The Student Room Logo
Applying to Uni for 2024? Find your Uni here and chat with others! >>
Applying to Uni for 2024? Find your Uni here and chat with others! >>
Applying to Uni for 2024? Find your Uni here and chat with others! >>

The Big 'Which Cambridge College?' Thread

Scroll to see replies

Original post by ttankzhang
Hahaha yeah I know, we were the ones who screwed over your ents officer by signing your first choice before you :P The muck up with the carnival act thing was also very, very funny

And no at least 4 trinity students have told me John's was better. They also told me about the champagne; while there were other drinks there definitely wasn't the range we had at john's. One of the quotes was "trinity was just a bit s*** compared to this"

Out of curiosity, have you ever actually been to John's? Or any other ball?


Yeah - she got in so much trouble for not seeing the Katy B deal through in time :P I am unaware of the carnival act thing, but it wouldn't surprise me at all.

Most people at Trinity, as well as a lot of people from other colleges who invaded our Backs, saw both sets of fireworks, and the consensus was definitely that Trinity's were better-coordinated and had better music. It's a fair point that there weren't as many drinks on offer as there could have been, though.

I have never been to John's Ball, although I may well go next year. I went to the King's Affair last year - which was good fun, but a completely different atmosphere, as you can imagine. Have you ever been to Trinity?
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by DJMayes
Whilst I always appreciate a good burn I should point out that there are plenty of colleges which do very well in Tompkins (Emmanuel, for example, whose mean placing is still better than Trinity despite the latter coming first for the past 3 years :wink: ) who manage to relax. The reputation of the coldness of Trinity students is legendary and when you have heard a Trinity student tell someone that they dislike the college and the people in it because they are too serious and too competitive that none of them are friendly, you take heed - and said person has a first I believe, so is not someone who should really be considered unsuitable there.


I think it's pretty unlikely that students of a particular college could be described as being "cold" in general, and it is obviously categorically incorrect that "none of the students are friendly". Cambridge colleges are going to contain a diverse selection of people.
(edited 9 years ago)
What does everyone think of St Catharine's?
Original post by Posiedon12
What does everyone think of St Catharine's?


Fairly unobtrusive college, people there seem nice enough. Not massive but that has the advantages of not getting as many tourists. The location is good; I can't really comment on anything else.
Tompkins Table 2014 results have been released:

http://www.independent.co.uk/student/news/tompkins-table-2014-trinity-college-cambridge-produces-record-number-of-firsts-9621501.html
Hello there,

For a CompSci-applicant (undergrad, male) which colleges are the ones, for which the probability of getting in is relatively high?

Thanks,
Original post by defleur
Hello there,

For a CompSci-applicant (undergrad, male) which colleges are the ones, for which the probability of getting in is relatively high?

Thanks,


The probability is theoretically the same for all colleges, ~20% of CompSci applicants get offers, and you shouldn't really make your choice based on admissions statistics. The admissions standards are roughly equal across all colleges, thanks to the Winter Pool, where applicants may be "shared" between colleges, and from there another college can "fish" them out. If the college thinks you're Cambridge material but can't quite give you a place, they might put you in the pool, whereas if you apply to an under-subscribed place, the college might prefer to fish someone from the pool instead.

That said, if you're looking for a place with lots of CompSci's, Churchill has, I think, the most acceptances each year by far.
Original post by Chief Wiggum


That is a very impressive performance by Trinity.

I wonder why such large disparities in college performance come about. My hypothesis was that the popular colleges like Trinity attract the highest calibre of students, and get first pick, so it is not all that surprising that they outperform the less popular 'pool' colleges e.g. the women's colleges, Girton etc. However King's, for example, is usually the most oversubscribed college I think - yet they've performed only middlingly for ages. Is it possible that college teaching/atmosphere actually does make such a profound difference on your overall result?
Original post by ClickItBack
That is a very impressive performance by Trinity.

I wonder why such large disparities in college performance come about. My hypothesis was that the popular colleges like Trinity attract the highest calibre of students, and get first pick, so it is not all that surprising that they outperform the less popular 'pool' colleges e.g. the women's colleges, Girton etc. However King's, for example, is usually the most oversubscribed college I think - yet they've performed only middlingly for ages. Is it possible that college teaching/atmosphere actually does make such a profound difference on your overall result?


I had never realised that differences between colleges could be quite so big - there's a pretty big difference in the proportion getting a First at the different colleges.

I think it's very difficult to know what makes a difference. One would presume that "teaching/atmosphere" etc would make a difference of some sort. And perhaps colleges like King's, despite being oversubscribed, aren't oversubscribed with lots of high quality candidates. So while Trinity may not be as oversubscribed as King's, it may be getting more "very intelligent" applicants due to its reputation.

