Chemical Engineering and Biotechnology Cambridge

[Travelbug72]

Hi,

Looking for advice, DD will start A levels in September. She has chosen Chemistry, Design Engineering/Technology and Maths.

She thinks she would like to study Chemical Engineering and Biotechnology and has looked at Cambridge. It says they require high level maths and chemistry A levels. Does this mean Further Maths? Does she have any chances with the subjects she choose. Can she change? Will she also needs physics?

Thank you

Not sure if this helps as it's a different course, but my son started at Cambridge in Sept (engineering) and they weren't interested in his DT grade. He did maths, physics and further maths too, and they wanted A star in FM. It may be worth asking the faculty as they were very helpful to DS. (They said that if his school offered FM they would expect him to take it, and he's really glad he did as he doesn't think he would have kept up without it!). Most of his friends who have gone to Cambridge to do STEM subjects (I think about 10 of them) all took FM.

Further maths isn't a defined specific requirement BUT if you look on the specific page further down, -

www.undergraduate.study.cam.ac.uk/courses/chemical-engineering

"All of these successful applicants took Mathematics and Chemistry, 86% took Further Mathematics, 91% took Physics and 8% took Biology"

Not having FM and physics is I think going to put her at a disadvantage, not least if she does get in - not having those when all around you do.

Thank you. This is very helpful; hopefully she can change or add an extra subject. I think it is very hard deciding on a career in year 12; if you choose the wrong A level subjects you reduce your chances to get into a good degree

Former Russell Group STEM admissions tutor here. The advice from @PatriciaHolm is excellent. TBH I don’t know that C is going to regard DT as a ‘proper’ AL, unless your DD is eligible for a contextual offer. She may feel that in which case they are snobs and she isn’t interested. Aside from the academic point made by @PatriciaHolm , which has a good deal of validity, there might be something to this idea.

I agree with you that English pupils needlessly specialise too early. I prefer the Scottish system.

The 'Higher Level' reference on the Cambridge website is for those students doing IB (International Baccalaureate) rather than A levels.

I would agree that DT is not always regarded as seriously as pure science subjects.

Surely her Secondary School would be advising her if she is Cambridge material but if not then yes sadly ditch DT.

Further Maths is usually taken as your 4th A Level option and you usually need a grade higher than usual in Maths to take it esp when coupled with Chemistry and or physics

Thanks, she is year 11 and choosing her A levels so not sure her school will advice reg university applications at this stage

I’d also add that she will need to love maths for Chem Eng - it is a very maths heavy subject. Based on my DC’s experience (not Cambridge - applied but didn’t get an interview) I think she’d find it very hard without FM.

Has she thought about product design engineering or biotechnology degrees?

Thank you; will get her to look at product design and Biotechnology; not sure what the jobs prospects are on those careers; also It may be better to leave her current choices to leave her options open.

She applied for Sixth Forms schools end of last year and chosen the subjects she would like to do; does anyone know if she can change them when she gets the offers? Or does she need to contact the schools now?

DS is studying chem eng at RG uni - chemistry & maths have been main focus in 1st yr. He did physics at school but not relevant now.

@Travelbug72
Why Cambridge? There are so many other great options who won’t demand FM or turn their noses up at Design/Technology. Sheffield for one. Nottingham snd Lancaster too. So I would look at other universities. They might well want AAA but she’s better off doing the subjects she’s really good at,or interested in, than stretching for FM and getting a C. Where fewer dc have FM, there might well be extra maths modules to compensate. Don’t give up on Chem Eng but be realistic.

It feels as if maths is invading everything. An ability to handle data, and to code (though the latter will be taught at University) seems to open doors to a number of courses and careers.

It is a different world. DS had far far more maths in his economics degree than his father. Indeed worked out that he could have graduated only taking two economics courses out of twelve. Then when DD took an engineering degree it was surprising how often she would ask DS’ advice both of stats and on coding. A lot of their STEM orientated contemporaries, regardless of degree, now seem to have careers in “data science”. I am not really sure what it means, but apparently you can get there via STEM or social science.

This display of boomer ignorance is trying to say that she should take as much maths as is wise. Ideally she starts further maths as a fourth A level and then either keeps it on, drops it after AS or drops it earlier if she is struggling. Maths is an easy A level if you find maths easy. It is really hard if you find maths difficult. FM is even more so, though a natural mathematician should find it more interesting. Her maths teacher should be able to advise on how good she is at concepts and understanding, so how suitable she would be for A level. (Class placement before GCSE is not necessarily a good indicator in that in some schools a lot of tutoring is going on.)

Maths and FM keeps doors open to courses with high maths content whether within STEM or social science. So do it if you can. As for DT, both mine took Electronics, which they both enjoyed as a more practical subject and so a useful contrast to more academic subjects. I don’t know about DT but electronics had a coding element, useful knowledge in both DCs degrees.

