Applying to Cambridge with two A-levels at A* and an A. Is there any point?

[catconvention]

Hi, I know there is a wealth of uni application experience on here, so I’m asking this in my son’s GF’s behalf as she needs to make a decision soon....

She has her A-level results now - A History, A Economics and A French. She also has an A* for EPQ (history-related which is what she would be applying for).

If she applies to Cambridge for History, does she, in reality, need all three A-levels at A ? I know they say you can apply with anything over AAA as predicted grades, but as these are achieved (ie that’s it), is an application a waste of time.

Someone told her that over half of all successful applicants have three A*. If so, her chances would be in the lower half and therefore a significant disadvantage from the off?

We had a Google ... in terms of UCAS points, an A-level A is worth 56 UCAS points. An A is worth 48 points. But an A EPQ is worth 28 UCAS points (so half an A-level at A*).

Would her EPQ mitigate the ‘dropped grade’ for the French A-level?

Also, she was told by a teacher that it’s harder to get A in MFL and less are given out every year than in say, Maths or sciences. Marking of humanities subjects and MFL will always be relatively subjective and therefore a greater margin for error. This is why STEM subjects at Cambridge ask for 2xA, but most humanities ask for A*AA. Is this the case?

Thankyou. I should also say, she has done a lot of supra-curricular stuff inc. a prize in an international essay competition and various other things besides this, so her PS writes itself. I’m helping her as her mum’s English isn’t great. Thanks!

My son has friends at Cambridge - and my old Uni Prof from Liverpool has his 2 daughters there.

And i'm not sating its right across the board at Oxbridge - just saying that's what they have found.

To get A*'s you have to be quite a competitive go-getter with a high level of conscientiousness, self determination etc. they are by definition quite competitive people. And there is nothing wrong with that at all. It will just mean that when they all get together, its quite a competitive atmosphere.

To be honest, she’s on a bursary at a very competitive independent. There are pros and cons to this, but the main positive is that they learn very quickly not to be phased by competition . My younger daughter is in the lower years at the same school.

This is another reason I was asking about the two A* actually as, in this type of school, these grades are not massively ‘stand out.’ So this will also work against her when they contextualise the grades She has top GCSEs, but they nearly all do.

She knows when you apply that thousands are turned down every year with all A*s and you are up against applicants from China and all across the world who have better grades than you and it’s not even their first language . I think she is very realistic to be honest - which is making her hesitate. Many of her friends last year didn’t get in, despite similar grades. She has a place at a very good uni, but isn’t sure because of the distance (she feels she wants to be nearer to London due to family circumstances). Also, she has time on her side this year as she’s finished school so no usual pressure of the start of the school year in Sept.

@Felix125

My son has friends at Cambridge - and my old Uni Prof from Liverpool has his 2 daughters there.

And i'm not sating its right across the board at Oxbridge - just saying that's what they have found.

To get A*'s you have to be quite a competitive go-getter with a high level of conscientiousness, self determination etc. they are by definition quite competitive people. And there is nothing wrong with that at all. It will just mean that when they all get together, its quite a competitive atmosphere.

Sorry, but there are thousands of undergraduates at Cambridge. A few individuals really shouldn't be taken as representative.

I also disagree that you need to be competitive to get As. Conscientious and determined, yes, but not necessarily competitive. I always excelled in exams but I wasn't ever remotely interested in what others were doing. For me, it was more about being the best that I could be, and I didn't feel the slightest interest in being better than anyone else. My dd also excels in exams - just got straight 9s in her GCSEs and will be aiming for As at A-level -and she is the same. Doesn't compare herself to other people, just tries to do as well as she possibly can. If she can help her friends along the way, and she often does, then she is delighted to do so. It doesn't take away from her success at all.

That's certainly not been my D1's experience of Oxford. She's on several WhatsApp groups for her subjects in her college and across the university, mostly joined before they even got their A level results. Some classes require them to work together on a topic. She's not some weird super competitive type either, despite all the 9s at GCSE and A*s at A level, just a normal student from state school in the NE.

