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

@TizerorFizz also made an excellent point when she said that if fewer Y1’s present with FM, various Engin Schools will be forced to improve their Y1 Maths offerings. But I fear this will be a long, slow process at best, particularly in the Russell Group. The post 92 universities are probably more realistic than the RG about the true maths abilities of their typical Engineering students

poetryandwine I am going to disagree again. Without any figures in front of me, I would hazard a guess that at least 50% of students in "top" departments, or at least those with strong international reputations, will be from overseas. Certainly this will be true of Imperial, but my understanding is that international students at Oxbridge tend to concentrate in STEM subjects.

If Universities can recruit sufficient able students with the right maths backgrounds, I assume they would not want to alter the level and intensity of their maths courses. Most students will have arrived on these courses wanting to be challenged from the get-go. If there is a problem with recruiting UK students their places will be taken by students from overseas. The University might try to help by offering pre-sessional summer courses, or perhaps offering similar, but less maths heavy, degrees but in a world where ability to handle maths becomes ever more important, they will not want to water down the maths content of the main degree.

To repeat the advice given to DS at school. It you want to go into an area where good maths skills are essential, do as much as you can at school. It is easier there, than it is to play catch up when at University.

(Universities who find it difficult to recruit students of the standard they would like, in contrast, may well have to make adjustments. Even though further down the road this can have an impact on course reputation.)

My DS is planning on Maths, FM, DT, and Chemistry. I've told him about the whole "should have Physics" thing if he wants to keep Engineering options open, and he's thought it over, but he much prefers DT to Physics. He's also not sure whether he wants to go into Chem Eng, or into "pure" Chemistry, or something else (Product Design?), or indeed whether he wants to try for a degree apprenticeship somewhere. It's his choice...

Do any of those other choices appeal at all, OP?

The post 92 universities are probably more realistic than the RG about the true maths abilities of their typical Engineering students

Maybe they're all quite realistic about the abilities of their students - but they won't all be pitching their courses at the same level. Which is entirely as it should be. There's a need for stem grads who can operate at various levels
. Develop new mathematical methods
. Really understand methods (eg well enough to write code)
. Understand well enough to apply existing methods
. And some may not need much maths at all

@ErrolTheDragon Many of the difficulties of our students throughout the STEM curriculum come down to Maths. Not facts per se as much as difficulties with a mathematical sensibility

@Needmoresleep COWI are a league of their own, and Overseas students comprise a large portion of most of their STEM courses. I think this is particularly true of Imperial.

I am not suggesting anyone water down their Maths preparation. I think it needs to be increased, particularly for those who do not have grade A in FM. But access to FM (even the Support Network, in spite of its theoretical access to all) is not 100% and as long as that remains true IMO we have to allow ways for those without it to study at the RG. Not necessarily at COWI, unless they are brilliant mathematicians who can cope. If different unis serve different cohorts it becomes possible to offer different types of intensive training.

I agree with your plan of offering/requiring incoming Y1 students with academic deficiencies to a summer pre-requisite programme. In my discipline I was told that this is discriminatory. However we did it at my esteemed American university and were never challenged. It would be an easy way to solve the problem without the complication of different cohorts, etc

I agree with your plan of offering/requiring incoming Y1 students with academic deficiencies to a summer pre-requisite programme. In my discipline I was told that this is discriminatory.

What? It's surely the opposite, it's 'levelling up' isn't it?

My daughter is in third year of an MEng in chemical engineering. I've just asked her about physics A levels and she would definitely recommend it. It is apparently really useful for areas such as heat transfer and thermodynamics.

You’ll get no argument from me, @ErrolTheDragon .

My DS is in 4th year Imperial studying Chemical Engineering.

He too struggled with whether or not to take Further Maths at A level. He did take it, and was pleased that he did as it made Year 1 much easier for him.

He has stock with Chem Eng, but actually thinks he would have enjoyed the Imperial Design Engineering degree more.

