Looking for the helpful Cambridge admissions tutor who posted a while age..

[seeker]

......if you're around, could I ask a couple of questions, please?

I am glad to hear that Upthechimney.

I work as an admissions tutor and this is not the case for my university and many others I know. Yes we look at them, but applications are not 'scored

Although I won't see any application in my department if the applicant doesn't ave certain subjects at certain levels at GCSE. For example, a C in Maths, a language, and English. The application just stops at the University Admissions office, they don't send them through to us.

That's pretty standard, I think.

WouldBeHarrietVane - the cookie cutter thing isn't my opinion. My experience is that, on the contrary, candidates are coached/tutored to stand out from the crowd from an early stage.

All the personal statements get read were I work, but probably not in the way people imagine.

We read them mainly to look for:

1. disabilities not otherwise disclosed
2. explanations of things that might have lowered AS grades
3. if appropriate, why an apparent switch on direction (eg science A levels to social science degree).

That's about it.

After doing admissions for years, I can confidently say that there are pretty much no original ways to say why this particular degree subject is being applied for . Also in in my area, drama productions, DofE and work experience are pretty irrelevant, and make no difference to the chances of being admitted.

We are really interested in AS grades (including UMS marks) and A level predictions. You also have to have C grade Maths and English GCSE.

upthechimney and creamteas thats what I mean, the applications get filtered before the admissions tutors (and helpers) get to see them. In some universities the filtering is done by computer.

creamteas you've often said that you do a social science but what sort of uni are you in? 'Elite'? Other RG? Plate glass? Because as you'll know what works for one discipline in one uni won't necessarily work even for the same discipline in another.

Re the GCSE/Admissions debate, we went to the Engineering open day at Bristol last Autumn.
The Professor told a stunned audience that admissions are scored as follows:
50% based on best GCSEs (8/9 cant remember)
40% on Predicted A2 grades
5% personal statement
5% teachers reference
Achieved AS grades - a big fat zero

There were a lot of very angry mutterings in the audience. As has been previously said, at GCSE many students are taking subjects they have less interest or aptitude in (and often the school has dictated 8/9 of the subjects)
Then you move onto A-level study, you work hard in subjects you enjoy, you achieve 4 A grades in your AS exams, and Bristol completely ignores them.

I must say, in my field (not engineering) we don't tend to note AS grades achieved. GCSEs, predicted A2 grades, personal statement, and teachers' references are all used. But then we interview and also use other on the site selection procedures. If you are offered a place with us, you know we really think you will thrive.

The predicted grades take AS performance into account.

They are always trying to strike a balance between encouraging the most able to apply and discouraging everyone from applying.

Cambridge ask for the applicant's UMS mark in the SAQ. Some universities don't. But if you have excellent AS results, your reference will mention them (and it will be reflected in the predicted grades). Aand thre is space on the UCAS form to input AS results. It seems clear to me that anyone not revealing their AS results on their UCAS form did not get AAAA.

Ha at seeker being so rude.

I can see sense in ignoring AS grades, I suppose- because A2 predictions will be based on them.

I still think that a lot of emphasis on GCSE results is problematic- do admissions tutors take into account the school candidates were at when they took them?

The point about GCSEs is that they demonstrate a candidate's ability to grasp a range of academic subjects to a minimum standard (not a very high one, at that). The English system is an anomaly by international standards in that specialisation starts at 16 - most high school leaving diplomas test the full range of subjects, as a "full hand" of academic GCSEs do.

Personally I don't like the idea of people being allowed to proceed into the world if they haven't got a basic grasp of sciences and humanities. It would seem that universities agree with that position.

Of course admissions tutors take into account schools and socio-economic background (I certainly look up schools and in some cases I look up the home address to get an idea of where the student lives). But if you have, at a Cambridge college, 20 applicants for 4 places and 19 of them have straight A at GCSE and one of them has 2A, the rest As and Bs, it is going to be very difficult for that last candidate to be in with a shot unless they come from a very deprived background and did spectactularly well at AS.