She does need Further Maths, do not be put off it is really just More Maths.
If you can get A in Maths you can get A in Further Maths. I found it a very enjoyable.

If she doesn't do FM A Level maths she will effectively just do the content of it in a maths for engineering module in a couple of months in the first year - if she's at a university where most kids have done FM that will be tough ...

Someone said if she starts FM and finds it hard then she can drop it, but that suggests to me that she wouldn't be capable of engineering at a top university

At our place the key Maths for Chem Eng is allegedly covered in Y1 module and I think this is typical, as @ninja says. But these modules are very fast paced, and those who have had FM are at a big advantage. If few of the cohort have had FM the disadvantage to the others lessens.

I agree with@TizerorFizz that DD will likely do her best in the ALs she prefers and I don’t see an inherent reason for FM as prep for Chem Eng (in contrast to, say, Mech Eng). However it takes confidence, dedication and ability to feel secure as part of a minority lacking FM. If you don’t take it, best to be part of a cohort where that is the norm. Each School keeps FM statistics

Someone said if she starts FM and finds it hard then she can drop it, but that suggests to me that she wouldn't be capable of engineering at a top university

Yes, but better to know early. If you start FM you get a chance to test where your maths ceiling might be. If you are sailing through to an A* then you will be a strong applicant for a quantitative course at a top University. If you don't start it, neither you nor the University will be sure that you have the aptitude required.

This is kind of what happened to me. I had maths chemistry and physics a levels, and went to Cambridge for Natural Sciences (physical sciences rather than bio). My school didn’t run a further maths a level, or I’d have liked to do it.

Went along to the first maths lecture of the term (natsci run maths lectures along the science ones and you have to take them) and they said “hey don’t worry if you haven’t done further maths a level, we’ll cover that material over the next few weeks then move on”.

It was horrendous. I just slipped and totally lost my maths footing. I’d been getting easy top marks in maths a level and throughout. I think if I’d done further maths at a sensible a level pace I’d have probably been ok. But I lost the thread and just couldn’t catch up. I did try but it was too fast. I did fine with the other subjects, went on to a 2.1 overall - ended up specialising in a less mathsy science. But for this reason if most people on a course will have already done further maths, I’d be very wary of the “rapid catch up” approach.

It feels as if maths is invading everything

In the case of chemical engineering, it's not 'invading ' it, it's absolutely fundamental. DH worked with chemical engineers a lot, he reckoned some from imperial etc were to a large extent applied mathematicians.

Re the DT A level - I'm not sure it's so much that Cambridge 'looks down on it'(it might be a good 4th subject for general engineering alongside their mandatory maths FM and physics.) It's probably more that for chem eng, because they need to do chemistry, their options are limited and the content of FM and/or physics will be more useful to enable them to hit the ground running on a demanding course.

While FM and physics aren't essential for the Cambridge chem eng, this from their requirements page is instructive :

^ Typical Chemical Engineering and Biotechnology entrants (A Level and IB)
For 2017, 2018 and 2019 entry, the majority of entrants from an A Level background achieved at least grades 3xA* (88% of entrants). All of these successful applicants took Mathematics and Chemistry, 86% took Further Mathematics, 91% took Physics and 8% took Biology.^

That must mean the majority of successful applicants did both fm and physics alongside maths and chemistry.

poetryandwine I slightly disagree. Years ago a sensible Deputy Head, advising me on how to support DDs dyslexia, suggested that bright children who genuinely struggled with either maths or English should consider tutoring or similar support. These subjects are building blocks and problems will bleed into other subjects. (This was despite her being strongly anti-tutoring in general.) I think this remains true at University level - indeed Universities routinely demand proof of English competence from overseas students, or say, a certain grade in English GCSE for medical students. (From memory DD had to get an A to be considered by Birmingham.)

Maths is an integral part of many STEM degrees or degree options. It is the tool that enables you access subject content. It can be quite hard at GCSE level to work out whether a child is a strong mathematician. In retrospect mine coasted. Maths was the homework you could do on the bus. Their more diligent (or tutored) peers got better marks so there was some discussion as to whether DS should take FM. In the event he found the FM content far more interesting and got the A*, but it could have gone the other way. From what I know maths teachers tend to know, regardless of marks achieved, who struggles with concepts and who does not.

The big advantage of starting out with FM and seeing how you do, is that only so many kids have the aptitude that will enable them to get A* in FM, so that gives them a scarcity value with University recruiters. DS eventually chose to take FM on the advice of his A level economics teacher who suggested taking as much maths as he could at school, as it was easier to learn in a classroom environment than at University when you are on your own. DS later confirmed that first year University maths went at a cracking pace and he did not envy thought without FM. First year at a "top" University is tough enough. DD found similar. She was taking an intercalated engineering degree in a year, so they had an intensive pre-sessional maths course to bring them up to speed. The degree was quite selective, and many medical schools restrict external intercalation to those performing in, say, the top 10%. Even so some really struggled and had to take the core maths exam two, even three times. If the OPs DD has the opportunity to start FM as a fourth A level, and thinks she might be interested in a more quantitative degree, she probably should. She should also look at it as a tool to help her access what she is really interested in, rather than pick it as a subject "she enjoys".

