[J-E-N-O-V-A]

When do we have to register for sitting the STEP papers?

[SimonM]

(Original post by J-E-N-O-V-A)
When do we have to register for sitting the STEP papers?

http://www.admissionstests.cambridge...p/datesandcost

30th of April for "normal" candidates

[J-E-N-O-V-A]

(Original post by SimonM)
http://www.admissionstests.cambridge...p/datesandcost

30th of April for "normal" candidates

Thanks!!

[DeanK2]

Do cambridge contact you about the Summer School or must you get in touch with them?

[Daniel Freedman]

Would it be worth making a STEP 2004 Solutions thread?

[Oh I Really Don't Care]

(Original post by Daniel Freedman)
Would it be worth making a STEP 2004 Solutions thread?

http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...4#post17397424

[abcdefg1990]

hi, i was just wondering is it necessary to be doing the A level further maths modules, in order to do step I and II?

[Glutamic Acid]

(Original post by abcdefg1990)
hi, i was just wondering is it necessary to be doing the A level further maths modules, in order to do step I and II?

Nope; STEP I and II rely on just knowledge from the single maths A Level. Although, further maths modules would probably be helpful.

[RageC]

What formula book do we get in STEP, if any?

[AnonyMatt]

Can you use further maths knowledge in STEP II?

[Oh I Really Don't Care]

(Original post by AnonyMatt)
Can you use further maths knowledge in STEP II?

... you can use it STEP I if you like ; provided you prove what you need to beforehand - i.e. I wouldn't like to state I am using an integrating factor I would probably derive it , or for instance you are given an inequlaity and the am-gm might be handy again i would not just say by this result - this is what is conveyed to me from siklos book yet he himself as seen in the book randomly quotes some summation he has proved somewhere beforehand - for instance the summation of cos(kx) from k = 0 to n and at others will slowly prove something so it is difficult to comment.

[AnonyMatt]

(Original post by DeanK22)
... you can use it STEP I if you like ; provided you prove what you need to beforehand - i.e. I wouldn't like to state I am using an integrating factor I would probably derive it , or for instance you are given an inequlaity and the am-gm might be handy again i would not just say by this result - this is what is conveyed to me from siklos book yet he himself as seen in the book randomly quotes some summation he has proved somewhere beforehand - for instance the summation of cos(kx) from k = 0 to n and at others will slowly prove something so it is difficult to comment.

So, without me getting too confused, you're saying that if I came upon a question which I couldn't answer in the way expected, but could answer it using knowledge from a highler level (i.e. further maths), I would have to prove that the method I'm using works?

A brief example would be that if I was asked to factorise a quadratic, but I was a bit ditsy and wanted to use the quadratic formula, which I'm not expected to know or use yet, I'd have to derive the quadratic formula first?

[Hashshashin]

(Original post by AnonyMatt)
A brief example would be that if I was asked to factorise a quadratic, but I was a bit ditsy and wanted to use the quadratic formula, which I'm not expected to know or use yet, I'd have to derive the quadratic formula first?

Well surely you'd just complete the square, seeing as that's the easiest method to derive the quadratic formula anyway?

[Oh I Really Don't Care]

(Original post by AnonyMatt)
So, without me getting too confused, you're saying that if I came upon a question which I couldn't answer in the way expected, but could answer it using knowledge from a highler level (i.e. further maths), I would have to prove that the method I'm using works?

A brief example would be that if I was asked to factorise a quadratic, but I was a bit ditsy and wanted to use the quadratic formula, which I'm not expected to know or use yet, I'd have to derive the quadratic formula first?

... lets just 'assume' that this formula is obscure / not known to A level mathematics and would greatly assist you but NOT trivialize the problem.

It would be prudent to prove the quadratic formula just because no-one else would know it and it has helped alot.

... Perhaps this is more likely the thing you want to know; you have an ode that is non seperable and there is a question;

given ode use blah substitution or otherwise to solve. if it did not say otherwise you would get nothing for the question if you did it diferently.
however with that question you could use the integratin factor - fp1 knowledge and you would need to prove that.

[Glutamic Acid]

(Original post by DeanK22)
... lets just 'assume' that this formula is obscure / not known to A level mathematics and would greatly assist you but NOT trivialize the problem.

It would be prudent to prove the quadratic formula just because no-one else would know it and it has helped alot.

... Perhaps this is more likely the thing you want to know; you have an ode that is non seperable and there is a question;

given ode use blah substitution or otherwise to solve. if it did not say otherwise you would get nothing for the question if you did it diferently.
however with that question you could use the integratin factor - fp1 knowledge and you would need to prove that.

I think it's important to distinguish between results and methods. The aforementioned technique of integrating a first order differential equation doesn't actually assume any advanced mathematics and is merely a process -- I doubt the examiners would expect a proof of why it works. I've come to my own conclusion that a method of any mathematical level can be just used (with the presumption of no explicit or implicit exclusion), whereas higher level results should be proven. I can't see this having an impact, personally: the examiners shouldn't be foolish enough to allow a further maths result or method to significantly help with a STEP II question and I don't know enough higher level maths to use on either II or III.

[SimonM]

(Original post by Glutamic Acid)
I think it's important to distinguish between results and methods. The aforementioned technique of integrating a first order differential equation doesn't actually assume any advanced mathematics and is merely a process -- I doubt the examiners would expect a proof of why it works. I've come to my own conclusion that a method of any mathematical level can be just used (with the presumption of no explicit or implicit exclusion), whereas higher level results should be proven. I can't see this having an impact, personally: the examiners shouldn't be foolish enough to allow a further maths result or method to significantly help with a STEP II question and I don't know enough higher level maths to use on either II or III.

STEP I 2008

[Glutamic Acid]

(Original post by SimonM)
STEP I 2008

Question 7 (and perhaps 8)?

[SimonM]

Question 7 was the one I was like "Oooh... matrices" for.

[Glutamic Acid]

Ah, I wouldn't have used matrices. Questions made easier by beyond-specification methods do occur, but infrequently; STEP I 2007 Qu3 is one that comes to mind.

[Oh I Really Don't Care]

(Original post by Glutamic Acid)
Ah, I wouldn't have used matrices. Questions made easier by beyond-specification methods do occur, but infrequently; STEP I 2007 Qu3 is one that comes to mind.

... The examiners do appear rather random when they decide to use 'hence or otherwise' - clearly given the tasks at the start they could have stated hence and nobody would use reduction formulae.

Yet on other questions were an otherwise seems appropiate, a hence is strctly adhered to.