I think when your DD attends the open days she'll find out more about each course (and she can attend these in Y11 in June/July) and will be able to decide her A levels accordingly.

poetryandwine interesting. Perhaps with on line teaching this could be reviewed.

DS had to do a pre-sessional maths course before his Masters degree in Econometrics. The cohort came from all over so it would have been important that they all had a common base. He was lucky as he was following on from a first degree at the same place so it was revision for him, but others found it tough. Though not as tough as doing catch up after the course had started. DD was joining the third year of an engineering degree (after three years of studying medicine). Those intercalating had three week pre-sessional courses in both maths and electronics. The first probably covered the bits of A level FM and perhaps first year that they needed, and was followed by a competency exam they had to pass, though the grading did not count towards the degree classification. They were allowed to sit this exam several times. I guess it would have been easier for those with FM, but not many medics take FM. DD already had A level electronics but the course was on line so she had two screens. University lecture on one, YouTube/TikTok on the other.

In short, online lectures to be watched within a certain time period during September, with the level reached checked by a competency exam, and with tutor group support. Some won’t need to put in much effort, others without the same maths background, will. After which they all have the same core knowledge, and if there are problems with aptitude or study skills (because understanding is progressive, maths at University seems to require student to have organisation and discipline) these are flagged up early. This enables a broader recruitment and help ensure that those who have been educationally disadvantaged in the past are not disadvantaged further.

Just an idea.

The realistic position is that there are not enough students with FM or Physics to go round. Not every engineering student can have FM. It’s impossible. That does not mean interested students shouldn’t access university for engineering degrees. They absolutely should be able to.

“Cutting our noses off to spite our face” comes to mind if we are so elite in our attitudes as to who is suitable. We need engineers. We cannot afford to tell young people they need FM to access the courses. They don’t. They do for the elite courses. There are so many others who will be happy to receive an application. Just look around and see what extra support is available where the majority of the cohort don’t have FM. These courses are available for all sectors of engineering and employers absolutely see them as valuable, especially if they include a year in industry. Just bin Cambridge/Imperial but don’t bin engineering.

No one is say that!

Not every engineering student can have FM. It’s impossible.. This also extends to international students who have a baccalaureate type qualification. It is also very tough for them to catch-up in that first year of the most mathematical courses

I am a chemical engineer, who studied around 15 years ago. I did not take further maths but music instead, and played catch up during year one. It probably made that first year a little more intense than for others, but it also gave broadening opportunities from the other subjects enabled. This was in a different country. I have mainly worked in the UK and hold a senior role in an engineering organisation and so my 'add' to the varied and thoughtful posts that have come before is if your daughter intends to follow with a pure engineering career path, perhaps greater proficiency in the pure mathematics at university is helpful. I took a more rounded approach, became a consultant and now manage teams of engineers and sizeable budgets. Further finance/economic/management qualifications became more important after 5-10 years. Of course, an interest in maths helps for that too.

Just to correct the post from @TizerorFizz .

There is no Chemical Engineering degree which requires Further Maths - and this includes Cambridge and Imperial (Some schools don't offer FM A level). My DS' flat mate on the Chem Eng Imperial course did not have FM at A level and has flourished. All maths needed for Chem Eng is covered in a compulsory module in the 1st Year. I suspect this is the case countrywide - my DS was advised to take FM from a Birmingham Uni student who wished she'd taken it.

As many have advised, it is however preferable to have taken FM as it makes for an easier first year.

Please don't bin Cambridge if it's her dream.

@Needmoresleep Online courses do open up fantastic possibilities for extra support in theory. But the maturity gap between MSc students (in an elite programme, IIRC from another thread) and incoming Y1 students is vast. Statistics show that with post pandemic lecture attendance plummeting as lectures are posted online (at student request), these videos are not accessed by the majority of students in a remotely timely manner. I suspect it is different in the highly elite programmes, but my place is in the tier just below that and it is very depressing. So I doubt that the mere existence of online support materials would have much impact.

My American uni provided the competency exams you speak of in several UG core courses and it worked very well. It is nondiscriminatory by definition but again no takers here.

