what's the easiest A-level to get a decent grade in?

[Ian Diddams]

way back in the early 80s when I took my A-levels it was perceived by
many that some subjects were easier to pass or gain a good grade in
(although I suspect that there was sone snobbery involved in all of
this - I found economics quite difficult but it was generally
poo-pooed by many of my contemporaries at the time). Comoputer
Science such as it was back then was generally for example seen as a
doddle copmpared to maths or a language.

So - if I needed to get an A-level today, but the subject was
immaterial,
what would be perceived as "easy" or a "no brainer"? Are
there subjects at A-level that are perceived as far easier to
pass/attain
OK grades in over all others?

FWIW and FYI there is no intention of ever using any such A-level
gained
in any fraudulent way at all. A situation may be arising at the age
of 42, 24 years after I sat my A-levels, whereby I may need 80 UCAS
points more than I currently have and I want as easy a path to that
goal as possible by acheiving that C grade in something that I am not
going to struggle in overly!

cheers

ian

[ath]

Post by Ian Diddams
way back in the early 80s when I took my A-levels it was perceived by
many that some subjects were easier to pass or gain a good grade in
(although I suspect that there was sone snobbery involved in all of
this - I found economics quite difficult but it was generally
poo-pooed by many of my contemporaries at the time). Comoputer
Science such as it was back then was generally for example seen as a
doddle copmpared to maths or a language.
So - if I needed to get an A-level today, but the subject was
immaterial,
what would be perceived as "easy" or a "no brainer"? Are
there subjects at A-level that are perceived as far easier to
pass/attain
OK grades in over all others?
FWIW and FYI there is no intention of ever using any such A-level
gained
in any fraudulent way at all. A situation may be arising at the age
of 42, 24 years after I sat my A-levels, whereby I may need 80 UCAS
points more than I currently have and I want as easy a path to that
goal as possible by acheiving that C grade in something that I am not
going to struggle in overly!
cheers
ian

Several universities, notably LSE, have a 'black-list' of A-Levels they
won't take into consideration. These are the A-Levels that are widely
regarded as being the 'easiest' or at the very least, lacking in academic
rigor.

So a good starting point would be to consider A-Levels on this list.
However, I'm sure that many people here will agree with me when I say that
in hindsight, A-Levels aren't exactly the most challenging exams and getting
a C grade in a well-respected subject shouldn't be a problem as long as you
are in some way interested in that subject.

And of course, the subjects are on that black-list for a reason - if you
intend to use the subject as part of a university offer you should ensure
that the university will accept it!

Accounting
Art and Design
Business Studies
Communication Studies
Dance
Design and Technology
Drama/Theatre Studies
Home Economics
Information and Communication Technology
Law
Media Studies
Sports Studies


Aonghus.

[Samsonknight]

Post by ath

Post by Ian Diddams
way back in the early 80s when I took my A-levels it was perceived by
many that some subjects were easier to pass or gain a good grade in
(although I suspect that there was sone snobbery involved in all of
this - I found economics quite difficult but it was generally
poo-pooed by many of my contemporaries at the time). Comoputer
Science such as it was back then was generally for example seen as a
doddle copmpared to maths or a language.
So - if I needed to get an A-level today, but the subject was
immaterial,
what would be perceived as "easy" or a "no brainer"? Are
there subjects at A-level that are perceived as far easier to
pass/attain
OK grades in over all others?
FWIW and FYI there is no intention of ever using any such A-level
gained
in any fraudulent way at all. A situation may be arising at the age
of 42, 24 years after I sat my A-levels, whereby I may need 80 UCAS
points more than I currently have and I want as easy a path to that
goal as possible by acheiving that C grade in something that I am not
going to struggle in overly!
cheers
ian

Several universities, notably LSE, have a 'black-list' of A-Levels they
won't take into consideration. These are the A-Levels that are widely
regarded as being the 'easiest' or at the very least, lacking in academic
rigor.
So a good starting point would be to consider A-Levels on this list.
However, I'm sure that many people here will agree with me when I say that
in hindsight, A-Levels aren't exactly the most challenging exams and getting
a C grade in a well-respected subject shouldn't be a problem as long as you
are in some way interested in that subject.
And of course, the subjects are on that black-list for a reason - if you
intend to use the subject as part of a university offer you should ensure
that the university will accept it!
Accounting
Art and Design
Business Studies
Communication Studies
Dance
Design and Technology
Drama/Theatre Studies
Home Economics
Information and Communication Technology
Law
Media Studies
Sports Studies
Aonghus.

ICT may be mickey mouse in terms of the course content (in comparison to the
level of understanding/time/practice needed by AL Maths), but by no means is
it easy to get an A in. ICT. It was rather difficult to get an A in it or in
my old sixth form case hard for most people to get a C in (highest was 2 Bs,
5 Cs, rest were Ds and Es) , mainly because the examiners are very tough at
giving marks. I admit the coursework is straightforward as I got B (AS) A
(A2, don't ask how I got higher for the A2 coursework), but for less comp
literate people even that proved difficult.

Also, it really does not help , when you are adviced to do mickey mouse
subjects or in LSEs case "black listed" subjects and then find out at the
start of A2 or 3 years later in your gap year/uni, the subject you did was
pointless.

As for the others on the list above , I really cannot comment on them. I can
only comment on business and art. For business std. there was a huge pass
rate at my old 6th form At A-C, however in contrast to art design (from
talking to peers) - the pass rate was very low and the workload for it was
huge.

It also seems to be very ironic how they are all mainly "art" subjects in
the "blacklist". I would have thought that by doing an artty subject and
getting a good grade in it whilst doing hardcore sciences, would have given
an indication that you are able to use both hemisphers in your cranium and
therefore not tunnel visioned into thinking in a set way.

Best Regards.

[Matthew Huntbach]

Post by Samsonknight
Also, it really does not help , when you are adviced to do mickey mouse
subjects or in LSEs case "black listed" subjects and then find out at the
start of A2 or 3 years later in your gap year/uni, the subject you did was
pointless.

As an admissions tutor I do all I can to try and get this message across
to schools, but they just don't listen. Also they are under increasing
presure to get bums on seats and get high places in their league tables.
So they will put on A-level subjects that attract large numbers of
students without regard to the usefulness of those A-level subjects,
and they will push students towards those A-levels which will get them
more UCAS points even if it doesn't help the students do what they
want to do afterwards. I don't think the promotion of the UCAS tariff
has helped, since it has given the impression (a seiously wrong one)
that all that matters in university admission is how many points you have
regardless of how they are arrived at.

Post by Samsonknight
As for the others on the list above , I really cannot comment on them. I can
only comment on business and art. For business std. there was a huge pass
rate at my old 6th form At A-C, however in contrast to art design (from
talking to peers) - the pass rate was very low and the workload for it was
huge.
It also seems to be very ironic how they are all mainly "art" subjects in
the "blacklist". I would have thought that by doing an artty subject and
getting a good grade in it whilst doing hardcore sciences, would have given
an indication that you are able to use both hemisphers in your cranium and
therefore not tunnel visioned into thinking in a set way.

There is a particular problem with A-levels which are partly a measure
of physical skills rather than academic ability. Many admissions tutors
are suspicious of these because what they want is academic ability.

Matthew Huntbach

[Samsonknight]

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Samsonknight
Also, it really does not help , when you are adviced to do mickey mouse
subjects or in LSEs case "black listed" subjects and then find out at the
start of A2 or 3 years later in your gap year/uni, the subject you did was
pointless.

As an admissions tutor I do all I can to try and get this message across
to schools, but they just don't listen. Also they are under increasing

Yes. If it wasnt for you and stumbling across aua at the start of A2 last
year, I probably would still be under the illusion that ICT is valid for a
comp sci course. But it was too late.

Post by Matthew Huntbach
presure to get bums on seats and get high places in their league tables.
So they will put on A-level subjects that attract large numbers of
students without regard to the usefulness of those A-level subjects,
and they will push students towards those A-levels which will get them
more UCAS points even if it doesn't help the students do what they
want to do afterwards. I don't think the promotion of the UCAS tariff
has helped, since it has given the impression (a seiously wrong one)
that all that matters in university admission is how many points you have
regardless of how they are arrived at.

I have a great idea, why doesn't the government just scrap those blacklisted
subjects for good from all colleges/sixthform, that way students like myself
will not feel seriously conned after finding out they are 'mickey mouse
subjects' a year into the course. Also, that way colleges & schools will not
have a choice to force students into subjects that they know are relatively
crap for their own selfish gain.

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Samsonknight
As for the others on the list above , I really cannot comment on them. I can
only comment on business and art. For business std. there was a huge pass
rate at my old 6th form At A-C, however in contrast to art design (from
talking to peers) - the pass rate was very low and the workload for it was
huge.
It also seems to be very ironic how they are all mainly "art" subjects in
the "blacklist". I would have thought that by doing an artty subject and
getting a good grade in it whilst doing hardcore sciences, would have given
an indication that you are able to use both hemisphers in your cranium and
therefore not tunnel visioned into thinking in a set way.

There is a particular problem with A-levels which are partly a measure
of physical skills rather than academic ability. Many admissions tutors
are suspicious of these because what they want is academic ability.

Funny enough, after reading your comment I have just thought about the
nature of A-level examinations, are they really test of intelligence
(academic ability) or exam technique? Earlier this month I had C1 on the
10th, and even though my algebra is strong and my mathematical ability in
general for both C1 and C2 are strong (with the exception of circles), my
exam technique is rather poor. This let me down on the C1 paper, I lost 15
minutes to the integration question on page 2 on the paper. This could have
probably costed me 1 or 2 grades, depending on the grade boundries.

Anyway, my point is, if I got a C for C1 and yet someone else who managed
their time correctly got an A - but was mathematically ability-wise the same
as me. How could you as an Admission tutor differentiate that this guy is
better then this other guy because he got an A? Which raises another point ,
to what extent is AL in general is a true test of intelligence and not how
fast you can write your answers out? Yeah sure, you have to learn the stuff
and that in itself requires hours and hours of dicipline, but applicants are
often probably dismissed by the big boys due to their grades (I got rejected
by bristol today...charming) - regardless on whether they are really good at
maths but shit at time management in exams.

This all brings me to another flaw in Alevels, I know a few people who goto
prestigious universities, they have got A grades throughout their academic
career. One friend in particular who graduated from Oxford recently with a
2:1 got an A in AL maths and a D in further maths. Yet when you ask him the
rules of log, or any type of AL maths question, he has totally
forgotten...So tell me here, what is the point in applying to LSE for
economics, yet they require you to have the hard sciences ,when as shown by
his example and many other examples, the likely hood is you will probably
end up forgetting your chemestry at AL, the biology you have learnt at AL,
and probably physics. I am better off with D & T, Media Studies, Maths (to
show I am logical) and some other mickey mouse subject!!!

I will not begin ranting about politics , history students that I know of
whom goto good unis...half of them make me laugh, they haven't formulated
their own philosphical ideas,political ideas but instead paste rubbish out
of the text books or what they have learnt like robots. No wonder why they
get As!

[Matthew Huntbach]

Post by Samsonknight

Post by Matthew Huntbach
So they will put on A-level subjects that attract large numbers of
students without regard to the usefulness of those A-level subjects,
and they will push students towards those A-levels which will get them
more UCAS points even if it doesn't help the students do what they
want to do afterwards. I don't think the promotion of the UCAS tariff
has helped, since it has given the impression (a seiously wrong one)
that all that matters in university admission is how many points you have
regardless of how they are arrived at.

I have a great idea, why doesn't the government just scrap those blacklisted
subjects for good from all colleges/sixthform, that way students like myself
will not feel seriously conned after finding out they are 'mickey mouse
subjects' a year into the course. Also, that way colleges & schools will not
have a choice to force students into subjects that they know are relatively
crap for their own selfish gain.

The subjects are not "useless", it's just that they are not perhaps as
useful for certain purposes as seems to be believed. I can see that
A-level ICT is perhaps very useful if you are going on to be a secretary
or something like that. It's just that it isn't terribly useful if you are
going on to do an academic Computer Science degree. This is hardly a hidden
piece of information - look at the Computer Science entry in the prospectus
of most good universities and you will see it stressed that Maths is the
important A-level, which ICT isn't. There is maybe a particular problem
with Computer Science, as there really does seem to be a serious level of
misinformation about what it involves when it comes to schoolteachers giving
advice to their pupils. I'm not sure that other academic subjects
experience quite the discrepancy between requirements and belief about
requirements.

From the point of view of all of us, schools and universities, we are
forced to co-operate with the government's desire to increase the rate of
university attendance to 50% of the age group. This means that schools may
feel forced to put on popular but not very useful A-levels because that's
the only way to attract enough A-level students to fill their targets.
Then universities, particularly those like mine which aren't most
students' first choice, are forced to take on students who have these
less than ideal A-levels because if we didn't we wouldn't have enough
students to fill our targets. Then the schools can say "look - these
A-levels do lead you to university places". The main thing is that the
government is happy because it has lots of kids at university, and that's
what it wants.

For both students and teachers I would only say do put a little more work
into reading prospectus entries before making decisions and giving advice
on A-level choice.

Post by Samsonknight
Funny enough, after reading your comment I have just thought about the
nature of A-level examinations, are they really test of intelligence
(academic ability) or exam technique? Earlier this month I had C1 on the
10th, and even though my algebra is strong and my mathematical ability in
general for both C1 and C2 are strong (with the exception of circles), my
exam technique is rather poor. This let me down on the C1 paper, I lost 15
minutes to the integration question on page 2 on the paper. This could have
probably costed me 1 or 2 grades, depending on the grade boundries.

What do you mean by "exam technique"? If you just mean you are slow, then
you have to face it that means you are less intelligent than someone who
can solve the same problem in a shorter amount of time.

Post by Samsonknight
Anyway, my point is, if I got a C for C1 and yet someone else who managed
their time correctly got an A - but was mathematically ability-wise the same
as me. How could you as an Admission tutor differentiate that this guy is
better then this other guy because he got an A? Which raises another point ,
to what extent is AL in general is a true test of intelligence and not how
fast you can write your answers out? Yeah sure, you have to learn the stuff
and that in itself requires hours and hours of dicipline, but applicants are
often probably dismissed by the big boys due to their grades (I got rejected
by bristol today...charming) - regardless on whether they are really good at
maths but shit at time management in exams.

A-levels are not a perfect test of ability, that's why some people with good
A-levels do badly on the degree, and some people with poor A-levels do well.
But they are the best test we have. There isn't a perfect test which tells
us with certainty who will do well on the degree and who won't. And for
a university department like mine that's a good thing - it's the odd strong
student who didn't get brilliant grades so didn't get into the Oxbridges,
Bristols and Imperials of this world that make life worthwhile when they
get to us instead.

Post by Samsonknight
This all brings me to another flaw in Alevels, I know a few people who goto
prestigious universities, they have got A grades throughout their academic
career. One friend in particular who graduated from Oxford recently with a
2:1 got an A in AL maths and a D in further maths. Yet when you ask him the
rules of log, or any type of AL maths question, he has totally
forgotten...So tell me here, what is the point in applying to LSE for
economics, yet they require you to have the hard sciences ,when as shown by
his example and many other examples, the likely hood is you will probably
end up forgetting your chemestry at AL, the biology you have learnt at AL,
and probably physics. I am better off with D & T, Media Studies, Maths (to
show I am logical) and some other mickey mouse subject!!!

The details may have been forgotten, but what is shown is that the person
has the ability to pick up this material and master it. It's not the actual
Chemistry that a place like LSE is interested in, it's the abstract skills
involved in studying and doing well at Chemistry. For the same reason,
I like any A-level that involves problem solving and the ability to look
at things in the abstract and understand how rules work, and I dislike
any A-level that can be passed by rote memory.

Post by Samsonknight
I will not begin ranting about politics , history students that I know of
whom goto good unis...half of them make me laugh, they haven't formulated
their own philosphical ideas,political ideas but instead paste rubbish out
of the text books or what they have learnt like robots. No wonder why they
get As!

Any A-level that can be passed by memorisation and regurgiation is useless
so far as I am concerned. The bane of my life is students who confuse
learning with memorisation.

Matthew Huntbach

[Samsonknight]

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Samsonknight

Post by Matthew Huntbach
So they will put on A-level subjects that attract large numbers of
students without regard to the usefulness of those A-level subjects,
and they will push students towards those A-levels which will get them
more UCAS points even if it doesn't help the students do what they
want to do afterwards. I don't think the promotion of the UCAS tariff
has helped, since it has given the impression (a seiously wrong one)
that all that matters in university admission is how many points you have
regardless of how they are arrived at.

I have a great idea, why doesn't the government just scrap those blacklisted
subjects for good from all colleges/sixthform, that way students like myself
will not feel seriously conned after finding out they are 'mickey mouse
subjects' a year into the course. Also, that way colleges & schools will not
have a choice to force students into subjects that they know are relatively
crap for their own selfish gain.

The subjects are not "useless", it's just that they are not perhaps as
useful for certain purposes as seems to be believed. I can see that
A-level ICT is perhaps very useful if you are going on to be a secretary
or something like that. It's just that it isn't terribly useful if you are
going on to do an academic Computer Science degree. This is hardly a hidden
piece of information - look at the Computer Science entry in the prospectus
of most good universities and you will see it stressed that Maths is the
important A-level, which ICT isn't. There is maybe a particular problem
with Computer Science, as there really does seem to be a serious level of
misinformation about what it involves when it comes to schoolteachers giving
advice to their pupils. I'm not sure that other academic subjects
experience quite the discrepancy between requirements and belief about
requirements.
From the point of view of all of us, schools and universities, we are
forced to co-operate with the government's desire to increase the rate of
university attendance to 50% of the age group. This means that schools may
feel forced to put on popular but not very useful A-levels because that's
the only way to attract enough A-level students to fill their targets.
Then universities, particularly those like mine which aren't most
students' first choice, are forced to take on students who have these
less than ideal A-levels because if we didn't we wouldn't have enough
students to fill our targets. Then the schools can say "look - these
A-levels do lead you to university places". The main thing is that the
government is happy because it has lots of kids at university, and that's
what it wants.
For both students and teachers I would only say do put a little more work
into reading prospectus entries before making decisions and giving advice
on A-level choice.

Good advice, I wish this message was put across much more throughly in most
schools.

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Samsonknight
Funny enough, after reading your comment I have just thought about the
nature of A-level examinations, are they really test of intelligence
(academic ability) or exam technique? Earlier this month I had C1 on the
10th, and even though my algebra is strong and my mathematical ability in
general for both C1 and C2 are strong (with the exception of circles), my
exam technique is rather poor. This let me down on the C1 paper, I lost 15
minutes to the integration question on page 2 on the paper. This could have
probably costed me 1 or 2 grades, depending on the grade boundries.

What do you mean by "exam technique"? If you just mean you are slow, then
you have to face it that means you are less intelligent than someone who
can solve the same problem in a shorter amount of time.

I am a slow writer, which means that I am slower at writing the method down,
but mentally not slower at solving the problem (its the transferring of the
solution to paper that is the problem) - a good example of this would
probably be Binomial Expanson (a+b)^n = a^n+(n/1)a^n-1(b)+(n/2)a^n-2(b)^2 -
I would probably take 10-12 mins on a question of that kind to make sure
that my working is error free and accurate. A "more intellegent" person
would probably take 5 mins as they are a fast writer. How this makes me
less intelligent then the other person, I just don't know, I mean the point
is I am able to understand like this other person the concepts throughly ...
That is what should matter with any AL subject. Your understanding, not your
writing speed.

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Samsonknight
Anyway, my point is, if I got a C for C1 and yet someone else who managed
their time correctly got an A - but was mathematically ability-wise the same
as me. How could you as an Admission tutor differentiate that this guy is
better then this other guy because he got an A? Which raises another point ,
to what extent is AL in general is a true test of intelligence and not how
fast you can write your answers out? Yeah sure, you have to learn the stuff
and that in itself requires hours and hours of dicipline, but applicants are
often probably dismissed by the big boys due to their grades (I got rejected
by bristol today...charming) - regardless on whether they are really good at
maths but shit at time management in exams.

A-levels are not a perfect test of ability, that's why some people with good
A-levels do badly on the degree, and some people with poor A-levels do well.
But they are the best test we have. There isn't a perfect test which tells
us with certainty who will do well on the degree and who won't. And for
a university department like mine that's a good thing - it's the odd strong
student who didn't get brilliant grades so didn't get into the Oxbridges,
Bristols and Imperials of this world that make life worthwhile when they
get to us instead.

Post by Samsonknight
This all brings me to another flaw in Alevels, I know a few people who goto
prestigious universities, they have got A grades throughout their academic
career. One friend in particular who graduated from Oxford recently with a
2:1 got an A in AL maths and a D in further maths. Yet when you ask him the
rules of log, or any type of AL maths question, he has totally
forgotten...So tell me here, what is the point in applying to LSE for
economics, yet they require you to have the hard sciences ,when as shown by
his example and many other examples, the likely hood is you will probably
end up forgetting your chemestry at AL, the biology you have learnt at AL,
and probably physics. I am better off with D & T, Media Studies, Maths (to
show I am logical) and some other mickey mouse subject!!!

The details may have been forgotten, but what is shown is that the person
has the ability to pick up this material and master it. It's not the actual
Chemistry that a place like LSE is interested in, it's the abstract skills
involved in studying and doing well at Chemistry. For the same reason,
I like any A-level that involves problem solving and the ability to look
at things in the abstract and understand how rules work, and I dislike
any A-level that can be passed by rote memory.

Yes I guess, but why do you need to do chemestry,physics in addition to
maths to prove this. Doesn't mathematics as an AL prove this already? If the
additional subject(s) are irrelevent to the course, then again what is the
point? To prove abstract skills, as you said, but if an individual is doing
at least one hard alevel to prove his abstract skills, then what is the
relevence of the others. I could fully understand if this person was doing
"medicine", but the likely hood is in most cases the average joe at these
institutes need to do these subjects in order to even get into an non
science degree.

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Samsonknight
I will not begin ranting about politics , history students that I know of
whom goto good unis...half of them make me laugh, they haven't formulated
their own philosphical ideas,political ideas but instead paste rubbish out
of the text books or what they have learnt like robots. No wonder why they
get As!

Any A-level that can be passed by memorisation and regurgiation is useless
so far as I am concerned. The bane of my life is students who confuse
learning with memorisation.
Matthew Huntbach

Respected "englishy" a-levels are like that, history and politics are
examples of this. Also,I was wondering, why isn't Gen studies respected as
an A-level, as it is to my knowledge the only subject that is far too broad
as a subject to be approached in the manner of "memorisation and
regurgiation".

[Matt]

Post by Samsonknight
Also,I was wondering, why isn't Gen studies respected as
an A-level, as it is to my knowledge the only subject that is far too
broad as a subject to be approached in the manner of "memorisation and
regurgiation".

Because with zero preparation, someone can get an A grade in it. Anyone
who reads a newspaper once a month or so should be fine, all you need is
an opinion for the essay-type questions, and common sense for the
knowledge type.

Having said that, I got a B: I scored a pathetic mark on the French
paper, due to my complete contempt of the qualification and over
complacency before the exam. Had I have looked at some french in the two
years before I took the exam, I would have done better.

[Ian/Cath Ford]

On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 02:39:50 +0000, Matt

Post by Matt

Post by Samsonknight
Also,I was wondering, why isn't Gen studies respected as
an A-level, as it is to my knowledge the only subject that is far too
broad as a subject to be approached in the manner of "memorisation and
regurgiation".

Because with zero preparation, someone can get an A grade in it. Anyone
who reads a newspaper once a month or so should be fine, all you need is
an opinion for the essay-type questions, and common sense for the
knowledge type.

At the top end of the ability range and for people with social
awareness I'd tend to agree with you. The real value of a
qualification liek GS comes, imo, when you're considering people like
the majoriy of the ones I teach - they rarely read a newspaper other
than the East Anglian Daily Times, rarely go any further afield than
Ipswich or, occasionally, Norwich (both of which have a tendancy to be
an expedition),have virtually no experience of other cultures or
ethnic groups and rarely watch documentaries or very much news on the
TV. GS intheir case is virtually a necessity.

Sure, most 30 somethings who did A Levels when they were kids could
walk into an exam hall and, given the choice of sylabbus doesn't
involve a foreign language, make a very good stab at getting a very
good grade. That's not the point - there is a very real value for this
qualification.

Ian
--
Ian, Cath, Eoin and Calum Ford
Beccles, Suffolk, UK

I loved the word you wrote to me/But that was bloody yesterday

There's no e-mail address. We can talk here and go back to your place later

[Matthew Huntbach]

Post by Matt

Post by Samsonknight
Also,I was wondering, why isn't Gen studies respected as
an A-level, as it is to my knowledge the only subject that is far too
broad as a subject to be approached in the manner of "memorisation and
regurgiation".

Because with zero preparation, someone can get an A grade in it.

So? Why does this make it any less valid a test of ability?

Post by Matt
Anyone
who reads a newspaper once a month or so should be fine, all you need is
an opinion for the essay-type questions, and common sense for the
knowledge type.

Very few of the applicants I have who take A-level General Studies manage
to get a grade A, or even a grade B in it. For my purposes, a
demonstration that an applicant is in touch with the real world and
has some common sense is extremely valuable - because many of my
applicants are severely lacking in both.

Matthew Huntbach

[John Porcella]

Post by Samsonknight
I am a slow writer, which means that I am slower at writing the method down,
but mentally not slower at solving the problem (its the transferring of the
solution to paper that is the problem) - a good example of this would
probably be Binomial Expanson (a+b)^n =

a^n+(n/1)a^n-1(b)+(n/2)a^n-2(b)^2 -

Post by Samsonknight
I would probably take 10-12 mins on a question of that kind to make sure
that my working is error free and accurate. A "more intellegent" person
would probably take 5 mins as they are a fast writer. How this makes me
less intelligent then the other person, I just don't know, I mean the point
is I am able to understand like this other person the concepts throughly ...
That is what should matter with any AL subject. Your understanding, not your
writing speed.

Speed comes partly from understanding, but also from repetition/practice.
Practice truly does make perfect! Or as Gary Player put it, "The more I
practice, the luckier I get!"

Post by Samsonknight
Respected "englishy" a-levels are like that, history and politics are
examples of this. Also,I was wondering, why isn't Gen studies respected as
an A-level, as it is to my knowledge the only subject that is far too broad
as a subject to be approached in the manner of "memorisation and
regurgiation".

Employers may not know what it is?

[T.]

Post by Samsonknight

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Samsonknight
This all brings me to another flaw in Alevels, I know a few people who goto
prestigious universities, they have got A grades throughout their academic
career. One friend in particular who graduated from Oxford recently with a
2:1 got an A in AL maths and a D in further maths. Yet when you ask him the
rules of log, or any type of AL maths question, he has totally
forgotten...So tell me here, what is the point in applying to LSE for
economics, yet they require you to have the hard sciences ,when as shown by
his example and many other examples, the likely hood is you will probably
end up forgetting your chemestry at AL, the biology you have learnt at AL,
and probably physics. I am better off with D & T, Media Studies, Maths (to
show I am logical) and some other mickey mouse subject!!!

The details may have been forgotten, but what is shown is that the person
has the ability to pick up this material and master it. It's not the actual
Chemistry that a place like LSE is interested in, it's the abstract skills
involved in studying and doing well at Chemistry. For the same reason,
I like any A-level that involves problem solving and the ability to look
at things in the abstract and understand how rules work, and I dislike
any A-level that can be passed by rote memory.

Yes I guess, but why do you need to do chemestry,physics in addition to
maths to prove this. Doesn't mathematics as an AL prove this already? If the

I don't Maths does, no.

I sat there like a robot two weeks before maths exams and just churned
out papers. I got an A. I can't actually "do" any of it.

[Samsonknight]

Post by T.

Post by Samsonknight

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Samsonknight
This all brings me to another flaw in Alevels, I know a few people who goto
prestigious universities, they have got A grades throughout their academic
career. One friend in particular who graduated from Oxford recently with a
2:1 got an A in AL maths and a D in further maths. Yet when you ask him the
rules of log, or any type of AL maths question, he has totally
forgotten...So tell me here, what is the point in applying to LSE for
economics, yet they require you to have the hard sciences ,when as shown by
his example and many other examples, the likely hood is you will probably
end up forgetting your chemestry at AL, the biology you have learnt at AL,
and probably physics. I am better off with D & T, Media Studies, Maths (to
show I am logical) and some other mickey mouse subject!!!

