How important are UMS marks?

I agree with everyone else. Whilst it's certainly not going to put you at a disadvantage, you have to bear in mind around two thirds of applicants at least will be applying with UMS of 90% +. Most I will guess will be averaging around 95%
Also, if you search for it, you'll see that some people have got in with under 90% (at AS especially) whilst others have been rejected with 90%+. It is just one small part of your application

a small part which is probably weighted more heavily than some of the other small parts:P

You get an offer before you've completed your full A-level, so does it really matter what your total UMS is?

It matters what your UMS are at AS level, as they see this when deciding whether to give an offer.



Personally, my UMS were a bit pants and I got in , so there's always hope!

As in below 90%...?

Personally, I think it is heavily weighted on the interview performance.

Yes, probably below 90%. I can't remember the numbers unfortunately.

Interviews are another factor, they're do not carry a weighting particularly greater than other things. As I said in another thread, 80% of interviews confirm the decision admissions tutors made based on the paper application. In terms of UMS, the school/college you attended probably contributes to the UMS marks they expect from you. If you're at Eton and you're achieving 83% across the board, then you're likely to be below average, if you're school is under OFSTED Special Measures, then you could be doing very well to achieve 83%, and have potential to achieve higher.

Everything is relative, a combination of factors go towards the decision of whether to give an offer, its hard to come up with hard and fast rules.

I don't understand that. If they are basing their initial choices solely on grades, then why wouldn't they just interview the 6/7 people they could offer a place to, rather than interviewing 95% of applicants.

It does vary a bit depending on the subject, but generally IB gives you the chance to go further than A level. As a result there aren't as many people getting the very highest marks. That's one of the reasons that Cambridge generally like the IB - it differentiates candidates much more than A levels do.

They just have a good idea based on grades and PS, not always the right idea. There are 20% of cases where the applicant interviews awfully and turns out to be nothing like anyone imagined, or alternatively, shows much more potential than they thought. Maybe they received poor PS advice, or whatever.

The point that 80% of interviews confirm what admissions tutors were already thinking serves more to demonstrate that interviews are just another factor. Cambridge try very hard to make sure they have all the information possible about applicants to get the full picture of their potential. They interview as many as possible for this reason.

I'm not sure I agree with this. I think the interview is incredibly important and is more than just a confirmation procedure. As has been said hundreds of times, on paper most applicants will be pretty much at the same level before the interview. The interview is just the only way to distinguish them. I'm sure they don't care that much about UMS marks. But equally if you are getting 80% across the board, it's going to look better if you are getting good As rather than just average ones.