Although with using "percentage Firsts" as a measure, perhaps the sciency colleges are at an advantage. I've heard that the table corrects for this, but dunno how true that is, and if it is true, I imagine it would only be for the "score", not the "percentage firsts".
(edited 9 years ago)
Great showing from Tit Hall, third for three of the last four years.
Original post by Chief Wiggum
I had never realised that differences between colleges could be quite so big - there's a pretty big difference in the proportion getting a First at the different colleges.

I think it's very difficult to know what makes a difference. One would presume that "teaching/atmosphere" etc would make a difference of some sort. And perhaps colleges like King's, despite being oversubscribed, aren't oversubscribed with lots of high quality candidates.

Although with using "percentage Firsts" as a measure, perhaps the sciency colleges are at an advantage. I've heard that the table corrects for this, but dunno how true that is, and if it is true, I imagine it would only be for the "score", not the "percentage firsts".


Having a quick shufti at the admissions stats for the last 5 years, it appears that King's pools similar numbers of candidates to Trinity most of the time, even though they have fewer applicants most years. That suggests that the quality of the applicant pool is not hugely different. It's possible that more of the very top apply to Trinity, but I still find it curious that King's does so much worse than Tit Hall, for example, given the numbers.

And yeah, even if they don't correct for sciencey colleges and firsts, there's still quite a spread in the 'score'.

I'd always thought that the college you were at made little difference to exam performance, but perhaps it does have a non-negligible effect.
Original post by Chief Wiggum
I had never realised that differences between colleges could be quite so big - there's a pretty big difference in the proportion getting a First at the different colleges.

I think it's very difficult to know what makes a difference. One would presume that "teaching/atmosphere" etc would make a difference of some sort. And perhaps colleges like King's, despite being oversubscribed, aren't oversubscribed with lots of high quality candidates. So while Trinity may not be as oversubscribed as King's, it may be getting more "very intelligent" applicants due to its reputation.

Although with using "percentage Firsts" as a measure, perhaps the sciency colleges are at an advantage. I've heard that the table corrects for this, but dunno how true that is, and if it is true, I imagine it would only be for the "score", not the "percentage firsts".


There can be quite a lot of difference in the approaches taken by different colleges, from my experience with Maths alone. Certain colleges have more contact time (For example, weekly classes are something that happens at Pembroke, St Johns, and a couple of others but are not universal), some do more mocks (some do none) and some have DoS' which are more relaxed about exam performance than others. The effect of this is not necessarily that the top students are better but that in certain colleges it is potentially more difficult to fall by the wayside.

Trinity in particular gets a massive boost from its Maths grades; the results for this year had >50% of the Trinity Mathmos getting 1st class marks and they have the most mathmos per year! I would assume 2nd/3rd year marks are similar. Ignoring Maths the scores are much closer (Pembroke would apparently have came 1st last year had both colleges' Maths performances been discounted).
Original post by DJMayes
There can be quite a lot of difference in the approaches taken by different colleges, from my experience with Maths alone. Certain colleges have more contact time (For example, weekly classes are something that happens at Pembroke, St Johns, and a couple of others but are not universal), some do more mocks (some do none) and some have DoS' which are more relaxed about exam performance than others. The effect of this is not necessarily that the top students are better but that in certain colleges it is potentially more difficult to fall by the wayside.

Trinity in particular gets a massive boost from its Maths grades; the results for this year had >50% of the Trinity Mathmos getting 1st class marks and they have the most mathmos per year! I would assume 2nd/3rd year marks are similar. Ignoring Maths the scores are much closer (Pembroke would apparently have came 1st last year had both colleges' Maths performances been discounted).


Those weekly classes didn't prevent my year from having an abysmal showing :tongue: - although I suppose we may have done even worse without them!

Your point about Trinity Maths is valid, of course, but I was particularly surprised at the disparity between colleges like King's/John's and Pembroke/Tit Hall.
Original post by ClickItBack
That is a very impressive performance by Trinity.

I wonder why such large disparities in college performance come about. My hypothesis was that the popular colleges like Trinity attract the highest calibre of students, and get first pick, so it is not all that surprising that they outperform the less popular 'pool' colleges e.g. the women's colleges, Girton etc. However King's, for example, is usually the most oversubscribed college I think - yet they've performed only middlingly for ages. Is it possible that college teaching/atmosphere actually does make such a profound difference on your overall result?