In the case of chemical engineering, it's not 'invading ' it, it's absolutely fundamental.

This. In addition to proof reading DS’s uni project work, I have also worked with chemical engineers and a lot of what they do is heavy duty maths (and not much chemistry).

Also worth noting that without physics A level OP’s daughter would need to apply via the Nat Sci route and not via Engineering.

Also, Cambridge do steer Chem Eng students to taking FM:

If you don't do Physics and you don't do Further Maths, then this is not an ideal choice of A-level options for those who know that they want to do Chemical Engineering. However, some students only realise that they want to read Chemical Engineering after completing Year 12, and have studied other topics that are directly relevant (such as biology) or not directly relevant (such as a foreign language). These applicants are still seriously considered for a Chemical Engineering place, and every year some offers are made to people in this category. Typically Colleges will make sure that they ask questions at interview to try to judge whether the applicant would have done well in Physics and Mechanics if they had studied these courses. It can be helpful for an appplicant without any Physics or Further Maths in Year 12 to do AS-level Physics or AS-level Further Maths in Year 13, but this will depend on overall workload for the student and school timetabling restrictions.

Do I need A-level Further Maths to read Chemical Engineering?

Either AS or A-level Further Maths is highly desirable for students applying for Chemical Engineering. That said, every year some students are admitted who do not have this qualification. It is recommended that students do study it if they are able to do so without adversely affecting the other subjects they are studying. It is recognised that some schools are unable to offer Further Maths because of limited demand or timetabling complications. In these cases, potential applicants might like to consider studying it using the Advanced Maths Support Programme described at the website amsp.org.uk.

www.ceb.cam.ac.uk/undergraduates/prospective-students/frequently-asked-questions#qn17

@Needmoresleep Your posts are always so thoughtful.

In contrast to PPs, I don’t regard Chem Eng as all that maths intensive, in relative terms and I suspect your DS would not, either. In absolute terms, compared to most nonSTEM professions, of course it is. I completely respect the statements here by practitioners who find it so. But it is nowhere as maths intensive as Mech Eng, some EE programmes, CS (in its own way), Physics or, as you say, many Economics BSc degree programmes. I have just confirmed this with my uncle, who recently retired from an endowed professorship in a highly ranked Chem Eng School.

I agree with you that data analysis is becoming incredibly important throughout STEMM, but that is largely a different thing.

I would say Chem Eng is one of the STEM disciplines for which FM is less important. Not negligible, but honestly I believe that the most important thing is that the Year cohort essentially all have FM (or be brilliant mathematicians) or that most lack it. The School can readily cope either way. I take your point that top Chem Eng Schools may use FM as an admissions filter.

My own disciplinary perspective is highly maths intensive and I am all for FM, but I usually think there is a reason pupils don’t elect it. Maximising AL results and hence university options seems to me to be the priority. Not everyone can get A’s or better in all subjects.

Of course it is always possible a pupil has not been offered good guidance. I already wondered whether that could be happening for the OP’s DD, because in my mind Cambridge and DT are not an obvious fit. I think the DD would do well to heed the data from @ErrolTheDragon - and think the DD should conside using the Support Network, if necessary, per @WarningToTheCurious ’s post - if she is really serious about C

Her choice of ALs suggested to me that C is more of a dream than an aspiration, and she would do best to concentrate on getting the best results possible. If I have that wrong, then based on my experience in Russell Group admissions may I gently suggest to the OP that she and het DD think further about AL choices?

OP, I have never been so blunt in a post before and I apologise if this hurts. But unless there are contextual circumstances I don’t see Maths, Chem and DT being taken seriously by Cambridge. For avoidance of doubt, it is a fine combination and there are many other wonderful choices for her. @TizerorFizz gave you three of them above.

Thank you all for the advice.

I am not sure C is more of a dream than an aspiration. I think it is very difficult to decide on a caterer when you are 15.

I am a chemical engineer (although I graduated over 20 years ago so things will have changed!) and the maths in my first year was a huge shock! I didn’t do FM and really would have coped so much better if I had - they pretty much covered the whole syllabus in the first half term and it was a massive struggle. If she is highly able then she may cope but if it’s not her favourite/strongest subject (like me) then be prepared for some serious hard work.

However it’s a great degree and lots of options for careers after graduating

Well a number of Chem Engineers are telling us they wish they’d done FM, OP. That is worth a lot, regardless of whether it is a necessity for the syllabus. Thanks, everyone

I agree with you it is too bad English youth are required to specialise so young. I am glad to have been educated in a Baccalaureate system.