Which is best for Engineering Degree 3 A levels or 4?

[S0upVat]

Ds def doing Maths,Further Maths and Physics. He’s toying with chemistry too. He’s bright and should get 8/9s in these subjects but a tad fly by the seat of his pants, leave it all until the last minute ie not a swot. Would it be better to focus on 3 to get more chance of As? Ie are 3 strong better than 4 weaker? He’s supposed to do a project if not doing a 4th. Any ideas of something that would help with Engineering applications?

Where does it say they are the minimum entry requirements?

The websites usually say 'typical' offers - because they don't have to stick to rigid rules. But in reality, for the oversubscribed courses they can be assumed to be a minimum. As I mentioned earlier, elsewhere may offer some wiggle room eg by giving a 'free' BEng offer alongside an MEng offer - and some will take offer holders with dropped grades when push comes to shove. Oxbridge and I would guess Imperial are unlikely to do that.
Put it this way - if someone is predicted 3A they'd be foolish to fill their ucas form with loads of places asking for a star or two.

they can be assumed to be a minimum

Why don't universities say that they are a minimum then?

Because not all engineering courses are as competitive as Cambridge. For financial reasons they will want to fill their courses, but some will give out offers below those 'advertised' particularly in a low birth rate year.

There is a theory that some maintain high advertised grades in order to encourage strong students, even if they know that they are going to have to accept students with less.

The point is the OPs son is aiming for top, competitive, courses. The advice boils down to ensuring his application is as strong as possible. If he can get top grades in four, that is what he should probably do. If not he should probably take three. With the proviso that FM often needs a level of aptitude that hard work may not solve. And if he finds the step up in maths difficult, spending two thirds of his school time on maths is the stuff of nightmares.

Cambridge engineering say Maths, Physics and pref FM at A A A

The website is clear enough. Do FM if you possibly can, 3 top grades almost always better than more lower grades. And also - and afaik this only applies to Cambridge - if you apply on the basis of 4 A levels then the offer may also require specific grades in all 4, most often 2A stars and 2As, with the stars still being required on the physics and FM.

The OPs DS probably isn't interested in Cambridge anyway but others reading the thread may be.

https://www.admissions.eng.cam.ac.uk/guide/requirements

Just look at the "entry standards" on the Complete University Guide and divide the totals by the points awarded for an A. It is pretty obvious that many successful applicants will be offering more than 3xA, though obviously you can't tell whether it is EPQ, extra A levels, dance music or whatever.
Its pretty obvious that it is NOT multiple A* A levels
because many Universities now have to publish the actual average grades used for admissions
and Tarquin's music exams are not part of the decision

I was referring to Cambridge engineering. Total points will be some way beyond the average generated by 3A*s and Tarquins music exams, because many students, especially those from overseas will have four Alevels or more.

OP was asking about top courses. I dont understand why posters ignore the fact that only one in seven will get a place at Cambridge. An applicant needs to demonstrate they have more potential than others. This may be getting A A A from a school where the teaching is patchy, or 4 x A* from.a school where the teaching is very good indeed. The point is OPs son needs to ensure he has as strong an application as he can have if he is aiming for Cambridge/Imperial. To suggest otherwise is doing him no favours.

Yes there's a thought among some schools and parents that actually Cambridge wants 4 or 5 A levels but for some reason can't admit that openly. I don't think that's necessarily true at all.

Yes there's a thought among some schools and parents that actually Cambridge wants 4 or 5 A levels but for some reason can't admit that openly. I don't think that's necessarily true at all.

They're trying hard to increase access and squash some of the myths. They look at each applicant individually, with the main gate to getting an interview being their aptitude test and predicted grades.

I don't know if in reality they might be surprised if an applicant who'd been to a top public school or superselective GS wasn't doing more than 3 A levels and/or other stuff. I don't know if there are published statistics but I'd be mildly curious to see the offers/achieved points broken down by educational sector and other demographics.

DD with her 3 A levels plus an AS and EPQ was non superselective GS.

Sorry OP, these threads often turn into a bit of a derail on the minutiae of Cambridge even if the DC in question isn't interested in it!

@S0upVat

Please try not to worry too much my partner did maths (B grade) and design and Technology (A grade) and failed physics. He then did a Beng in civil engineering and is now a highly successful charted civil engineer.

Errol, I don't think there is disagreement.

1. Cambridge are trying to widen access
2. Cambridge contextualise.

DC were at a very selective, quite well known, private school which sent significant numbers to Oxbridge each year. Several friends received 4 x A* offers for both engineering and NatSci. Imperial did similar. I guess the thinking was that as well as recognising educational disadvantage, you also recognise educational advantage. A friend of DS' was strongly advised not to drop an A level, which was in a new subject and which he really was not enjoying, as it would weaken his Cambridge application. He dropped the subject, did not get into Cambridge but went to Imperial.......but then wound up being awarded a really sought after study abroad scholarship, so it really did not matter.

