A 2:1 in maths at top 20 uni - Is natural talent essential?

Scroll to see replies

*cough* Jedward *cough*

Yes not singing talent but talent in different respects; namely confidence, charisma, enthusiasm and entertainment. It's not just 2 random guys walking on stage and striking lucky, you have to have something. That something being moreso innate than graft. The XFactor even makes the concept of good voice/rehearsing/vocal coaches seem more graft-like in comparison.

Original post by DFranklin

*Which misses the point: there are tens if not hundreds of thousands of people in this country who are a huge success (as in worth millions, employing lots of people, etc) without being in that 0.001%. It's immensely short sighted to focus excluslively on the latter group.

I feel you're missing the point. You're focusing on the number's who achieve that level of success; I'm talking about the numbers who go for it in general. They are big industries. It's like me rubbishing the relevance of academia because only a tiny % get to the IMO, or rubbishing the importance of jobs because only a tiny % become rich.

Original post by DFranklin

*They're the people you've been saying the lecturers should be ignoring in favour of the people who have 'talent' (but can't actually produce anything with it).

If someone got an international maths award (if that's what you were referring to?) then I find it hard to believe they'd struggle to get A's at A-Level or can't do STEP no matter what. In that case, it would really say something about the wasted talent of other students. Also I think your choice of word (can't) isn't apt; moreso 'haven't. ... yet'.

Reply 81

DFranklin

Original post by Physics Enemy

It's like me rubbishing the relevance of academia because only a tiny % get to the IMO, or rubbishing the importance of jobs because only a tiny % become rich.But that's exactly what you are doing. You are consistently posting to the effect of "the only people who count are the ones who get 1's in STEP (or get to the IMO, or whatever); they're the only ones with 'talent', and it's terrible that the universities don't ensure they're bigger successes than everyone else'.

If someone got an international maths award (if that's what you were referring to?) then I find it hard to believe they'd struggle to get A's at A-Level or can't do STEP no matter what.

You're the one who's convinced that if you can't do STEP first time then you can't ever do it no matter what. Since your argument rests on that, you can imagine how valid I think it is.

Reply 82

Physics Enemy

Original post by DFranklin

But that's exactly what you are doing. You are consistently posting to the effect of "the only people who count are the ones who get 1's in STEP (or get to the IMO, or whatever); they're the only ones with 'talent', and it's terrible that the universities don't ensure they're bigger successes than everyone else'.

I was talking about size in that context, not my opinion of the system. I meant it's like me saying academia/jobs are irrelevant because only a small number do really well, which is the line you used for the talent-based industries. In all of these, lots of people try and only a small number do well. But it affects a lot of people of course.

I agree with the quote you stated, that is what I believe. But I'm basically saying this country has a lot of wasted talent that isn't nurtured, which is a compliment. For example, not enough (and good enough) teachers, but some people with talent who underperform get tossed aside. That's a failure of the system. As an example, my old Further Maths teacher at school really struggles (openly admits) with STEP. Yet if you got fed up at uni and underperformed, you'd be sidelined forever and not allowed to teach.

Original post by DFranklin

You're the one who's convinced that if you can't do STEP first time then you can't ever do it no matter what. Since your argument rests on that, you can imagine how valid I think it is.

If you do it 1st time and prepared very long, hard and thoroughly with good resources (teachers/books/solutions), I believe if you fail with no valid excuse, there's little scope for improvement as you've hit your celing. After that it's big diminishing returns. You might rubbish what I say, but then Cam tutors say stuff like 'you've hit your ceiling and aren't good enough'. If it was only a case of an extra year (two max) of prep then everyone would be good enough at 19/20. A common age for many to start uni at anyway.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 83

Raiden10

Original post by Simplicity

I'm surprisingly really bad at learning languages, however can cope perfectly fine with abstract mathematics. I'm pretty sure you made that up, any studies to back that up?

I said surprisingly strong correlation. I didn't say you have to be multilingual (I'm not) or good at learning languages (personally I found GCSE spanish piss easy and I never did any work). I certainly didn't make it up. Gauss was famous for being a talented linguist and philologist, and was undecided at the age of 18, before going to university, on the issue of whether to devote himself to that or mathematics when he went to university.

I can't find the original study I read this in. Google is not much good as "language" and "mathematics" are pretty common words. Basically, foreign languages (and music) correlate more strongly with doing well in maths than any other non-mathematical subject (this includes biology, chemistry, but not physics). I did find something at www.icme-organisers.dk/tsg25/plenary/barton.doc.

[The information about Carl Gauss is a (true) anecdote; I don't think that superb facility with absorbing new languages will make you superb at mathematics - nobody has ever said this - but it will help with becoming conversant in the terminology that is necessary for doing mathematics.]

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 84

Raiden10

Original post by Physics Enemy

I'm surprised you find that so shocking, but in any case it is definitely in agreement from what I've seen. You're better off being a bit thick and hard working than a talented slacker. Since degree work is mainly about learning and doing what they ask, rather how clever and ingenious you are.