The details may have been forgotten, but what is shown is that the person
has the ability to pick up this material and master it. It's not the actual
Chemistry that a place like LSE is interested in, it's the abstract skills
involved in studying and doing well at Chemistry. For the same reason,
I like any A-level that involves problem solving and the ability to look
at things in the abstract and understand how rules work, and I dislike
any A-level that can be passed by rote memory.

Yes I guess, but why do you need to do chemestry,physics in addition to
maths to prove this. Doesn't mathematics as an AL prove this already? If the

I don't Maths does, no.
I sat there like a robot two weeks before maths exams and just churned out
papers. I got an A. I can't actually "do" any of it.

Yes you could do that, but in order to even learn the techniques given in
the past papers you must have a fair understanding of all the topics in the
module.

[Matthew Huntbach]

Post by T.

Post by Samsonknight

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Samsonknight
So tell me here, what is the point in applying to LSE for
economics, yet they require you to have the hard sciences ,when as
shown by his example and many other examples, the likely hood is
you will probably end up forgetting your chemestry at AL, the biology
you have learnt at AL, and probably physics. I am better off with
D & T, Media Studies, Maths (to show I am logical) and some other
mickey mouse subject!!!

The details may have been forgotten, but what is shown is that the
person has the ability to pick up this material and master it. It's
not the actual Chemistry that a place like LSE is interested in, it's
the abstract skills involved in studying and doing well at Chemistry.
For the same reason, I like any A-level that involves problem solving
and the ability to look at things in the abstract and understand how
rules work, and I dislike any A-level that can be passed by rote memory.

Yes I guess, but why do you need to do chemestry,physics in addition to
maths to prove this. Doesn't mathematics as an AL prove this already?

I don't Maths does, no.
I sat there like a robot two weeks before maths exams and just churned
out papers. I got an A. I can't actually "do" any of it.

How can you get an A without being able to do it? You were obviously
able to get correct answers somehow. If anyone could do it, why doesn't
everyone get grade A? Whatever skills it is that enable you to get
grade A, in my experience also enable people to find computer programming
an easy task, whereas many people find computer programming a very
difficult task and these tend to be the people who are unable to get
high grades in maths exams.

Now to Samsonknight's point, since he was replying to me, but I didn't
get to see the article replied to here, nowhere have I said that I
require applicants to have A-level Maths, A-level Physics and A-level
Chemistry. In fact I have written many times in this newsgroup - I am sure
many times since Samsonknight's been contributing to it - that my ideal
combination of A-levels would be Maths, a science and an arts A-level
(I mean something like History, or English, not a practical A-level
like Art).

In any case, as I keep saying in this thread, I am not in the position
where I have so many applicants I can "demand" various qualifications
and reject applicants on the grounds they don't quite meet my ideal.
In fact I am in quite the opposite situation - there has been such
a slump of applicants to Computer Science, that I am forced to make
offers to many applicants whose qualifications are very far from what
I would regard as ideal. Most admissions tutors, particularly in the
more scientific and mathematical subjects, are in this position,
scratching their heads wondering how their going to be able to get
enough even half-decent students.

Matthew Huntbach

[Samsonknight]

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by T.

Post by Samsonknight

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Samsonknight
So tell me here, what is the point in applying to LSE for
economics, yet they require you to have the hard sciences ,when as
shown by his example and many other examples, the likely hood is you
will probably end up forgetting your chemestry at AL, the biology you
have learnt at AL, and probably physics. I am better off with D & T,
Media Studies, Maths (to show I am logical) and some other mickey
mouse subject!!!

The details may have been forgotten, but what is shown is that the
person has the ability to pick up this material and master it. It's not
the actual Chemistry that a place like LSE is interested in, it's the
abstract skills involved in studying and doing well at Chemistry. For
the same reason, I like any A-level that involves problem solving and
the ability to look at things in the abstract and understand how rules
work, and I dislike any A-level that can be passed by rote memory.

Yes I guess, but why do you need to do chemestry,physics in addition to
maths to prove this. Doesn't mathematics as an AL prove this already?

I don't Maths does, no.
I sat there like a robot two weeks before maths exams and just churned
out papers. I got an A. I can't actually "do" any of it.

How can you get an A without being able to do it? You were obviously
able to get correct answers somehow. If anyone could do it, why doesn't
everyone get grade A? Whatever skills it is that enable you to get
grade A, in my experience also enable people to find computer programming
an easy task, whereas many people find computer programming a very
difficult task and these tend to be the people who are unable to get
high grades in maths exams.
Now to Samsonknight's point, since he was replying to me, but I didn't
get to see the article replied to here, nowhere have I said that I
require applicants to have A-level Maths, A-level Physics and A-level
Chemistry. In fact I have written many times in this newsgroup - I am sure
many times since Samsonknight's been contributing to it - that my ideal
combination of A-levels would be Maths, a science and an arts A-level
(I mean something like History, or English, not a practical A-level
like Art).

Yes, I know you have. You have in the past accepted RE to be a good AL, and
I agree it should be as it is very similar to AL history. Its course content
comprises of mainly religious conflict in the 20th century and little of
learning about the places of worship (which is a stupid stigma attached to
AL RE) - all in all I feel the AL - like politics and history is relevent
in understanding the conflicts that take place in the world today.

Anyway, back to the point, I am aware that you have not specifically said
that you require your applicants "to have A-level Maths, A-level Physics and
A-level Chemistry", but the problem is I know there are other comp sci AT
that want their applicants "to have A-level Maths, A-level Physics and
A-level Chemistry". Which is very very problomatic for applicants such as
me, because lets say an AT (at one of the universities I apply too) had 2
applicants - one with A-level Maths, A-level Physics and A-level Chemistry,
at ABC (providing he gets that in the summer) and there is me with
ICT,psy,RE,maths at ABCE (after summer exams hopefully), then I have a
strange feeling that the AT will choose the other person in preference over
me - despite the strange circumstances that I have got my grades up from a
CCE.

Post by Matthew Huntbach
In any case, as I keep saying in this thread, I am not in the position
where I have so many applicants I can "demand" various qualifications
and reject applicants on the grounds they don't quite meet my ideal.
In fact I am in quite the opposite situation - there has been such
a slump of applicants to Computer Science, that I am forced to make
offers to many applicants whose qualifications are very far from what
I would regard as ideal. Most admissions tutors, particularly in the
more scientific and mathematical subjects, are in this position,
scratching their heads wondering how their going to be able to get
enough even half-decent students.
Matthew Huntbach

Well lets hope that my other choices are willing to make me an offer. I am
still waiting, and it is making me dead nervous.

[Matthew Huntbach]

Post by Samsonknight
Anyway, back to the point, I am aware that you have not specifically said
that you require your applicants "to have A-level Maths, A-level Physics and
A-level Chemistry", but the problem is I know there are other comp sci AT
that want their applicants "to have A-level Maths, A-level Physics and
A-level Chemistry". Which is very very problomatic for applicants such as
me, because lets say an AT (at one of the universities I apply too) had 2
applicants - one with A-level Maths, A-level Physics and A-level Chemistry,
at ABC (providing he gets that in the summer) and there is me with
ICT,psy,RE,maths at ABCE (after summer exams hopefully), then I have a
strange feeling that the AT will choose the other person in preference over
me - despite the strange circumstances that I have got my grades up from a
CCE.

I'm not aware of any Computer Science department which will only
accept applicants with A-level Maths, Physics and Chemistry.

There is a bit more difference between you and the other student you
hypothesise above than mere subject difference. If the A-level subjects
don't matter so long as there's a good A-level in Maths (i.e. minimum
C), you lose out because you have only an E in Maths. That's nothing to do
with not having A-level Physics and A-level Chemistry.

Also having got our grades on a retake is a negative not a positive
feature. My experience is that people who have got good grades through
intensive tuition to pass a resit almost never perform as well as people
who got the same grade first time round under a normal schooling
situation.

But anyway, as I've said, and Andy Walker's said, there are plenty of
good Computer Science degrees you can get on with the sort of qualifications
you hope to obtain, particularly this year when there are so few people
applying to do Computer Science. OK there's a few at the top end of the
prestige/snobbery/research-oriented scale you might not get into, but
you're very far from being restricted to the weakest departments.

Matthew Huntbach

[Samsonknight]

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Samsonknight
Anyway, back to the point, I am aware that you have not specifically said
that you require your applicants "to have A-level Maths, A-level Physics and
A-level Chemistry", but the problem is I know there are other comp sci AT
that want their applicants "to have A-level Maths, A-level Physics and
A-level Chemistry". Which is very very problomatic for applicants such as
me, because lets say an AT (at one of the universities I apply too) had 2
applicants - one with A-level Maths, A-level Physics and A-level Chemistry,
at ABC (providing he gets that in the summer) and there is me with
ICT,psy,RE,maths at ABCE (after summer exams hopefully), then I have a
strange feeling that the AT will choose the other person in preference over
me - despite the strange circumstances that I have got my grades up from a
CCE.

I'm not aware of any Computer Science department which will only
accept applicants with A-level Maths, Physics and Chemistry.
There is a bit more difference between you and the other student you
hypothesise above than mere subject difference. If the A-level subjects
don't matter so long as there's a good A-level in Maths (i.e. minimum
C), you lose out because you have only an E in Maths. That's nothing to do
with not having A-level Physics and A-level Chemistry.

I got an E in psychology, not maths...

Post by Matthew Huntbach
Also having got our grades on a retake is a negative not a positive
feature. My experience is that people who have got good grades through
intensive tuition to pass a resit almost never perform as well as people
who got the same grade first time round under a normal schooling
situation.

I only have tuition 3 hours a week - the equivilent to one maths lesson in a
sixth form - where they normally have 3-4 maths lessons a week (so 9-12
hours a week of teaching). I have to self teach myself mathematics, my tutor
only guides me. I cannot afford more then one lesson a week. Like he would
say as he did today, "Sam , get to grips with vectors in one week" - and so
that is my goal for this week. But if I could, I would try and surpass his
expectations by doing more chapters, or by spending extra time fully
understanding the conceps behind the topic (which often requires further
research)

This is a bore, but below is my life structure for the past 4-5 months so
that you can appreciate how much dicipline this all requires:

7am - wake up and wash etc.
8am - take the EDEXCEL maths book out
8am - 10am do maths, maths, maths, maths.... ( so yeah 14 hours a day,
sometimes less depending on what time I get up). Which is always usually
before 10, as you can see by the time I have written some of my threads.

During 8am-10am, if I have any problems, I have to find the solution to the
problem myself e.g. doing my own research into different books, searching
the internet for tutorials....- which are all skills that I know university
AT's are looking for, as this shows that you can work independently and
don't just do what is needed.

Yes I did do A level Mathematics two years ago, and yes I did fail it , but
to be frank 2 years ago does not count. For three reasons:

1. Considering my mathematical background, C at intermiediate GCSE - I
should never have been let on the course two years ago, because now I have
begun to realise, A level mathematics builds up on GCSE higher mathematics.
No wonder why I failed, my foundations were not solid enough for AL maths 2
years back. Even if I passed the AS course, A2 would have been a struggle, I
mean bloody hell to even do Vectors you need to have strong foundations in
GCSE higher stuff such as trig (cosine rule, sine rule) for some
questions....

2. In theory I am retaking, technically no....I only did two modules 2 years
back , P1/S1 before I failed it and dropped out (not even the complete AS
module!!!)....I did not touch p3,p4,m1 like I am doing now. So it is all new
to me.

3. Most importantly, I have decided to do this Alevel as a
choice,understanding, so that I could develop flair and interest for the
subject. Which is what is happening. I mean in all fairness, I could have
just throught to myself "ahhh, forget it let me just goto x polytechnic and
do a comp sci degree there.". Yet, I have shown courage, despite the
circumstances above and despite what people have said and are still saying
that I am "wasting my time" , the hard work is all paying off. A question to
you skeptics "Seriously, do you think if I was not serious, would I really
waste my time and my money (as I am a private candidiate) on doing this
mammoth task in my gap year?"

If I do pass Alevel Maths with a substansial grade this year , I'm aiming
for a B , then you know what if I do not get credit for restructuring my
life (which is hard considering all of the distractions around me), my
courage, showing the ability to learn independently and the speed I have
learnt mathematical conceps in such a short period of time (GCSE higher
maths, C1,C2,C3,C4,S1,M1), then I will be bitter about the educational
system.

If I end up getting a D, you can say whatever, but I know that deep down
inside mathematics has enlightenend me in the respect that I can see how
concepts such as Vectors could be used practically and have as a result
appreciate mathematics for what it is, unlike some of my ex peers who
thought "what an earth is the point of all of this meaningless algebra"
hence they sat down did math's by relying on formulas (like robots), whilst
not really knowing why they were doing it. Yet yes, they passed , but they
treated mathematics as something that is abstract - which defeats the whole
point of learning it. Hence the reason why like 70% of them hated
"mechanics"

MMH you may be interested in my part time job this gap year: That I am doing
on top of this mathematics.
http://www.samsonknightdesign.com/wna/welcomepage.html

you will need the flash plug in 7, and a suitable monitor resolution -
ideally 1024x768

[Samsonknight]

8am - 10 pm....sorry I am a bit tired at the moment, just got back from my
lesson!

[Samsonknight]

8am - 10 pm....sorry I am a bit tired at the moment, just got back from my
lesson....

[Matthew Huntbach]

Post by Samsonknight

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Samsonknight
and there is me with
ICT,psy,RE,maths at ABCE (after summer exams hopefully),

There is a bit more difference between you and the other student you
hypothesise above than mere subject difference. If the A-level subjects
don't matter so long as there's a good A-level in Maths (i.e. minimum
C), you lose out because you have only an E in Maths. That's nothing to do
with not having A-level Physics and A-level Chemistry.

I got an E in psychology, not maths...

I had assumed when you listed your subjects and grades that the grades
were in the same order as the subjects.

Post by Samsonknight

Post by Matthew Huntbach
Also having got our grades on a retake is a negative not a positive
feature. My experience is that people who have got good grades through
intensive tuition to pass a resit almost never perform as well as people
who got the same grade first time round under a normal schooling
situation.

I only have tuition 3 hours a week - the equivilent to one maths lesson
in a sixth form - where they normally have 3-4 maths lessons a week (so
9-12 hours a week of teaching). I have to self teach myself mathematics,
my tutor only guides me. I cannot afford more then one lesson a week.

Nevertheless, you are getting intensive one-to-one tuition. Therefore
it is correct to ask whether the grade you get at the end of it
represents your natural ability or is just because of that tuition.
What I want in a degree student is someone with natural ability, not
someone who can only perform if you sit down and work with them
solidly for three hours a week. We don't have time to sit down with
our students and work with each of them solidly for three hours a
week.

Post by Samsonknight
This is a bore, but below is my life structure for the past 4-5 months so

You don't have to convince me, you have to convince the admissions tutor
who's looking at your UCAS form.

Post by Samsonknight
Yes I did do A level Mathematics two years ago, and yes I did fail it , but
1. Considering my mathematical background, C at intermiediate GCSE - I
should never have been let on the course two years ago, because now I have
begun to realise, A level mathematics builds up on GCSE higher mathematics.
No wonder why I failed, my foundations were not solid enough for AL maths 2
years back. Even if I passed the AS course, A2 would have been a struggle, I
mean bloody hell to even do Vectors you need to have strong foundations in
GCSE higher stuff such as trig (cosine rule, sine rule) for some
questions....

From the point of view of an admissions tutor, this doesn't look good.
If all you could get was a C in GCSE Maths, that doesn't amount to much.
When I had more applicants a good rule of thumb I used to use was to
reject anyone who had only a C in GCSE Maths. Trying and failing at
A-level Maths also doesn't look good.

Post by Samsonknight
3. Most importantly, I have decided to do this Alevel as a
choice,understanding, so that I could develop flair and interest for the
subject. Which is what is happening. I mean in all fairness, I could have
just throught to myself "ahhh, forget it let me just goto x polytechnic and
do a comp sci degree there.". Yet, I have shown courage, despite the
circumstances above and despite what people have said and are still saying
that I am "wasting my time" , the hard work is all paying off. A question
to you skeptics "Seriously, do you think if I was not serious, would I
really waste my time and my money (as I am a private candidiate) on doing
this mammoth task in my gap year?"

I'm not being sceptical, I'm just trying to put to put it from the point
of view of an admissions tutor who's lucky enough to be faced with enough
applicants to be able to pick and choose. Faced with someone who seems to
have sailed through and got good grades in appropriate subjects,
that person looks a better bet than someone who has got poor grades
in less appropriate subjects and has been put into some sort of crammer
to improve on them.

You may be putting in an immense amount of personal effort into
your retakes, which is good - you need to get that message through
to the admissions tutors who are reading your UCAS form. You really need
to demonstrate that your earlier poor performance was not due to lack
of ability or laziness, but due to problems outside your control which
you have now overcome. I am surprised how many UCAS forms I get from
people who are retaking A-levels who don't do this at all. Sometimes
they put their previous grades in, but say nothing about why they think
they did badly and what they are doing about it. Sometimes they don't
even mention them, and suppose I won't notice they're taking A-levels
three years after GCSEs - I do, and I mark them down as "dishonest" and
I am much less likely to accept them.

Unfortunately, a common pattern with someone taking resits in a
crammer or with private tuition is that they aren't particularly
dedicated. Rather they've got rich parents who can afford to pay for
it, couldn't accept that their little darling wasn't up to what a
top university requires, and so have forced them reluctantly into the
resit. Well, once the little darling gets the university place, they
go back to their lazy old ways because they no longer have Mr Crammer
bearing down on them and forcing them to work. So not a good bet, I'd
rather take someone with weaker grades obtained first time round who
shows genuine enthusiasm. I don't mean this as a personal attack on
you, Samsonknight, I'm just trying to put it how it appears to an
experienced admissions tutor. I think you've said enough to show you
don't fall into this pattern, but you need to make sure your UCAS
form shouts out that you don't.

Post by Samsonknight
If I do pass Alevel Maths with a substansial grade this year , I'm aiming
for a B , then you know what if I do not get credit for restructuring my
life (which is hard considering all of the distractions around me), my
courage, showing the ability to learn independently and the speed I have
learnt mathematical conceps in such a short period of time (GCSE higher
maths, C1,C2,C3,C4,S1,M1), then I will be bitter about the educational
system.

What do you mean by "do not get credit"? Even in the good years for
Computer Science, if your UCAS form had managed to convince me you
had a chance of getting a B in A-level Maths I'd have made a conditional
offer that asked for it, and probably accept at a C. From my experience
so would plenty of other reasonable CS departments. So what's your
gripe? You've already told us ypu've got an offer from Glasgow, which
is an excellent CS department.

Post by Samsonknight
If I end up getting a D, you can say whatever,

Had you applied to us this year, I think it very likely you'd have
been given a place even if you only got D in A-level Maths. If you
think Computer Science at Queen Mary is so crap it'd be an insult if
you ended up with us, I know that many other Computer Science departments
at top universities are also having to take people on with that sort of
qualification.

Post by Samsonknight
MMH you may be interested in my part time job this gap year: That I am
doing on top of this mathematics.
http://www.samsonknightdesign.com/wna/welcomepage.html
you will need the flash plug in 7, and a suitable monitor resolution -
ideally 1024x768

Er sorry, but no I don't find this sort of thing very interesting.
In fact it's part of the problem - too many people these days seem to
think that Computer Science is just about designing web pages and
use of the tools for doing that. I've had too many UCAS applications
from people who are basically saying (and their teachers are saying
it as well) "look, I've built a web page, so I am suited for a
Computer Science degree", when they have appallingly bad and/or
unsuitable academic qualifications. So please excuse me if I'm not
impressed by being shown yet-another-web-page-with-flash-animation.

Matthew Huntbach

[Samsonknight]

<snip>

Post by Matthew Huntbach
Nevertheless, you are getting intensive one-to-one tuition. Therefore
it is correct to ask whether the grade you get at the end of it
represents your natural ability or is just because of that tuition.
What I want in a degree student is someone with natural ability, not
someone who can only perform if you sit down and work with them
solidly for three hours a week. We don't have time to sit down with
our students and work with each of them solidly for three hours a week.

Yes I doubt you do, but as he has said in his reference. "He clearly has
developed the ability to work on his own, but asks for help on very specific
issues when really stuck. In my rather long experience of undergraduates, I
have come to see that quality as the litmus test of undergraduate success.
Sam has already crossed a rubicon that many if not most undergraduates at X
uni take 2 years to even find."

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Samsonknight
This is a bore, but below is my life structure for the past 4-5 months so

You don't have to convince me, you have to convince the admissions tutor
who's looking at your UCAS form.

Post by Samsonknight
Yes I did do A level Mathematics two years ago, and yes I did fail it , but
1. Considering my mathematical background, C at intermiediate GCSE - I
should never have been let on the course two years ago, because now I have
begun to realise, A level mathematics builds up on GCSE higher mathematics.
No wonder why I failed, my foundations were not solid enough for AL maths 2
years back. Even if I passed the AS course, A2 would have been a struggle, I
mean bloody hell to even do Vectors you need to have strong foundations in
GCSE higher stuff such as trig (cosine rule, sine rule) for some
questions....

From the point of view of an admissions tutor, this doesn't look good.
If all you could get was a C in GCSE Maths, that doesn't amount to much.
When I had more applicants a good rule of thumb I used to use was to
reject anyone who had only a C in GCSE Maths. Trying and failing at
A-level Maths also doesn't look good.

Yes well circumstances were different then. My tutor has explained this all
in my reference..

If you would like me to go into detail of why I have always underachieved in
maths untill now , is because as stated "AL maths builds up on higher maths"
which therefore means I simply did not have the toolset to even do the
course. Unfortunantly, at the time I thought that it would get better , as I
had no previous experience of this subject, but no, it got harder and
harder - and unfortunantly my teachers at the time did not spot this earlier
enough.

My underachievement at GCSE is not that bad considering that he highest that
you can get on any intermiediate module is a B. So my C is the equivilent to
a B in the higher module - if you look at it from that prospective.

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Samsonknight
3. Most importantly, I have decided to do this Alevel as a
choice,understanding, so that I could develop flair and interest for the
subject. Which is what is happening. I mean in all fairness, I could have
just throught to myself "ahhh, forget it let me just goto x polytechnic and
do a comp sci degree there.". Yet, I have shown courage, despite the
circumstances above and despite what people have said and are still saying
that I am "wasting my time" , the hard work is all paying off. A question
to you skeptics "Seriously, do you think if I was not serious, would I
really waste my time and my money (as I am a private candidiate) on doing
this mammoth task in my gap year?"

I'm not being sceptical, I'm just trying to put to put it from the point
of view of an admissions tutor who's lucky enough to be faced with enough
applicants to be able to pick and choose. Faced with someone who seems to
have sailed through and got good grades in appropriate subjects, that
person looks a better bet than someone who has got poor grades
in less appropriate subjects and has been put into some sort of crammer
to improve on them.

Yes I know, only if I could fit this all into my personal
statement/reference.

Post by Matthew Huntbach
You may be putting in an immense amount of personal effort into
your retakes, which is good - you need to get that message through
to the admissions tutors who are reading your UCAS form. You really need
to demonstrate that your earlier poor performance was not due to lack
of ability or laziness, but due to problems outside your control which
you have now overcome. I am surprised how many UCAS forms I get from
people who are retaking A-levels who don't do this at all. Sometimes
they put their previous grades in, but say nothing about why they think
they did badly and what they are doing about it. Sometimes they don't
even mention them, and suppose I won't notice they're taking A-levels
three years after GCSEs - I do, and I mark them down as "dishonest" and
I am much less likely to accept them.
Unfortunately, a common pattern with someone taking resits in a
crammer or with private tuition is that they aren't particularly
dedicated. Rather they've got rich parents who can afford to pay for
it, couldn't accept that their little darling wasn't up to what a
top university requires, and so have forced them reluctantly into the
resit. Well, once the little darling gets the university place, they
go back to their lazy old ways because they no longer have Mr Crammer
bearing down on them and forcing them to work. So not a good bet, I'd
rather take someone with weaker grades obtained first time round who
shows genuine enthusiasm. I don't mean this as a personal attack on
you, Samsonknight, I'm just trying to put it how it appears to an
experienced admissions tutor. I think you've said enough to show you
don't fall into this pattern, but you need to make sure your UCAS
form shouts out that you don't.

I am aware of the above, which is what worries me. My hard work is purely
out of choice and I know you have said that I don't *fall* into this
category, but I would just like to add - and this is the most important
concept that I would like to add and reinforce....This year is purely my
choice, I don't have to be doing 14 hour days doing x topic. I don't have to
spend ages doing x amount of personal research, I don't have to restructure
my life, I dont have to spend x amount of time trying to figure out game
theory because Andy got me interested in it....I am hoping that the AT's I
am trying convince see that I have developed the dicipline to carry this
forward minded academical thinking onto their course e.g. If I get stuck, I
won't sit there and like a lazy person think to myself "ahhh forget it, let
me just go with the flow" (which is the mentality that many of my peers
had) - I will instead go and do something about it.If that means I have to
go and sit in the university libary without being told to for x amount of
hours, then so be it.

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Samsonknight
If I do pass Alevel Maths with a substansial grade this year , I'm aiming
for a B , then you know what if I do not get credit for restructuring my
life (which is hard considering all of the distractions around me), my
courage, showing the ability to learn independently and the speed I have
learnt mathematical conceps in such a short period of time (GCSE higher
maths, C1,C2,C3,C4,S1,M1), then I will be bitter about the educational
system.

What do you mean by "do not get credit"? Even in the good years for
Computer Science, if your UCAS form had managed to convince me you
had a chance of getting a B in A-level Maths I'd have made a conditional
offer that asked for it, and probably accept at a C. From my experience
so would plenty of other reasonable CS departments. So what's your
gripe? You've already told us ypu've got an offer from Glasgow, which
is an excellent CS department.

Yes, valid point. Glasgow and Aberdeen are very nice people.

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Samsonknight
If I end up getting a D, you can say whatever,

Had you applied to us this year, I think it very likely you'd have
been given a place even if you only got D in A-level Maths. If you
think Computer Science at Queen Mary is so crap it'd be an insult if
you ended up with us, I know that many other Computer Science departments
at top universities are also having to take people on with that sort of
qualification.

I never said that your Comp Sci department is poor...The point I was trying
to make is if I get a D, it just wont look good and I thought that I would
get openly criticised for it....Even if I had got a D due to ill time
management (because if anything that would be my downfall this year as shown
by the Jan exams), but said exactly what I am saying now, the chances are
someone along the line would say "your making excuses sam". I have seen it
too many times before.

The reason why I did not apply to any London based university is so that I
could move away from home - otherwise I certainly would have applied to
Queen Mary.

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Samsonknight
MMH you may be interested in my part time job this gap year: That I am
doing on top of this mathematics.
http://www.samsonknightdesign.com/wna/welcomepage.html
you will need the flash plug in 7, and a suitable monitor resolution -
ideally 1024x768

Er sorry, but no I don't find this sort of thing very interesting.
In fact it's part of the problem - too many people these days seem to
think that Computer Science is just about designing web pages and
use of the tools for doing that. I've had too many UCAS applications
from people who are basically saying (and their teachers are saying
it as well) "look, I've built a web page, so I am suited for a
Computer Science degree", when they have appallingly bad and/or unsuitable
academic qualifications. So please excuse me if I'm not
impressed by being shown yet-another-web-page-with-flash-animation.

Fair enough, your opinion. Technically Flash is not hard in comparison to
Java, but then again it requires far more different skills. Timing,
animation techniques (masking, motion & shape tweening, layering), coding
(actionscripting), good use of colour ( no good using it to make a web site
like this http://www.dustbrothers.com ) , sound editing (which is often done
in other packages, such as sound forge), file size management (so that your
animation is a quick download), image editing (Adobe Photoshop) and the
ability to create web-sites for an optimized resolution.

Just out of curiousity how many of these students are building web sites
for actual companies? Yeah, I agree its too often that you find too many
students building web sites, but then again its one thing building web sites
without much flair and actually building a web site. In other words, anyone
could paint, take a black and white photograph, write poetry, but it doesn't
mean that everyone has flair required when it comes to doing it
professionally. I did not want to use Flash for my latest project due to
cross browser compatibility, but it was a criteria from my end user.

Oh and by the way, the hardest thing about art (inc web designing) are
ideas, not the technical aspect...

