Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by I'mnotplato)
    Philosophy Part II 2009

    Spoiler:
    Show

    (1) Clare 5
    (2) Girton 4
    (=3) St John's 3.67
    (=3) Trinity 3.67
    (5) Sidney 3.5
    (6) Churchill 3.33
    (=7) Christ's 3
    (=7) Corpus 3
    (=7) Downing 3
    (=7) Emma 3
    (=7) Caius 3
    (=7) Homerton 3
    (=7) Jesus 3
    (=7) King's 3
    (=7) Murray Edwards 3
    (=7) Peterhouse 3
    (=7) Queens' 3
    (=7) Robinson 3
    (=7) St Catherine's 3
    (=7) Selwyn 3
    (=7) Trinity Hall 3
    (22) Fitz 2.67
    (23) Pembroke 2
    (24) St Edmunds 1.5
    7th! Like most the other colleges. Bit of a leap from 7th to 22nd...
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SunderX)
    Interested to see how well Churchill fares in CS.
    (Original post by Mustardseed)
    (It seems Churchill are second only to Downing in Part IA this year, and Downing appears only to have had one entry so that could have gone any way at all.)
    Computer Science Part IA 2009

    Spoiler:
    Show

    (1) Downing 5
    (2) Churchill 3.88
    (3) Emma 3.5
    (4) Trinity 3.25
    (=5) Corpus 3
    (=5) Girton 3
    (=5) Homerton 3
    (=5) Jesus 3
    (=5) Newnham 3
    (=5) John's 3
    (=5) Wolfson 3
    (=5) Pembroke 3
    (13) Caius 2.8
    (14) Queens' 2.67
    (15) Trinity Hall 2.5
    (16) Robinson 2.25
    (17) Fitz 2.17
    (=18) Christ's 2
    (=18) King's 2
    (=18) Selwyn 2
    (=18) St Edmunds 2
    (=18) Clare 2



    Computer Science Part IB 2009

    Spoiler:
    Show

    (=1) Emma 5
    (=1) Selwyn 5
    (=3) Corpus 4
    (=3) King's 4
    (5) Churchill 3.63
    (=6) Jesus 3.4
    (=6) Trinity 3.4
    (8) Robinson 3.25
    (=9) Caius 3
    (=9) Queens' 3
    (=9) Sidney 3
    (12) John's 2.67
    (13) Girton 2.5
    (14) Fitz 2.33
    (15) Homerton 2.2
    (=16) Christ's 2
    (=16) Clare 2
    (=16) Trinity Hall 2
    (19) St Catz 1
    (20) St Edmunds 0



    Computer Science Part II 2009

    Spoiler:
    Show

    (=1) Peterhouse 5
    (=1) St Catz 5
    (=1) Selwyn 5
    (4) Churchill 4.2
    (5) Fitz 3.71
    (6) Jesus 3.6
    (7) Caius 3.4
    (8) Robinson 3.2
    (=9) Girton 3
    (=9) King's 3
    (=9) Sidney 3
    (=9) Trinity 3
    (=9) Magdalene 3
    (=9) Queens' 3
    (=15) Pembroke 2.67
    (=15) John's 2.67
    (17) Clare 2.33
    (=18) Christ's 2
    (=18) St Edmunds 2
    (=18) Trinity Hall 2
    (=21) Corpus 1.5
    (=21) Homerton 1.5
    (23) Newnham 0
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Part 1A Law 2009

    Spoiler:
    Show

    (1) Churchill 3.67
    (=2) Emma 3
    (=2) Hughes Hall 3
    (=2) Lucy C 3
    (=2) Peterhouse 3
    (=2) Selwyn 3
    (=2) Trinity Hall 3
    (8) Downing 2.94
    (=9) Corpus 2.83
    (=9) Fitz 2.83
    (=9) Pembroke 2.83
    (=9) Robinson 2.83
    (=13) Christ's 2.75
    (=13) St Catherine's 2.75
    (=13) Trinity 2.75
    (16) Magdalene 2.73
    (17) Queens' 2.7
    (=18) Clare 2.67
    (=18) Girton 2.67
    (=18) Newnham 2.67
    (=21) Caius 2.6
    (=21) Sidney 2.6
    (=21) St John's 2.6
    (24) King's 2.5
    (25) Murray Edwards 2.4
    (26) Homerton 2.38
    (=27) St Edmunds 2
    (=27) Wolfson 2
    (29) Jesus 1.89



    Law Part II 2009

    Spoiler:
    Show

    (1) Pembroke 4.3
    (2) Magdalene 3.67
    (3) Clare 3.5
    (=4) Emma 3.4
    (=4) Sidney 3.4
    (6) Christ's 3.33
    (=7) Queens' 3.25
    (=7) St Catherine's 3.25
    (=7) John's 3.25
    (10) Jesus 3.2
    (11) Downing 3.18
    (=12) Fitz 3.13
    (=12) Selwyn 3.13
    (14) Caius 3.1
    (=15) Corpus 3
    (=15) King's 3
    (=15) Murray Edwards 3
    (=15) St Edmunds 3
    (=15) Trinity 3
    (=15) Trinity Hall 3
    (=15) Wolfson 3
    (=22) Homerton 2.8
    (=22) Lucy C 2.8
    (=24) Girton 2.75
    (=24) Newnham 2.75
    (26) Churchill 2.67
    (27) Robinson 2.55
    (28) Peterhouse 2.4
    (29) Hughes Hall 2