AlexaShutUp

When you say that you wanted to be the best you could be, and that your DD is aiming for A and wants to do as well as she possibly can. It means your competitive - your competitive with yourself and want to achieve better each time. If say your DD gets a B+ in one exam, she will be trying her best to get that to an A and then an A next time.

There's nothing wrong with this at all and being competitive is very valuable in this day and age.

It can just sometimes get a bit OTT is all I'm saying and just to be aware of it.

Definitely worth applying.

It must be sickening for pupils in schools which did not inflate their grades, to see the A grade downgraded so dramatically this year.

Totally agree @AlexaShutUp!

Yes this school have not inflated their grades. It’s very difficult for very selective schools to inflate their grades actually, as the ability range is extremely narrow, meaning they get pretty much the same results year on year. I think at this school (if I remember rightly) they get around 40% of all grades are A every year. Maybe one year it might be 38%, or perhaps 42% in a good year, but no more variation than that. So the TAGs had to follow suit. If they suddenly published “Record year - 50% As!!” they would not only be inviting an investigation, but all the other equally selective schools in the area would be suspicious, to say the least. Schools at the top of the league tables keep a very close eye on their “competitor” schools in those league tables and none of them want to be in a “top independents in grading scandal” scenario! This is how it seems to me anyway. My son was in a similar school. Last year, their grades were up, but only by a couple of percent. Nothing wild. They can’t afford the potential bad publicity.

@Felix125

AlexaShutUp

When you say that you wanted to be the best you could be, and that your DD is aiming for A and wants to do as well as she possibly can. It means your competitive - your competitive with yourself and want to achieve better each time. If say your DD gets a B+ in one exam, she will be trying her best to get that to an A and then an A next time.

There's nothing wrong with this at all and being competitive is very valuable in this day and age.

It can just sometimes get a bit OTT is all I'm saying and just to be aware of it.

Trying to do your best really isn't about being competitive. Ambitious, maybe, but not competitive. Competitive by its very definition implies comparison to others. A lot of kids who end up at Oxbridge will be so used to outperforming their peers that it wouldn't even occur to them that that was something to strive for.

If you're using the term competitive to talk about "competing with yourself", then that has no relevance to how supportive students might or might not be towards their peers, which was your original point.

It sounds like you have absorbed a few stereotypical views about Oxbridge students that just aren't reflected in the reality. Yes, life at Oxford or Cambridge is intense. Yes, there are some students who put themselves under a huge amount of pressure, as there are at any other university. Yes, there are a lot of high achievers and that might be difficult for some who have only ever defined themselves by their achievements. However, there are an awful lot of very normal, happy students who work hard, play hard and support each other to achieve their respective goals. They really aren't that different from students anywhere else, and it isn't helpful for people who have no direct experience of the system to perpetuate myths that might put capable students off from applying.

I would say it's definitely worth applying. If she doesn't apply she definitely won't get in.

Nothing ventured, nothing gained. My DD has just finished an MEng (one of the courses which makes some offers higher than standard - afaik it's only STEM subjects which do that). Her offer was 2 A stars inc FM and an A, which is what she got. She did also have an A at AS and got an A* on her EPQ.

There's no harm in trying, so long as they (and their parents!) don't get overinvested in it, given the stats. They've got 4 other slots and loads of other good unis to choose from so why not.

If she has her grades then surely she applied this year? Did she not get any offers or did she not want to accept them?

She has excellent grades and of course should try otherwise she will never know. Her grades are good enough that she will almost certainly get an offer at another uni if she doesn't get in. However I hope she is clear that her chances are very slim, especially given that she has been at an independent school.

There are countless stories of students with 4 A*s, a string of additional skills, prizes etc who don't get in. Just look at the threads for the 2021 entry, clearly outstanding students who didn't even get an interview.

She should also look at which unis specialise/are outstanding for her chosen subject, they aren't always Russell Group.