[Matthew Huntbach]

Post by Samsonknight

Post by Matthew Huntbach
From the point of view of an admissions tutor, this doesn't look good.
If all you could get was a C in GCSE Maths, that doesn't amount to much.
When I had more applicants a good rule of thumb I used to use was to
reject anyone who had only a C in GCSE Maths. Trying and failing at
A-level Maths also doesn't look good.

Yes well circumstances were different then. My tutor has explained this all
in my reference..
If you would like me to go into detail of why I have always underachieved
in maths untill now , is because as stated "AL maths builds up on higher
maths" which therefore means I simply did not have the toolset to even
do the course.

I'm not asking you to explain yourself, I'm just putting it from the
point of view of an admissions tutor. Someone who naturally and
intuitively grasps maths is likely to be better than someone who
requires intensive tuition to grasp it. Also, we *do* get a lot
of people who try to make excuses for poor past performance -
this means we do get a bit sceptical when we read them, which may be
unfortunate for those who have genuine reasons that they really have
overcome.

Post by Samsonknight

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Samsonknight
If I end up getting a D, you can say whatever,

Had you applied to us this year, I think it very likely you'd have
been given a place even if you only got D in A-level Maths. If you
think Computer Science at Queen Mary is so crap it'd be an insult if
you ended up with us, I know that many other Computer Science departments
at top universities are also having to take people on with that sort of
qualification.

I never said that your Comp Sci department is poor...

Well, I keep telling you that with your qualifications you'd have no
problem getting into a reasonable Computer Science department (mine as
just one example), but you keep replying as if that doesn't matter
because other CS departments might reject you - so that gives the
impression you regard those other CS departments as the only ones
worth bothering with, and the rest of us as so crap it'd be an insult
if you ended up with us.

Post by Samsonknight
The point I was trying to make is if I get a D, it just wont look good
and I thought that I would get openly criticised for it....

What do you mean "openly criticised"? Do you suppose you will turn up to
a university you have got into, go to your first lecture, and the
lecturer will stand there and point to you and say "Look, see that guy,
he only got a D in Maths, let's all snigger at him"? No, don't worry,
nothing like that will happen. I'm sure most people who've been to
university will agree once you get going there, no-one cares what
qualifications you had when you came in, what matters is how well you've
done once you've got there.

Post by Samsonknight

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Samsonknight
MMH you may be interested in my part time job this gap year: That I am
doing on top of this mathematics.
http://www.samsonknightdesign.com/wna/welcomepage.html

So please excuse me if I'm not
impressed by being shown yet-another-web-page-with-flash-animation.

Fair enough, your opinion. Technically Flash is not hard in comparison to
Java, but then again it requires far more different skills. Timing,
animation techniques (masking, motion & shape tweening, layering), coding
(actionscripting), good use of colour ( no good using it to make a web site
like this http://www.dustbrothers.com ) , sound editing (which is often done
in other packages, such as sound forge), file size management (so that your
animation is a quick download), image editing (Adobe Photoshop) and the
ability to create web-sites for an optimized resolution.

Yes, okay, but my experience is that people who are into making websites
aren't necessarily that good at the more general skills required in
general Computer Science. Also the problem is they think that a
Computer Science degree will be about things like animation techniques,
sound editing, using specific applications like Adobe Photoshop, and
get grumpy and don't bother working when they find out actually it's not
about those sort of things at all.

Post by Samsonknight
Oh and by the way, the hardest thing about art (inc web designing) are
ideas, not the technical aspect...

Yes, of course. Which is exactly why building a good web site does not
necessarily mean one is going to be a good computer scientist, because
the hardest part about it is other aspects of it which have little to
do with computer science.

Matthew Huntbach

[Samsonknight]

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Samsonknight

Post by Matthew Huntbach
From the point of view of an admissions tutor, this doesn't look good.
If all you could get was a C in GCSE Maths, that doesn't amount to much.
When I had more applicants a good rule of thumb I used to use was to
reject anyone who had only a C in GCSE Maths. Trying and failing at
A-level Maths also doesn't look good.

Yes well circumstances were different then. My tutor has explained this all
in my reference..
If you would like me to go into detail of why I have always underachieved
in maths untill now , is because as stated "AL maths builds up on higher
maths" which therefore means I simply did not have the toolset to even
do the course.

I'm not asking you to explain yourself, I'm just putting it from the
point of view of an admissions tutor. Someone who naturally and
intuitively grasps maths is likely to be better than someone who
requires intensive tuition to grasp it. Also, we *do* get a lot
of people who try to make excuses for poor past performance -
this means we do get a bit sceptical when we read them, which may be
unfortunate for those who have genuine reasons that they really have
overcome.

Post by Samsonknight

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Samsonknight
If I end up getting a D, you can say whatever,

Had you applied to us this year, I think it very likely you'd have
been given a place even if you only got D in A-level Maths. If you
think Computer Science at Queen Mary is so crap it'd be an insult if
you ended up with us, I know that many other Computer Science departments
at top universities are also having to take people on with that sort of
qualification.

I never said that your Comp Sci department is poor...

Well, I keep telling you that with your qualifications you'd have no
problem getting into a reasonable Computer Science department (mine as
just one example), but you keep replying as if that doesn't matter
because other CS departments might reject you - so that gives the
impression you regard those other CS departments as the only ones
worth bothering with, and the rest of us as so crap it'd be an insult
if you ended up with us.

Yes I agree, I shouldn't worry so much, I just can't help it....You have
reasured me, and I honestly do believe you, I am just nervous tbh....

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Samsonknight
The point I was trying to make is if I get a D, it just wont look good
and I thought that I would get openly criticised for it....

What do you mean "openly criticised"? Do you suppose you will turn up to
a university you have got into, go to your first lecture, and the
lecturer will stand there and point to you and say "Look, see that guy,
he only got a D in Maths, let's all snigger at him"? No, don't worry,
nothing like that will happen. I'm sure most people who've been to
university will agree once you get going there, no-one cares what
qualifications you had when you came in, what matters is how well you've
done once you've got there.

I see, well friends & family will criticise me, and if I ever have a
mathematical debate in general in future, that grade could play against me
"why am I listening to someone who has got a D - what does he know"....

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Samsonknight

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Samsonknight
MMH you may be interested in my part time job this gap year: That I am
doing on top of this mathematics.
http://www.samsonknightdesign.com/wna/welcomepage.html

So please excuse me if I'm not
impressed by being shown yet-another-web-page-with-flash-animation.

Fair enough, your opinion. Technically Flash is not hard in comparison to
Java, but then again it requires far more different skills. Timing,
animation techniques (masking, motion & shape tweening, layering), coding
(actionscripting), good use of colour ( no good using it to make a web site
like this http://www.dustbrothers.com ) , sound editing (which is often done
in other packages, such as sound forge), file size management (so that your
animation is a quick download), image editing (Adobe Photoshop) and the
ability to create web-sites for an optimized resolution.

Yes, okay, but my experience is that people who are into making websites
aren't necessarily that good at the more general skills required in
general Computer Science. Also the problem is they think that a
Computer Science degree will be about things like animation techniques,
sound editing, using specific applications like Adobe Photoshop, and
get grumpy and don't bother working when they find out actually it's not
about those sort of things at all.

Post by Samsonknight
Oh and by the way, the hardest thing about art (inc web designing) are
ideas, not the technical aspect...

Yes, of course. Which is exactly why building a good web site does not
necessarily mean one is going to be a good computer scientist, because
the hardest part about it is other aspects of it which have little to
do with computer science.

Yes I agree and just to reassure you and Andy, I know web designing is
completely different to computer science. I showed you that web site, well
just because I wanted to hear a third persons comment on my work, and that
was it really. I assure you I do not think web designing is highly relevent
to a CS course unless of course you are a web programmer, yet even then I am
very very sure that I won't be doing designing on a computer science course.
There is a multimedia degree out there for that kind of stuff.

Out of curiousity, yes I know the following will sound stupid but is it a
good thing to be broad in terms of computing? That is the reason why I do
work with the artistic side of computing , as well as the logical side....I
want to be into computer programming (games programming in particular), but
I don't want to be restricted to computer programming only, so if I am
required to work outside of computer programming into the more artistic
areas, I can ....

[Matthew Huntbach]

Post by Samsonknight
Out of curiousity, yes I know the following will sound stupid but is it a
good thing to be broad in terms of computing? That is the reason why I do
work with the artistic side of computing , as well as the logical side....I
want to be into computer programming (games programming in particular), but
I don't want to be restricted to computer programming only, so if I am
required to work outside of computer programming into the more artistic
areas, I can ....

Yes, I've written here plenty of times that one of the qualities I
look for is broadness. Which is one of the reasons why I'm not
impressed if someone who applies seems to think of Computer Science
only in terms of using various pieces of office software, rather than
in much broader terms of general intellectual interest.

A good Computer Science degree should be as good a general piece of
education as any other degree. It has a vocational element, yes, so
many who have it go on to work in directly relevant jobs. But that
doesn't mean that's the only way to go, in just the same way as not
everyone who takes a History degree goes on to become a historian.

Matthew Huntbach

[John Porcella]

Post by Matthew Huntbach
I'm not asking you to explain yourself, I'm just putting it from the
point of view of an admissions tutor. Someone who naturally and
intuitively grasps maths is likely to be better than someone who
requires intensive tuition to grasp it.

"Better" in what sense? In the sense that you do not really have to waste
your precious time having to bother to teach them?


Also, we *do* get a lot

Post by Matthew Huntbach
of people who try to make excuses for poor past performance -
this means we do get a bit sceptical when we read them, which may be
unfortunate for those who have genuine reasons that they really have
overcome.

Indeed, why I would personally not put down a sob story that will bore even
in the unlikely possibility that it is believed.

[Dr A. N. Walker]

In article <ctvog1$e1u$***@hercules.btinternet.com>,
Samsonknight <***@btinternet.com> wrote:
[MMH:]

[...] So please excuse me if I'm not
impressed by being shown yet-another-web-page-with-flash-animation.

Fair enough, your opinion. Technically Flash is not hard [... but ...].

I suspect you will be attracting another broadside from
Matthew, but I'll see if I get in first. He is not passing any
sort of comment on how good, bad or indifferent your site is;
and nor am I. He is saying, as I would if I were still [partly]
responsible for CS admissions here, that he does not see it as
relevant [except in a very minor way] to your suitability to do
CS. Indeed, he finds it worrying that so many of his applicants
seem to think that it is *highly* relevant.

For comparison, I wonder whether you would expect me to
be impressed by an applicant who passed me a list of additions
and multiplications he'd done recently? Yes, an ability to do
sums correctly is a useful skill; but it is not what university
maths is *about*.

For another comparison, in my CS days I lectured on a
wide variety of topics: elementary and advanced programming in
a variety of languages; data structures; languages; operating
systems; compilers; algorithms; complexity and computability;
and others. *Not* *one* of those topics has anything at all to
do with the skills you describe in building your web site. It
isn't that your skills are unimportant, or inferior, or useless.
Just that they are not going to help you with any of the stuff
I might have been interested in teaching you; or, I suspect,
with more than the barest smidgeon of what Matthew might have
been interested in teaching you. You *may* have better luck at
Glasgow or Aberdeen or wherever. And of course, even the most
old-fashioned of univs are going to spend *some* of their time
talking about the web, and document standards, and networking,
and other things that may interest you.

If any of this is making you think that CS *as taught at
top univs* may perhaps not be what you want to do -- well, much
better to find out *now* than a year into the course. There are
other univs and courses out there that may suit you better --
*if* what you really want to do is to learn to write super-duper
web pages, or to integrate your [perhaps] super-duper web pages
with acting as design consultant to some company, or whatever, as
opposed to wanting to learn how compilers work.

Final [I hope!] word. I think, and I'm sure I'm not the
only one, that you are agonising too much about the wrong things.
If your UCAS form is giving completely the wrong impression of
you, well, tough titty and spilt milk. Too late. You've done it,
for good or ill. It can't be all *that* bad, as you've had offers
from decent univs. Your current task is actually to get that C
in maths that you've promised us. Nine months from now, you will
be starting a university course somewhere, hopefully one that
suits you and your abilities. And no-one, not one single solitary
person, apart from you, will be in the least interested by your
life story and your travails in getting there. You will stand or
fall entirely on how well you do on that course.

[Samsonknight]

<snip>

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Final [I hope!] word. I think, and I'm sure I'm not the
only one, that you are agonising too much about the wrong things.
If your UCAS form is giving completely the wrong impression of
you, well, tough titty and spilt milk. Too late. You've done it,
for good or ill. It can't be all *that* bad, as you've had offers
from decent univs. Your current task is actually to get that C
in maths that you've promised us. Nine months from now, you will
be starting a university course somewhere, hopefully one that
suits you and your abilities. And no-one, not one single solitary
person, apart from you, will be in the least interested by your
life story and your travails in getting there. You will stand or
fall entirely on how well you do on that course.

Yes it will make me or break me in simple words. I do remember saying in a
previous thread that "no one cares if you fail" - and yes it is time for me
to provide the goods, and I assure you that I will do my hardest not to let
you down, anyone else reading this, the universities that are offering me a
conditional place, my tutor (who's ability I envy & admire highly) and
everyone else I have forgotten to mention....


Anyway , back to Mechanics.....

[John Porcella]

Post by Samsonknight
Anyway , back to Mechanics.....

I was going to wish you good luck, but you do not really need it since you
are making your own with all that hard work (keep it up) and effort.

[Samsonknight]

<snip>

Post by Matthew Huntbach
Nevertheless, you are getting intensive one-to-one tuition. Therefore
it is correct to ask whether the grade you get at the end of it
represents your natural ability or is just because of that tuition.
What I want in a degree student is someone with natural ability, not
someone who can only perform if you sit down and work with them
solidly for three hours a week. We don't have time to sit down with
our students and work with each of them solidly for three hours a week.

Yes I doubt you do, but as he has said in his reference. "He clearly has
developed the ability to work on his own, but asks for help on very specific
issues when really stuck. In my rather long experience of undergraduates, I
have come to see that quality as the litmus test of undergraduate success.
Sam has already crossed a rubicon that many if not most undergraduates at X
uni take 2 years to even find."

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Samsonknight
This is a bore, but below is my life structure for the past 4-5 months so

You don't have to convince me, you have to convince the admissions tutor
who's looking at your UCAS form.

Post by Samsonknight
Yes I did do A level Mathematics two years ago, and yes I did fail it , but
1. Considering my mathematical background, C at intermiediate GCSE - I
should never have been let on the course two years ago, because now I have
begun to realise, A level mathematics builds up on GCSE higher mathematics.
No wonder why I failed, my foundations were not solid enough for AL maths 2
years back. Even if I passed the AS course, A2 would have been a struggle, I
mean bloody hell to even do Vectors you need to have strong foundations in
GCSE higher stuff such as trig (cosine rule, sine rule) for some
questions....

From the point of view of an admissions tutor, this doesn't look good.
If all you could get was a C in GCSE Maths, that doesn't amount to much.
When I had more applicants a good rule of thumb I used to use was to
reject anyone who had only a C in GCSE Maths. Trying and failing at
A-level Maths also doesn't look good.

Yes well circumstances were different then. My tutor has explained this all
in my reference..

If you would like me to go into detail of why I have always underachieved in
maths untill now , is because as stated "AL maths builds up on higher maths"
which therefore means I simply did not have the toolset to even do the
course. Unfortunantly, at the time I thought that it would get better , as I
had no previous experience of this subject, but no, it got harder and
harder - and unfortunantly my teachers at the time did not spot this earlier
enough.

My underachievement at GCSE is not that bad considering that he highest that
you can get on any intermiediate module is a B. So my C is the equivilent to
a B in the higher module - if you look at it from that prospective.

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Samsonknight
3. Most importantly, I have decided to do this Alevel as a
choice,understanding, so that I could develop flair and interest for the
subject. Which is what is happening. I mean in all fairness, I could have
just throught to myself "ahhh, forget it let me just goto x polytechnic and
do a comp sci degree there.". Yet, I have shown courage, despite the
circumstances above and despite what people have said and are still saying
that I am "wasting my time" , the hard work is all paying off. A question
to you skeptics "Seriously, do you think if I was not serious, would I
really waste my time and my money (as I am a private candidiate) on doing
this mammoth task in my gap year?"

I'm not being sceptical, I'm just trying to put to put it from the point
of view of an admissions tutor who's lucky enough to be faced with enough
applicants to be able to pick and choose. Faced with someone who seems to
have sailed through and got good grades in appropriate subjects, that
person looks a better bet than someone who has got poor grades
in less appropriate subjects and has been put into some sort of crammer
to improve on them.

Yes I know, only if I could fit this all into my personal
statement/reference.

Post by Matthew Huntbach
You may be putting in an immense amount of personal effort into
your retakes, which is good - you need to get that message through
to the admissions tutors who are reading your UCAS form. You really need
to demonstrate that your earlier poor performance was not due to lack
of ability or laziness, but due to problems outside your control which
you have now overcome. I am surprised how many UCAS forms I get from
people who are retaking A-levels who don't do this at all. Sometimes
they put their previous grades in, but say nothing about why they think
they did badly and what they are doing about it. Sometimes they don't
even mention them, and suppose I won't notice they're taking A-levels
three years after GCSEs - I do, and I mark them down as "dishonest" and
I am much less likely to accept them.
Unfortunately, a common pattern with someone taking resits in a
crammer or with private tuition is that they aren't particularly
dedicated. Rather they've got rich parents who can afford to pay for
it, couldn't accept that their little darling wasn't up to what a
top university requires, and so have forced them reluctantly into the
resit. Well, once the little darling gets the university place, they
go back to their lazy old ways because they no longer have Mr Crammer
bearing down on them and forcing them to work. So not a good bet, I'd
rather take someone with weaker grades obtained first time round who
shows genuine enthusiasm. I don't mean this as a personal attack on
you, Samsonknight, I'm just trying to put it how it appears to an
experienced admissions tutor. I think you've said enough to show you
don't fall into this pattern, but you need to make sure your UCAS
form shouts out that you don't.

I am aware of the above, which is what worries me. My hard work is purely
out of choice and I know you have said that I don't *fall* into this
category, but I would just like to add - and this is the most important
concept that I would like to add and reinforce....This year is purely my
choice, I don't have to be doing 14 hour days doing x topic. I don't have to
spend ages doing x amount of personal research, I don't have to restructure
my life, I dont have to spend x amount of time trying to figure out game
theory because Andy got me interested in it....I am hoping that the AT's I
am trying convince see that I have developed the dicipline to carry this
forward minded academical thinking onto their course e.g. If I get stuck, I
won't sit there and like a lazy person think to myself "ahhh forget it, let
me just go with the flow" (which is the mentality that many of my peers
had) - I will instead go and do something about it.If that means I have to
go and sit in the university libary without being told to for x amount of
hours, then so be it.

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Samsonknight
If I do pass Alevel Maths with a substansial grade this year , I'm aiming
for a B , then you know what if I do not get credit for restructuring my
life (which is hard considering all of the distractions around me), my
courage, showing the ability to learn independently and the speed I have
learnt mathematical conceps in such a short period of time (GCSE higher
maths, C1,C2,C3,C4,S1,M1), then I will be bitter about the educational
system.

What do you mean by "do not get credit"? Even in the good years for
Computer Science, if your UCAS form had managed to convince me you
had a chance of getting a B in A-level Maths I'd have made a conditional
offer that asked for it, and probably accept at a C. From my experience
so would plenty of other reasonable CS departments. So what's your
gripe? You've already told us ypu've got an offer from Glasgow, which
is an excellent CS department.

Yes, valid point. Glasgow and Aberdeen are very nice people.

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Samsonknight
If I end up getting a D, you can say whatever,

Had you applied to us this year, I think it very likely you'd have
been given a place even if you only got D in A-level Maths. If you
think Computer Science at Queen Mary is so crap it'd be an insult if
you ended up with us, I know that many other Computer Science departments
at top universities are also having to take people on with that sort of
qualification.

I never said that your Comp Sci department is poor...The point I was trying
to make is if I get a D, it just wont look good and I thought that I would
get openly criticised for it....Even if I had got a D due to ill time
management (because if anything that would be my downfall this year as shown
by the Jan exams), but said exactly what I am saying now, the chances are
someone along the line would say "your making excuses sam". I have seen it
too many times before.

The reason why I did not apply to any London based university is so that I
could move away from home - otherwise I certainly would have applied to
Queen Mary.

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Samsonknight
MMH you may be interested in my part time job this gap year: That I am
doing on top of this mathematics.
http://www.samsonknightdesign.com/wna/welcomepage.html
you will need the flash plug in 7, and a suitable monitor resolution -
ideally 1024x768

Er sorry, but no I don't find this sort of thing very interesting.
In fact it's part of the problem - too many people these days seem to
think that Computer Science is just about designing web pages and
use of the tools for doing that. I've had too many UCAS applications
from people who are basically saying (and their teachers are saying
it as well) "look, I've built a web page, so I am suited for a
Computer Science degree", when they have appallingly bad and/or unsuitable
academic qualifications. So please excuse me if I'm not
impressed by being shown yet-another-web-page-with-flash-animation.

Fair enough, your opinion. Technically Flash is not hard in comparison to
Java, but then again it requires far more different skills. Timing,
animation techniques (masking, motion & shape tweening, layering), coding
(actionscripting), good use of colour ( no good using it to make a web site
like this http://www.dustbrothers.com ) , sound editing (which is often done
in other packages, such as sound forge), file size management (so that your
animation is a quick download), image editing (Adobe Photoshop) and the
ability to create web-sites for an optimized resolution.

Just out of curiousity how many of these students are building web sites
for actual companies? Yeah, I agree its too often that you find too many
students building web sites, but then again its one thing building web sites
without much flair and actually building a web site. In other words, anyone
could paint, take a black and white photograph, write poetry, but it doesn't
mean that everyone has flair required when it comes to doing it
professionally. I did not want to use Flash for my latest project due to
cross browser compatibility, but it was a criteria from my end user.

Oh and by the way, the hardest thing about art (inc web designing) are
ideas, not the technical aspect...

[Samsonknight]

<snip>

Post by Matthew Huntbach
Nevertheless, you are getting intensive one-to-one tuition. Therefore
it is correct to ask whether the grade you get at the end of it
represents your natural ability or is just because of that tuition.
What I want in a degree student is someone with natural ability, not
someone who can only perform if you sit down and work with them
solidly for three hours a week. We don't have time to sit down with
our students and work with each of them solidly for three hours a week.

Yes I doubt you do, but as he has said in his reference. "He clearly has
developed the ability to work on his own, but asks for help on very specific
issues when really stuck. In my rather long experience of undergraduates, I
have come to see that quality as the litmus test of undergraduate success.
Sam has already crossed a rubicon that many if not most undergraduates at X
uni take 2 years to even find."

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Samsonknight
This is a bore, but below is my life structure for the past 4-5 months so

You don't have to convince me, you have to convince the admissions tutor
who's looking at your UCAS form.

Post by Samsonknight
Yes I did do A level Mathematics two years ago, and yes I did fail it , but
1. Considering my mathematical background, C at intermiediate GCSE - I
should never have been let on the course two years ago, because now I have
begun to realise, A level mathematics builds up on GCSE higher mathematics.
No wonder why I failed, my foundations were not solid enough for AL maths 2
years back. Even if I passed the AS course, A2 would have been a struggle, I
mean bloody hell to even do Vectors you need to have strong foundations in
GCSE higher stuff such as trig (cosine rule, sine rule) for some
questions....

From the point of view of an admissions tutor, this doesn't look good.
If all you could get was a C in GCSE Maths, that doesn't amount to much.
When I had more applicants a good rule of thumb I used to use was to
reject anyone who had only a C in GCSE Maths. Trying and failing at
A-level Maths also doesn't look good.

Yes well circumstances were different then. My tutor has explained this all
in my reference..

If you would like me to go into detail of why I have always underachieved in
maths untill now , is because as stated "AL maths builds up on higher maths"
which therefore means I simply did not have the toolset to even do the
course. Unfortunantly, at the time I thought that it would get better , as I
had no previous experience of this subject, but no, it got harder and
harder - and unfortunantly my teachers at the time did not spot this earlier
enough.

My underachievement at GCSE is not that bad considering that he highest that
you can get on any intermiediate module is a B. So my C is the equivilent to
a B in the higher module - if you look at it from that prospective.

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Samsonknight
3. Most importantly, I have decided to do this Alevel as a
choice,understanding, so that I could develop flair and interest for the
subject. Which is what is happening. I mean in all fairness, I could have
just throught to myself "ahhh, forget it let me just goto x polytechnic and
do a comp sci degree there.". Yet, I have shown courage, despite the
circumstances above and despite what people have said and are still saying
that I am "wasting my time" , the hard work is all paying off. A question
to you skeptics "Seriously, do you think if I was not serious, would I
really waste my time and my money (as I am a private candidiate) on doing
this mammoth task in my gap year?"

I'm not being sceptical, I'm just trying to put to put it from the point
of view of an admissions tutor who's lucky enough to be faced with enough
applicants to be able to pick and choose. Faced with someone who seems to
have sailed through and got good grades in appropriate subjects, that
person looks a better bet than someone who has got poor grades
in less appropriate subjects and has been put into some sort of crammer
to improve on them.

Yes I know, only if I could fit this all into my personal
statement/reference.

Post by Matthew Huntbach
You may be putting in an immense amount of personal effort into
your retakes, which is good - you need to get that message through
to the admissions tutors who are reading your UCAS form. You really need
to demonstrate that your earlier poor performance was not due to lack
of ability or laziness, but due to problems outside your control which
you have now overcome. I am surprised how many UCAS forms I get from
people who are retaking A-levels who don't do this at all. Sometimes
they put their previous grades in, but say nothing about why they think
they did badly and what they are doing about it. Sometimes they don't
even mention them, and suppose I won't notice they're taking A-levels
three years after GCSEs - I do, and I mark them down as "dishonest" and
I am much less likely to accept them.
Unfortunately, a common pattern with someone taking resits in a
crammer or with private tuition is that they aren't particularly
dedicated. Rather they've got rich parents who can afford to pay for
it, couldn't accept that their little darling wasn't up to what a
top university requires, and so have forced them reluctantly into the
resit. Well, once the little darling gets the university place, they
go back to their lazy old ways because they no longer have Mr Crammer
bearing down on them and forcing them to work. So not a good bet, I'd
rather take someone with weaker grades obtained first time round who
shows genuine enthusiasm. I don't mean this as a personal attack on
you, Samsonknight, I'm just trying to put it how it appears to an
experienced admissions tutor. I think you've said enough to show you
don't fall into this pattern, but you need to make sure your UCAS
form shouts out that you don't.

I am aware of the above, which is what worries me. My hard work is purely
out of choice and I know you have said that I don't *fall* into this
category, but I would just like to add - and this is the most important
concept that I would like to add and reinforce....This year is purely my
choice, I don't have to be doing 14 hour days doing x topic. I don't have to
spend ages doing x amount of personal research, I don't have to restructure
my life, I dont have to spend x amount of time trying to figure out game
theory because Andy got me interested in it....I am hoping that the AT's I
am trying convince see that I have developed the dicipline to carry this
forward minded academical thinking onto their course e.g. If I get stuck, I
won't sit there and like a lazy person think to myself "ahhh forget it, let
me just go with the flow" (which is the mentality that many of my peers
had) - I will instead go and do something about it.If that means I have to
go and sit in the university libary without being told to for x amount of
hours, then so be it.

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Samsonknight
If I do pass Alevel Maths with a substansial grade this year , I'm aiming
for a B , then you know what if I do not get credit for restructuring my
life (which is hard considering all of the distractions around me), my
courage, showing the ability to learn independently and the speed I have
learnt mathematical conceps in such a short period of time (GCSE higher
maths, C1,C2,C3,C4,S1,M1), then I will be bitter about the educational
system.

What do you mean by "do not get credit"? Even in the good years for
Computer Science, if your UCAS form had managed to convince me you
had a chance of getting a B in A-level Maths I'd have made a conditional
offer that asked for it, and probably accept at a C. From my experience
so would plenty of other reasonable CS departments. So what's your
gripe? You've already told us ypu've got an offer from Glasgow, which
is an excellent CS department.

Yes, valid point. Glasgow and Aberdeen are very nice people.

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Samsonknight
If I end up getting a D, you can say whatever,

Had you applied to us this year, I think it very likely you'd have
been given a place even if you only got D in A-level Maths. If you
think Computer Science at Queen Mary is so crap it'd be an insult if
you ended up with us, I know that many other Computer Science departments
at top universities are also having to take people on with that sort of
qualification.

