce good candidates. I think this is definitely one of the objectives of the Supplementary Questionnaire; to weed out those without the AAAA - AAAB prediction.
Regarding skewing the number of interviews, Oxford have made it very clear that their long term objective is to reduce the number of applicants' called for interview to less than 2; thus ensuring that all candidates recieve interviews at two different colleges- as was common practice until the complete abolition of entrance papers. In Medicine, they reduced it to 2.5 apps per place last year, which was the top 320 plus 50 who they would have called to interview the previous year (these were generally people who had completed screwed up on the BMAT). The calculation used is very complex, but accomodates for GCSE performance (1/3) and BMAT performance (2/3) and then factors in school performance (% of A*-A at GCSE, and % of A at A Level) (note that no distinction is made on state or private school; it is purely statistical). This was all done by a central committe. They then checked application forms, to ensure that the personal statement and reference were up to standard (from this 39 people who had the necessary standard were not called up, so another 39 were). They then distibuted candidates amongst colleges. Some colleges, I think LMH was one, only interviewed 4 of their original applicants, whereas over half of Magdalen's applicants were called to interview (but not all at Magdalen). These applicants had two interviews each at two different colleges, and these interviews where scored. Each interviewer was observed on at least five occasions by a member of the Admissions Comittee. Then the scores for all four interviews, the bmat, gcses, personal statement (as an assessment of likely contribution to college life) and reference were placed together, and they gave offers to the top applicants. Again these candidates where then distributed to colleges, if there first choice college was full, but not in a completely randomised way. They tried to ensure a gender and social mix, and if people expressed particular research interests they tried to accomodate these.
The concern raised by people about candidates being 'forgotten' is one I particularly feel- I am considering a college which interviews 120 for Law, each having 2x 20 minute interviews. However, I know (from an Open Day) that they discuss everyone they've interviewed that day in the evening, and rank them cumulatively. So on day one someone could be the best applicant so far, but by day nine, they're applicant twenty seven and not going to get an offer (but will get thrown into the pool!). Conversely, on day someone could be ranked number twelve, but by day nine they're number 16 and still going to get a place. At Oxford they keep people waiting in case they need to reinterview them, but this is laborous and very expensive.
Sorry everyone for stirring up that long, tedious Oxford vs Cambridge debate hopefully that's got it out of everyone's system for a couple of months so we can all talk about something else. The idea that you can pick one from the two unis that is better is pretty absurd, particularly as few of us on here have a particularly objective standpoint. We all favour one or the other for our own reasons. Lets says we settle it with a boat race or something.
An another tangent, I wonder if people will start picking their A levels bearing in mind the relative difficulty in getting high UMS scores. I certainly remember Chemistry and French being harder to get top UMS scores that English where I got practically full marks. Could we see a swing towards the less "prestigious" (lets not debate what is prestigious and what isn't I'm sick of that one too) subjects?
An another tangent, I wonder if people will start picking their A levels bearing in mind the relative difficulty in getting high UMS scores. I certainly remember Chemistry and French being harder to get top UMS scores that English where I got practically full marks. Could we see a swing towards the less "prestigious" (lets not debate what is prestigious and what isn't I'm sick of that one too) subjects?
house badger
An another tangent, I wonder if people will start picking their A levels bearing in mind the relative difficulty in getting high UMS scores. I certainly remember Chemistry and French being harder to get top UMS scores that English where I got practically full marks. Could we see a swing towards the less "prestigious" (lets not debate what is prestigious and what isn't I'm sick of that one too) subjects?
Don't people do that already? Albeit for grades more than UMS.
BazTheMoney
Don't people do that already? Albeit for grades more than UMS.
I picked my subjects because I liked them, didn't even know about Oxford or Cambridge until I started sixth form. Just thinking that now doing an "easy" subject could have a more significant benefit if there were more 'divisions' of an A grade.
