Natural Science at Cambridge without Chemistry A level

[user1472910683]

My DD wants to apply at Cambridge for Natural Science and she is doing maths, further maths and physics for A level. She wants to do physical science. Does she need chemistry for this course ?

Slight diversion then if that's ok OP, to haybott: so are Cambridge maths going to use AS results in maths, or maths and further maths, to decide who to interview? How will it work this year with some schools like OPs doing ASs across the board and some schools like my DSs only doing ASs in the unreformed subjects? I'm curious because presumably it can't look at the top three any more since some DC applying for maths will only have maths (and probably further maths).

haybott I reckon most FOI requests only elicit info requested, not useful info not requested!

Yes, they will use AS results in maths and FM to decide who to interview for maths. (Virtually everyone in with any chance of Cambridge maths will have FM.)

In practice Cambridge interviews the vast majority of maths applicants anyhow - AS filters out very few applicants. Some colleges, including Trinity, use their own in house tests for maths interviews.

The Cambridge admissions testing service which runs STEP is piloting a maths pre-test this Autumn (to be taken early Autumn of year 13 like MAT). I suspect that a number of top universities could pick up on this to fill the gap left by AS from 2017 onwards.

I did maths with physics at Cambridge after doing maths, physics, Spanish and psychology at A level (this was 15 years ago, so maybe out of date but I didn't have to get straight As at A level). The tripos system is very flexible which is great when you're not quite sure what you want to do (I ended up swapping between part 1A maths 2A and 2B physics and part 2 computer science). As with all subjects at Cambridge - find out about the colleges and pick one that suits you - you'll have a much better chance at interview, and a much better time when you get there!

Bah, memory fail - I did part 1A maths with physics, part 1B physics, part 2 physics, then part 2 general compsci. Very flexible system :)

TTT thank you for freedom of info link. Very useful and amazing info. I can see very few who had offers didn't do chemistry A level. Thanks everyone for your help.

It's fascinating looking through FOI requests relating to Uni admissions. There are lots made for medicine admission. They are only a snapshot of information but they are still interesting. I'd guess its intentional but a lot of the universities supply the information in difficult to read formats.

There are some interesting ones on the numbers of students who drop out or rustificate at Oxford and Cambridge.

BTW the single most useful bit of information for Cambridge Maths/Nat Sci would have been AS UMS, not predicted A2 grades. (Although of course this would not be so relevant for this year's applications.) This information would have explained why some candidates were rejected although they were predicted A stars.

I'd guess its intentional but a lot of the universities supply the information in difficult to read formats.

It's not intentional as such. But the majority of those sorts of FoIs ask the wrong question. Our role, and obligation unfortunately the White Paper hasn't removed it... is simply to answer what is asked, not to try and find out what the requestor was interested in and then to provide them with better data.

All her UMS are over 95 but except for maths they don't count so what will happen this years applications if UMS marks are not relevant?

Now that A Levels are changing to linear, any university that previoulsy used AS results, will either switch to only looking at predicted grades, or they will require applicants to undertake further tests as some already do (LNAT, BMAT for example).

Cambridge is switching to assessment tests, as Oxford have used for a long time, although Maths (and Maths w Physics) has an exemption and will not use pretests. Nat Sci will have a pre-interview assessment test this year. You can find out more on the Cambridge website.

In practice many Cambridge colleges have already been using some form of pretest for Nat Sci admission at interview in previous years but now the test will be harmonised between colleges and take place before interview.

Why does everything have to change this year? She doesn't want to do maths and physics cos maths is 3/4 in first year. She has to decide between Physics at Oxford or Nat Sci at Cambridge. At the mo PS is for Nat Sci. She wasn't so keen on Oxford Physics on open day cos the course is too theoretical.

Things are changing this year because of the reforms to A levels but I don't see that NatSci requirements have changed so in that sense your DD is facing the same issue as she would have done last year - lack of chemistry. that has nothing to do with exam reforms.

She wasn't so keen on Oxford Physics on open day cos the course is too theoretical.

Oxford physics is not more theoretical than Cambridge physics. And all physics related courses will have a large chunk of maths in the first and second years.

Agree that nothing has significantly changed this year for Nat Sci - entrance requirements are the same but tests are now uniform between colleges (fairer) and done before interview.

With the profile you are describing I would encourage her to go for Oxford rather than Cambridge Nat Sci - she will have a better chance there.

For science its not just a straight choice between Oxford and Cambridge. Agreed both Universities offer a lot. However several of DS's friends saw real silver linings when offered Imperial places after failing to get Cambridge in the form of wider course and option choices. One of DS's friends is now specialising within quite a specialised degree, reflecting his interests, and will emerge very very employable. DS is finding the same with his economics degree. In retrospect he is pleased he ended up in London rather than Cambridge as he has had more scope to take the options he wanted. (Granted I suspect he would be saying much the same had he gained a place at Cambridge - but the point is that it is not Oxbridge or bust.)

Yes quite. A good number of my DCs friends and peers have made a clear bid for Imperial physics over both Oxford and Cambridge.

Hi OP

This is the info I wished I had had when I was in this situation. I went to Oxford instead in the end and I WISH I had known then what I know now as the Cambridge course would had been so much better for me.

Here is the "secret" - in the first year, NatScis and CompScis study the same modules except CompScis can substitute Computer Science for one of the sciences.

In the second and third years you specialise into one of the subjects you took in the first year.

SO all your DD needs to do is to apply for computer science. In the first year she can study maths, physics and computer science - no chemistry needed - and she can then specialise in physics in y2 and y3 (unless she turns out to like CompSci better)

A good number of my DCs friends and peers have made a clear bid for Imperial physics over both Oxford and Cambridge.

That's great, but bear in mind that Imperial physics is not at the same level as Oxbridge at undergraduate. (This is not true for masters/PhD.) An Imperial physics degree will open many doors, but an Oxbridge physics degree will be a better preparation for graduate study in physics - and many physicists do go on to graduate study.

SO all your DD needs to do is to apply for computer science.

But to get a place for computer science she would have to show an aptitude and interest for computer science, competing against those who do really want to do computer science. It's a pretty dangerous strategy and one which is not very likely to work unless she is really interested in computer science.

She did computer science for GCSE and didn't really enjoy it. You can also do computer science in first year of Nat Sci.

Well very obviously I defer to you on that haybott since I haven't a clue about physics, but some of these students were phenomenol - towering above their peers in terms of the things they did beyond the curriculum as well as their grades. Presumably they had their reasons for not applying to Oxbridge, but lack of talent wouldn't have been one of them. Perhaps they just fancied the bright lights, some do.

Of course people have lots of reasons for choosing where to apply but they should do so with as many facts as possible. Oxbridge can do more in maths/physics courses at undergraduate level than universities which are just behind them in terms of entry tariff because of the college tutorial system.

Some applicants may well be attracted elsewhere for various reasons - wanting to be in London, not liking collegiate atmospheres, not wanting to go through the extras required for Oxbridge applications (knowing that many candidates with 4 A stars still get rejected), not wanting the stress of short terms etc etc - but they should try to balance these factors against the advantages obtained from the Oxbridge tutorial system.

Would she consider Economics as that's her 4th?

She may drop Economics instead of Latin cos she didn't enjoy it as much as she thought she would. She loves her Physics.