I think King's is a unique situation. It attracts those for whom Kings and Cambridge are synonymous, it advertises a lower IB requirement & is thought to be good for state school/bad for independent school pupils. So overall it has a less savvy applicant pool, possibly with more internationals.
I think its interesting how Caius in the internet info age has sunk probably because its reputation for poor food is reducing its applicant pool. We had a good % Economics firsts in my year and certainly had more exam term help & good quality supervisions.
Original post by Colmans
I think King's is a unique situation. It attracts those for whom Kings and Cambridge are synonymous, it advertises a lower IB requirement & is thought to be good for state school/bad for independent school pupils. So overall it has a less savvy applicant pool, possibly with more internationals.
I think its interesting how Caius in the internet info age has sunk probably because its reputation for poor food is reducing its applicant pool. We had a good % Economics firsts in my year and certainly had more exam term help & good quality supervisions.


See my follow-up post. King's pools similar numbers to Trinity despite a lower number of applicants, so the quality of their applicants can't be that much worse.

And the same is applicable for St John's too - big, fairly popular college which still produces regularly middle-of-the-pack performances.
Original post by ClickItBack
Those weekly classes didn't prevent my year from having an abysmal showing :tongue: - although I suppose we may have done even worse without them!

Your point about Trinity Maths is valid, of course, but I was particularly surprised at the disparity between colleges like King's/John's and Pembroke/Tit Hall.


Well, people get out of them what they put in, but it is objectively a way in which some colleges have an advantage over some others as it is more contact time. I have no idea whether the situation is unique to Maths or not though.

To be honest it is difficult to compare any two specific colleges and come up with a good answer as to why X outperformed Y. Even as a Pembroke student I don't know explicitly what they do which is giving them an edge at present so can hardly compare their practices to other colleges. In the absence of serious discussion points I will suggest that it is our brunch/formal which is doing the trick. :tongue:

Original post by Colmans
I think King's is a unique situation. It attracts those for whom Kings and Cambridge are synonymous, it advertises a lower IB requirement & is thought to be good for state school/bad for independent school pupils. So overall it has a less savvy applicant pool, possibly with more internationals.
I think its interesting how Caius in the internet info age has sunk probably because its reputation for poor food is reducing its applicant pool. We had a good % Economics firsts in my year and certainly had more exam term help & good quality supervisions.


Whilst Caius is not the best-repped college online I am not sure that factor alone is sufficient to explain its current decline - other colleges, Churchill in particular, get a lot of hate (undeserved in my opinion, but there you go) as well but still perform consistently.
Which colleges are best for:

1. Accomodation

2. Location (For Law students)

3. Library

4. Hard working but also chilled out atmosphere

Thanks!

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Ami_Ginger_Cake
Which colleges are best for:

1. Accomodation

2. Location (For Law students)

3. Library

4. Hard working but also chilled out atmosphere

Thanks!

Posted from TSR Mobile


1. Subjective. All colleges have a massive range of accommodation, both modern and old.

2. Newnham, Robinson, Selwyn etc. - there are a fair few colleges pretty near the Sidgwick site.

3. Again, fairly subjective. Bigger colleges tend to have better stocked libraries, but there's a Law library anyway and know in my library you can order any book in you want for free.

4. This is Cambridge, everywhere is hardworking :tongue: I'd honestly wager that students from every college would say theirs fits the bill there. I've heard Trinity is a bit tense having said that, but that's not for me to say.
Original post by Ami_Ginger_Cake
Which colleges are best for:

1. Accomodation

2. Location (For Law students)

3. Library

4. Hard working but also chilled out atmosphere

Thanks!

Posted from TSR Mobile



Original post by St. Brynjar
1. Subjective. All colleges have a massive range of accommodation, both modern and old.

2. Newnham, Robinson, Selwyn etc. - there are a fair few colleges pretty near the Sidgwick site.

3. Again, fairly subjective. Bigger colleges tend to have better stocked libraries, but there's a Law library anyway and know in my library you can order any book in you want for free.

4. This is Cambridge, everywhere is hardworking :tongue: I'd honestly wager that students from every college would say theirs fits the bill there. I've heard Trinity is a bit tense having said that, but that's not for me to say.


I vote Pembroke. Mind you, I'm biased. We have some of the cheapest accommodation in Cambridge, we're central but only 10 minutes from the Sidgwick site, there's a separate law library, and we've had some good results recently.
The Tompkins table is calculated based on all years. So:
1. a college will do better if it admits students who will get a first every year or who will get a first in the first 2 years then graduate with 2.1, rather than admitting students who will get a first in the final year but have to travel further to get there, with lower marks on the way.
2. As far as I know, a college will do better if it admits more students in subjects where more firsts are awarded.

...and as has been said, the applicants colleges get can look quite different from one college to the nexT

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Trending

Latest