    It's interesting to note that Churchill have very harsh admissions policies for law (see http://www.chu.cam.ac.uk/admissions/...g/courses/law/ - they will be expecting A*A*AA at A level and about 9A* at GCSE). In the above tables Churchill does very well at Part 1A when the level you reached at school probably makes the most difference. However they do relatively badly at Part II, suggesting that the didn't admit the best students when you take the whole 3 years of the Cambridge course into account. That said, it is a small sample and I don't know how this performance at Part II compares the their performance in other years.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Does this mean to say from 8th position downwards, every Cambridge College for Part I Law gets on average below a 2.1???!!!

    How comprehensive is this table?

    I find it hard to believe...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cacanene)
    Does this mean to say from 8th position downwards, every Cambridge College for Part I Law gets on average below a 2.1???!!!

    How comprehensive is this table?

    I find it hard to believe...
    It makes sense IMO, since law seems to require huge amounts of work and gives out hardly any firsts IIRC. Therefore more people are going to get a 2.2 or third than they are a first, so the average will be below a 2.i.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    It's probably mostly to do with the points and averages and relativity and things. I know that there were more people who got a 2.i or over at my college, but we are still below 8th. I haven't done maths in quite a while though... so I have forgotten how to make sense of numbers...
    I don't think it's the quality of the intake, more the distribution of that intake between colleges.. as the numbers getting first/2.i/2.ii/third remain roughly the same.
    So, for example, this year, only half of the Homertonian intake managed a 2.i...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cacanene)
    Hmmm, I hate to sound dogmatic, but I still have my doubts.
    I don't know about 2009, but in 2008, I know for a fact that 8 of the 9 first year lawyers at Homerton managed a 2.1. I question whether the quality of intake dropped by such a significant amount in one year. Moreover, come on, these are Cambridge law students! I realise that achieving a first is extremely difficult, but many of these students should be sufficiently motivated and intellectually capable of attaining a 2.1. According to these stats, roughly more than two thirds of the total law intake got less that a 2.1! Even for first year, that's a tough fact to swallow.
    I'd like to know if I'mnotplato actually recorded all the students' results, or only sampled a few.
    Your implication that it gets worse in subsequent years is wrong - the overwhelming majority of law finalists last year got at least a 2.1. I don't know how they set the grade boundaries for law, but I was under the impression that for nearly every subject, first year results should be regarded as a relative ranking rather than an absolute one.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I don't think I did imply that law students do worse in subsequent years. If anything, based on the APPARENT fact that first year students tend to perform rather badly, I implied that results probably get better over the years, since things can only look up after a 2.2...

    I think we're over-complicating things with this whole 'relative/distribution' malarkey.
    All I'm saying is that it appears rather suspicious that Homerton's standards dropped so dramatically, from only one student getting a 2.2, to half of them the next year!
    Not only that - I wouldn't have expected so many other Cambridge colleges to have performed similarly (aka two thirds below a 2.1 average) either.
    Surely your average Cambridge law student, burdened with the pressures of attaining an internship or a crazily competitive training contract would seek to impress early on, and more than any other degree, will be striving for at least a low 2.1 in order to keep head above water!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cacanene)
    I'd like to know if I'mnotplato actually recorded all the students' results, or only sampled a few.
    I recorded all the results. Note that it is possible for people to get their names removed from the list so it may be missing a few. However, if you have doubts then I suggest that you look at the class list yourself.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cacanene)
    I don't think I did imply that law students do worse in subsequent years. If anything, based on the APPARENT fact that first year students tend to perform rather badly, I implied that results probably get better over the years, since things can only look up after a 2.2...

    I think we're over-complicating things with this whole 'relative/distribution' malarkey.
    All I'm saying is that it appears rather suspicious that Homerton's standards dropped so dramatically, from only one student getting a 2.2, to half of them the next year!
    Not only that - I wouldn't have expected so many other Cambridge colleges to have performed similarly (aka two thirds below a 2.1 average) either.
    Surely your average Cambridge law student, burdened with the pressures of attaining an internship or a crazily competitive training contract would seek to impress early on, and more than any other degree, will be striving for at least a low 2.1 in order to keep head above water!
    Law here is tough. I know plenty of lawyers, and most of them seem to work their backsides off, and I know many of them who have still gotten 2.2s despite that effort, and a girl in my college who got thirds twice. Lawyers here tell me that the supervisors are morons. I know Law students whose DoSes have called them idiots in front of other people, and whose supervisors swear at them. Personally I don't find it that surprising; I think it just reflects the Ogre-like attitude of our department.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cacanene)
    I don't think I did imply that law students do worse in subsequent years. If anything, based on the APPARENT fact that first year students tend to perform rather badly, I implied that results probably get better over the years, since things can only look up after a 2.2...