I never said that your Comp Sci department is poor...The point I was trying
to make is if I get a D, it just wont look good and I thought that I would
get openly criticised for it....Even if I had got a D due to ill time
management (because if anything that would be my downfall this year as shown
by the Jan exams), but said exactly what I am saying now, the chances are
someone along the line would say "your making excuses sam". I have seen it
too many times before.

The reason why I did not apply to any London based university is so that I
could move away from home - otherwise I certainly would have applied to
Queen Mary.

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Samsonknight
MMH you may be interested in my part time job this gap year: That I am
doing on top of this mathematics.
http://www.samsonknightdesign.com/wna/welcomepage.html
you will need the flash plug in 7, and a suitable monitor resolution -
ideally 1024x768

Er sorry, but no I don't find this sort of thing very interesting.
In fact it's part of the problem - too many people these days seem to
think that Computer Science is just about designing web pages and
use of the tools for doing that. I've had too many UCAS applications
from people who are basically saying (and their teachers are saying
it as well) "look, I've built a web page, so I am suited for a
Computer Science degree", when they have appallingly bad and/or unsuitable
academic qualifications. So please excuse me if I'm not
impressed by being shown yet-another-web-page-with-flash-animation.

Fair enough, your opinion. Technically Flash is not hard in comparison to
Java, but then again it requires far more different skills. Timing,
animation techniques (masking, motion & shape tweening, layering), coding
(actionscripting), good use of colour ( no good using it to make a web site
like this http://www.dustbrothers.com ) , sound editing (which is often done
in other packages, such as sound forge), file size management (so that your
animation is a quick download), image editing (Adobe Photoshop) and the
ability to create web-sites for an optimized resolution.

Just out of curiousity how many of these students are building web sites
for actual companies? Yeah, I agree its too often that you find too many
students building web sites, but then again its one thing building web sites
without much flair and actually building a web site. In other words, anyone
could paint, take a black and white photograph, write poetry, but it doesn't
mean that everyone has flair required when it comes to doing it
professionally. I did not want to use Flash for my latest project due to
cross browser compatibility, but it was a criteria from my end user.

Oh and by the way, the hardest thing about art (inc web designing) are
ideas, not the technical aspect...

[Richard Hayden]

Matthew Huntbach wrote:
| Had you applied to us this year, I think it very likely you'd have
| been given a place even if you only got D in A-level Maths. If you
| think Computer Science at Queen Mary is so crap it'd be an insult if
| you ended up with us, I know that many other Computer Science departments
| at top universities are also having to take people on with that sort of
| qualification.

Sorry for jumping in rather spontaneously and possibly quoting you out
of context, but I find it hard to believe that a candidate who can only
obtain a grade D in A-level mathematics would be able to handle any
decent computer science degree.

Here at Imperial, the majority (perhaps all) of the CS students have A
at A-level maths (and many, also at further maths), and a lot of them
seem to find the mathematics components of their courses along with the
more abstract content (such as computability, complexity etc.) pretty
hard to grasp. I simply cannot imagine someone who can only (I'm not
intending to put such people down by my use of 'only' - it's intended
purely contextually) obtain a grade D at A-level maths being able to
handle complicated abstract concepts. OK, not all CS courses are as
abstract and theoretical as IC's, but I think a good CS course (I always
thought that QM's course was considered good) must have a high degree of
abstract content.

Thanks,

Richard Hayden.

[Matthew Huntbach]

Post by Richard Hayden
| Had you applied to us this year, I think it very likely you'd have
| been given a place even if you only got D in A-level Maths. If you
| think Computer Science at Queen Mary is so crap it'd be an insult if
| you ended up with us, I know that many other Computer Science
| departments at top universities are also having to take people on
| with that sort of qualification.
Sorry for jumping in rather spontaneously and possibly quoting you out
of context, but I find it hard to believe that a candidate who can only
obtain a grade D in A-level mathematics would be able to handle any
decent computer science degree.
Here at Imperial, the majority (perhaps all) of the CS students have A
at A-level maths (and many, also at further maths), and a lot of them
seem to find the mathematics components of their courses along with the
more abstract content (such as computability, complexity etc.) pretty
hard to grasp. I simply cannot imagine someone who can only (I'm not
intending to put such people down by my use of 'only' - it's intended
purely contextually) obtain a grade D at A-level maths being able to
handle complicated abstract concepts. OK, not all CS courses are as
abstract and theoretical as IC's, but I think a good CS course (I always
thought that QM's course was considered good) must have a high degree of
abstract content.

Right - so what do you expect us to do? Four years ago, at the height
of the Computer Science boom, we were indeed rejecting people who had
only a grade D in A-level Maths. Since then the number of applicants
to Computer Science nationwide has halved. If we were to insist on a B in
A-level Maths, which I know from experience is about the level where we
can be certain a student will do well, in the current climate we would
fill well under half our places. The consequence would be that the
department would not be paying its way and would quite likely get closed
down. This is no idle threat - the Chemistry deparment at Queen Mary
*has* been closed down, as were the Civil Egineering Department and
Classics departments some years ago.

Imperial is in the fortunate position of being the top choice, or
perhaps second choice after Oxbridge, of many of the most highly
qualified applicants for Computer Science, and probably almost all
highly qualified people willing to do Computer Science in London.
So anyone with a grade A in A-level Maths who wants to do Computer
Science in London is going to go to Imperial. That doesn't leave
many grade A Maths students to go to other Computer Science departments.
It may well be the case that with the nationwide slump in Computer
Science applicants, Imperial is forced to take some with only a B in
Maths in order to fill all their places, which will leave fewer
applicants with a B in Maths to go round elsewhere. Maybe UCL will
take up most of those with grade B in Maths who want to do a
Computer Science degree. So what's left for those of us who, yes,
do have good high quality and demanding Computer Science degrees,
but are faced with a drop in demand for the subject, and a shortage
of people with the ideal qualification (A-level Maths)?

This is not a factor unique to Queen Mary. I know that many other
Computer Science departments in a similar situation to us -
recognised as good quality, but probably not the first choice of the
most highly qualified applicants - are also having to take applicants
with grades well below their published standards. I can see this from
students who are Insurance with us and Firm somewhere else who get
accepted at that somewhere else, and from the occasional student who
is somewhere else and is looking for a transfer. For example, I've
just had a UCAS form from a student who's BBD (with the D in Maths)
who's failed the first year of a Computer Science degree somewhere
else (I won't say where, but it's higher in the league tables than
Queen Mary) and is hoping Queen Mary will take him.

As it happens, there isn't as close a correlation between A-level
grades and success in a Computer Science degree as you imagine.
Some research has been done which suggests there is none at all.
I don't find this, but the reality is that quite a few people with
modest A-levels still manage to do very well on the degree - I've
seen people with grade Ds end up with 1st class degrees. What tends
to happen is the lower the entrance qualification the higher the chance
of failing or dropping out in the first year. Once they get beyond
the first year, entrance qualifications matter less.

I agree with you on the theoretical and abstract nature of a good
Computer Science degree. Imperial's tends to be more theoretical
and demanding than others, but, yes, this theory and abstraction is
a major part of our degree at Queen Mary. Unfortunately, this seems
not to be appreciated at all in many schools and further education
colleges, who seem to believe that anyone who has messed around
with computers and managed to cope with a few common applications
is "ideally suited" for Computer Science. If you think the students
we accept shouldn't really be on the degree, you should look at the
hundreds we reject. The main FE colleges in London really do seem to
believe that we would be interested in students with a D or worse
in *GCSE* Maths and nothing beyond that except some sort of "ICT"
qualification.

Matthew Huntbach

[Gaurav Sharma]

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Richard Hayden
| Had you applied to us this year, I think it very likely you'd have
| been given a place even if you only got D in A-level Maths. If you
| think Computer Science at Queen Mary is so crap it'd be an insult if
| you ended up with us, I know that many other Computer Science
| departments at top universities are also having to take people on
| with that sort of qualification.
Sorry for jumping in rather spontaneously and possibly quoting you out
of context, but I find it hard to believe that a candidate who can only
obtain a grade D in A-level mathematics would be able to handle any
decent computer science degree.
Here at Imperial, the majority (perhaps all) of the CS students have A
at A-level maths (and many, also at further maths), and a lot of them
seem to find the mathematics components of their courses along with the
more abstract content (such as computability, complexity etc.) pretty
hard to grasp. I simply cannot imagine someone who can only (I'm not
intending to put such people down by my use of 'only' - it's intended
purely contextually) obtain a grade D at A-level maths being able to
handle complicated abstract concepts. OK, not all CS courses are as
abstract and theoretical as IC's, but I think a good CS course (I always
thought that QM's course was considered good) must have a high degree of
abstract content.

Right - so what do you expect us to do? Four years ago, at the height
of the Computer Science boom, we were indeed rejecting people who had
only a grade D in A-level Maths. Since then the number of applicants
to Computer Science nationwide has halved. If we were to insist on a B in
A-level Maths, which I know from experience is about the level where we
can be certain a student will do well, in the current climate we would
fill well under half our places. The consequence would be that the
department would not be paying its way and would quite likely get closed
down. This is no idle threat - the Chemistry deparment at Queen Mary
*has* been closed down, as were the Civil Egineering Department and
Classics departments some years ago.
Imperial is in the fortunate position of being the top choice, or
perhaps second choice after Oxbridge, of many of the most highly
qualified applicants for Computer Science, and probably almost all
highly qualified people willing to do Computer Science in London.
So anyone with a grade A in A-level Maths who wants to do Computer
Science in London is going to go to Imperial. That doesn't leave
many grade A Maths students to go to other Computer Science departments.
It may well be the case that with the nationwide slump in Computer
Science applicants, Imperial is forced to take some with only a B in
Maths in order to fill all their places, which will leave fewer
applicants with a B in Maths to go round elsewhere. Maybe UCL will
take up most of those with grade B in Maths who want to do a
Computer Science degree. So what's left for those of us who, yes,
do have good high quality and demanding Computer Science degrees,
but are faced with a drop in demand for the subject, and a shortage
of people with the ideal qualification (A-level Maths)?
This is not a factor unique to Queen Mary. I know that many other
Computer Science departments in a similar situation to us -
recognised as good quality, but probably not the first choice of the
most highly qualified applicants - are also having to take applicants
with grades well below their published standards. I can see this from
students who are Insurance with us and Firm somewhere else who get
accepted at that somewhere else, and from the occasional student who
is somewhere else and is looking for a transfer. For example, I've
just had a UCAS form from a student who's BBD (with the D in Maths)
who's failed the first year of a Computer Science degree somewhere
else (I won't say where, but it's higher in the league tables than
Queen Mary) and is hoping Queen Mary will take him.
As it happens, there isn't as close a correlation between A-level
grades and success in a Computer Science degree as you imagine.
Some research has been done which suggests there is none at all.
I don't find this, but the reality is that quite a few people with
modest A-levels still manage to do very well on the degree - I've
seen people with grade Ds end up with 1st class degrees. What tends
to happen is the lower the entrance qualification the higher the chance
of failing or dropping out in the first year. Once they get beyond
the first year, entrance qualifications matter less.
I agree with you on the theoretical and abstract nature of a good
Computer Science degree. Imperial's tends to be more theoretical
and demanding than others, but, yes, this theory and abstraction is
a major part of our degree at Queen Mary. Unfortunately, this seems
not to be appreciated at all in many schools and further education
colleges, who seem to believe that anyone who has messed around
with computers and managed to cope with a few common applications
is "ideally suited" for Computer Science. If you think the students
we accept shouldn't really be on the degree, you should look at the
hundreds we reject. The main FE colleges in London really do seem to
believe that we would be interested in students with a D or worse
in *GCSE* Maths and nothing beyond that except some sort of "ICT"
qualification.
Matthew Huntbach

ICT is awesome man, don't diss. I did i' n look @ me. the mathz was
just little side trackin shit 'yo.

do ur own thin' say no mo.

'G

[John Porcella]

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Samsonknight

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Samsonknight
and there is me with
ICT,psy,RE,maths at ABCE (after summer exams hopefully),

There is a bit more difference between you and the other student you
hypothesise above than mere subject difference. If the A-level subjects
don't matter so long as there's a good A-level in Maths (i.e. minimum
C), you lose out because you have only an E in Maths. That's nothing to do
with not having A-level Physics and A-level Chemistry.

I got an E in psychology, not maths...

I had assumed when you listed your subjects and grades that the grades
were in the same order as the subjects.

Post by Samsonknight

Post by Matthew Huntbach
Also having got our grades on a retake is a negative not a positive
feature. My experience is that people who have got good grades through
intensive tuition to pass a resit almost never perform as well as people
who got the same grade first time round under a normal schooling
situation.

I only have tuition 3 hours a week - the equivilent to one maths lesson
in a sixth form - where they normally have 3-4 maths lessons a week (so
9-12 hours a week of teaching). I have to self teach myself mathematics,
my tutor only guides me. I cannot afford more then one lesson a week.

Nevertheless, you are getting intensive one-to-one tuition. Therefore
it is correct to ask whether the grade you get at the end of it
represents your natural ability or is just because of that tuition.

You could easily just as well ask of someone applying straight from a sixth
form, is that their natural ability or is it because of the teaching? My
point being, what does it matter? At the end, you should only really be
looking at grades, unless you are happy that university teaching is
poor/non-existent and it is only natural abiility that gets people through,
and not the teaching ability of the staff.

Post by Matthew Huntbach
What I want in a degree student is someone with natural ability,

So that lack of teaching ability is not exposed?

not

Post by Matthew Huntbach
someone who can only perform if you sit down and work with them
solidly for three hours a week.

They call that teaching!

We don't have time to sit down with

Post by Matthew Huntbach
our students and work with each of them solidly for three hours a
week.

Then you have to have alternative teaching strategies, and just recruiting
those who are good at the subject is simple idleness on the part of the
university and its staff.

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Samsonknight
This is a bore, but below is my life structure for the past 4-5 months so

You don't have to convince me, you have to convince the admissions tutor
who's looking at your UCAS form.

I did not think that he was trying to convince anybody, just outlining a
typical day for a very determined student.

Post by Matthew Huntbach
From the point of view of an admissions tutor, this doesn't look good.
If all you could get was a C in GCSE Maths, that doesn't amount to much.

True, I suspect, but then why question Samsonknight's possible better grade
at 'A' level by dismissing it as mere intensive tutoring? Which is it? You
cannot really have it both ways!

Post by Matthew Huntbach
When I had more applicants a good rule of thumb I used to use was to
reject anyone who had only a C in GCSE Maths. Trying and failing at
A-level Maths also doesn't look good.

It is the failing that does not look good, since another student can try and
get the top grade, and you would not moan (I suppose).

Post by Matthew Huntbach
I'm not being sceptical, I'm just trying to put to put it from the point
of view of an admissions tutor who's lucky enough to be faced with enough
applicants to be able to pick and choose. Faced with someone who seems to
have sailed through and got good grades in appropriate subjects,
that person looks a better bet

A "better bet" for what? For not having to do some work and teach properly?
Or at all?

than someone who has got poor grades

Post by Matthew Huntbach
in less appropriate subjects and has been put into some sort of crammer
to improve on them.

If a crammer is able to improve the grades of people you do not rate, then
what does this say about your teaching? Can you only teach those who teach
themselves? If your answer is yes, then you are no teacher!

Post by Matthew Huntbach
You may be putting in an immense amount of personal effort into
your retakes, which is good - you need to get that message through
to the admissions tutors who are reading your UCAS form.

Not according to you! You would prefer a student who got good grades and
admitted to doing little or no work, since this would indicate natural
aptitude! The rest you have dismissed at being the products of coaching!

You really need

Post by Matthew Huntbach
to demonstrate that your earlier poor performance was not due to lack
of ability or laziness, but due to problems outside your control which
you have now overcome.

What if this is not true?

I am surprised how many UCAS forms I get from

Post by Matthew Huntbach
people who are retaking A-levels who don't do this at all.

I am not surprised! How many times can a sob story be believed?

Sometimes

Post by Matthew Huntbach
they put their previous grades in, but say nothing about why they think
they did badly and what they are doing about it. Sometimes they don't
even mention them, and suppose I won't notice they're taking A-levels
three years after GCSEs - I do, and I mark them down as "dishonest" and
I am much less likely to accept them.

Where is the dishonesty?

Post by Matthew Huntbach
Unfortunately, a common pattern with someone taking resits in a
crammer or with private tuition is that they aren't particularly
dedicated.

They are dedicated enough to attend tutorials and get through their
examinations well! What more do you want?

Rather they've got rich parents

So what? In a capitalist society this is not a crime, at least not yet! In
effect, you are condemning the child for what you perceive to be the sins of
the parents! What would you say if somebody condemned a child for having
parents of a particular ethnic grouping, religion or political opinion? You
would be outraged, I hope! Can you not see that you are doing the same?


who can afford to pay for

Post by Matthew Huntbach
it,

So what? That is the benefit of wealth!

couldn't accept that their little darling wasn't up to what a

Post by Matthew Huntbach
top university requires, and so have forced them reluctantly into the
resit.

Why the reluctance? You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make it
drink. If the student gets through well, ultimately, it is because they
want to, even if only to please others.

Well, once the little darling

Why the condescension?

gets the university place, they

Post by Matthew Huntbach
go back to their lazy old ways because they no longer have Mr Crammer
bearing down on them and forcing them to work.

Correct, they ought to have Mr/Miss/Mrs Lecturer doing it.

So not a good bet,

I agree, if universities refuse to teach.


I'd

Post by Matthew Huntbach
rather take someone with weaker grades obtained first time round who
shows genuine enthusiasm. I don't mean this as a personal attack on
you, Samsonknight, I'm just trying to put it how it appears to an
experienced admissions tutor.

An experienced AT with his values back-to-front!

[H Bergeron]

On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 23:40:59 +0000 (UTC), "John Porcella"

Post by ath

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Samsonknight

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Samsonknight
and there is me with
ICT,psy,RE,maths at ABCE (after summer exams hopefully),

There is a bit more difference between you and the other student you
hypothesise above than mere subject difference. If the A-level subjects
don't matter so long as there's a good A-level in Maths (i.e. minimum
C), you lose out because you have only an E in Maths. That's nothing to

do

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Samsonknight

Post by Matthew Huntbach
with not having A-level Physics and A-level Chemistry.

I got an E in psychology, not maths...

I had assumed when you listed your subjects and grades that the grades
were in the same order as the subjects.

Post by Samsonknight

Post by Matthew Huntbach
Also having got our grades on a retake is a negative not a positive
feature. My experience is that people who have got good grades through
intensive tuition to pass a resit almost never perform as well as

people

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Samsonknight

Post by Matthew Huntbach
who got the same grade first time round under a normal schooling
situation.

I only have tuition 3 hours a week - the equivilent to one maths lesson
in a sixth form - where they normally have 3-4 maths lessons a week (so
9-12 hours a week of teaching). I have to self teach myself mathematics,
my tutor only guides me. I cannot afford more then one lesson a week.

Nevertheless, you are getting intensive one-to-one tuition. Therefore
it is correct to ask whether the grade you get at the end of it
represents your natural ability or is just because of that tuition.

You could easily just as well ask of someone applying straight from a sixth
form, is that their natural ability or is it because of the teaching? My
point being, what does it matter? At the end, you should only really be
looking at grades,

Why on earth do you say that? Evidence, other than grades, of a
student's ability may be hard to come by, but if available it should
be treated like gold dust. You can teach students maths, and you can
teach them to pass exams in maths. I do both. The two activities do
not always have as much in common as I would like.

Post by ath
unless you are happy that university teaching is
poor/non-existent and it is only natural abiility that gets people through,
and not the teaching ability of the staff.

Post by Matthew Huntbach
What I want in a degree student is someone with natural ability,

So that lack of teaching ability is not exposed?
not

Post by Matthew Huntbach
someone who can only perform if you sit down and work with them
solidly for three hours a week.

They call that teaching!
We don't have time to sit down with

Post by Matthew Huntbach
our students and work with each of them solidly for three hours a
week.

Then you have to have alternative teaching strategies, and just recruiting
those who are good at the subject is simple idleness on the part of the
university and its staff.

I must say I find your attitude here extraordinary. Who do you think
unis should take, if not those who are good at the subject?

Post by ath

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Samsonknight
This is a bore, but below is my life structure for the past 4-5 months

so

Post by Matthew Huntbach
You don't have to convince me, you have to convince the admissions tutor
who's looking at your UCAS form.

I did not think that he was trying to convince anybody, just outlining a
typical day for a very determined student.

Post by Matthew Huntbach
From the point of view of an admissions tutor, this doesn't look good.
If all you could get was a C in GCSE Maths, that doesn't amount to much.

True, I suspect, but then why question Samsonknight's possible better grade
at 'A' level by dismissing it as mere intensive tutoring? Which is it? You
cannot really have it both ways!

I don't see any indication that he's trying to have it more than one
way.

It seems to me that it would be a perfectly coherent position for an
AT to say "This course demands strong ability in mathematics. Anyone
with the required level of ability will have breezed through GCSE, AS
and A2 with top grades, regardless of how good the teaching was or
whether they did any work. Thus, we can safely reject anyone who has
shown any evidence of weakness at any stage". Perhaps not many will
want to be so draconian, and very very few can afford to be even if
they want to, but, as I say, it's a coherent position.

Post by ath

Post by Matthew Huntbach
When I had more applicants a good rule of thumb I used to use was to
reject anyone who had only a C in GCSE Maths. Trying and failing at
A-level Maths also doesn't look good.

It is the failing that does not look good, since another student can try and
get the top grade, and you would not moan (I suppose).

Post by Matthew Huntbach
I'm not being sceptical, I'm just trying to put to put it from the point
of view of an admissions tutor who's lucky enough to be faced with enough
applicants to be able to pick and choose. Faced with someone who seems to
have sailed through and got good grades in appropriate subjects,
that person looks a better bet

A "better bet" for what? For not having to do some work and teach properly?
Or at all?

Perhaps you have some background knowledge about the standard of
teaching at QM? If not, this seems distinctly uncalled-for.

*Whatever* the standard of teaching, it seems very likely that someone
who *needs* intensive one-to-one coaching to get a decent A level
grade is far more likely to struggle than someone who has succeeded
with less help.

Post by ath
than someone who has got poor grades

Post by Matthew Huntbach
in less appropriate subjects and has been put into some sort of crammer
to improve on them.

If a crammer is able to improve the grades of people you do not rate, then
what does this say about your teaching? Can you only teach those who teach
themselves? If your answer is yes, then you are no teacher!

Post by Matthew Huntbach
You may be putting in an immense amount of personal effort into
your retakes, which is good - you need to get that message through
to the admissions tutors who are reading your UCAS form.

Not according to you! You would prefer a student who got good grades and
admitted to doing little or no work, since this would indicate natural
aptitude!

Has he said natural aptitude is a sufficient condition? AFAICS he has
only said it is a necessary (or perhps only a very desirable) one.
Very possibly he treats evidence of laziness just as seriouly as
evidence of lack of natural flair.

BTW, having done "little or no work" to get the top grade need not be
evidence of laziness. Someone with real mathematical ability really
will hardly need to lift a finger to get an A in maths - and FM too.
It is perfectly possible to find things to keep such students
occupied, but not all teachers/schools find this easy, or treat it as
a high priority, and students can be forgiven for having other things
going on in their lives - including A levels that they might not be so
naturally talented in.

Post by ath
The rest you have dismissed at being the products of coaching!
You really need

Post by Matthew Huntbach
to demonstrate that your earlier poor performance was not due to lack
of ability or laziness, but due to problems outside your control which
you have now overcome.

What if this is not true?
I am surprised how many UCAS forms I get from

Post by Matthew Huntbach
people who are retaking A-levels who don't do this at all.

I am not surprised! How many times can a sob story be believed?
Sometimes

Post by Matthew Huntbach
they put their previous grades in, but say nothing about why they think
they did badly and what they are doing about it. Sometimes they don't
even mention them, and suppose I won't notice they're taking A-levels
three years after GCSEs - I do, and I mark them down as "dishonest" and
I am much less likely to accept them.

Where is the dishonesty?

Post by Matthew Huntbach
Unfortunately, a common pattern with someone taking resits in a
crammer or with private tuition is that they aren't particularly
dedicated.

They are dedicated enough to attend tutorials and get through their
examinations well! What more do you want?
Rather they've got rich parents
So what? In a capitalist society this is not a crime, at least not yet! In
effect, you are condemning the child for what you perceive to be the sins of
the parents! What would you say if somebody condemned a child for having
parents of a particular ethnic grouping, religion or political opinion? You
would be outraged, I hope! Can you not see that you are doing the same?
who can afford to pay for

Post by Matthew Huntbach
it,

So what? That is the benefit of wealth!
couldn't accept that their little darling wasn't up to what a

Post by Matthew Huntbach
top university requires, and so have forced them reluctantly into the
resit.

Why the reluctance? You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make it
drink. If the student gets through well, ultimately, it is because they
want to, even if only to please others.
Well, once the little darling
Why the condescension?
gets the university place, they

Post by Matthew Huntbach
go back to their lazy old ways because they no longer have Mr Crammer
bearing down on them and forcing them to work.

Correct, they ought to have Mr/Miss/Mrs Lecturer doing it.

How old do you think someone should be before they start taking
responsibility for their own life?

Post by ath
So not a good bet,
I agree, if universities refuse to teach.
I'd

Post by Matthew Huntbach
rather take someone with weaker grades obtained first time round who
shows genuine enthusiasm. I don't mean this as a personal attack on
you, Samsonknight, I'm just trying to put it how it appears to an
experienced admissions tutor.

An experienced AT with his values back-to-front!

[John Porcella]

Post by Samsonknight
I only have tuition 3 hours a week - the equivilent to one maths lesson in a
sixth form - where they normally have 3-4 maths lessons a week (so 9-12
hours a week of teaching).

No, I think you will find that five is nearer.

[K. Edgcombe]

Post by Samsonknight
Anyway, back to the point, I am aware that you have not specifically said
that you require your applicants "to have A-level Maths, A-level Physics and
A-level Chemistry", but the problem is I know there are other comp sci AT
that want their applicants "to have A-level Maths, A-level Physics and
A-level Chemistry".

Do they really? Which Universities?

Cambridge is more likely than others to ask for science A levels because our CS
students have to do an experimental science in their first year, but I'd be
very surprised if any of my colleagues would ask for *both* physics and
chemistry (and I'm certain that all of them would prefer further maths to a
second science, given the choice). The usual line is "at least one
science A level is almost essential;
physics is the commonest but others are acceptable". For myself I would prefer
not to have to ask for science at all; it's only the constraints of the
first-year course that require it, so I'd have thought an institution that did
a full-time CS course from the beginning would not need to be so prescriptive.

Of course, most ATs would like people to have good grades in three reasonably
demanding subjects including maths, and physics and chemistry are obvious
possibilities.

Katy

[John Porcella]

Post by Matthew Huntbach
What do you mean by "exam technique"? If you just mean you are slow, then
you have to face it that means you are less intelligent than someone who
can solve the same problem in a shorter amount of time.

I am not sure about that! It could mean that preparation or any host of
social or cultural issues are preventing a student from maximising their
potential.

Post by Matthew Huntbach
The details may have been forgotten, but what is shown is that the person
has the ability to pick up this material and master it. It's not the actual
Chemistry that a place like LSE is interested in, it's the abstract skills
involved in studying and doing well at Chemistry. For the same reason,
I like any A-level that involves problem solving and the ability to look
at things in the abstract and understand how rules work, and I dislike
any A-level that can be passed by rote memory.

Post by Samsonknight
I will not begin ranting about politics , history students that I know of
whom goto good unis...half of them make me laugh, they haven't formulated
their own philosphical ideas,political ideas but instead paste rubbish out
of the text books or what they have learnt like robots. No wonder why they
get As!

Any A-level that can be passed by memorisation and regurgiation is useless
so far as I am concerned. The bane of my life is students who confuse
learning with memorisation.

You do not deny that they are linked? Are you seriously suggesting that
they are mutually exclusive?

[Matthew Huntbach]

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005, John Porcella wrote:
(in reply to me)

Post by John Porcella

Post by Matthew Huntbach
What do you mean by "exam technique"? If you just mean you are slow, then
you have to face it that means you are less intelligent than someone who
can solve the same problem in a shorter amount of time.

I am not sure about that! It could mean that preparation or any host of
social or cultural issues are preventing a student from maximising their
potential.

