The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

zip it123

Those who just rote learn only scrape As, and those who can think for themselves (and put in hardwork)get top marks

I guess it depends on the subject, but in general, for the subjects that I did [arts & humanities], I agree.

I hate this assumption that people who do well in exams can't think for themselves, are dull, do no ECs, are unteachable etc.
Reply 61
mobb_theprequel
I guess it depends on the subject, but in general, for the subjects that I did [arts & humanities], I agree.

I hate this assumption that people who do well in exams can't think for themselves, are dull, do no ECs, are unteachable etc.



exactly

in my skool it is the ppl who do well, who are the ones that think for themselves, argue back etc. The ones who scrape the A's are happy to just keep on taking dull notes
Reply 62
zip it123
ooo yes...i just red wot i tought u had written...i appoligise. Therfore i agree with u.

300/300 is an acheivement. And it unlike wot ppl have sed AS levels are not simply bout re-gergitating.

Those who just rote learn only scrape As, and those who can think for themselves (and put in hardwork)get top marks


Absolutely not. There are no marks whatsoever allocated to thinking for yourself are there?
Reply 63
fishpaste
Absolutely not. There are no marks whatsoever allocated to thinking for yourself.



umm i think ur wrong.

In maths for example....every1 wud have been taught the same basic stuff. Only those who can think for themsevles and APPLY techniques get top marks

In economics....at A2 level there are a fewquesitons that are long answer essays. Yes, you need to know the stuff but the marks you get correpsond to how well u analyse and apply your knowledge to the exact quesiton.

So if ur unable to think for yourself then u will get a poor mark.
fishpaste
Absolutely not. There are no marks whatsoever allocated to thinking for yourself are there?


not sure really. all i can think of is that if they were, then those with higher marks should therefore be the ones who think for themselves and that they'd then all get oxbridge places; as not every straight-A student gets in, obviously this isn't the case!
fishpaste
Absolutely not. There are no marks whatsoever allocated to thinking for yourself are there?

What are English Lit and History all about then? Of the people that I know, those who spent ages reading through the history books and literature critics (without exercising any proper creativity and flair) generally got 220-260.
Reply 66
zip it123
umm i think ur wrong.

In maths for example....every1 wud have been taught the same basic stuff. Only those who can think for themsevles and APPLY techniques get top marks

In economics....at A2 level there are a fewquesitons that are long answer essays. Yes, you need to know the stuff but the marks you get correpsond to how well u analyse and apply your knowledge to the exact quesiton.

So if ur unable to think for yourself then u will get a poor mark.


Such as? There's only so many things they can ask you. And in maths it's going to involve finding a minimum, or summing a series, etc. Physics is the same. A2 economics essays are marked very robotically. "upto 8 marks if the candidate has mentioned and analysed three issues. 12 marks if they have discussed and evaluated the issues." The question will always be "Discuss the effects of ______ on ______" for example, and to get the full marks all you had to do was say "one effect might be .... [analysis of it] ... however, also consider [something else] another is [same again.] finally, [same again] to conclude, there are positive effects of ____ such as blah blah blah, and we whilst we should also consider [some aspect] of the negative effects, I think that blah blah blah." ...full marks.
zip it123
Cambridge's application procedure is better purely due to one fact. The ask you to list all the modules you have done together wit the marks. For that reason each admissions tutor has much more information on a candidate hopefully ensuring that teh best candidates are selected.

For both unis however i feel that the discrepencies between colleges are the main problem in the procedure. The pools do not level it out.


However, the major problem is that although these modules etc are asked for MOST tutors still don't really understand what they mean. There are two problems with Oxbridge admissions. Firstly, decisions are being made in isolation- for most subjects- by colleges; sure this has loads of benefits [e.g. creation of college environment etc] but I think it is time for the two universities to have faculty based admissions decisions. This would ensure equality in standards across a subject in all college and ensure that excellent students weren't overlooked. After this students could be called forward to colleges, where tutors at the college could- if they wanted to- make decisions of the applicants offered to them, with candidates -as now- having indicated a preference.

The real problem though is that A Levels simply aren't tough enough. Reworking of syllabuses, and actual exam boundaries at 80%=A, plus tougher exams, would reduce the pool from which Oxbridge had to choose candidates from.
Reply 68
tomcoolinguk
However, the major problem is that although these modules etc are asked for MOST tutors still don't really understand what they mean. There are two problems with Oxbridge admissions. Firstly, decisions are being made in isolation- for most subjects- by colleges; sure this has loads of benefits [e.g. creation of college environment etc] but I think it is time for the two universities to have faculty based admissions decisions. This would ensure equality in standards across a subject in all college and ensure that excellent students weren't overlooked. After this students could be called forward to colleges, where tutors at the college could- if they wanted to- make decisions of the applicants offered to them, with candidates -as now- having indicated a preference.

This is just the situation now but with an extra layer of faculty sieving. I don't see how that helps tbh.


The real problem though is that A Levels simply aren't tough enough. Reworking of syllabuses, and actual exam boundaries at 80%=A, plus tougher exams, would reduce the pool from which Oxbridge had to choose candidates from.

is it? Jools was saying just a bit ago in this thread that the people who got ABBC at AS went on to get the same degree results as people with AAAA with 300/300s.
Reply 69
mobb_theprequel
What are English Lit and History all about then? Of the people that I know, those who spent ages reading through the history books and literature critics (without exercising any proper creativity and flair) generally got 220-260.

I can't speak for English lit. One of my best friends at uni does History. She said at Alevel the format was similarly predictable (she got 580 btw, 300/300 at AS), she's actually failing her uni essays because she's finding the titles so demanding. The only one she's passed is the last one she did. (They get 8 a term).