    I think we're over-complicating things with this whole 'relative/distribution' malarkey.
    All I'm saying is that it appears rather suspicious that Homerton's standards dropped so dramatically, from only one student getting a 2.2, to half of them the next year!
    Not only that - I wouldn't have expected so many other Cambridge colleges to have performed similarly (aka two thirds below a 2.1 average) either.
    Surely your average Cambridge law student, burdened with the pressures of attaining an internship or a crazily competitive training contract would seek to impress early on, and more than any other degree, will be striving for at least a low 2.1 in order to keep head above water!
    Unfortunately they are stingy with grades for all three years, and tons of people end up with 2.2s and 3rds in all years unlike all other arts subjects. It sucks :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I'm loving the optimism - verbal abuse, dismissive rude and patronising supervisors, PLUS 24/7 hard core study which goes by largely unappreciated.
    Now I'm really itching to get started
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cacanene)
    I'm loving the optimism - verbal abuse, dismissive rude and patronising supervisors, PLUS 24/7 hard core study which goes by largely unappreciated.
    Now I'm really itching to get started
    You could always degrade to something more humane.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    A quick, probably not entirely accurate, tally of results shows:

    25 collleges had at least one person gaining less than a 2.1 in first year law.

    11 colleges had at least one person gaining a 1st in first year law.

    That means that AT LEAST 14 colleges got one student having less than a 2.1 and no students having greater than a 2.1. Thus, at least 14 colleges have an average below 2.1 (bear in mind, if you have no-one above a 2.1 then having someone below a 2.1 means the average will be below a 2.1)

    If I remember the scores assigned to each grade correctly, then for every first, two 2.2s will pull the average back down to a 2.1. An even more cursory look showed that of those 11 colleges with some firsts, around 8 had more than twice as many 2.2s and 3rds. Thus, I would expect around 22 colleges to have an average of less than 2.1.

    Which fits in pretty much perfectly with the table.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Ahhh, thanks for ironing that out.
    Now that I have a clearer insight into the nature of these calculations, reinforced by the fact that I have now actually read how the results are tallied, I see that the Baxter tables really aren't accurate at all.

    For some reason, I immediately assumed that percentages would be taken into account.

    The Baxter tables completely ignores the intricacies of percentages, which are pretty fundamental for an accurate observation of a college's performance.

    Hypothetically with the Baxter tables, two colleges which have four students each - two of which get a 2.1 and two of which get a 2.2 - would score exactly the same.

    However, despite this, college X may have produced two very high 2.1s and two very high 2.2s. Say two students in college X get 68% and two students get 58%, the average percentage is 63%.
    However, college Y may have produced two gaining 60% and two gaining 50%. The overall percentage here is much lower, at 55%.

    If we are to put this into the context of the Baxter tables, College X, attaining an average of 63% should be awarded a 'Baxterian' 3.3ish, while college Y, attaining an average of 55%, should be awarded a much lower 'Baxterian' 2.5ish.

    In conclusion, the Baxter tables is largely hocus pocus and should be replaced with a percentages system (if percentages are available to the public of course).
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by cacanene)
    In conclusion, the Baxter tables is largely hocus pocus and should be replaced with a percentages system (if percentages are available to the public of course).
    Percentages are not publicly available; the Baxter tables make the most out of the public class lists.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cacanene)
    Ahhh, thanks for ironing that out.
    Now that I have a clearer insight into the nature of these calculations, reinforced by the fact that I have now actually read how the results are tallied, I see that the Baxter tables really aren't accurate at all.

    For some reason, I immediately assumed that percentages would be taken into account.

    The Baxter tables completely ignores the intricacies of percentages, which are pretty fundamental for an accurate observation of a college's performance.

    Hypothetically with the Baxter tables, two colleges which have four students each - two of which get a 2.1 and two of which get a 2.2 - would score exactly the same.

    However, despite this, college X may have produced two very high 2.1s and two very high 2.2s. Say two students in college X get 68% and two students get 58%, the average percentage is 63%.
    However, college Y may have produced two gaining 60% and two gaining 50%. The overall percentage here is much lower, at 55%.

    If we are to put this into the context of the Baxter tables, College X, attaining an average of 63% should be awarded a 'Baxterian' 3.3ish, while college Y, attaining an average of 55%, should be awarded a much lower 'Baxterian' 2.5ish.

    In conclusion, the Baxter tables is largely hocus pocus and should be replaced with a percentages system (if percentages are available to the public of course).
    It would be a bit harsh to publish percentages for every student, people have enough issues with just the class being published. (As the name suggests, Class lists just tell you the class that students got. Originally, people were listed in rank order, but nowadays names within a class are alphabetical)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nebuduck)
    A quick, probably not entirely accurate...
    I also though I'd point out that my approach ignores how many 2.1s a college has - 2.1s are by far the most common grade, but if you're considering whether the average is above or below a 2.1 they have no effect - adding another 2.1, or another 100 2.1s, or whatever has no effect on whether the average is above or below 2.1, although it will move the average closer to a 2.1.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Yeh, I just see the tables as a liability.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.