Well, I was simplifying. But exams are partly a test that one is familiar
enough with the material to be able to answer it in a short amount of
time.

Post by John Porcella

Post by Matthew Huntbach
Any A-level that can be passed by memorisation and regurgiation is useless
so far as I am concerned. The bane of my life is students who confuse
learning with memorisation.

You do not deny that they are linked? Are you seriously suggesting that
they are mutually exclusive?

I wrote "so far as I am concerned". In my subject the confusion of
learning with memorisation is a major problem, I appreciate it may not
be the same in other subjects. In my subject there are relatively few
facts to remember. The most important thing is to understand the
principles. Yet I regularly come across students who laboriously
memorise examples that were given to illustrate the principles while
having no idea of what those principles are. If people have got into
the mindset that "learning=memorisation" I find it is often, by the
time they reach university level, impossible to get them out of it. They
are effectively useless for my purposes. It is one of the most common
causes of failure in the degree, second only to laziness.

Matthew Huntbach

[John Porcella]

Post by Matthew Huntbach
(in reply to me)

Post by John Porcella

Post by Matthew Huntbach
What do you mean by "exam technique"? If you just mean you are slow, then
you have to face it that means you are less intelligent than someone who
can solve the same problem in a shorter amount of time.

I am not sure about that! It could mean that preparation or any host of
social or cultural issues are preventing a student from maximising their
potential.

Well, I was simplifying. But exams are partly a test that one is familiar
enough with the material to be able to answer it in a short amount of
time.

True, and is that intelligence?

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by John Porcella

Post by Matthew Huntbach
Any A-level that can be passed by memorisation and regurgiation is useless
so far as I am concerned. The bane of my life is students who confuse
learning with memorisation.

You do not deny that they are linked? Are you seriously suggesting that
they are mutually exclusive?

I wrote "so far as I am concerned". In my subject the confusion of
learning with memorisation is a major problem, I appreciate it may not
be the same in other subjects. In my subject there are relatively few
facts to remember. The most important thing is to understand the
principles. Yet I regularly come across students who laboriously
memorise examples that were given to illustrate the principles while
having no idea of what those principles are. If people have got into
the mindset that "learning=memorisation" I find it is often, by the
time they reach university level, impossible to get them out of it. They
are effectively useless for my purposes. It is one of the most common
causes of failure in the degree, second only to laziness.

Fine.

[Dr A. N. Walker]

Post by Samsonknight
I have a great idea, why doesn't the government just scrap those blacklisted
subjects for good from all colleges/sixthform,

Firstly because governments should not ever, not nohow, have
anything at all to do with such details of education. The last thing
we need is party-political interference in what we teach. Secondly
because "those blacklisted subjects" are only blacklisted by *some*
places in respect of *some* degree courses. The second-last thing
we need is p-p interference in what value we should place on what
others have taught [or others should place on what we have taught].
Thirdly because 6FCs are not low-grade univs but are educational
establishments in their own right; many of their students are not
going on to HE, but do want qualifications in whatever subject they
are planning to make their careers in -- or indeed in subjects they
merely want to study out of interest.

Govts should set the social framework within which schools
and the rest of education operate, should determine the funding
regimes and methodologies, and should ensure that the operation of
education is properly audited. Full stop.

Post by Samsonknight
that way students like myself
will not feel seriously conned after finding out they are 'mickey mouse
subjects' a year into the course.

MM *subjects*? Clearly some subjects are more vocational
than others, or are more deeply rooted in "what was taught in the
past", or are more relevant than others to particular degree courses.
But what do you think makes a subject MM? If Drama or Business
Studies is in fact being taught at a dumbed-down level to students
of low quality so that they can get soft A's, well, that's a problem
to be addressed by the A-level boards, the standards authorities,
teachers, .... But not a problem with the subject. There is no
good reason why Drama [eg] should not be taught as an intellectually
rigorous and demanding subject.

For each of these "blacklisted" subjects, there have been
clever people who thought about what should be taught in them and
how it could be assessed, etc., and who determined that there was
content suitable for A level. And other clever people who looked
at the reports produced by the first lot and agreed that this was
indeed a sensible subject. And further clever people who looked
at the outcomes and decided that there were degree courses that
could build upon the skills shown. And yet more clever people who
became convinced by the previous lot that their univs should offer
courses that did indeed build on those skills. Clever people often
make mistakes. But I don't think you, or I, should dismiss them
all and their decisions from a position of ignorance and anecdote.

Post by Samsonknight
Also, that way colleges & schools will not
have a choice to force students into subjects that they know are relatively
crap for their own selfish gain.

If there is such a problem, it is a consequence of govt
interference.

Post by Samsonknight
[...] Which raises another point ,
to what extent is AL in general is a true test of intelligence and not how
fast you can write your answers out?

Whether this is a problem in other subjects is beyond my
knowledge; but in maths your results should not depend to any
measurable extent on your speed of writing. I finished last week
marking a pile of scripts on "Game Theory". My "model" solutions
total rather less than three sides [for a 2 1/2 hour exam], despite
including alternative routes and comments for the externals. As
this was an "answer four out of five" paper, full marks could be
obtained with less than two sides of writing. But students insist
on writing reams of rubbish .... [Actually, they did rather well,
on the whole, but they still, as a group, wrote about four times
more than they needed to, often losing rather than gaining marks
as a consequence.]

[Samsonknight]

Post by Dr A. N. Walker

Post by Samsonknight
I have a great idea, why doesn't the government just scrap those blacklisted
subjects for good from all colleges/sixthform,

Firstly because governments should not ever, not nohow, have
anything at all to do with such details of education. The last thing
we need is party-political interference in what we teach. Secondly
because "those blacklisted subjects" are only blacklisted by *some*
places in respect of *some* degree courses. The second-last thing
we need is p-p interference in what value we should place on what
others have taught [or others should place on what we have taught].
Thirdly because 6FCs are not low-grade univs but are educational
establishments in their own right; many of their students are not
going on to HE, but do want qualifications in whatever subject they
are planning to make their careers in -- or indeed in subjects they
merely want to study out of interest.
Govts should set the social framework within which schools
and the rest of education operate, should determine the funding
regimes and methodologies, and should ensure that the operation of
education is properly audited. Full stop.

I agree.

Post by Dr A. N. Walker

Post by Samsonknight
that way students like myself
will not feel seriously conned after finding out they are 'mickey mouse
subjects' a year into the course.

MM *subjects*? Clearly some subjects are more vocational
than others, or are more deeply rooted in "what was taught in the
past", or are more relevant than others to particular degree courses.
But what do you think makes a subject MM? If Drama or Business
Studies is in fact being taught at a dumbed-down level to students
of low quality so that they can get soft A's, well, that's a problem
to be addressed by the A-level boards, the standards authorities,
teachers, .... But not a problem with the subject. There is no
good reason why Drama [eg] should not be taught as an intellectually
rigorous and demanding subject.

Again I agree. However, not all people carry that view. The way some people
see it, because these subjects are not physics,chemestry, or biology , and
are much newer then physics, chemestry, biology, therefore automatically
they are second rate subjects - where passing with an A should be no problem
at all. Which is not always the case in practice...

I fully understand that subjects such as mathematics test your problem
solving skills and for that reason I agree with Matthew that all cadidates
should have it as part of their Alevels if they are to do a Comp Sci I
agree. However, what I disagree with is AT's discriminating against students
because they have done AL Maths along with a couple of blacklisted subject
because they are seen as "easy".

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
For each of these "blacklisted" subjects, there have been
clever people who thought about what should be taught in them and
how it could be assessed, etc., and who determined that there was
content suitable for A level. And other clever people who looked
at the reports produced by the first lot and agreed that this was
indeed a sensible subject. And further clever people who looked
at the outcomes and decided that there were degree courses that
could build upon the skills shown. And yet more clever people who
became convinced by the previous lot that their univs should offer
courses that did indeed build on those skills. Clever people often
make mistakes. But I don't think you, or I, should dismiss them
all and their decisions from a position of ignorance and anecdote.

Exactly. I agree.

Post by Dr A. N. Walker

Post by Samsonknight
Also, that way colleges & schools will not
have a choice to force students into subjects that they know are relatively
crap for their own selfish gain.

If there is such a problem, it is a consequence of govt
interference.

Post by Samsonknight
[...] Which raises another point ,
to what extent is AL in general is a true test of intelligence and not how
fast you can write your answers out?

Whether this is a problem in other subjects is beyond my
knowledge; but in maths your results should not depend to any
measurable extent on your speed of writing. I finished last week
marking a pile of scripts on "Game Theory". My "model" solutions
total rather less than three sides [for a 2 1/2 hour exam], despite
including alternative routes and comments for the externals. As
this was an "answer four out of five" paper, full marks could be
obtained with less than two sides of writing. But students insist
on writing reams of rubbish .... [Actually, they did rather well,
on the whole, but they still, as a group, wrote about four times
more than they needed to, often losing rather than gaining marks
as a consequence.]

Sounds rather interesting, "Game theory" , have you got any good resources
that teaches you game theory. I have done a search on google, but I had no
idea which tutorial to follow.

Anyway, back to the original point - yes you are correct that the speed of
your writing should not be a problem for maths , however for other subjects
such as RE, psychology, ICT,history, english , politics, it is very
important to be a fast writer. Time management has always been a problem of
mine, for RE I had got CBBBDU - the module I got a D in I had spent far too
much time on the first question (writing about Jewish philosiphers and god
knows what else) so that I could maximise my marks on that question. So much
so that I had only managed to write 4 lines for the second/last question. AS
for the U , god knows what happen there, but despite this I ended up with a
mediocore C at A2 (370/600), so I hope in the summer along with math's to
move that up to a B or an A. It is frustrating as you probably could
imagine, especially after knowing the syllabus well, yet underperformaing
because you didn't have enough time to write your ideas from your head to
the paper in the given time.

For maths it is slightly more different then 'englishy' subject, but
essentially when it comes down to it, it is more about exam strategy then
anything else. I used my C1 paper as an example of this, because I had lost
15 minutes by spending far too much time on the integration question. I had
answered the integration question, but it became problomatic when I kept
using differentiation to check if my integral answer is correct. A method
that my marvelous tutor enforced into my cranium. The exam strategy comes
into play in that example, because after doing the paper I should have
realised whilst doing the paper that I was better off skipping that
question, and then coming back to it at a later stage where I have time,
that way I am able to maximise my marks through allocating more time by
doing the questions that gave the most marks. I probably got a C overall for
that module, but again its frustrating because the modules will now surely
get harder and from my experience by have a poor year 12 as you know, AL
success is determined by a v good AS grade as in most cases the A2 part of
the course is to maintain your *A* grade, or at worst drop a grade but never
to move up a grade by 2 or 3. Plus I have to do that module again in June,
which intensely frustrates me as I enjoy pure maths, put the hours in (300+
hours - 5-10 hr a day since late august) and therefore I know that I should
have got a higher grade - hopefully by the time June comes I should be very
good at C4 and that should make the C1 paper look like childsplay.

On the other hand it is good that I have had the above experience with the
Maths C1 examination, because I know now in future how to approach these
exams, it was better it happened this month then in June - where it would
have been too late. However, if it did happen in June to another
unfortuanant cadidate who was competant at *maths*, then as an AT I guess it
would have been hard for you to differentiate whether this candidate is
genuinely good at maths, or just had a bad day. On the whole, this is my
opinion why I feel that Alevels are terribly flawed , because IMO 40% is the
ability to understand and learn something whereas the other 60% is exam
technique - you may have the brains of einstein (not saying that I do of
course) , but if you cant put it down on paper, no one cares about the
reasons why you got a C.

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
--
Andy Walker, School of MathSci., Univ. of Nott'm, UK.

[Matthew Huntbach]

Post by Samsonknight
I fully understand that subjects such as mathematics test your problem
solving skills and for that reason I agree with Matthew that all cadidates
should have it as part of their Alevels if they are to do a Comp Sci I
agree. However, what I disagree with is AT's discriminating against students
because they have done AL Maths along with a couple of blacklisted subject
because they are seen as "easy".

No, that is not "discrimination". It's admissions tutors taking those
applicants who they judge to be most likely to succeed on their
degree programme. It would only be "discrimination" if the admissions
tutors felt the applicants with the less suitable A-level subjects
would do better than those who had the more suitable A-level subjects
but rejected them anyway.

In any case, I don't know what you are worrying about. Any applicant
with a reasonable A-level in Maths is going to have no problem getting
onto a good Computer Science degree at the moment. Computer Science
is suffering in a big way from over-expanding when it seemed it was
an easy way to get "bums on seats" and then having a collapse in numbers
applying. Hence there is a massive surplus of places and you can get onto
one with quite low qualifications. Right now there are applicants who
five years ago I would have taken seconds to look at their UCAS form
and write "reject" on it who I now think "Phew, here's a reasonable
one at last". I'm crying out for people with a reasonable A-level in
Maths and two mickey mouse A-levels because most of the applications
I'm getting are people who don't have A-level Maths at all. I'm finding
that other Computer Science departments with which I am in competition
for the best applicants are experiencing the same.

Post by Samsonknight
On the whole, this is my
opinion why I feel that Alevels are terribly flawed , because IMO 40% is the
ability to understand and learn something whereas the other 60% is exam
technique - you may have the brains of einstein (not saying that I do of
course) , but if you cant put it down on paper, no one cares about the
reasons why you got a C.

So what would you propose instead? Sure A-levels are not a good predictor
of future performance - we have people with good A-levels who do badly
on the degree, and people with poor A-levels who do well on the degree.
But A-levels are the best predictor we have. We've tried various means,
but faced with a large number of applicants and only some of whom can be
chosen for the degree, choosing the ones with the best A-levels (counting
Maths as approximately twice the value of other A-levels) seems to be
the most accurate way to pick the best performers. Sure, there may be
some with natural talent we miss that way, but they'll get a place on
a degree somewhere lower down the pecking order. We too get people who
are brilliant at the degree, but got missed by somewhere higher up the
pecking order because they didn't have wonderful A-levels.

Matthew Huntbach

[Samsonknight]

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Samsonknight
I fully understand that subjects such as mathematics test your problem
solving skills and for that reason I agree with Matthew that all cadidates
should have it as part of their Alevels if they are to do a Comp Sci I
agree. However, what I disagree with is AT's discriminating against students
because they have done AL Maths along with a couple of blacklisted subject
because they are seen as "easy".

No, that is not "discrimination". It's admissions tutors taking those
applicants who they judge to be most likely to succeed on their
degree programme. It would only be "discrimination" if the admissions
tutors felt the applicants with the less suitable A-level subjects
would do better than those who had the more suitable A-level subjects
but rejected them anyway.
In any case, I don't know what you are worrying about. Any applicant
with a reasonable A-level in Maths is going to have no problem getting
onto a good Computer Science degree at the moment. Computer Science
is suffering in a big way from over-expanding when it seemed it was

I am worried because I am competing with applicants that have
Chemestry,physics, and in some cases further maths as their Alevels for my
course - whereas I have RE, Mathematics, Psychology and ICT.

My A-level grades are not fantastic, due to reasons that I have wrote in
great detail to Andy in emails and this... Nor were my GCSEs fantastic - 2
A's and 5 C's - my Alevels were C's, which I know will play against me when
applying to the universities that I would like to goto. At the moment I am
totally dependent on my reference and personal statement which are both very
strong.

Although my Alevels are C's, I am using my gap year to fulfil my full
potential as year 12 did me no justice at all. More importantly I could with
maths move my Alevel grades to a respectable ABCE providing all goes as
plan. Yet I fear that my application will be dismissed by AT's because I had
got CCE last year - which I dont blame them for doing as they don't know the
reasons why this had happened to me.

Quiet frankly, the odds are against me this year, in all fields - University
offers and examinations. I have been doubted by many people this year,
including my tutor who I quote said "I was not at all sanquine about Sams
chances of gaining much beyond a U grade in mathematics in just one year".
Thankfully he is beginning to believe that I can do it and now predicts me a
C overall and has said "Sam has made the most remarkable progress in his
ability to understand mathematical ideas and field unseen problems.". Others
doubt me because:

1, I am not going to college
2, I am learning maths in a year which is considered *insane* considering my
mathematical background C at GCSE , and U at AS 2 yrs back.
3, I have tutoring once a week for 3 hours, therefore most of my
mathematical progress is done through self teaching.

Little do they know , that I have had to re-invent myself like literally. I
have had to develop new ways to study, e.g. not rely on one mathematical
text book (I have to use like 3 different text books, if I do not get a
topic.
Also I have to spend hours studying just to keep on track in doing it in a
year. It is a very hard year, as I have to also motivate myself when I get
down, so that I keep on track and not waste time by being unproductive by
feeling sorry for myself.
This is probably why I got so frustrated when I never had the correct exam
strategy for the C1 paper, as it was a paper that in theory I should have
got an A - as I was getting 8 questions in a row correct on the harder
soloman papers for that modules.

Post by Matthew Huntbach
an easy way to get "bums on seats" and then having a collapse in numbers
applying. Hence there is a massive surplus of places and you can get onto
one with quite low qualifications. Right now there are applicants who
five years ago I would have taken seconds to look at their UCAS form
and write "reject" on it who I now think "Phew, here's a reasonable
one at last". I'm crying out for people with a reasonable A-level in
Maths and two mickey mouse A-levels because most of the applications
I'm getting are people who don't have A-level Maths at all. I'm finding
that other Computer Science departments with which I am in competition
for the best applicants are experiencing the same.

Yes, my tutor did say that too.

I have applied to Scottish based Universities, because they do 4 year degree
courses, which I think is a good idea as the first year is mainly to polish
you AL skills up. Glasgow have given me an offer, and I am very greatful for
that , as I believe it is one of the best institutes in Scotland for CS.

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Samsonknight
On the whole, this is my
opinion why I feel that Alevels are terribly flawed , because IMO 40% is the
ability to understand and learn something whereas the other 60% is exam
technique - you may have the brains of einstein (not saying that I do of
course) , but if you cant put it down on paper, no one cares about the
reasons why you got a C.

So what would you propose instead? Sure A-levels are not a good predictor
of future performance - we have people with good A-levels who do badly
on the degree, and people with poor A-levels who do well on the degree.
But A-levels are the best predictor we have. We've tried various means,
but faced with a large number of applicants and only some of whom can be
chosen for the degree, choosing the ones with the best A-levels (counting
Maths as approximately twice the value of other A-levels) seems to be
the most accurate way to pick the best performers. Sure, there may be
some with natural talent we miss that way, but they'll get a place on
a degree somewhere lower down the pecking order. We too get people who
are brilliant at the degree, but got missed by somewhere higher up the
pecking order because they didn't have wonderful A-levels.
Matthew Huntbach

More Coursework based subjects. As this shows that you are practical and not
a Robot. For ICT I got B/A for my courseworks, yet I got a C overall,
because I found the actual course content very very very boring, hence I was
not very motivated - does that do me any justice? (I got an A for GCSE ICT,
which is very very similar to AL ICT) Shouldn't universities also interview
all applicants before rejecting them like? I would have thought given my
scienario, I would have at least got an interview from Bristol.

[Dr A. N. Walker]

Post by Samsonknight
I am worried because I am competing with applicants that have
Chemestry,physics, and in some cases further maths as their Alevels for my
course - whereas I have RE, Mathematics, Psychology and ICT.

In CS, there are lots of large depts, many very good, and
[as MMH has been saying] rapidly-declining numbers of good applicants.
If you are still breathing by August, there will be univs that will
take you with your C's. Indeed, if you have CCC inc maths, there
will be decent places that will bite your hand off, no matter how
mickey-mouse your other qualifications. [Likewise for some sorts
of engineering, "etc"; but not for law, medicine, English, ....]

Post by Samsonknight
[...] Shouldn't universities also interview
all applicants before rejecting them like?

Resources. Univs with few applicants can afford to interview
them, but can't afford to reject them. Those with lots of applicants
have to eliminate many of them somehow, but don't have the staff to
do the interviews. You're talking about *thousands* of applicants in
many cases [inc my own].

Let me put some numbers in for you. 1000 applications in the
"season" of, say, 12 weeks is around 80/week. I deal with this stuff,
as MMH does, on top of my normal teaching, etc., and a large part of
it is dealing not with applications but with enquiries. You might
think it reasonable that I should spend one afternoon/week dealing
with the actual forms? Call it 4 hours? So that's 20 forms/hour, or
3 minutes each. Now, do you still think I should spend those three
minutes interviewing? Or agonising over your PS in case it contains
something that might change my mind? Or do you expect me to give my
weekends over to conducting these interviews?

Post by Samsonknight
I would have thought given my
scienario, I would have at least got an interview from Bristol.

Bristol have always been a law unto themselves. But I
don't blame them for taking broad-brush decisions to reject
applicants with poor A-levels [by their standards] without much
ceremony. I would do the same. I don't have the time to spend
agonising over UCAS forms, interviewing applicants, and rejecting
large numbers after interview [at great expense in your time and
travel, as well as mine, and as well as emotional cost to you]
because of the occasional gold amidst the dross. If they have
made the wrong decision, that's a shame, but not the end of the
world either for Bristol or for you. There are plenty of other
good CS courses that will be pleased to take you.

[Samsonknight]

Post by Dr A. N. Walker

Post by Samsonknight
I am worried because I am competing with applicants that have
Chemestry,physics, and in some cases further maths as their Alevels for my
course - whereas I have RE, Mathematics, Psychology and ICT.

In CS, there are lots of large depts, many very good, and
[as MMH has been saying] rapidly-declining numbers of good applicants.
If you are still breathing by August, there will be univs that will
take you with your C's. Indeed, if you have CCC inc maths, there
will be decent places that will bite your hand off, no matter how
mickey-mouse your other qualifications. [Likewise for some sorts
of engineering, "etc"; but not for law, medicine, English, ....]

Out of curiousity, how popular is mathematics as a degree course?

Post by Dr A. N. Walker

Post by Samsonknight
[...] Shouldn't universities also interview
all applicants before rejecting them like?

Resources. Univs with few applicants can afford to interview
them, but can't afford to reject them. Those with lots of applicants
have to eliminate many of them somehow, but don't have the staff to
do the interviews. You're talking about *thousands* of applicants in
many cases [inc my own].

wow. In that case, I wonder what the figures are for subjects such as law,
english...

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Let me put some numbers in for you. 1000 applications in the
"season" of, say, 12 weeks is around 80/week. I deal with this stuff,
as MMH does, on top of my normal teaching, etc., and a large part of
it is dealing not with applications but with enquiries. You might
think it reasonable that I should spend one afternoon/week dealing
with the actual forms? Call it 4 hours? So that's 20 forms/hour, or
3 minutes each. Now, do you still think I should spend those three
minutes interviewing? Or agonising over your PS in case it contains
something that might change my mind? Or do you expect me to give my
weekends over to conducting these interviews?

Fair point.

Post by Dr A. N. Walker

Post by Samsonknight
I would have thought given my
scienario, I would have at least got an interview from Bristol.

Bristol have always been a law unto themselves. But I
don't blame them for taking broad-brush decisions to reject
applicants with poor A-levels [by their standards] without much
ceremony. I would do the same. I don't have the time to spend
agonising over UCAS forms, interviewing applicants, and rejecting
large numbers after interview [at great expense in your time and
travel, as well as mine, and as well as emotional cost to you]
because of the occasional gold amidst the dross. If they have
made the wrong decision, that's a shame, but not the end of the
world either for Bristol or for you. There are plenty of other
good CS courses that will be pleased to take you.

Yes you are right...and I shall wait patiently for my other offers. :)

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
--
Andy Walker, School of MathSci., Univ. of Nott'm, UK.

[Dr A. N. Walker]

Post by Samsonknight
Out of curiousity, how popular is mathematics as a degree course?

4778 accepted applicants last year, just below "cinematics
and photography". But of course most top univs have rather more
maths students than C&P students. Go figure ....

Post by Samsonknight

[...] You're talking about *thousands* of applicants in
many cases [inc my own].

wow. In that case, I wonder what the figures are for subjects such as law,
english...

Law: 14998, English 8647. In all cases, numbers are for
the "main" discipline, and there may be many others doing "related"
courses [inc Jt Hons]; and are for acceptances rather than for
applications. See "http://www.ucas.co.uk/new/press/news270105.html".

[Matthew Huntbach]

Post by Samsonknight

Post by Matthew Huntbach
In any case, I don't know what you are worrying about. Any applicant
with a reasonable A-level in Maths is going to have no problem getting
onto a good Computer Science degree at the moment. Computer Science
is suffering in a big way from over-expanding when it seemed it was

I am worried because I am competing with applicants that have
Chemestry,physics, and in some cases further maths as their Alevels for my
course - whereas I have RE, Mathematics, Psychology and ICT.

So long as you have reasonable predicted grades, I think that at
present, when there is a shortage of good CS applicants, there would
only be a small number of CS departments that wouldn't consider you.

Post by Samsonknight
Yet I fear that my application will be dismissed by AT's because I had
got CCE last year - which I dont blame them for doing as they don't know
the reasons why this had happened to me.

If you think there are some particular reasons which don't apply this
year, then they ought to know as you ought to put them in your personal
statement on the UCAS form, with your referee backing up what you say.

Post by Samsonknight
1, I am not going to college
2, I am learning maths in a year which is considered *insane* considering my
mathematical background C at GCSE , and U at AS 2 yrs back.
3, I have tutoring once a week for 3 hours, therefore most of my
mathematical progress is done through self teaching.
Little do they know , that I have had to re-invent myself like literally.

OK, it's starting to look worse. A few years ago, with this sort of
background I'd probably have said "no". Even then, I might at least
have offered an interview had you and your referee made a reasonably
good case at convincing me you were going to do much better than
your past performance suggests. The problem is that we get a bit
cynical about students who have done badly in the past and promise
they will do much better next time - we've heard that story a bit
too often and often the promise of better perfromance doesn't amount to
much.

Post by Samsonknight
I have applied to Scottish based Universities, because they do 4 year degree
courses, which I think is a good idea as the first year is mainly to polish
you AL skills up. Glasgow have given me an offer, and I am very greatful for
that , as I believe it is one of the best institutes in Scotland for CS.

Well, there you go then. Glasgow is indeed an excellent Computer Science
department.

Post by Samsonknight

Post by Matthew Huntbach
So what would you propose instead? Sure A-levels are not a good predictor
of future performance - we have people with good A-levels who do badly
on the degree, and people with poor A-levels who do well on the degree.
But A-levels are the best predictor we have.

More Coursework based subjects. As this shows that you are practical and not
a Robot.

The problem with coursework is that plagiarism is rife. How do we know
the work presented as yours is really done by you? Sad to say, experience
suggests that many qualifications based mainly on coursework are worthless
because there just aren't the mechanisms to show that those who pass them
really did all the work themselves, and there has been a culture of
copying and getting others to do them become so engrained that those taking
them barely recognise anything wrong with committing fraud in that way.

Post by Samsonknight
For ICT I got B/A for my courseworks, yet I got a C overall,
because I found the actual course content very very very boring, hence I was
not very motivated - does that do me any justice? (I got an A for GCSE ICT,
which is very very similar to AL ICT) Shouldn't universities also interview
all applicants before rejecting them like? I would have thought given my
scienario, I would have at least got an interview from Bristol.

If a university department can comfortably fill its places with people
who have the best choice of A-levels with good grades achieved first
time round, why should they go to the effort of looking at people who
don't meet those criteria? It's just a lot more extra work for them for
little benefit.

However, as I've said, there are relatively few Computer Science
departments who are in that position this year. I think you will
find (well, you already have found with Glasgow) that the slump in
CS applicants combined with the over-supply of places means that
many excellent CS departments are really struggling to find good
aplicants and so are prepared to look closely and give consideration
to applicants whose background is not ideal.

As for Bristol, well why Bristol? It's a good CS department, yes, but
no better than several other CS departments which you would find much
easier to get in. Bristol has the advantage of being one of a small
number of universities which everyone who can't quite get into
Oxbridge thinks of next. Naming no names, but there are some
departments in Bristol (not CS) which quite frankly aren't wonderful,
but they can ask for much higher grades than departments in the same
subject elsewhere which are much better just because of this herd
mentality that sends every Oxbridge reject trying for Bristol.

In case you think I'm blowing my own trumpet, why not Sussex, for
example? Sussex is a good example of a university which has several
top-class departments, including CS, but somehow it doesn't seem to
attract the volume of highly qualified applicants that Bristol does,
so is accessible on significantly lower grades.