If she has her grades then surely she applied this year? Did she not get any offers or did she not want to accept them?

My kids applied post-results. It's a much calmer process that way.

My advice would be that there's absolutely no downside in applying. I'd suggest aiming for one of the less popular, less pressured collages (eg Newnham, as opposed to Trinity). Best of luck to her!

College choice shouldn’t matter due to the pooling system - If the college she applies to doesn’t have space but they think she belongs at Cambridge she’d be put into a ‘pool’ from which another college can pick her. This happened to me and a load of other people I know.

There's absolutely no reason not to apply. My daughter didn't get in, but had she not applied she'd have always wondered. She didn't have her heart set on it, but her school thought she had a decent chance. The interview, the staying overnight in college, and meeting other applicants was an interesting experience, and she had no regrets.

Assuming that she can do well in the entrance exam and has good work to send in then the decision is more likely to rest on whether the dons want to teach her and think that she will cope well with the tutorial system. SHe needs to think about what she says in her personal statement and the submitted work and how she could defend her arguments against robust opposition.

I disagree that Oxbridge is only interested in the 'go-getting competitive super confident' type. Genuine wider interest and the ability to explore that in your personal statement is important. If applying for History, what historical periods/figures/writers are you especially interested in and why? For example, if you studied French Rev at A level, how did you extend your knowledge of it beyond the curriculum and what else did you learn (for example the art/writers/philosophers of the period etc) that interested you?
My dd applied successfully to do MML at Cambridge last year. She didn't really refer to any extra curriculars on her PS, it was all about how she had extended and developed her interests in the language/literature/culture of the countries whose languages she wanted to study.

I'm at Oxford, so can't speak directly to Cambridge. However I would say

1. It is absolutely worth applying if you "only" have the minimum required grades for the subject. A-level grades are just one factor (and actually at Oxford, at least in my subject and I think in most subjects, not a very important one, subject to achieving the minimum required.
2. My students definitely work together on tutorial/class work. I encourage them to. But it is harder work than most other Universities.

There are countless stories of students with 4 As, a string of additional skills, prizes etc who don't get in. Just look at the threads for the 2021 entry, clearly outstanding students who didn't even get an interview.*

But there are also countless cases of students who "only" have As and no obvious prestigious prizes etc who do get into Oxford or Cambridge. Entrance exams, aptitude tests, interviews (and school/socio-economic context) play a bigger role.

My dd has a place to study history at Cambridge starting this year. Standard offer is A* A A so your DD exceeds it.
I don't think she's likely to be at a significant disadvantage - Cambridge seem to care more about the "test" done at interview (pre-interview this year but I'm not sure that that's normal) and the interview.
Also I think Cambridge must have a handle on which schools are likely to have inflated or not this year. I say that only because one person we know from dd's school missed their grades for a much more competitive subject at Cambridge (requiring 2 X A* and A) but was still accepted from the summer pool. I would have thought that the school's reputation for being scrupulously fair about results (and maybe the fact that they assessed them entirely on exams) played into that, though I could be wrong.
If she really likes the idea (and wouldn't be devastated by a rejection because around 80% are rejected even though they have great stats) then it's worth a try.

Also, she was told by a teacher that it’s harder to get A in MFL and less are given out every year than in say, Maths or sciences. Marking of humanities subjects and MFL will always be relatively subjective and therefore a greater margin for error. This is why STEM subjects at Cambridge ask for 2xA, but most humanities ask for AAA. Is this the case?*

I think it is generally agreed that MFL are some of the hardest subjects to get A in. The top grades have been dominated by those who are bilingual. FWIW my daughter is studying a MFL at Oxbridge and got an A for her language at A-level (A in other subjects). Though to be fair to her she did say she "never really worked" for the language A-level as she found it easy and was planning to put in the last minute effort for the exam that never happened last year.

Might she be interested in History and/with French? I'm not sure whether Cambridge allows this option, Oxford certainly does. It can be a less competitive option, given history alone is very competitive, and also allow for a broader range of study at University.