But different people find different subjects easier to achieve high UMS in. You mentioned Chemistry being hard for you, but I dropped 9 marks in my AS and didn't find it particularly difficult. If things had gone right (i.e. if my teacher had told me the right stuff to do in my presentation) I would have done the same for German but ended up with 257 or something. I don't think that people should really take that sort of thing into consideration, as they can't possibly know how good they'll be at various subjects at AS anyway.
Related discussions
- Accepted both at Oxford and Cambridge for my MPhil
- Which UK universities are rivals?
- Oxbridge- Women only colleges?
- Cambridge Sports
- Could I get into oxbridge for medicine?
- Mathematics at Oxford
- Can I still go to Oxbridge?
- Take a gap year and apply to Cambridge for MML or go to Durham/Bristol/Edinburgh??
- UCAS Clearing 2023 FAQ and Help Megathread
- Got a Ucas or results related question? Ask a Clearing and Applications Advisor here
- 2022-2023 Best Global Universities Rankings
- how to get a 1st in law at oxbridge?
- Oxford UniAdmissions: Worth it?
- Oxford or Cambridge for Applied Linguistics / Language Education (Postgrad)?
- How lenient are Oxfo
- Good articles on genetics
- Social Anthropology 2022 Oxbridge - Oxford Cambridge MPhil MSc
- Oxford application as a mature student
- Help! - Oxford Admissions Process and Applying w/ Achieved Grades
- Likelihood to get into lse or ic MSc Finance related degree
Trending
- Human Sciences Oxford applicants 2023-2024
- Oxford PPE Interviews for 2024 entry
- Oxford Chemistry interview questions
- Oxford materials science
- 2024 Oxford New College Interview Invites
- Oxford Interview Notification
- Fine Art at the Ruskin Oxford 2024
- Mat 2023
- Hat 2023
- Oxford Economics and Management Interview 2024
- Has anyone heard back from Oxford for Maths?
- Oxford 2024 Physics Entry
- Oxford Chemistry 2024 Entry
- Oxford language applicants - 2024 entry
- Oxford maths interview
- TSA Section 1 2023 / Oxford E&M (2024 entry) thread
- oxford interviews
- Extra MAT 2023
- Oxford Interviews 2024 History of Art
- Oxford University Law Interview Shortlisting
Latest
- Home Office - Asylum Decision Maker (EO)
- Childcre grant
- What’s the best uni for finance from this?
- SFE
- Does Queen's University Belfast reduce offer grade if you do an EPQ?
- Do queens have grade requirement if already attending a course? Medicine
- University of Oxford 2024 Undergraduate Applicants Official Thread
- Oxford College hurt/heal
- The Dentistry in Bulgaria thread 2023/24
- LSE law admissions
- Exam Board Hurt or Heal Game
- Feeling harassed at work but don’t know what to do
- I’m scared that my boyfriend will break up with me…
- Offers!!
- AON Graduate Program
- AON 2024 Graduate Program
- Official London School of Economics and Political Science 2024 Applicant Thread
- Brunel MSc Psychological Sciences conversion course
- Applying for post-grad
- BP graduate scheme 2024
- 3rd year is really harder than I thought
- BMAT 2024 Entry Discussions Megathread
- ATAS certificate for UK for January 2024 intake
- A lot of people have been telling me I don’t display a normal behaviour.
- Official: University of Edinburgh A100 2024 Entry Applicants
- Dropping out of university
- weighting
- Free game new online
- Creative Writing MA - Bangor, Stirling, or Durham?
- Analysis of the Unique Advantages and Services of Abce-commerce
- The Forum Games Hurt/Heal Game
- The honorable non-russell group hurt/heal game
- HSBC Strategy and Transformation Graduate Programme 2024
- Can I still go to uni with only gcse and disabled?
- The Sports Hurt/heal game
- Have you recently joined TSR? Say hello!
- The Russell Group hurt/heal game (Part 5)
- UBS 2024 Graduate Scheme
- Breakfast items hurt/heal game!
- British food hurt/heal game!