Matthew Huntbach

[Samsonknight]

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Samsonknight

Post by Matthew Huntbach
In any case, I don't know what you are worrying about. Any applicant
with a reasonable A-level in Maths is going to have no problem getting
onto a good Computer Science degree at the moment. Computer Science
is suffering in a big way from over-expanding when it seemed it was

I am worried because I am competing with applicants that have
Chemestry,physics, and in some cases further maths as their Alevels for my
course - whereas I have RE, Mathematics, Psychology and ICT.

So long as you have reasonable predicted grades, I think that at
present, when there is a shortage of good CS applicants, there would
only be a small number of CS departments that wouldn't consider you.

Post by Samsonknight
Yet I fear that my application will be dismissed by AT's because I had
got CCE last year - which I dont blame them for doing as they don't know
the reasons why this had happened to me.

If you think there are some particular reasons which don't apply this
year, then they ought to know as you ought to put them in your personal
statement on the UCAS form, with your referee backing up what you say.

Which he has done so.

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Samsonknight
1, I am not going to college
2, I am learning maths in a year which is considered *insane* considering my
mathematical background C at GCSE , and U at AS 2 yrs back.
3, I have tutoring once a week for 3 hours, therefore most of my
mathematical progress is done through self teaching.
Little do they know , that I have had to re-invent myself like literally.

OK, it's starting to look worse. A few years ago, with this sort of
background I'd probably have said "no". Even then, I might at least
have offered an interview had you and your referee made a reasonably
good case at convincing me you were going to do much better than
your past performance suggests. The problem is that we get a bit
cynical about students who have done badly in the past and promise
they will do much better next time - we've heard that story a bit
too often and often the promise of better perfromance doesn't amount to
much.

Yes, there are many students that make that excuse up because they were too
lazy to work in the first place, but I assure you that I am not one of them.
Also I very much doubt my tutor who is a physics lecturer and an ex AT at
imperial would say such things if I hadn't of made progress and put the work
in.

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Samsonknight
I have applied to Scottish based Universities, because they do 4 year degree
courses, which I think is a good idea as the first year is mainly to polish
you AL skills up. Glasgow have given me an offer, and I am very greatful for
that , as I believe it is one of the best institutes in Scotland for CS.

Well, there you go then. Glasgow is indeed an excellent Computer Science
department.

Post by Samsonknight

Post by Matthew Huntbach
So what would you propose instead? Sure A-levels are not a good predictor
of future performance - we have people with good A-levels who do badly
on the degree, and people with poor A-levels who do well on the degree.
But A-levels are the best predictor we have.

More Coursework based subjects. As this shows that you are practical and not
a Robot.

The problem with coursework is that plagiarism is rife. How do we know
the work presented as yours is really done by you? Sad to say, experience
suggests that many qualifications based mainly on coursework are worthless
because there just aren't the mechanisms to show that those who pass them
really did all the work themselves, and there has been a culture of
copying and getting others to do them become so engrained that those taking
them barely recognise anything wrong with committing fraud in that way.

Yes, I understand your point.

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Samsonknight
For ICT I got B/A for my courseworks, yet I got a C overall,
because I found the actual course content very very very boring, hence I was
not very motivated - does that do me any justice? (I got an A for GCSE ICT,
which is very very similar to AL ICT) Shouldn't universities also interview
all applicants before rejecting them like? I would have thought given my
scienario, I would have at least got an interview from Bristol.

If a university department can comfortably fill its places with people
who have the best choice of A-levels with good grades achieved first
time round, why should they go to the effort of looking at people who
don't meet those criteria? It's just a lot more extra work for them for
little benefit.
However, as I've said, there are relatively few Computer Science
departments who are in that position this year. I think you will
find (well, you already have found with Glasgow) that the slump in
CS applicants combined with the over-supply of places means that
many excellent CS departments are really struggling to find good
aplicants and so are prepared to look closely and give consideration
to applicants whose background is not ideal.
As for Bristol, well why Bristol? It's a good CS department, yes, but
no better than several other CS departments which you would find much
easier to get in. Bristol has the advantage of being one of a small
number of universities which everyone who can't quite get into
Oxbridge thinks of next. Naming no names, but there are some
departments in Bristol (not CS) which quite frankly aren't wonderful,
but they can ask for much higher grades than departments in the same
subject elsewhere which are much better just because of this herd
mentality that sends every Oxbridge reject trying for Bristol.
In case you think I'm blowing my own trumpet, why not Sussex, for
example? Sussex is a good example of a university which has several
top-class departments, including CS, but somehow it doesn't seem to
attract the volume of highly qualified applicants that Bristol does,
so is accessible on significantly lower grades.
Matthew Huntbach

My other choices are all Scottish, Edinburgh, St Andrews, Aberdeen, I was
going to apply to Sussex, but I am not to keen about the area. As for the
University/department itself I liked it, but I am not sure if I could spend
3 years of my life in Brighton.

[Matthew Huntbach]

Post by Samsonknight

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Samsonknight
Yet I fear that my application will be dismissed by AT's because I had
got CCE last year - which I dont blame them for doing as they don't know
the reasons why this had happened to me.

If you think there are some particular reasons which don't apply this
year, then they ought to know as you ought to put them in your personal
statement on the UCAS form, with your referee backing up what you say.

Which he has done so.

Well, provided a good case has been put for you by your referee, that
should give you more chance of being considered than someone who also
got CCE last year and is re-sitting, but has said nothing in explanation.

Post by Samsonknight

Post by Matthew Huntbach
The problem is that we get a bit
cynical about students who have done badly in the past and promise
they will do much better next time - we've heard that story a bit
too often and often the promise of better perfromance doesn't amount to
much.

Yes, there are many students that make that excuse up because they were too
lazy to work in the first place, but I assure you that I am not one of them.
Also I very much doubt my tutor who is a physics lecturer and an ex AT at
imperial would say such things if I hadn't of made progress and put the work
in.

Well, its the admissions tutors who receive your UCAS form who you need
to convince. However, the main point, which both I and Andy Walker have
put to you, is that at the moment there's a big shortage of applicants
for Computer Science degrees. This means that admissions tutors in
Computer Science like myself are forced to spend more time looking at UCAS
forms which don't present a perfect profile. I think you will find there
are very few Computer Science departments this year who have so many
applicants that they can afford not even to consider someone with C-ish
A-levels and a good reference.

Post by Samsonknight

Post by Matthew Huntbach
In case you think I'm blowing my own trumpet, why not Sussex, for
example? Sussex is a good example of a university which has several
top-class departments, including CS, but somehow it doesn't seem to
attract the volume of highly qualified applicants that Bristol does,
so is accessible on significantly lower grades.

My other choices are all Scottish, Edinburgh, St Andrews, Aberdeen, I was
going to apply to Sussex, but I am not to keen about the area. As for the
University/department itself I liked it, but I am not sure if I could spend
3 years of my life in Brighton.

Any reason? Sussex wasn't an entirely random choice - as it happens I
was born and brought up in the Brighton area, and did my PhD at Sussex.
Most students who come to Sussex seem to like the area very much, and
Brighton has always been seen as a selling point for Sussex, so I'm
curious to kow why you think it's a negative point.

Matthew Huntbach

[Samsonknight]

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Samsonknight

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Samsonknight
Yet I fear that my application will be dismissed by AT's because I had
got CCE last year - which I dont blame them for doing as they don't know
the reasons why this had happened to me.

If you think there are some particular reasons which don't apply this
year, then they ought to know as you ought to put them in your personal
statement on the UCAS form, with your referee backing up what you say.

Which he has done so.

Well, provided a good case has been put for you by your referee, that
should give you more chance of being considered than someone who also
got CCE last year and is re-sitting, but has said nothing in explanation.

Post by Samsonknight

Post by Matthew Huntbach
The problem is that we get a bit
cynical about students who have done badly in the past and promise
they will do much better next time - we've heard that story a bit
too often and often the promise of better perfromance doesn't amount to
much.

Yes, there are many students that make that excuse up because they were too
lazy to work in the first place, but I assure you that I am not one of them.
Also I very much doubt my tutor who is a physics lecturer and an ex AT at
imperial would say such things if I hadn't of made progress and put the work
in.

Well, its the admissions tutors who receive your UCAS form who you need
to convince. However, the main point, which both I and Andy Walker have
put to you, is that at the moment there's a big shortage of applicants
for Computer Science degrees. This means that admissions tutors in
Computer Science like myself are forced to spend more time looking at UCAS
forms which don't present a perfect profile. I think you will find there
are very few Computer Science departments this year who have so many
applicants that they can afford not even to consider someone with C-ish
A-levels and a good reference.

Post by Samsonknight

Post by Matthew Huntbach
In case you think I'm blowing my own trumpet, why not Sussex, for
example? Sussex is a good example of a university which has several
top-class departments, including CS, but somehow it doesn't seem to
attract the volume of highly qualified applicants that Bristol does,
so is accessible on significantly lower grades.

My other choices are all Scottish, Edinburgh, St Andrews, Aberdeen, I was
going to apply to Sussex, but I am not to keen about the area. As for the
University/department itself I liked it, but I am not sure if I could spend
3 years of my life in Brighton.

Any reason? Sussex wasn't an entirely random choice - as it happens I
was born and brought up in the Brighton area, and did my PhD at Sussex.
Most students who come to Sussex seem to like the area very much, and
Brighton has always been seen as a selling point for Sussex, so I'm
curious to kow why you think it's a negative point.

This may sound silly, but when I went to Sussex uni, and then went to
Brighton straight after, I was not attracted by the Brighton and the whole
fareground theme to a great extent, although I was attracted to the comp sci
department itself. Possible reasons why I wasn't, could be due to the fact
that I wanted to study in city that has much more character , historical
architecture - like the area surrounding the University of Edinburgh for
example.

I cannot comment on other areas surrounding Sussex except Brighton.

I would have studied at a university in London, but I wanted to use my
university experience as an opportunity to move out , see new places and
seek new inspiration so that I could implement it into my artwork, as well
as broaden my knowledge and understanding of different cultures .

[Matthew Huntbach]

Post by Samsonknight

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Samsonknight
My other choices are all Scottish, Edinburgh, St Andrews, Aberdeen, I was
going to apply to Sussex, but I am not to keen about the area. As for the
University/department itself I liked it, but I am not sure if I could
spend 3 years of my life in Brighton.

Any reason? Sussex wasn't an entirely random choice - as it happens I
was born and brought up in the Brighton area, and did my PhD at Sussex.
Most students who come to Sussex seem to like the area very much, and
Brighton has always been seen as a selling point for Sussex, so I'm
curious to kow why you think it's a negative point.

This may sound silly, but when I went to Sussex uni, and then went to
Brighton straight after, I was not attracted by the Brighton and the whole
fareground theme to a great extent, although I was attracted to the comp sci
department itself. Possible reasons why I wasn't, could be due to the fact
that I wanted to study in city that has much more character , historical
architecture - like the area surrounding the University of Edinburgh for
example.
I cannot comment on other areas surrounding Sussex except Brighton.

Well, I think you may be underestimating Brighton. The traditional
seaside holiday part of it, which is what I guess you mean by "fairground
theme", is really only a tiny part of it. Brighton is a medium-sized
city, with a lot going on in terms of art and culture. In fact my
feelings when I return to the place is that these days it's just too
dominated by arty-types, student-types and trendies. In this way it's
like many other university towns, but more so. Maybe the problem is that
the arty and trendy parts of the town aren't on the seafront, so if you
went straight there you missed them. I mean, if you think Aberdeen would
be more fun to live in than Brighton, then either you're seriously
mistaken or you have a funny idea about fun.

Matthew Huntbach

[Samsonknight]

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Samsonknight

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Samsonknight
My other choices are all Scottish, Edinburgh, St Andrews, Aberdeen, I was
going to apply to Sussex, but I am not to keen about the area. As for the
University/department itself I liked it, but I am not sure if I could
spend 3 years of my life in Brighton.

Any reason? Sussex wasn't an entirely random choice - as it happens I
was born and brought up in the Brighton area, and did my PhD at Sussex.
Most students who come to Sussex seem to like the area very much, and
Brighton has always been seen as a selling point for Sussex, so I'm
curious to kow why you think it's a negative point.

This may sound silly, but when I went to Sussex uni, and then went to
Brighton straight after, I was not attracted by the Brighton and the whole
fareground theme to a great extent, although I was attracted to the comp sci
department itself. Possible reasons why I wasn't, could be due to the fact
that I wanted to study in city that has much more character , historical
architecture - like the area surrounding the University of Edinburgh for
example.
I cannot comment on other areas surrounding Sussex except Brighton.

Well, I think you may be underestimating Brighton. The traditional
seaside holiday part of it, which is what I guess you mean by "fairground
theme", is really only a tiny part of it. Brighton is a medium-sized
city, with a lot going on in terms of art and culture. In fact my
feelings when I return to the place is that these days it's just too
dominated by arty-types, student-types and trendies. In this way it's
like many other university towns, but more so. Maybe the problem is that
the arty and trendy parts of the town aren't on the seafront, so if you

Yes that is the problem, I should have investigated the surrounding areas in
much more depth.

Post by Matthew Huntbach
went straight there you missed them. I mean, if you think Aberdeen would
be more fun to live in than Brighton, then either you're seriously
mistaken or you have a funny idea about fun.
Matthew Huntbach

Yes, but then again Aberdeen's entry requirements are lower then Brighton's.
When applying, I was not sure about my chances of getting a response from
sussex - as I believe they want BBB for comp sci.

[Matthew Huntbach]

Post by Samsonknight

Post by Matthew Huntbach
I mean, if you think Aberdeen would
be more fun to live in than Brighton, then either you're seriously
mistaken or you have a funny idea about fun.

Yes, but then again Aberdeen's entry requirements are lower then Brighton's.
When applying, I was not sure about my chances of getting a response from
sussex - as I believe they want BBB for comp sci.

"Sussex's" not "Brighton's". Remember Brighton has two universities -
the University of Sussex and the University of Brighton. The Computing
department at the University of Brighton is one of the better ex-poly
computing departments.

When it comes to offers like this, it pays to distinguish between the
published entry requirements and what they will actually take at - as
I've said many times before in this newsgroup. If the stated entry
requirements are "BBB", it doesn't mean the real entry requirements
are "BBB". In my experience there has been a tendency for grade inflation
in stated requirements and conditional offers and the actual grade
departments will take at is some way below the stated conditional offer
level. With the slump in Computer Science applications over the past
few years, many CS departments will be forced to take way below their
stated conditional offer levels.

As I've said before, admissions tutors face the problem that if they
make conditional offers near the level which will be their actual limit
they run into the problem that potential students may think "that
university's no good because they ask for such low grades" and so go
off to other universities which ask for higher grades (even if in
reality those other universities take at just as low grades). There's
a lot of pressure to make higher than realistic offers because it looks
good and seems to attract good students. I know because I've been there -
I've been forced to make BBB offers even though in reality my lower limit
was CCC because rival CS departments also made BBB offers even though their
real lower limit was CCC, and if I made the offer CCC and my rival made
it BBB, the best students would always pick my rival. So I ask for BBB,
and anyone that's made me Firm and gets CCC still gets given a place.
I know my rivals who ask for BBB are also taking at CCC because if
someone makes me Insurance and gets CCC I very rarely find them
ending up with me.

This year I've been making lower offers because I think the situation
has been reached where BBB is totally unrealistic even as an aspiration.
But it's a risk. I hope it means I gain people like you who have been
put off by unrealistically high offers made elsewhere, but there is
also the worry it will put off the sort of good students we want who
will think "Queen Mary can't be much good as they're asking for such
low grades".

Matthew Huntbach

[Samsonknight]

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Samsonknight

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Samsonknight
My other choices are all Scottish, Edinburgh, St Andrews, Aberdeen, I was
going to apply to Sussex, but I am not to keen about the area. As for the
University/department itself I liked it, but I am not sure if I could
spend 3 years of my life in Brighton.

Any reason? Sussex wasn't an entirely random choice - as it happens I
was born and brought up in the Brighton area, and did my PhD at Sussex.
Most students who come to Sussex seem to like the area very much, and
Brighton has always been seen as a selling point for Sussex, so I'm
curious to kow why you think it's a negative point.

This may sound silly, but when I went to Sussex uni, and then went to
Brighton straight after, I was not attracted by the Brighton and the whole
fareground theme to a great extent, although I was attracted to the comp sci
department itself. Possible reasons why I wasn't, could be due to the fact
that I wanted to study in city that has much more character , historical
architecture - like the area surrounding the University of Edinburgh for
example.
I cannot comment on other areas surrounding Sussex except Brighton.

Well, I think you may be underestimating Brighton. The traditional
seaside holiday part of it, which is what I guess you mean by "fairground
theme", is really only a tiny part of it. Brighton is a medium-sized
city, with a lot going on in terms of art and culture. In fact my
feelings when I return to the place is that these days it's just too
dominated by arty-types, student-types and trendies. In this way it's
like many other university towns, but more so. Maybe the problem is that
the arty and trendy parts of the town aren't on the seafront, so if you

Yes that is the problem, I should have investigated the surrounding areas in
much more depth.

Post by Matthew Huntbach
went straight there you missed them. I mean, if you think Aberdeen would
be more fun to live in than Brighton, then either you're seriously
mistaken or you have a funny idea about fun.
Matthew Huntbach

Yes, but then again Aberdeen's entry requirements are lower then Brighton's.
When applying, I was not sure about my chances of getting a response from
sussex - as I believe they want BBB for comp sci and are a v good uni for
comp sci.

I should have chosen Sussex instead of Bristol - come to think of it now.

[Samsonknight]

Post by Samsonknight

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Samsonknight

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Samsonknight
My other choices are all Scottish, Edinburgh, St Andrews, Aberdeen, I was
going to apply to Sussex, but I am not to keen about the area. As for the
University/department itself I liked it, but I am not sure if I could
spend 3 years of my life in Brighton.

Any reason? Sussex wasn't an entirely random choice - as it happens I
was born and brought up in the Brighton area, and did my PhD at Sussex.
Most students who come to Sussex seem to like the area very much, and
Brighton has always been seen as a selling point for Sussex, so I'm
curious to kow why you think it's a negative point.

This may sound silly, but when I went to Sussex uni, and then went to
Brighton straight after, I was not attracted by the Brighton and the whole
fareground theme to a great extent, although I was attracted to the comp sci
department itself. Possible reasons why I wasn't, could be due to the fact
that I wanted to study in city that has much more character , historical
architecture - like the area surrounding the University of Edinburgh for
example.
I cannot comment on other areas surrounding Sussex except Brighton.

Well, I think you may be underestimating Brighton. The traditional
seaside holiday part of it, which is what I guess you mean by "fairground
theme", is really only a tiny part of it. Brighton is a medium-sized
city, with a lot going on in terms of art and culture. In fact my
feelings when I return to the place is that these days it's just too
dominated by arty-types, student-types and trendies. In this way it's
like many other university towns, but more so. Maybe the problem is that
the arty and trendy parts of the town aren't on the seafront, so if you

Yes that is the problem, I should have investigated the surrounding areas in
much more depth.

Post by Matthew Huntbach
went straight there you missed them. I mean, if you think Aberdeen would
be more fun to live in than Brighton, then either you're seriously
mistaken or you have a funny idea about fun.
Matthew Huntbach

Yes, but then again Aberdeen's entry requirements are lower then Brighton's.

oops I meant Sussex's.

Post by Samsonknight
When applying, I was not sure about my chances of getting a response from
sussex - as I believe they want BBB for comp sci and are a v good uni for
comp sci.
I should have chosen Sussex instead of Bristol - come to think of it now.

[Matthew Huntbach]

Yes, but then again Aberdeen's entry requirements are lower then Sussex's.
When applying, I was not sure about my chances of getting a response from
sussex - as I believe they want BBB for comp sci and are a v good uni for
comp sci.
I should have chosen Sussex instead of Bristol - come to think of it now.

Yes, Sussex has a very good reputation amongst academics across the
world.
It came high in the recent Times Higher Education Supplement survey of
universities, for example. In social sciences it was ranked 22nd in
the
world. Yet the impression I get from UCAS applicants is that they
don't rank Sussex highly. Everyone seems to want to pile into Bristol
and Warwick but Sussex seems to be regarded as the sort of place you
go to if you couldn't get in anywhere "better". I am not sure why that
is, maybe someone who's reading this could comment.

Matthew Huntbach

[Rebecca Loader]

Post by Matthew Huntbach
Yes, Sussex has a very good reputation amongst academics across the
world.
It came high in the recent Times Higher Education Supplement survey of
universities, for example. In social sciences it was ranked 22nd in
the
world. Yet the impression I get from UCAS applicants is that they
don't rank Sussex highly. Everyone seems to want to pile into Bristol
and Warwick but Sussex seems to be regarded as the sort of place you
go to if you couldn't get in anywhere "better". I am not sure why that
is, maybe someone who's reading this could comment.

Because of who you know to have gone to which universities within your
school or social circle. It just perpetuates, doesn't it - someone with,
say, BBC might apply and go there because s/he gathers from the
school/people of the years above/parents' friends' children that that's
where someone with those sort of grades would go. The school continues to
push that idea or that person's friends or parents' friends children think
of Sussex (along with some other 1960s universities) as the sort of place
you go with BBC.

My brother has AAAa, but that didn't go unmentioned at the start. When
other students ask you what you're doing at a certain university (on the
basis of your grades), you might start to wonder yourself.

Becky

[Rebecca Loader]

Post by Matthew Huntbach
Well, I think you may be underestimating Brighton. The traditional
seaside holiday part of it, which is what I guess you mean by "fairground
theme", is really only a tiny part of it. Brighton is a medium-sized
city, with a lot going on in terms of art and culture. In fact my
feelings when I return to the place is that these days it's just too
dominated by arty-types, student-types and trendies. In this way it's
like many other university towns, but more so. Maybe the problem is that
the arty and trendy parts of the town aren't on the seafront, so if you
went straight there you missed them. I mean, if you think Aberdeen would
be more fun to live in than Brighton, then either you're seriously
mistaken or you have a funny idea about fun.

My brother, who's 20, is a student at the University of Sussex, and Brighton
strikes me as the most self-consciously trendy city on earth. I get down
there several times a year to see him or on a trip with friends and I always
feel under-styled! That said, I think it's a great place to be a student,
if rather expensive, and I'm often quite envious of the range of decent club
nights and gigs that take place there.

Becky

[Samsonknight]

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Samsonknight

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Samsonknight
Yet I fear that my application will be dismissed by AT's because I had
got CCE last year - which I dont blame them for doing as they don't know
the reasons why this had happened to me.

If you think there are some particular reasons which don't apply this
year, then they ought to know as you ought to put them in your personal
statement on the UCAS form, with your referee backing up what you say.

Which he has done so.

Well, provided a good case has been put for you by your referee, that
should give you more chance of being considered than someone who also
got CCE last year and is re-sitting, but has said nothing in explanation.

Post by Samsonknight

Post by Matthew Huntbach
The problem is that we get a bit
cynical about students who have done badly in the past and promise
they will do much better next time - we've heard that story a bit
too often and often the promise of better perfromance doesn't amount to
much.

Yes, there are many students that make that excuse up because they were too
lazy to work in the first place, but I assure you that I am not one of them.
Also I very much doubt my tutor who is a physics lecturer and an ex AT at
imperial would say such things if I hadn't of made progress and put the work
in.

Well, its the admissions tutors who receive your UCAS form who you need
to convince. However, the main point, which both I and Andy Walker have
put to you, is that at the moment there's a big shortage of applicants
for Computer Science degrees. This means that admissions tutors in
Computer Science like myself are forced to spend more time looking at UCAS
forms which don't present a perfect profile. I think you will find there
are very few Computer Science departments this year who have so many
applicants that they can afford not even to consider someone with C-ish
A-levels and a good reference.

Post by Samsonknight

Post by Matthew Huntbach
In case you think I'm blowing my own trumpet, why not Sussex, for
example? Sussex is a good example of a university which has several
top-class departments, including CS, but somehow it doesn't seem to
attract the volume of highly qualified applicants that Bristol does,
so is accessible on significantly lower grades.

My other choices are all Scottish, Edinburgh, St Andrews, Aberdeen, I was
going to apply to Sussex, but I am not to keen about the area. As for the
University/department itself I liked it, but I am not sure if I could spend
3 years of my life in Brighton.

Any reason? Sussex wasn't an entirely random choice - as it happens I
was born and brought up in the Brighton area, and did my PhD at Sussex.
Most students who come to Sussex seem to like the area very much, and
Brighton has always been seen as a selling point for Sussex, so I'm
curious to kow why you think it's a negative point.

This may sound silly, but when I went to Sussex uni, and then went to
Brighton straight after, I was not attracted by the Brighton and the whole
fareground theme to a great extent, although I was attracted to the comp sci
department itself. Possible reasons why I wasn't, could be due to the fact
that I wanted to study in city that has much more character , historical
architecture - like the area surrounding the University of Edinburgh for
example.

I cannot comment on other areas surrounding Sussex except Brighton.

I would have studied at a university in London, but I wanted to use my
university experience as an opportunity to move out , see new places and
seek new inspiration so that I could implement it into my artwork, as well
as broaden my knowledge and understanding of different cultures .

[John Porcella]

Post by Samsonknight
Sounds rather interesting, "Game theory" , have you got any good resources
that teaches you game theory. I have done a search on google, but I had no
idea which tutorial to follow.

I have a vague feeling there is something in the D2 book for Edexcel
mathematics.

Post by Samsonknight
Anyway, back to the original point - yes you are correct that the speed of
your writing should not be a problem for maths , however for other subjects
such as RE, psychology, ICT,history, english , politics, it is very
important to be a fast writer. Time management has always been a problem of
mine, for RE I had got CBBBDU - the module I got a D in I had spent far too
much time on the first question (writing about Jewish philosiphers and god
knows what else) so that I could maximise my marks on that question.

But as you have discovered, there is an opportunity cost in doing this.
Basically, you were trying to get another mark in a question which you had
already passed on, almost certainly, so that extra mark was probably quite
hard to get as it was a high level order of thinking mark. Whereas you
could have started another question where the first few marks are the
easiest to gain as they are of a low order, typically requiring just the
mere display of knowledge or perhaps even a little application, rather than
the higher order skills of analysis, synthesis or evaluation.

I am not brilliant at time management, but becoming a marker has definitely
made me better since I have learnt from marking scripts that the biggest
'sin' a candidate can commit is not to have a reasonable bash at every part
of every question.

So much

Post by Samsonknight
so that I had only managed to write 4 lines for the second/last question.

Tut, tut!

AS

Post by Samsonknight
for the U , god knows what happen there,

You must have approached your answers wrongly. Only comparing your answers
with the model answers will give you a clue as to what went wrong.

but despite this I ended up with a

Post by Samsonknight
mediocore C at A2 (370/600), so I hope in the summer along with math's to
move that up to a B or an A.

I can see you doing this as it cannot be that hard to raise your U to a C,
assuming you figure out what is was that the markers wanted to see that you
were not giving them.

It is frustrating as you probably could

Post by Samsonknight
imagine, especially after knowing the syllabus well, yet underperformaing
because you didn't have enough time to write your ideas from your head to
the paper in the given time.

This is a problem for stronger candidates, so feel pleased that you have
this problem! Just get a few ideas down which you 'push' hard by looking at
their connections to other parts of the syllabus. links to other parts of
the same question, and consequences that follow. Better this than to come
up with loads of ideas which are not pursued deeply.

Post by Samsonknight
For maths it is slightly more different then 'englishy' subject, but
essentially when it comes down to it, it is more about exam strategy then
anything else. I used my C1 paper as an example of this, because I had lost
15 minutes by spending far too much time on the integration question. I had
answered the integration question, but it became problomatic when I kept
using differentiation to check if my integral answer is correct. A method
that my marvelous tutor enforced into my cranium.

Generally this is bad advice. If on checking your answer you find it is
right, then you could have spent that time on another question. If you find
that your answer is wrong, then you will panic and spend time trying to
correct it. Better to answer a question and then move on.



The exam strategy comes

Post by Samsonknight
into play in that example, because after doing the paper I should have
realised whilst doing the paper that I was better off skipping that
question, and then coming back to it at a later stage where I have time,

Yep!