IMO the RG still promotes a pedagogical model that worked better when 10-15% of the population were in HE, and from what I hear there were plenty of problems even then. It is no surprise to me that many of the unis doing the most with Teaching and Learning are Post 92 and doing a better job of meeting students where they are.

There is another recent thread where a very strong pupil wants to have a second go at a COWI School. They have some good reasons, but also like the idea that little coursework and little group work are allegedly required. The DM has not corrected the implication several of us took that the DC is interested in acing exams rather than learning as much as possible. In my experience this is typical of the UK and one of the things I miss most about teaching in America. Your own DC sound delightful.

The best source of reliable info is of course for the DD to contact some admissions tutors to ask their opinion on A level options. Mine did this at the end of year 11 (after we'd pointed out how easy it was to find contact details on the website - they are there to help!). At that stage she was only considering electrical &electronics degrees not Cambridge. She picked a bit of a spread inc Loughborough and Southampton iirc. She got some very nice helpful responses, which were pretty unanimous - she obviously needed maths and physics, none required FM but they said it would definitely be a good idea.

I agree with Errol.

poetryandwine in part does this come from schooling and the fixation with grades. Outputs rather than outcomes.

I assume the outcome parents, educators, employers and society want are resilient, rounded, inquisitive, self-motivating, educated young people with critical thinking skills and good judgement. US Universities, or at least the very competitive ones, tend to recruit on the wider basis of what a young person will bring to the community as much as what there individual potential is. Outputs are things like A level grades and degree classifications.

I am often surprised when posters whose DC sound like credible Oxbridge applicants are advised, often by posters claiming to be teachers "only take three A levels and get better grades". Strong STEM kids ought to be able to at least start FM, if their school allows them to. Ditto when posters says their child gave up the chance of being a prefect or similar because grades are more important. OK if it is a real choice between one and the other, but if both can be achieved, why not.

In her first year DD and a friend were left to complete a group project designed for 9 people and due to be delivered just before the summer exams. Though it was massively unfair, the others had decided to focus on exam revision to maximise their individual marks so there was little they could do. The project needed to be done. Its fine. DD's colleague will probably be a life long friend. DD has the learning from that project and she has learnt about time management, focussing on what is required of her rather than worrying about others, and so on. Her tips for group work are ensuring individual contributions are defined at an early stage, then get your bit done is good time so you are available to help with last minute panics. The points system used to allocate places for medical students is now little better than a random number generator, but her tutor has reassured her that once she starts work, wherever that is, she will be fine. That, I suspect, will be true more widely. The student who has real world achievements on their CV (running a society or something) may look more attractive to employers than someone very focussed on maximising individual grades, and adapt better to the work environment.

All a bit off topic. I assume lockdown has made things worse.

Imperial was using an interesting range of approaches to test students. Someone I know who teaches there says her department have moved away from traditional end of year exams altogether. Another friend is a computer games designer, originally from eastern Europe, and he was impressed. In his industry and similar ones, collaboration is key and is international. His own University's approach had been rigid, and old fashioned. Education needed to keep up with the demands of the modern workplace.

@Needmoresleep I am one who often advises three ALs (and I am a fan of the EPQ) but not to posters describing pupils who sound exceptional. Rather, many are describing DC from schools seeming over-invested in the four AL model (without the results to show for it), and the DC do not necessarily sound like credible candidates for the top tier of unis in their fields. Also, every uni in the land will generally make an offer on three ALs (with FM as a complication). It is admittedly tricky reading between the lines; but the worst possibility is to be silent while very good, but not exceptional, pupils unnecessarily handicap themselves.

I like your distinction between outputs and outcomes, with outcomes correlating to a growth mindset. I think the AL system brings more objectivity to UK university admissions than the American system has, but it is at the expense of a focus on outputs. Uni students continue that focus, whereas Americans (at least in my lucky experiences) are more outcomes focussed. Thank you for helping me to clarify this.

Of course this is an overbroad generalisation!