I'm not remotely convinced that Alevel exams demand anything more than regurgitation because they are so refined so as not to cause any controversey. I mean if they ever dared to ask a question which made people think on the spot they'd get hugely beat up about it.

On the other hand, my director of studies says part 1A maths exams will also be extremely predictable once I've done a few past papers.
fishpaste
This is just the situation now but with an extra layer of faculty sieving. I don't see how that helps tbh.


Because it is clear [to me] that there is the colluding of information in search of the best candidates between colleges. Personally, if both Universites seeit as preferable for grad admissions I think it should be expanded to undergrad.

fishpaste
is it? Jools was saying just a bit ago in this thread that the people who got ABBC at AS went on to get the same degree results as people with AAAA with 300/300s..


Bearing in mind that both Ox and Cam have called for the release of exam marks and tougher exams, I think it would reduce the pool for them to choose from! Also, if 240 is supposedly equal to 295, why has Oxford repeatedly campaigned for the release of exam marks? Because it recognises that they DO indicate where real talent lies.
Reply 71
A lot of this stuff was talked about at our breakfast meeting with the Vice Chancellor.
Reply 72
tomcoolinguk
Because it is clear [to me] that there is the colluding of information in search of the best candidates between colleges. Personally, if both Universites seeit as preferable for grad admissions I think it should be expanded to undergrad.



Bearing in mind that both Ox and Cam have called for the release of exam marks and tougher exams, I think it would reduce the pool for them to choose from! Also, if 240 is supposedly equal to 295, why has Oxford repeatedly campaigned for the release of exam marks? Because it recognises that they DO indicate where real talent lies.



once again tomcooling speaks sense!
Reply 73
shiny
A lot of this stuff was talked about at our breakfast meeting with the Vice Chancellor.



wot were ur conclusions?
Reply 74
Jools
Though as amateurish says, having 97% at AS Level doesn't necessarily mean one's academic potential is superior to someone who scrapes 240. Also, a lot of the time tutors don't check the UMS scores, an A is an A according to them, which is unfortunate.

Yeah but there is a huge difference between applicants getting ABBC at AS and another getting AAAA. I know A levels don't indicate the potential an applicant has, but they do give a good idea to some extent.
Reply 75
tomcoolinguk
Because it is clear [to me] that there is the colluding of information in search of the best candidates between colleges. Personally, if both Universites seeit as preferable for grad admissions I think it should be expanded to undergrad.



Bearing in mind that both Ox and Cam have called for the release of exam marks and tougher exams, I think it would reduce the pool for them to choose from! Also, if 240 is supposedly equal to 295, why has Oxford repeatedly campaigned for the release of exam marks? Because it recognises that they DO indicate where real talent lies.


Durham do exactly what you say. I'm not convinced it would help them to choose the candidates who you think deserve the places more to be honest.



Oxford could just get the marks like Cambridge do if they wanted them that bad. And Oxbridge have called for tougher exams, this doesn't just mean making the A grade barrier 90%. Actually harder exams with questions which test what they look for.
Reply 76
zip it123
wot were ur conclusions?

I didn't pay much attention and concentrated on the free food mostly :biggrin:

But I would say that John Hood and the University are well aware of these issues but as you can see from this thread no-one can seems to agree on any common solutions ... :biggrin:
Reply 77
hihihihi
Yeah but there is a huge difference between applicants getting ABBC at AS and another getting AAAA. I know A levels don't indicate the potential an applicant has, but they do give a good idea to some extent.


But in this example they didn't.
Reply 78
Whilst not wanting to get too involved in the UMS debate, as I'm not sure of my stance, I feel obliged to point out that poor marks in either GCSEs or AS Levels don't necessarily indicate a lack of intelligence - I got a B in AS Chemistry and a low A in Biology, because I'd had a rough year due to certain personal problems. (These problems were only briefly alluded to in my reference, to my annoyance.) Yet when I was at one of my Medicine interviews, the tutor told me that of the interviewees he had seen so far, the vast majority had struggled with a certain question, and that my attempts at it were "very good". I think of everyone I spoke to afterwards I was the only one who completed it more or less unaided. Had Oxford decided to reject me outright, without an interview, because of those shoddy UMS scores, I wouldn't have had a chance to demonstrate my potential. As it was, I was made an offer.

Even if I hadn't been made an offer, I would have felt that the Oxford admissions process for Medicine was entirely fair. One incident that sticks in my mind was a question about x-ray machines at airports; when I was struggling to recall details, I was asked when I'd last flown, and as soon as they found out I hadn't been on a 'plane for three years they dropped the subject. That question was potentially discriminatory against anyone who didn't fly, for whatever reasons, but they took my circumstances into account and asked me questions I was more comfortable with.

In all of my interviews, I was constantly encouraged; when I hesitated, I was told I was doing well so far, and had I considered X or Y? Then as I expounded on X, Y, or indeed Z, I was stimulated further, and all the time told that I was doing well. I'm not being big-headed and saying I was doing particularly well, just that the atmosphere in the interviews was warm and semi-formal rather than imposing and intimidating. I said a few silly things, but the interviewers made a brief joke of them before explaining the right answer. I honestly felt during each of my interviews that the tutors wanted to see me in the best light possible.

Maybe I'm being overly generous, because I was made an offer, and I was only interviewed by six people in total so my sample size is very small! However, from my personal experiences, I have utter faith in the admissions process.
Reply 79
Nima
Make Oxford and Cambridge bigger, and add a Creation nearby.

Sorted. :smile:

Or we could get HYP to open UK campuses here instead :biggrin:

Latest