My belief is that education rarely goes amiss. Therefore if you have the capacity to do more, whether an extra subject at A level, music, sport, a language or whatever, why not. As long as it does not affect the strength of your application. A busy sixth form timetable is good preparation for University, and you keep more doors open. DS found history difficult as he was more of a mathematician, but it came into play when he sat the graduate student aptitude test and (bizarrely) aced the language sections.

My belief is that education rarely goes amiss. Therefore if you have the capacity to do more, whether an extra subject at A level, music, sport, a language or whatever, why not.

Absolutely! I'm pretty sure the high points tariffs you see at the 'top' unis aren't primarily caused by kids soullessly box ticking 'for their application' (or even overinvested parents pushing them to do them) - they're accrued because these kids want to do these things.

He’s not really interested in Cambridge. Yes interested in Imperal et al but also anywhere with a good reputation which will get him employed.

Headstart too expensive. Hope you don’t need things like that on application forms as it’s a bit unfair. It’s not he’s not interested and I’d love to buy him some expensive engineering courses but can’t.

So choices are:-

Maths, FM and Physics
Maths, Physics and Chemistry(+ FM AS and EP)
Maths, FM, Physics and Chemistry(+ EP)for a month then drop one( don’t think a month will tell us much though)
IB

😩

Going to go through the uni courses with him for inspiration tonight.How do you know which have high employment rates after?

Maths, FM, Physics and Chemistry(+ EP)for a month then drop one( don’t think a month will tell us much though)

That option would be my recommendation. I was going to ask you if the school would allow it.

Re Headstart, no, it's not necessary to applications, more something that can help them decide on which field to choose if they're not sure.

Re employment stats, there's quite a lot of data available - we mostly used the Times lists (in an actual book!) . But for engineers, the rates are pretty good in general.

I'll imagine it will get sneered at on here, but Swansea is very good for engineering and the campus is fab.

What is Sheffield like as regards employment? They have someinteresting courses.

Have a browse here
www.southampton.ac.uk/engineering/index.page
and here
www.cardiff.ac.uk/engineering
and here
www.se.manchester.ac.uk/

"employment" rates are all over 90% - so if you want to work, there are jobs

and remember that good degrees open doors far wider than the actual subject studied

Tree set, Swansea sounds good, what is your experience with it?

Trewser, not tree set

Sheffield made it into DDs 5 choices, it's a good 'un.

Does he have any idea which branch he's most interested in yet, btw?

Posters need to stop talking about Oxbridge. It’s not necessary to go there. If he wants Imperial - 4 A levels to be competitive. The other universities I mentioned pages ago are fine and certainly there are jobs. Employers are crying out for decent grads.

Actually degree and where it’s from are not the be all and end all. It’s being able to be a thinking engineer, a problem solver and someone who is business savvy can really help with promotion down the line. MEng now fast tracks being Chartered. He should aim for MEng but employers really are not choosy. As I said, so many grads don’t stay in engineering, Oxbridge ones can be s rarity!

Imperial is a slog and will be very demanding and difficult to get in. There are other universities which are great. If he needs extra maths, they nearly all do extra courses. I’m in the camp of 3 A levels providing you give up on Imperial and Oxbridge. If he wants Imperial, 4. Geography or Technology are great for the 4th.

Try and get work experience and familiarise him in what each branch of engineering does. Then course choice becomes easier and clearer. Look at the institutions for great info.

Bubbles. You say that people should stop talking about Oxbridge. Given your expertise in engineering do you really see much of a gap between, say Oxford and Imperial.

I ask because my impression was that very competitive courses like Oxford, Cambridge, Imperial and to a slightly lesser extent UCL are much of a level. Imperial allows you to specialise earlier, and is often favoured by European and International students who prefer to live in the capital. As far as I can see Imperial is no easier to get into, indeed for international students it is sometimes seen as harder. (Imperial has no shortage of applicants from overseas but fewer than it would like from places like the north of England. They give very good bursaries.)

Why do you draw a distinction which suggests there is a gap. Friends of DC who went to Imperial seems to have done very well indeed, and employers, especially international employers, seem to rate their degrees highly. Is it that UK engineering firms rate the social status gained from an Oxbridge degree? Or just some sort of in built belief that Oxbridge is always better.

Other Universities that have attracted friends of DC are Sheffield (genuinely popular amongst those who miss Cambridge) Loughborough, Southampton, Surrey (for automative) and Manchester. Warwick also used to have a good reputation though less is heard now - it is very good for maths.

Other Universities that have attracted friends of DC are Sheffield (genuinely popular amongst those who miss Cambridge)

Sheffield's engineering department is pretty large. It owns the Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre, and is highly respected for engineering.