Post by Samsonknight
that way I am able to maximise my marks through allocating more time by
doing the questions that gave the most marks. I probably got a C overall for
that module, but again its frustrating because the modules will now surely
get harder

C1 should not get harder! You can retake it.

and from my experience by have a poor year 12 as you know, AL

Post by Samsonknight
success is determined by a v good AS grade as in most cases the A2 part of
the course is to maintain your *A* grade, or at worst drop a grade but never
to move up a grade by 2 or 3.

I think that you are right. If you are able to spank the ASs out of sight,
then the A2s become a mere procession. Since ASs are worth as much as A2s,
but are nowhere near as hard, then this approach might explain why getting
top grades is much easier than yesteryear.

Plus I have to do that module again in June,

Post by Samsonknight
which intensely frustrates me as I enjoy pure maths,

Enjoying and getting good examination grades do not always follow
immediately, but it helps!

put the hours in (300+

Post by Samsonknight
hours - 5-10 hr a day since late august) and therefore I know that I should
have got a higher grade - hopefully by the time June comes I should be very
good at C4 and that should make the C1 paper look like childsplay.

I had another go at P1 after I had reached P3, and it seemed so much easier.

Post by Samsonknight
On the other hand it is good that I have had the above experience with the
Maths C1 examination, because I know now in future how to approach these
exams,

Then consider it a good learning experience!


it was better it happened this month then in June - where it would

Post by Samsonknight
have been too late. However, if it did happen in June to another
unfortuanant cadidate who was competant at *maths*, then as an AT I guess it
would have been hard for you to differentiate whether this candidate is
genuinely good at maths, or just had a bad day. On the whole, this is my
opinion why I feel that Alevels are terribly flawed , because IMO 40% is the
ability to understand and learn something whereas the other 60% is exam
technique - you may have the brains of einstein (not saying that I do of
course) , but if you cant put it down on paper, no one cares about the
reasons why you got a C.

Yep!

[Dr A. N. Walker]

Post by John Porcella

Post by Samsonknight
Sounds rather interesting, "Game theory" , have you got any good resources
that teaches you game theory.

No. Not at sixth-form standard, anyway. [And not until I
write my book!] Although quite a lot should be accessible to an
intelligent A-level student, there is also a lot that is just way
too sophisticated. The *interesting* stuff is primarily in three
areas: (a) So-called "combinatorial" game theory -- real games,
eg chess. Look for stuff by John Conway &/or "Winning Ways" [a
fascinating but expensive and frustrating book] &/or google for
"combinatorial games". (b) "Matrix" games. This is the stuff
covered by most books with titles suggesting game theory. Most
of it is utterly boring [Nash "Beautiful Mind" Equilibrium sort
of area], but there are some nuggets. (c) Algorithmic theory of
games, the hard end [in both senses] of artificial intelligence.

Post by John Porcella

Post by Samsonknight
I have done a search on google, but I had no
idea which tutorial to follow.

I have a vague feeling there is something in the D2 book for Edexcel
mathematics.

Bleeagh! The stuff in A-level is the most boring material
around. [OTOH, the whole of A-level maths is rather like that; I
sometimes wonder why anyone chooses to do maths at univ, given that
their experience up to that point, at GCSE and A-level, is so dire.]

Post by John Porcella
I think that you are right. If you are able to spank the ASs out of sight,
then the A2s become a mere procession. Since ASs are worth as much as A2s,

Not now. [AS FMaths excepted.] Try getting in to a decent
univ with 6xAS and no A2's and see what sort of reception you get.

[Samsonknight]

Post by Dr A. N. Walker

Post by John Porcella

Post by Samsonknight
Sounds rather interesting, "Game theory" , have you got any good resources
that teaches you game theory.

No. Not at sixth-form standard, anyway. [And not until I
write my book!] Although quite a lot should be accessible to an
intelligent A-level student, there is also a lot that is just way
too sophisticated. The *interesting* stuff is primarily in three
areas: (a) So-called "combinatorial" game theory -- real games,
eg chess. Look for stuff by John Conway &/or "Winning Ways" [a
fascinating but expensive and frustrating book] &/or google for
"combinatorial games". (b) "Matrix" games. This is the stuff
covered by most books with titles suggesting game theory. Most
of it is utterly boring [Nash "Beautiful Mind" Equilibrium sort
of area], but there are some nuggets. (c) Algorithmic theory of
games, the hard end [in both senses] of artificial intelligence.

Post by John Porcella

Post by Samsonknight
I have done a search on google, but I had no
idea which tutorial to follow.

I have a vague feeling there is something in the D2 book for Edexcel
mathematics.

Bleeagh! The stuff in A-level is the most boring material
around. [OTOH, the whole of A-level maths is rather like that; I
sometimes wonder why anyone chooses to do maths at univ, given that
their experience up to that point, at GCSE and A-level, is so dire.]

Personally I am finding AL maths much more interesting then subjects such as
A-level ICT (which could seriously put you of Computer Science if you
thought that was what comp sci was about) and I come from an intermidiate
mathematics background.

I must admit though sequences and series, and curve sketching are absolutely
boring topics. They are not hard, but it is so boring going through the
chapter, because of that reason - binomial/pascal triangle is much more
better (more abstract)

Mechanics is not bad, IMO it is much more interesting then statistics -
Kinematics is really interesting.

Post by Dr A. N. Walker

Post by John Porcella
I think that you are right. If you are able to spank the ASs out of sight,
then the A2s become a mere procession. Since ASs are worth as much as A2s,

Not now. [AS FMaths excepted.] Try getting in to a decent
univ with 6xAS and no A2's and see what sort of reception you get.

I think what he was trying to say in response to my comment was that the
strategy to get an A overall in any AL subject is too get at least 90+
percent in the AS modules (as they are easier), and then get mediocore
grades in the A2 modules (to maintain the AS grade A).

[John Porcella]

Post by Samsonknight
Mechanics is not bad, IMO it is much more interesting then statistics -
Kinematics is really interesting.

Perhaps because of my business background, I have found statistics quite
interesting, but maybe I should give mechanics more time and that too will
seem interesting too.

Post by Samsonknight

Post by Dr A. N. Walker

Post by John Porcella
I think that you are right. If you are able to spank the ASs out of sight,
then the A2s become a mere procession. Since ASs are worth as much as A2s,

Not now. [AS FMaths excepted.] Try getting in to a decent
univ with 6xAS and no A2's and see what sort of reception you get.

I think what he was trying to say in response to my comment was that the
strategy to get an A overall in any AL subject is too get at least 90+
percent in the AS modules (as they are easier), and then get mediocore
grades in the A2 modules (to maintain the AS grade A).

Indeed, you put it better than me!

[John Porcella]

Post by Dr A. N. Walker

Post by John Porcella
I think that you are right. If you are able to spank the ASs out of sight,
then the A2s become a mere procession. Since ASs are worth as much as A2s,

Not now. [AS FMaths excepted.] Try getting in to a decent
univ with 6xAS and no A2's and see what sort of reception you get.

Let me clarify...I meant that an AS is worth half an A level, but much
easier to score on than the A2s.

[Dr A. N. Walker]

Post by John Porcella
Let me clarify...I meant that an AS is worth half an A level, but much
easier to score on than the A2s.

No longer. That is why you cannot now replace an A-level
by 2xAS. And it is not "meant" to be "easier", but rather to be
first-year sixth. Admittedly, there are still some anomalies, inc
Further Maths and inc the UCAS "tariff". And of course if you are
in the second-year sixth, you should then find the AS much easier,
in the same way that all school/univ work looks much easier from
the perspective of a year or three later.

[John Porcella]

Post by Samsonknight

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Samsonknight
Also, it really does not help , when you are adviced to do mickey mouse
subjects or in LSEs case "black listed" subjects and then find out at the
start of A2 or 3 years later in your gap year/uni, the subject you did was
pointless.

As an admissions tutor I do all I can to try and get this message across
to schools, but they just don't listen. Also they are under increasing

Yes. If it wasnt for you and stumbling across aua at the start of A2 last
year, I probably would still be under the illusion that ICT is valid for a
comp sci course. But it was too late.

It might be valid for other things! Otherwise, it shows an ability to study
and pass examinations which is useful of itself, regardless, almost of the
subject.

Post by Samsonknight
I have a great idea, why doesn't the government just scrap those blacklisted
subjects for good from all colleges/sixthform, that way students like myself
will not feel seriously conned after finding out they are 'mickey mouse
subjects' a year into the course. Also, that way colleges & schools will not
have a choice to force students into subjects that they know are relatively
crap for their own selfish gain.

Just because those subjects do not serve one purpose does not mean it cannot
serve another purpose. Furthermore, those qualifications are not the
government's to scrap! They are set by private bodies who can offer
whatever they like, so long as they think that they make them money.

Post by Samsonknight
Funny enough, after reading your comment I have just thought about the
nature of A-level examinations, are they really test of intelligence
(academic ability) or exam technique?

They are only partially a test of intelligence. They are also a test of how
well one has been taught, how much is expected of the student by themselves,
teachers, parents etc, what time and resources were available, memory
recall, and speed of thought and good examination techniques, oh yes, and
luck!

Earlier this month I had C1 on the

Post by Samsonknight
10th, and even though my algebra is strong and my mathematical ability in
general for both C1 and C2 are strong (with the exception of circles), my
exam technique is rather poor. This let me down on the C1 paper, I lost 15
minutes to the integration question on page 2 on the paper. This could have
probably costed me 1 or 2 grades, depending on the grade boundries.

Examination technique gets better with practice. I found my exam technique
improved loads after becoming a marker for a couple of exam boards; I began
to understand what they were looking for!

Post by Samsonknight
Anyway, my point is, if I got a C for C1 and yet someone else who managed
their time correctly got an A - but was mathematically ability-wise the same
as me. How could you as an Admission tutor differentiate that this guy is
better then this other guy because he got an A?

Why would they want to differentiate (excuse the use of that word)?
Ultimately, even at uni they are going to be tested in the exam hall at some
point and all the ability in the world will be of little use then if
technique is poor.


Which raises another point ,

Post by Samsonknight
to what extent is AL in general is a true test of intelligence and not how
fast you can write your answers out?

Depends on what you mean by 'true' and what you mean by 'intelligence'!


Yeah sure, you have to learn the stuff

Post by Samsonknight
and that in itself requires hours and hours of dicipline, but applicants are
often probably dismissed by the big boys due to their grades (I got rejected
by bristol today...charming) - regardless on whether they are really good at
maths but shit at time management in exams.

C'est la vie!

Post by Samsonknight
This all brings me to another flaw in Alevels, I know a few people who goto
prestigious universities, they have got A grades throughout their academic
career. One friend in particular who graduated from Oxford recently with a
2:1 got an A in AL maths and a D in further maths. Yet when you ask him the
rules of log, or any type of AL maths question, he has totally
forgotten...

If he did not need to know it for his degree course, then why shoud he
remember? Ultimately, his 'A' level qualification shows that when required
he knew his stuff. Hopefully, if required, he could brush up on the
relevant areas again. In the same way accountants do not take books into
the exam hall, but do have them to refer to after qualification.

So tell me here, what is the point in applying to LSE for

Post by Samsonknight
economics, yet they require you to have the hard sciences ,when as shown by
his example and many other examples, the likely hood is you will probably
end up forgetting your chemestry at AL, the biology you have learnt at AL,
and probably physics.

So long as the relevant bits were understood, then even forgetting them is
not a problem since it can be revised. Otherwise you could argue that it is
not worth learning anything as it can all be forgotten! That is not the
point. The examination system shows what was understood on that day (and
therefore could be replicated another time).


I am better off with D & T, Media Studies, Maths (to

Post by Samsonknight
show I am logical) and some other mickey mouse subject!!!

But not everybody needs to show their Spock-like qualities!

Post by Samsonknight
I will not begin ranting about politics , history students that I know of
whom goto good unis...half of them make me laugh, they haven't formulated
their own philosphical ideas,political ideas but instead paste rubbish out
of the text books or what they have learnt like robots. No wonder why they
get As!

If that is what it takes, then learn from them!

[Samsonknight]

Post by John Porcella

Post by Samsonknight

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Samsonknight
Also, it really does not help , when you are adviced to do mickey mouse
subjects or in LSEs case "black listed" subjects and then find out at

the

Post by Samsonknight

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Samsonknight
start of A2 or 3 years later in your gap year/uni, the subject you did was
pointless.

As an admissions tutor I do all I can to try and get this message across
to schools, but they just don't listen. Also they are under increasing

Yes. If it wasnt for you and stumbling across aua at the start of A2 last
year, I probably would still be under the illusion that ICT is valid for a
comp sci course. But it was too late.

It might be valid for other things! Otherwise, it shows an ability to study
and pass examinations which is useful of itself, regardless, almost of the
subject.

Yes, but again , not all people adopt those views, a friend for example who
is currently going to Durham uni, got a B for ICT and people tend to look
down at him. "What's the point?" is what they say.

Post by John Porcella

Post by Samsonknight
I have a great idea, why doesn't the government just scrap those

blacklisted

Post by Samsonknight
subjects for good from all colleges/sixthform, that way students like

myself

Post by Samsonknight
will not feel seriously conned after finding out they are 'mickey mouse
subjects' a year into the course. Also, that way colleges & schools will

not

Post by Samsonknight
have a choice to force students into subjects that they know are

relatively

Post by Samsonknight
crap for their own selfish gain.

Just because those subjects do not serve one purpose does not mean it cannot
serve another purpose. Furthermore, those qualifications are not the
government's to scrap! They are set by private bodies who can offer
whatever they like, so long as they think that they make them money.

I agree, Andy said something similar in his thread - of which I agreed and
replied with my opinion.

Post by John Porcella

Post by Samsonknight
Funny enough, after reading your comment I have just thought about the
nature of A-level examinations, are they really test of intelligence
(academic ability) or exam technique?

They are only partially a test of intelligence. They are also a test of how
well one has been taught, how much is expected of the student by themselves,
teachers, parents etc, what time and resources were available, memory
recall, and speed of thought and good examination techniques, oh yes, and
luck!

I agree, but there are flaws - as explained in my reply to Andy's thread.

Post by John Porcella
Earlier this month I had C1 on the

Post by Samsonknight
10th, and even though my algebra is strong and my mathematical ability in
general for both C1 and C2 are strong (with the exception of circles), my
exam technique is rather poor. This let me down on the C1 paper, I lost 15
minutes to the integration question on page 2 on the paper. This could

have

Post by Samsonknight
probably costed me 1 or 2 grades, depending on the grade boundries.

Examination technique gets better with practice. I found my exam technique
improved loads after becoming a marker for a couple of exam boards; I began
to understand what they were looking for!

Maybe I should become an examiner :)

Post by John Porcella

Post by Samsonknight
Anyway, my point is, if I got a C for C1 and yet someone else who managed
their time correctly got an A - but was mathematically ability-wise the

same

Post by Samsonknight
as me. How could you as an Admission tutor differentiate that this guy is
better then this other guy because he got an A?

Why would they want to differentiate (excuse the use of that word)?
Ultimately, even at uni they are going to be tested in the exam hall at some
point and all the ability in the world will be of little use then if
technique is poor.
Which raises another point ,

Post by Samsonknight
to what extent is AL in general is a true test of intelligence and not how
fast you can write your answers out?

Depends on what you mean by 'true' and what you mean by 'intelligence'!

"True Intelligence" - The ability to understand complicated concepts and
apply them to a real life problem without just learning facts/formulaes
mindlessly for the sake of exams only to forget afterwards..

Post by John Porcella
Yeah sure, you have to learn the stuff

Post by Samsonknight
and that in itself requires hours and hours of dicipline, but applicants

are

Post by Samsonknight
often probably dismissed by the big boys due to their grades (I got

rejected

Post by Samsonknight
by bristol today...charming) - regardless on whether they are really good

at

Post by Samsonknight
maths but shit at time management in exams.

C'est la vie!

Yes I agree "C'est la vie" indeed, that is something I must improve.

Post by John Porcella

Post by Samsonknight
This all brings me to another flaw in Alevels, I know a few people who

goto

Post by Samsonknight
prestigious universities, they have got A grades throughout their academic
career. One friend in particular who graduated from Oxford recently with a
2:1 got an A in AL maths and a D in further maths. Yet when you ask him

the

Post by Samsonknight
rules of log, or any type of AL maths question, he has totally
forgotten...

If he did not need to know it for his degree course, then why shoud he
remember? Ultimately, his 'A' level qualification shows that when required
he knew his stuff. Hopefully, if required, he could brush up on the
relevant areas again. In the same way accountants do not take books into
the exam hall, but do have them to refer to after qualification.

Yes I agree , he can if needed brush up on those areas, but so can I, so can
you, so can someone walking down the street. Also I bet you a fiver , that
if he had to brush up on those areas now (he has totally forgotten
everything like literally), it would take him a while to get back to where
he was. He may as well do his Alevels again to get back to that level. So
how is he different from any students that are doing Alevels now, because he
has a qualification in the subject already? Which isn't worth much if you
are back to square one.

Post by John Porcella
So tell me here, what is the point in applying to LSE for

Post by Samsonknight
economics, yet they require you to have the hard sciences ,when as shown

by

Post by Samsonknight
his example and many other examples, the likely hood is you will probably
end up forgetting your chemestry at AL, the biology you have learnt at AL,
and probably physics.

So long as the relevant bits were understood, then even forgetting them is
not a problem since it can be revised. Otherwise you could argue that it is
not worth learning anything as it can all be forgotten! That is not the
point. The examination system shows what was understood on that day (and
therefore could be replicated another time).

GCSEs are more then enough. You should develop a basic understanding of
things at that level, if you wish to presue it further then that is your
choice. I just dislike it when Unis such as LSE are so fussy by indirectly
forcing you to do the *hardest* subjects when it is not absolutely
neccessary for the subject that you want to study.

Post by John Porcella
I am better off with D & T, Media Studies, Maths (to

Post by Samsonknight
show I am logical) and some other mickey mouse subject!!!

But not everybody needs to show their Spock-like qualities!

Post by Samsonknight
I will not begin ranting about politics , history students that I know of
whom goto good unis...half of them make me laugh, they haven't formulated
their own philosphical ideas,political ideas but instead paste rubbish out
of the text books or what they have learnt like robots. No wonder why they
get As!

If that is what it takes, then learn from them!

I rather not, otherwise what I am learning in my gap year is a complete
waste of time. But yes, I guess I could learn from them in terms of how they
manage their time in exams :)

Post by John Porcella
--
MESSAGE ENDS.
John Porcella

[John Porcella]

Post by Samsonknight

Post by John Porcella

Post by Samsonknight

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Samsonknight
Also, it really does not help , when you are adviced to do mickey mouse
subjects or in LSEs case "black listed" subjects and then find out at

the

Post by Samsonknight

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Samsonknight
start of A2 or 3 years later in your gap year/uni, the subject you

did

Post by Samsonknight

Post by John Porcella

Post by Samsonknight

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Samsonknight
was
pointless.

As an admissions tutor I do all I can to try and get this message across
to schools, but they just don't listen. Also they are under increasing

Yes. If it wasnt for you and stumbling across aua at the start of A2 last
year, I probably would still be under the illusion that ICT is valid

for

Post by Samsonknight

Post by John Porcella

Post by Samsonknight
a
comp sci course. But it was too late.

It might be valid for other things! Otherwise, it shows an ability to study
and pass examinations which is useful of itself, regardless, almost of the
subject.

Yes, but again , not all people adopt those views,

True, and, as a result, given the plurality of views, there is more than one
reason for taking examinations...it just depends!

a friend for example who

Post by Samsonknight
is currently going to Durham uni, got a B for ICT and people tend to look
down at him. "What's the point?" is what they say.

The point of a grade B or the point of ICT? Either way, I should suggest
that there snobbery and condescension is their problem and not his or yours.

Post by Samsonknight
Maybe I should become an examiner :)

The boards are always looking for them...why not?

Post by Samsonknight

Post by John Porcella
Yeah sure, you have to learn the stuff

Post by Samsonknight
and that in itself requires hours and hours of dicipline, but applicants

are

Post by Samsonknight
often probably dismissed by the big boys due to their grades (I got

rejected

Post by Samsonknight
by bristol today...charming) - regardless on whether they are really good

at

Post by Samsonknight
maths but shit at time management in exams.

C'est la vie!

Yes I agree "C'est la vie" indeed, that is something I must improve.

Post by John Porcella

Post by Samsonknight
This all brings me to another flaw in Alevels, I know a few people who

goto

Post by Samsonknight
prestigious universities, they have got A grades throughout their academic
career. One friend in particular who graduated from Oxford recently

with

Post by Samsonknight

Post by John Porcella

Post by Samsonknight
a
2:1 got an A in AL maths and a D in further maths. Yet when you ask him

the

Post by Samsonknight
rules of log, or any type of AL maths question, he has totally
forgotten...

If he did not need to know it for his degree course, then why shoud he
remember? Ultimately, his 'A' level qualification shows that when required
he knew his stuff. Hopefully, if required, he could brush up on the
relevant areas again. In the same way accountants do not take books into
the exam hall, but do have them to refer to after qualification.

Yes I agree , he can if needed brush up on those areas, but so can I, so can
you, so can someone walking down the street.

Not quite! You need to have an idea of what it is all about...the man in
the street would not be "brushing up" their knowledge, but hitting the books
would be actual novel learning.

Also I bet you a fiver , that

Post by Samsonknight
if he had to brush up on those areas now (he has totally forgotten
everything like literally),

Actually, literally not! As far as I understand it, the brain forgots
nothing, the problem is one of recall.


it would take him a while to get back to where

Post by Samsonknight
he was.

So?

He may as well do his Alevels again to get back to that level.

Why? He has proved that he has achieved the standard. By your reasoning,
there is little point in taking the examination in the first place since it
will be forgotten!


So

Post by Samsonknight
how is he different from any students that are doing Alevels now, because he
has a qualification in the subject already?

The difference is that he has already passed that level and moved onto
bigger and better (or at least different) things, so he no longer needs to
remember it.

Which isn't worth much if you

Post by Samsonknight
are back to square one.

No, he has the piece of paper to show to potential employers.

Post by Samsonknight
GCSEs are more then enough.

Are you being serious? They are very, very basic!

You should develop a basic understanding of

Post by Samsonknight
things at that level,

Why at just that level? Surely, we should be developing our minds
throughout our lives, not just when young!

if you wish to presue it further then that is your

Post by Samsonknight
choice. I just dislike it when Unis such as LSE are so fussy by indirectly
forcing you to do the *hardest* subjects when it is not absolutely
neccessary for the subject that you want to study.

They consider it relevant for them, if for no other reason as a means to
reduce the potential number of applicants to something resembling sensible.
As one of the best places to go, they obvious think that they can afford to
make such demands.

Post by Samsonknight

Post by John Porcella
I am better off with D & T, Media Studies, Maths (to

Post by Samsonknight
show I am logical) and some other mickey mouse subject!!!

But not everybody needs to show their Spock-like qualities!

Post by Samsonknight
I will not begin ranting about politics , history students that I know of
whom goto good unis...half of them make me laugh, they haven't formulated
their own philosphical ideas,political ideas but instead paste rubbish out
of the text books or what they have learnt like robots. No wonder why they
get As!

If that is what it takes, then learn from them!

I rather not, otherwise what I am learning in my gap year is a complete
waste of time.

No, any learning is a good thing just for the discipline of studying.

But yes, I guess I could learn from them in terms of how they

Post by Samsonknight
manage their time in exams :)

You will and you will do well.

[Samsonknight]

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Samsonknight

Post by John Porcella

Post by Samsonknight

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Samsonknight
Also, it really does not help , when you are adviced to do mickey mouse
subjects or in LSEs case "black listed" subjects and then find out

at

Post by Samsonknight

Post by John Porcella
the

Post by Samsonknight

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Samsonknight
start of A2 or 3 years later in your gap year/uni, the subject you

did

Post by Samsonknight

Post by John Porcella

Post by Samsonknight

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Samsonknight
was
pointless.

As an admissions tutor I do all I can to try and get this message across
to schools, but they just don't listen. Also they are under

increasing

Post by Samsonknight

Post by John Porcella

Post by Samsonknight
Yes. If it wasnt for you and stumbling across aua at the start of A2

last

Post by Samsonknight

Post by John Porcella

Post by Samsonknight
year, I probably would still be under the illusion that ICT is valid

for

Post by Samsonknight

Post by John Porcella

Post by Samsonknight
a
comp sci course. But it was too late.

It might be valid for other things! Otherwise, it shows an ability to study
and pass examinations which is useful of itself, regardless, almost of

the

Post by Samsonknight

Post by John Porcella
subject.

Yes, but again , not all people adopt those views,

True, and, as a result, given the plurality of views, there is more than one
reason for taking examinations...it just depends!
a friend for example who

Post by Samsonknight
is currently going to Durham uni, got a B for ICT and people tend to look
down at him. "What's the point?" is what they say.

The point of a grade B or the point of ICT? Either way, I should suggest
that there snobbery and condescension is their problem and not his or yours.

Post by Samsonknight
Maybe I should become an examiner :)

The boards are always looking for them...why not?

Post by Samsonknight

Post by John Porcella
Yeah sure, you have to learn the stuff

Post by Samsonknight
and that in itself requires hours and hours of dicipline, but

applicants

Post by Samsonknight

Post by John Porcella
are

Post by Samsonknight
often probably dismissed by the big boys due to their grades (I got

rejected

Post by Samsonknight
by bristol today...charming) - regardless on whether they are really

good

Post by Samsonknight

Post by John Porcella
at

Post by Samsonknight
maths but shit at time management in exams.

C'est la vie!

Yes I agree "C'est la vie" indeed, that is something I must improve.

Post by John Porcella

Post by Samsonknight
This all brings me to another flaw in Alevels, I know a few people who

goto

Post by Samsonknight
prestigious universities, they have got A grades throughout their academic
career. One friend in particular who graduated from Oxford recently

with

Post by Samsonknight

Post by John Porcella

Post by Samsonknight
a
2:1 got an A in AL maths and a D in further maths. Yet when you ask him

the

Post by Samsonknight
rules of log, or any type of AL maths question, he has totally
forgotten...

If he did not need to know it for his degree course, then why shoud he
remember? Ultimately, his 'A' level qualification shows that when required
he knew his stuff. Hopefully, if required, he could brush up on the
relevant areas again. In the same way accountants do not take books

into

Post by Samsonknight

Post by John Porcella
the exam hall, but do have them to refer to after qualification.

Yes I agree , he can if needed brush up on those areas, but so can I, so

can

Post by Samsonknight
you, so can someone walking down the street.

Not quite! You need to have an idea of what it is all about...the man in
the street would not be "brushing up" their knowledge, but hitting the books
would be actual novel learning.

Yes I agree.

Post by Matthew Huntbach
Also I bet you a fiver , that

Post by Samsonknight
if he had to brush up on those areas now (he has totally forgotten
everything like literally),

Actually, literally not! As far as I understand it, the brain forgots
nothing, the problem is one of recall.
it would take him a while to get back to where

Post by Samsonknight
he was.

So?
He may as well do his Alevels again to get back to that level.
Why? He has proved that he has achieved the standard. By your reasoning,
there is little point in taking the examination in the first place since it
will be forgotten!
So

Post by Samsonknight
how is he different from any students that are doing Alevels now, because

he

Post by Samsonknight
has a qualification in the subject already?

The difference is that he has already passed that level and moved onto
bigger and better (or at least different) things, so he no longer needs to
remember it.

Point taken.

Post by Matthew Huntbach
Which isn't worth much if you

Post by Samsonknight
are back to square one.

No, he has the piece of paper to show to potential employers.

Post by Samsonknight
GCSEs are more then enough.

Are you being serious? They are very, very basic!

Yes they are, but there are a lot of subjects you do at GCSE that you do not
neccessary do at AL (such as English). However with hard sciences, it seems
as though it is a "must" for all cadidates to do them .

Post by Matthew Huntbach
You should develop a basic understanding of

Post by Samsonknight
things at that level,

Why at just that level? Surely, we should be developing our minds
throughout our lives, not just when young!
if you wish to presue it further then that is your

Post by Samsonknight
choice. I just dislike it when Unis such as LSE are so fussy by indirectly
forcing you to do the *hardest* subjects when it is not absolutely
neccessary for the subject that you want to study.

They consider it relevant for them, if for no other reason as a means to
reduce the potential number of applicants to something resembling sensible.
As one of the best places to go, they obvious think that they can afford to
make such demands.

Yes, I see your point. Which is very unfortunant for the applicant, if their
heart is set on going to LSE, yet they are at a disadvantage regardless of
their A level grades.