I think people should check directly with universities and courses of interest what the policies are for admission. In my field I have never heard of automatic rejection for candidates with less than 6A* at GCSE (even though most entrants at RG would have such grades); I have not seen a scoring system of the type mentioned above and personal statements carry almost no weight. All applications which meet the bare minimum requirements are examined by an academic (even when they look clearly well below the level which will be accepted). I have never seen a successful applicant to Cambridge with GCSE grades such as those of OP's DD. But all of my experience is for Maths/Physics so a completely different subject area, and probably completely irrelevant for OP.

I'm glad that schools are looked at- is that universal? It would seem very unfair to expect all As and A*s at GCSE without giving some consideration to the school/background of the candidate.

seeker of course the school attended is part of the equation, which brings us back to the point I made at the start: your DD's GCSEs will be looked at in the context of the high achieving grammar she attends, so are (I'm afraid) the worse for that. I assume that those grades would put her somewhere in the bottom quartile at her school? I agree absolutely that some kids blossom extraordinarily in the sixth form but coming from the school she does, with the grades you mentioned,your DD does face quite a challenge on the university front.

seeker you may think an emphasis on GCSEs is problematic but the reality is that they're thought by many universities to be the best predictor of success at university level.

NewFerry that's just the Bristol formula though.

seeker in many universities the GCSE grades will be adjusted for school by computer right at the start of the process. I think for grammars 12A becomes 10.5A, something like that.

Thank you, yellowtip. I was rather hoping that this thread had become a little broader than a discussion of my daughter! She and I are well aware that in this particlar context her many advantages will, perhaps ironically, not help her!

I thought the thread was specifically about your daughter seeker confused].

In the university context her advantages will probably still put her in a more advantageous position than someone from a really difficult background who has attended a poor performing school, even after the adjustments are done. That's just how it is, unfortunately.

I myself think it possible that if she truly has got an exceptional talent at Philosophy then she might stand more chance of an offer from Cambridge than from the Durhams and UCLs of the university world, where they don't do additional tests or interviews and where those grades might well be quite a barrier to getting through a initial first trawl. I'd say it's that second tier of universities where she may faces most problems. Although grades required for Philosophy at those unis don't tend to be as harsh as for some of the more in demand courses, so that will help.

Or rather .

Dreadful typing - ignore!

I still think that a lot of emphasis on GCSE results is problematic- do admissions tutors take into account the school candidates were at when they took them?

Why are they problematic? They give a good idea of the way an applicant to a university course has achieved so far in his/her education; they offer an indication of achievement across a wide range of subjects, rather than 3 narrowed down 'best' subjects; they indicate ability to focus at an age-appropriate level; and they indicate comparative standing in a cohort across England.

Universities that place an emphasis on GCSE results do so because they have found, over time, that this is a good way of predicting who will do well on their courses. There are some universities that don't place such a heavy emphasis on GCSEs for all or some of their courses. This is because they reckon either they have found better predictors of future suitability/success or because their MO or the MO of a particular course or courses makes GCSE performance irrelevant for whatever reason.

Seeker I think in your DD's case if she has her heart set on Cambridge, she might be best advised to apply post A level. Stellar A level results and a storming interview will place her in a much much better position than she might be otherwise, given her GCSE results.

Sadly they do not indicate whether they were achieved in a highly set Grammar, a small class at any independent, or in a large mixed group in a comprehensive.

Surely it's at A-level with generally smaller classes, and a similar ability range that a student's academic worth begins to shine through - as can be demonstrated by their AS results.

I think they can be problematic in as much that some schools are much better at achieving top grades than others.

Some schools are far better at helping the middle cohort achieve a decent slew of GCSEs, and the more able are less well served.

However, it's not the place of universities to try to right every wrong, is it?

Not sure how expecting universities to look at AS results achieved by students is expecting them to "right every wrong"