Even if doing loads and loads of STEP papers will eventually lead you to rediscover/reinvent algebraic topology, which I doubt, you would still be reinventing the wheel. This kind of learning is (one of the purposes) the purpose of higher education in mathematics.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 85

Nichrome

One thing that I find interesting is that according to unistats, average UCAS points entry for Cambridge mathematics was 570 ( + 1,1 in STEP II, III), and the degree results were 29% Firsts, 41% 2.1, 20% 2.2 and 10% 3rd/fail.

Yet, University of Greenwich (some derided as an ex-poly) the average entry points is 240, yet the degree results are 55%Firsts, 30% 2.1, 10% 2.2 and 5%3rd/fail. From this, we can see that Greenwich maths department is taking lower quality entrants and turning them into better quality grads with better results, obviously showing reputation means nothing, and that people should be looking elsewhere for top quality degrees.

Reply 86

SimonM

Original post by Nichrome

Either that. Or Greenwich is more generous giving out firsts.

Reply 87

Cggh90

Original post by SimonM

Either that. Or Greenwich is more generous giving out firsts.

I think I'll go with the latter :tongue:

Reply 88

Nichrome

Original post by SimonM

Either that. Or Greenwich is more generous giving out firsts.

Absolutely, but I've seen endless arguments here that a first is a first wherever you go, and say that Cambridge and Oxford give out way more firsts and 2.1s than anywhere else, but from trawling unistats it seems that for maths and physical sciences that is blatantly not true at all. It just seems unfair that if you were applying for a PhD/job the Greenwich grad with a first would be preferred over the Cambridge one.

Reply 89

EconoCal

Looking on the Greenwich maths page linear algebra isn't studied until the second year. This involves " manipulating vectors and matrices" among other things. What more can you say?

Reply 90

INTJ

Determination and hard work is all you need. I have never believed that you need natural talent to do well at studies. You don't need to be innately intelligent, either. Of course it helps to be gifted, but I know PLENTY of imbeciles who scored straight A*s just by investing the effort. The same rule applies to university - put the effort in, and you will be rewarded.

Reply 91

wizz_kid

Original post by chaz1992

After this advice tha he gave me, I decided not to apply for maths and take it a bit easier and apply for Engineering instead.

Lol! Realy bad decision mate. In some aspects, us engineers do more maths than maths students. It is arguable easier to prove a theorem on paper but it requires a hell of an effort to convert that equation into reality which society can benit from.

Reply 92

SimonM

Original post by Nichrome

Except that in the real world the Cambridge grad would certainly be preferred over the Greenwich one. (Excluding major exceptions).

Reply 93

chaz1992

Original post by wizz_kid

Yes but proving a theorem on paper is boring, frustration with equations can lead to sleepless nights and days where you think about nothing else than solving the equation. This occupies time and without a TV license at uni, that will get me through the day nicely!

Reply 94

Evil Monkey

Original post by wizz_kid

Do more maths? You do numeracy, that hardly counts as Maths really.

And as for converting the equations, that's a (theoretical) physicist's job, not yours.

Reply 95

wizz_kid

Original post by Evil Monkey

And as for converting the equations, that's a (theoretical) physicist's job, not yours.

Lol keep saying that to urself mate. You'll realise the importance of us getting the maths right when the bridge your drivin on collapses.

Reply 96

SimonM

Seriously guys. Neither of you are anywhere near the "action" yet.

Reply 97

pappymajek

Original post by INTJ

The only difference is that you will need to put in a lot more effort and hard work if you dont have a talent compared to someone who has an aptitude for maths/any other subject for that matter-in order to achieve comparable results.

Talent also means you can compete well because the world out there is very competitive.

I still believe talent is very fundamental to success in any field of endeavour. Again, I suppose this depends on your definition of success. Of course you can succeed by working hard but the question is when the going gets tough only talented individuals will be able to replicate and sustain their previous results. Talent also means you're going to be very efficient for the same reason listed above. If I was an employer and I had two hard working candidates-one with talent and the other with no talent, I would certainly go for the candidate with talent, wouldnt you?

My answer to the question asked in this post is that talent is not needed to get a 2:1 in any subjest-only hardwork needed. However, those with natural talent will have a competitive advantage over those who dont.

Anyway, just my thoughts.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 98

pappymajek

Original post by DFranklin

These people are a tiny percentage of the whole. Basing decisions upon them is about as rational as saying "Why study when you could become a star on X-factor?".

No, the people I'm talking about had genuine talent in the areas they ended up successful in. It might not have been the flashy kind of Good Will Hunting kind of way, but, for example, they were better than me in their strong areas, after we put in roughly equal amounts of effort.

But of course, that doesn't fall in with your fetish about 'talent', so you discount it.

I've known a lot of talented people in different areas - people who've won national and international awards. And your perception of 'talent' is pathetically narrow.