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Samsonknight

Post by John Porcella
I am better off with D & T, Media Studies, Maths (to

Post by Samsonknight
show I am logical) and some other mickey mouse subject!!!

But not everybody needs to show their Spock-like qualities!

Post by Samsonknight
I will not begin ranting about politics , history students that I know

of

Post by Samsonknight

Post by John Porcella

Post by Samsonknight
whom goto good unis...half of them make me laugh, they haven't

formulated

Post by Samsonknight

Post by John Porcella

Post by Samsonknight
their own philosphical ideas,political ideas but instead paste rubbish out
of the text books or what they have learnt like robots. No wonder why they
get As!

If that is what it takes, then learn from them!

I rather not, otherwise what I am learning in my gap year is a complete
waste of time.

No, any learning is a good thing just for the discipline of studying.
But yes, I guess I could learn from them in terms of how they

Post by Samsonknight
manage their time in exams :)

You will and you will do well.

Lets just hope so! :)

[Stuart Williams]

In article <***@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com>, ***@priacy.net
says...

Post by ath
And of course, the subjects are on that black-list for a reason - if you
intend to use the subject as part of a university offer you should ensure
that the university will accept it!
Accounting
Art and Design
Business Studies
Communication Studies
Dance
Design and Technology
Drama/Theatre Studies
Home Economics
Information and Communication Technology
Law
Media Studies
Sports Studies

I think LSE is pretty well right about this list, as far as its own
degree courses are concerned - with one exception: someone who had taken,
say, Maths, Physics and DT and got three As is just as good as someone
who scored the same in Maths, Physics and Chemistry/Bio/Eco/etc. Were I
an AT there, if DT were combined with two intellectually demanding A
levels, I'd regard an A in it as firm evidence of imagination, self-
discipline, rigour and transferable skills.
But then, LSE's admission criteria are completely opaque to me, and I
tell my Economists not to bother applying - LSE has the lowest proportion
of British students of any major uni, and reject/accept without rhyme or
reason, so it's a wasted opportunity to pick it.

SW

[John Porcella]

Post by Stuart Williams
I think LSE is pretty well right about this list, as far as its own
degree courses are concerned - with one exception: someone who had taken,
say, Maths, Physics and DT and got three As is just as good as someone
who scored the same in Maths, Physics and Chemistry/Bio/Eco/etc. Were I
an AT there, if DT were combined with two intellectually demanding A
levels, I'd regard an A in it as firm evidence of imagination, self-
discipline, rigour and transferable skills.
But then, LSE's admission criteria are completely opaque to me, and I
tell my Economists not to bother applying - LSE has the lowest proportion
of British students of any major uni, and reject/accept without rhyme or
reason, so it's a wasted opportunity to pick it.

Non-EU students mean that LSE get higher fee income.

[Stuart Williams]

In article <ct9d6u$mre$***@sparta.btinternet.com>, ***@btinternet.com
says...

Post by John Porcella

Post by Stuart Williams
I think LSE is pretty well right about this list, as far as its own
degree courses are concerned - with one exception: someone who had taken,
say, Maths, Physics and DT and got three As is just as good as someone
who scored the same in Maths, Physics and Chemistry/Bio/Eco/etc. Were I
an AT there, if DT were combined with two intellectually demanding A
levels, I'd regard an A in it as firm evidence of imagination, self-
discipline, rigour and transferable skills.
But then, LSE's admission criteria are completely opaque to me, and I
tell my Economists not to bother applying - LSE has the lowest proportion
of British students of any major uni, and reject/accept without rhyme or
reason, so it's a wasted opportunity to pick it.

Non-EU students mean that LSE get higher fee income.

Yes, I know (duh). [Why in that case does LSE take *any* home students?]
My point was not simply that LSE takes a measly 40% of its students from
the domestic market. It was also, what set of criteria does LSE apply
when it makes offers in the first place? I certainly can't work it out.

SW

[John Porcella]

Post by Stuart Williams
says...

Post by John Porcella

Post by Stuart Williams
I think LSE is pretty well right about this list, as far as its own
degree courses are concerned - with one exception: someone who had taken,
say, Maths, Physics and DT and got three As is just as good as someone
who scored the same in Maths, Physics and Chemistry/Bio/Eco/etc. Were I
an AT there, if DT were combined with two intellectually demanding A
levels, I'd regard an A in it as firm evidence of imagination, self-
discipline, rigour and transferable skills.
But then, LSE's admission criteria are completely opaque to me, and I
tell my Economists not to bother applying - LSE has the lowest proportion
of British students of any major uni, and reject/accept without rhyme or
reason, so it's a wasted opportunity to pick it.

Non-EU students mean that LSE get higher fee income.

Yes, I know (duh). [Why in that case does LSE take *any* home students?]

Can you imagine the furore if they took the piss? The government would
stick its nose in and tell universities who to accept.

[Dr A. N. Walker]

[...] [Why in that case does LSE take *any* home students?]

Presumably because (a) they have room for them, and the
[relatively small] income from them exceeds the marginal cost of
teaching them, (b) some of them are of very high quality and LSE
needs to award lots of good degrees to such students in order to
continue to have a high reputation that attracts o'seas students,
and (c) they still have a residual feeling that univs are about
education, not just money.

But "watch this space" [though do not hold your breath].
If, as I expect, "tuition fees" are not a howling success, then
*some* univ is eventually going to break ranks and go private.
The first such univ will be: relatively skint; popular with
o'seas students; highly reputable; and research-oriented. No
names, no pack drill, but there are not *that* many candidates
for first to poke heads above parapet.

My point was not simply that LSE takes a measly 40% of its students from
the domestic market.

Lucky them. It would be jolly good if the whole of HE could
be so measly, which would solve the financial problems of the sector
"instantly".

[John Porcella]

Post by ath
Accounting

I did A level accounting AFTER I had qualified as an certified accountant
and having taught accountancy at university and elsewhere. I got an A
grade, but I did not manage an A grade for two of the three A2 papers!!
However, I pretty much got almost 100% on the rest. I can assure everybody
that A level accounting is NOT easy. However, I wonder if the very
technical nature of AS is what is not liked? If you know what you are
doing, you can get nearly all of the marks available, making the A2s a
formality if enough marks are being carried forward.

[Dr A. N. Walker]

Post by ath

[...]. A situation may be arising at the age
of 42, 24 years after I sat my A-levels, whereby I may need 80 UCAS
points more than I currently have [...]

Umm. If you need UCAS points for anything other than entry
into HE, then they are being abused [and I can't quite imagine any
normal job (eg) which asks 42yos what their UCAS points are, esp as
many people would claim that modern A-levels are not of the same
standard as ancient ones]. Otherwise, you are a "mature" student,
and not bound by the usual rules. Obviously, it depends on the
particular course and univ/college, but most ATs [and *all* decent
ones!] will look at *you* rather than your A-levels.

Post by ath
Several universities, notably LSE, have a 'black-list' of A-Levels they
won't take into consideration.

FWIW, "my" black list has exactly one entry: General Studies.
[Which is already a shame; GS *ought* to be a respectable A-level
signifying someone with a good general education. But it isn't.]
Note that GS is *not* on Aonghus's/LSE's list.

Post by ath
These are the A-Levels that are widely
regarded as being the 'easiest' or at the very least, lacking in academic
rigor.

"Easy" and non-academic are, of course, quite different things,
esp for the "mature". I'm pretty sure that I would find Sport or Dance
much harder to do well in than the average 18yo ....

[Ian/Cath Ford]

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
FWIW, "my" black list has exactly one entry: General Studies.
[Which is already a shame; GS *ought* to be a respectable A-level
signifying someone with a good general education. But it isn't.]
Note that GS is *not* on Aonghus's/LSE's list.

OK, scenario. You have one place left. Two candidates of about equal
worth with the same grades in the same subjects have a shot at it. In
addition to their other subjects one candidate has an A (or a B) in
GS. Who gets the call?

Ian
--
Ian, Cath, Eoin and Calum Ford
Beccles, Suffolk, UK

I loved the word you wrote to me/But that was bloody yesterday

There's no e-mail address. We can talk here and go back to your place later

[Dr A. N. Walker]

Post by Ian/Cath Ford
OK, scenario. You have one place left.

Actually, that is already not a scenario that I ever have.
We don't have "places left", we have "applicants who have not met
the conditions of their offer but who we would like to take anyway".
If we are already over quota and the university is bulging at the
seams, then the Registrar will be rather sticky about how far down
my list I can go; if we and the univ are under quota, then he will
be keen that I take anyone who is "acceptable". In Real Life, even
when we have been seriously over quota [over 50% over, one memorable
year, luckily before I was in charge ...], we have been allowed to
take anyone we really wanted, and the question is how far down the
short-list of reasonably-OK students does the univ want us to go.

Post by Ian/Cath Ford
Two candidates of about equal
worth with the same grades in the same subjects have a shot at it. In
addition to their other subjects one candidate has an A (or a B) in
GS. Who gets the call?

Note that the discounting of GS is a *univ* decision, not
mine, though I share concerns about qualifications that can be
gained at grade A by applicants who have not prepared in any way.
But sure, when it comes to drawing up my short-list in August, we
will look at anything and everything, inc GS, contributions to
school/community life, "interesting" hobbies, whatever. But the
Registrar is much more likely to come back to us with "broad brush"
decisions, esp since the very strict "MASN"s have disappeared and
the Government no longer cares exactly how many students we have in
each department, only about totals.

[didds]

It _IS_ for an HE course - BSc in Occupational Therapy. And while I
generally agree with your points about ,mature students, the course
handbook outlines the UCAS points as required admissions criteria. Not
quite sure what a 70 year old applicant might be able to offer there!
cheers

ian

[Dr A. N. Walker]

[...] And while I
generally agree with your points about ,mature students, the course
handbook outlines the UCAS points as required admissions criteria.

Course handbook speak with forked tongue. They are not,
for example, going to turn down someone with AAA-equivalent in
some non-UCAS-ladder qualification [eg, American/Canadian/Oz]
simply because they lack the official points. Handbooks and
prospectuses and web sites are aimed at "normal" applicants.
If there isn't a "get-out" clause ["We *normally* require ..."],
it's incompetent drafting.

Not
quite sure what a 70 year old applicant might be able to offer there!

Umm! You were only 42 on Jan 26th .... I'd be slightly
surprised to find a 70yo applicant trying for a vocational course,
tho' they're not *that* unusual in "personal interest" subjects.

But the basic answer is the same. If you don't fall into
the normal conventions, it is no use expecting the handbook to tell
you anything useful. Contact the AT concerned and find out what
he/she really wants from you. Ignore anything you are told by the
admin droids. They have no idea, beyond spouting the official text,
and are constitutionally averse to special cases, so will tell you
"no" just to get rid of you. You need to talk to [or e-mail] the
person who will actually make the decision.

[didds]

It _IS_ for an HE course - BSc in Occupational Therapy. And while I
generally agree with your points about ,mature students, the course
handbook outlines the UCAS points as required admissions criteria. Not
quite sure what a 70 year old applicant might be able to offer there!
cheers

ian

[Matthew Huntbach]

Post by Ian Diddams
way back in the early 80s when I took my A-levels it was perceived by
many that some subjects were easier to pass or gain a good grade in
(although I suspect that there was sone snobbery involved in all of
this - I found economics quite difficult but it was generally
poo-pooed by many of my contemporaries at the time). Comoputer
Science such as it was back then was generally for example seen as a
doddle copmpared to maths or a language.

There is not, and never has been, an A-level called "Computer Science".
There is an A-level called "Computing", which is generally not highly
regarded by academic Computer Scientists. There is another A-level called
"Information and Communication Technology" which is even less highly
regarded by academic Computer Scientists. It would be great if there
really was a proper A-level in real Computer Science instead of these
A-level whose main effect is to give school students completely the
wrong idea about what a Computer Science degree is about, because they,
like you are misled into supposing they are "Computer Science" A-levels.

Matthew Huntbach

[Robert de Vincy]

Post by Matthew Huntbach
There is not, and never has been, an A-level called "Computer Science".
There is an A-level called "Computing", which is generally not highly
regarded by academic Computer Scientists. There is another A-level called
"Information and Communication Technology" which is even less highly
regarded by academic Computer Scientists. It would be great if there
really was a proper A-level in real Computer Science instead of these
A-level whose main effect is to give school students completely the
wrong idea about what a Computer Science degree is about, because they,
like you are misled into supposing they are "Computer Science" A-levels.

Why do you insist on repeating that, Matthew?

We now have three (3) independent reports from people who did A-levels
pre-1992 who are sure they did "Computer Science.

1. Me.
2. http://www.google.co.uk/groups?selm=j6rig0ten6ab9q4gmm6tfi36cm1msu26h0%404ax.com
(With a book that supports the claim.)
3. The poster you have just responded to.

I have to ask you... were you ever an Admissions Tutor between 1980 and
1992? If not, then how do you know that there was never an A-level
called "Computer Science"?

I've listed before (in the thread referenced by the link above) the things
I was expected to learn when I was doing "Computer Science" in the late
80s/early 90s. It was in no way at all similar to what I see people saying
they are doing in the current "ICT" and "Computing" A-levels.

[Samsonknight]

Post by Robert de Vincy

Post by Matthew Huntbach
There is not, and never has been, an A-level called "Computer Science".
There is an A-level called "Computing", which is generally not highly
regarded by academic Computer Scientists. There is another A-level called
"Information and Communication Technology" which is even less highly
regarded by academic Computer Scientists. It would be great if there
really was a proper A-level in real Computer Science instead of these
A-level whose main effect is to give school students completely the
wrong idea about what a Computer Science degree is about, because they,
like you are misled into supposing they are "Computer Science" A-levels.

Why do you insist on repeating that, Matthew?
We now have three (3) independent reports from people who did A-levels
pre-1992 who are sure they did "Computer Science.
1. Me.
2.
http://www.google.co.uk/groups?selm=j6rig0ten6ab9q4gmm6tfi36cm1msu26h0%404ax.com
(With a book that supports the claim.)
3. The poster you have just responded to.
I have to ask you... were you ever an Admissions Tutor between 1980 and
1992? If not, then how do you know that there was never an A-level
called "Computer Science"?
I've listed before (in the thread referenced by the link above) the things
I was expected to learn when I was doing "Computer Science" in the late
80s/early 90s. It was in no way at all similar to what I see people saying
they are doing in the current "ICT" and "Computing" A-levels.

It is a shame that Alevel courses such as computer science or even alevel
computing is not excessible by some 6th form institutions such as my old
one. Does anyone know how popular the computer science Alevel course is ,
because know that most institutions do not offer this AL course, unless of
course they have the funds for it.

[Robert de Vincy]

Post by Samsonknight
It is a shame that Alevel courses such as computer science or even
alevel computing is not excessible by some 6th form institutions such
as my old one. Does anyone know how popular the computer science
Alevel course is , because know that most institutions do not offer
this AL course, unless of course they have the funds for it.

Well, from what I've managed to piece together from my own experiences
and others who say they did "Computer Science" A-level AND from Matthew
H's insistence than such a thing never existed, it seems most likely that
"Computer Science" did exist at one time but no longer does, being
replaced with "Computing" and "ICT".

When I first started lurking this group and I read all the references to
"Computing" and "ICT" and the fact that a lot of people regarded them as
sort of inferior, one of my first reactions was "Where on earth has
'Computer Science' gone?" This was based on my experience of doing an
A-level at 16-18 that involved computers and was by no means an easy
subject. We had machine code/assmebler, data structures (trees, linked
lists, stacks, etc), a programming project, basic processor/memory
architecture (and probably other stuff that I've forgotten about) to
learn. All highly useful stuff that seems to have been dropped from the
'new' and revised A-levels available.

So in answer to your "How popular is Computer Science?" question, I'd
have to say that you've got the wrong tense. "How popular WAS Computer
Science?" Well, in my year, out of a typical sixth-form for an average-
sized comprehensive school, there were 12 people taking it. And I'm
sure all 12 of those would swear on whatever they hold sacred that the
course was NEVER called "Computing" or "ICT".

[Samsonknight]

Post by Robert de Vincy

Post by Samsonknight
It is a shame that Alevel courses such as computer science or even
alevel computing is not excessible by some 6th form institutions such
as my old one. Does anyone know how popular the computer science
Alevel course is , because know that most institutions do not offer
this AL course, unless of course they have the funds for it.

Well, from what I've managed to piece together from my own experiences
and others who say they did "Computer Science" A-level AND from Matthew
H's insistence than such a thing never existed, it seems most likely that
"Computer Science" did exist at one time but no longer does, being
replaced with "Computing" and "ICT".
When I first started lurking this group and I read all the references to
"Computing" and "ICT" and the fact that a lot of people regarded them as
sort of inferior, one of my first reactions was "Where on earth has
'Computer Science' gone?" This was based on my experience of doing an

Yes they are right, ICT is shit. GCSE ICT is more then enough...

Post by Robert de Vincy
A-level at 16-18 that involved computers and was by no means an easy
subject. We had machine code/assmebler, data structures (trees, linked
lists, stacks, etc), a programming project, basic processor/memory
architecture (and probably other stuff that I've forgotten about) to
learn. All highly useful stuff that seems to have been dropped from the
'new' and revised A-levels available.

That sounds hard, did you goto a private school by any chance? As I am sure
that teachers who are able to teach this in the first place would be hard to
find and expensive to maintain.

I agree that the above A-level would have been useful as an introduction to
a computer science course, unless of course the lecturer at uni would prefer
for you to unlearn everything that you have learnt and start from scratch. I
have heard for subjects such as law this is true, they *apparently* hate it
if you take A-level law.

Post by Robert de Vincy
So in answer to your "How popular is Computer Science?" question, I'd
have to say that you've got the wrong tense. "How popular WAS Computer
Science?" Well, in my year, out of a typical sixth-form for an average-
sized comprehensive school, there were 12 people taking it. And I'm
sure all 12 of those would swear on whatever they hold sacred that the
course was NEVER called "Computing" or "ICT".

Well I know they still have a "Computer Science AL" in some places, so I was
referring to the present.

Post by Robert de Vincy
--
BdeV

[Robert de Vincy]

Samsonknight did write:

[snips]

Post by Samsonknight
That sounds hard, did you goto a private school by any chance?

Nope. Just your average Local Education Authority comprehensive (as they
were in the 80s/early-90s).

If you went into the 6th form to do A-levels and wanted to do something...
anything!... with computers then it was "Computer Science" or nothing.
There was no "ICT" or whatever. No easy way out by just messing around
with spreadsheets and word-processors and then getting some qualification
based on that.

Post by Samsonknight
As I am sure that teachers who are able to teach this in the first place
would be hard to find and expensive to maintain.

One of them was a maths teacher primarily, but he knew his stuff for our
subject. He taught us mainly programming and data structures.

The other was mainly physics teacher, and he taught us the more hardware-
based things.

I never had any experience of them not knowing enough about the subject
or appearing to be hopelessly lost in it.

Post by Samsonknight
Well I know they still have a "Computer Science AL" in some places, so
I was referring to the present.

Really? Are you absolutely 100% sure?
If that's so, then we should be able to find a syllabus/specification.
I would be most interested to see what would be on such a thing.

[Samsonknight]

Post by Robert de Vincy
[snips]

<another snip>

Post by Robert de Vincy

Post by Samsonknight
Well I know they still have a "Computer Science AL" in some places, so
I was referring to the present.

Really? Are you absolutely 100% sure?
If that's so, then we should be able to find a syllabus/specification.
I would be most interested to see what would be on such a thing.
--
BdeV

Not 100% sure, as I was told by a friend last year that he came across this
type of course at a 1 year A-level college.

After doing some research through lovely lovely google, my only other lead
is this:

http://www.magd.cam.ac.uk/admissions/undergraduate/subjects/computer-science.html

Jolly old Cambridge University....

It is as quoted on this page for subject requirements:

"The main prerequisite for Computer Scientists is to have a good A-Level
qualification in Mathematics; double subject Mathematics at A2-Level is a
significant advantage. Physical science subjects such as Physics or
Chemistry are also desirable. There is no requirement to have Computer
Science at A-Level and an A -Level in Information and Communications
Technology is not as useful as the subject cts mentioned above".

Therefore they have recognised that such an Alevel exists somewhere - where
it exists? remains a mystery.

[Matthew Huntbach]

Post by Samsonknight
After doing some research through lovely lovely google, my only other lead
http://www.magd.cam.ac.uk/admissions/undergraduate/subjects/computer-science.html
Jolly old Cambridge University....
"The main prerequisite for Computer Scientists is to have a good A-Level
qualification in Mathematics; double subject Mathematics at A2-Level is a
significant advantage. Physical science subjects such as Physics or
Chemistry are also desirable. There is no requirement to have Computer
Science at A-Level and an A -Level in Information and Communications
Technology is not as useful as the subject cts mentioned above".
Therefore they have recognised that such an Alevel exists somewhere - where
it exists? remains a mystery.

It's one particular college in Cambridge University rather than the
University as a whole. Looks like they too have fallen into the
common mistake of using the term "A-level Computer Science" for the
A-level whose official name is "Computing".

Matthew Huntbach

[Matthew Huntbach]

Post by Samsonknight

Post by Robert de Vincy
A-level at 16-18 that involved computers and was by no means an easy
subject. We had machine code/assmebler, data structures (trees, linked
lists, stacks, etc), a programming project, basic processor/memory
architecture (and probably other stuff that I've forgotten about) to
learn. All highly useful stuff that seems to have been dropped from the
'new' and revised A-levels available.

That sounds hard, did you goto a private school by any chance? As I am sure
that teachers who are able to teach this in the first place would be hard to
find and expensive to maintain.

Yes, the A-level topics Robert describes have quite a big overlap between
what is still on the 1st year syllabus in a Computer Science degree. In
those days the big concern was that it would be badly taught, and it was
better for these things to be taught properly once the students started
the degree rather than have to be unlearnt. For example, while programming
was definitely part of the A-level syllabus, it would often be taught in
a completely unstructured way and then it was hard to get students to
stop thinking in that way and start thinking in terms of structured
programming. It's still the case, however, that the A-level was NOT called
"Computer Science". It may have been called "Computer Studies". Even in
those days it tended to be rather more oriented towards hardware and
architecture than a Computer Science degree is, and that remains the
case with the A-levl in Computing.

Post by Samsonknight
Well I know they still have a "Computer Science AL" in some places, so I was
referring to the present.

No, there is no A-level called "Computer Science". Look up the websites of
the A-level boards and find this out - they all have an A-level which is
called "Computing", none of them have one which is called "Computer Science".
I find that many students who take this A-level *call* it "Computer Science",
sometimes that's even what they write on their UCAS forms. However, it
happens to be the case that that is not its official name.

Matthew Huntbach

[Adam Atkinson]

Post by Robert de Vincy
We now have three (3) independent reports from people who did A-levels
pre-1992 who are sure they did "Computer Science.

I was at Bletchley Park this weekend, and in one room they had some
examples of old O-level and A-level papers about computers. I _think_
they were called "Computer Studies", but I'm not sure. I should have
taken one away, given that it was permitted.

[Robert de Vincy]

Post by Adam Atkinson

Post by Robert de Vincy
We now have three (3) independent reports from people who did A-levels
pre-1992 who are sure they did "Computer Science.

I was at Bletchley Park this weekend, and in one room they had some
examples of old O-level and A-level papers about computers. I _think_
they were called "Computer Studies", but I'm not sure. I should have
taken one away, given that it was permitted.

I've got a friend who is four years older than me and was in the last
year to do O-levels (1987). I've seen his O-level certificates and it
says [hi, JPorc!] "Computer Studies" on them. I can't say what his
A-levels ones have written on them since I've not seen them.

[Samsonknight]

Post by Robert de Vincy

Post by Adam Atkinson

Post by Robert de Vincy
We now have three (3) independent reports from people who did A-levels
pre-1992 who are sure they did "Computer Science.

I was at Bletchley Park this weekend, and in one room they had some
examples of old O-level and A-level papers about computers. I _think_
they were called "Computer Studies", but I'm not sure. I should have
taken one away, given that it was permitted.

I've got a friend who is four years older than me and was in the last
year to do O-levels (1987). I've seen his O-level certificates and it
says [hi, JPorc!] "Computer Studies" on them. I can't say what his
A-levels ones have written on them since I've not seen them.
--
BdeV

Robert , what is the social life in Durham like? as I am sure academically
Durham is great. I have applied to Durham, and am now waiting axiously for
their response. *gulp*

[Robert de Vincy]

Post by Samsonknight
Robert , what is the social life in Durham like? as I am sure
academically Durham is great. I have applied to Durham, and am now
waiting axiously for their response. *gulp*

Social life? If you mean the going-out-drinking aspect, then it's certainly
different from most other places. There are very few nightclubs in the
city itself, but with Newcastle and Sunderland so close that's not really
a problem if you're keen on that sort of thing.

However, the difference, I find, is that because of the collegiate system,
and each college having its own bar (and culture), a series of visiting
each of the college's bars offers more variety.

Some people might say that the City is dead, as far as the 20-year-olds'
active social life scene is concerned, but don't listen to them. There's
still plenty of stuff (and people) to do! It's just... different... and
you have to have different expectations.

[Matthew Huntbach]

Post by Robert de Vincy

Post by Matthew Huntbach
There is not, and never has been, an A-level called "Computer Science".
There is an A-level called "Computing", which is generally not highly
regarded by academic Computer Scientists.

Why do you insist on repeating that, Matthew?

Because it is true.

Post by Robert de Vincy
We now have three (3) independent reports from people who did A-levels
pre-1992 who are sure they did "Computer Science.
1. Me.

Could you perhaps look at your A-level certificate and see what is written
on it?

Post by Robert de Vincy
I have to ask you... were you ever an Admissions Tutor between 1980 and
1992? If not, then how do you know that there was never an A-level
called "Computer Science"?

I've been working as a lecturer since 1989, and though I wasn't an
admissions tutor from the start, right from teh start I (along with
all the other lecturers) had to do UCCA (as it then was) interviewing,
and I can assure you that the A-level in those days wasn't called
"Computer Science".

Post by Robert de Vincy
I've listed before (in the thread referenced by the link above) the things
I was expected to learn when I was doing "Computer Science" in the late
80s/early 90s. It was in no way at all similar to what I see people saying
they are doing in the current "ICT" and "Computing" A-levels.

Yes, but that doesn't mean the A-level was actually called "Computer
Science".

Matthew Huntbach

[Robert de Vincy]

Matthew Huntbach did write:

[snip]

Post by Matthew Huntbach
Could you perhaps look at your A-level certificate and see what is
written on it?

I never took the exam. I dropped out of college about 6 months before the
exams were due and went off to get a job.

But of those 11 others in my Computer ******* class, I can probably still
get in contact with at least two of them who I know did do the exams and
passed, so I'll chase them up and see if they still have their certificates.

[didds]

Post by Matthew Huntbach
There is not, and never has been, an A-level called "Computer

Science".

well excuse me for getting the semantics wrong after 26 years! I have
no idea what its official title may or may not have been in 1979 -
whatever it was called it wasn't available to me at my seat of
learning. The perceived reason being it wasn't a "real" A-level. I
wasn't in a position to influence that decision at the age of 16.

Post by Matthew Huntbach
There is an A-level called "Computing" which is generally not highly
regarded by academic Computer Scientists. There is another A-level called
"Information and Communication Technology" which is even less highly
regarded by academic Computer Scientists.

Your remarks seem to merely support my original conjecture. So your
point is a merely semantic one?

ian

[Robert de Vincy]

Post by didds

Post by Matthew Huntbach
There is not, and never has been, an A-level called "Computer
Science".

well excuse me for getting the semantics wrong after 26 years!

I don't think you have, actually.

Matthew Huntbach seems convinced that he knows exactly what subjects
have existed now and at all times in the past, despite the experiences
of people who were there at the time telling him otherwise.

I'm surprised he even replied with such a bold statement, since the last
time this came up someone else posted a message to support the view that
"Computer Science" existed AND even had a book that was (we suppose) a
textbook for the course. It appears that Mr Huntbach either chose to
ignore that message or never saw it. Not one for asserting things that
I am doubtful about and being a generous sort, I'm assuming that he
never saw the message. However, in another reply to him on this thread,
I have given the direct link to the Google Groups version. No excuse
now.

[John Porcella]

As you are likely to have plenty of work experience, then may I suggest A
level business studies. If you are shown how to answer the questions
(success is based on understanding Bloom's taxonomy), then your work
experience and previous study of economics should make this easy. I managed
several 100% papers for this.