[illusionz]

(Original post by alphil)
It had been claimed that "the physical sciences ONLY really care about maths/physics/chemistry ability", neglecting problem-solving skills and critical thinking.

I briefly argued the opposite - namely, that problem-solving skills and critical thinking are essential to sciences because of the problematic aspects they ordinarily deal with.

Maths/physics/chemistry ability is tantamount to problem solving ability in a scientific context. I take if you haven't studied physical sciences. I would also like to point out that I've been through the process, know many others in the same situation and have had conversations with my director of studies about admissions.

Also, if you were to read slightly more carefully, you would have realised that I was clearly referring to the admissions process at Cambridge, rather than the aim of physical sciences as a whole.

If you really want to get into an argument about the philosophy of science then go ahead. A third of my year last year was on it.

[around]

(Original post by alphil)
It had been claimed that "the physical sciences ONLY really care about maths/physics/chemistry ability", neglecting problem-solving skills and critical thinking.

I briefly argued the opposite - namely, that problem-solving skills and critical thinking are essential to sciences because of the problematic aspects they ordinarily deal with.

are you seriously arguing that it's possible to be good at maths/physics/chemistry without problem-solving skills and critical thinking?

(necessary and sufficient comes to mind)

[shezi1995]

I am from Mirpur Mathelo, Ghotki, Sindh, Pakistan.( Yes its quite unknown city and an isolated one as well). I will be starting CIE A levels(yes we have alevels in our school, one of only two in the area and the other schools are 500 km away in karachi) in two weeks. Sorry for the biography.
I have selected maths, physics, chem and english lang. I want to apply to cambridge for maths but the problem is that they have the requirement of as level further maths which CIE does not offer and I dont have any access to edexcel which is available atleast 500km away in the major cities. I am tremendously passionate about mathematics and seriously enjoy studying it, just like a hobby.
What should I do?Should I take up a level further maths and selfstudy it because my school does not offer it? I have no access (again) to tutions or academies. If yes then how should I go about it, considering that I am well able in maths, usually getting full marks in add maths, statistics and maths o level and hoping very high for A* in maths and addmaths for may 2012 session and already having A* in statistics.

Thanks in advance!!

[alphil]

(Original post by illusionz)
Maths/physics/chemistry ability is tantamount to problem solving ability in a scientific context. I take if you haven't studied physical sciences. I would also like to point out that I've been through the process, know many others in the same situation and have had conversations with my director of studies about admissions.

Also, if you were to read slightly more carefully, you would have realised that I was clearly referring to the admissions process at Cambridge, rather than the aim of physical sciences as a whole.

If you really want to get into an argument about the philosophy of science then go ahead. A third of my year last year was on it.

If science-ability is tantamount to problem-solving ability, it should be made clear how this can be. There are two ways of thinking about this: first, science-ability might be on par with knowledge of science. In this case, in front of a scientific problem, one might know the solution to it just because he is well-read around the literature of that particular problem. Consequently, this would reflect no particular personal thinking abilities, for all that the candidate would do is mere stating what the solution is. In the second case, the scientific problem is resolved by critical thinking and problem-solving skills. This would reflect real abilities of the candidate.
In conclusion, given the existence of the first possibility (namely, knowing the solution to a problem just because you have read it), the claim that 'science-ability is tantamount to problem-solving ability' needs clarification in at least those two respects.

If there have been some forms of disagreement, then you should question your alleged ability of being clear. Clarity is essential to discussions in order to avoid possible misunderstandings.

I would also like to point out that I've been through the process of admissions too, and yes, I have studied physical sciences.
And no, it is not my aim to start a discussion in philosophy of science here, but if you want to, feel free to start it.

Last thing: since you have mentioned nearly every possible thing (and expertise) about Cambridge (conversations with the director of studies etc.), your non-mentioning that you have been offered a place makes me think you haven't ACTUALLY been offered a place. Ever wondered why?

[alphil]

(Original post by around)
are you seriously arguing that it's possible to be good at maths/physics/chemistry without problem-solving skills and critical thinking?

(necessary and sufficient comes to mind)

I have been trying to argue for the opposite claim: 'it is impossible to be a good scientist without problem-solving skills and critical thinking'. For science fundamentally seeks solutions to problems, and problems cannot be resolved without the two precious abilities I have just mentioned.


C'mon!

[Igrisok]

Grades are a Pretty Big Deal when you're applying, as is your ability to answer tricky questions on the spot. As long as you satisfy the first requirement, you should get an interview, but bear in mind that the competition for international students is tough as dry boots! If you make it to interview, be prepared to answer a lot of tricky subject-based questions - these, in my experience, make up the vast majority of the interview.

Of course, extracurriculars are kind of important too, yada yada... But really it's about enjoying and being really really good at your subject.

[illusionz]

Where to start...

(Original post by alphil)
If science-ability is tantamount to problem-solving ability, it should be made clear how this can be.

There is no need to clarify an already very clear point.

There are two ways of thinking about this: first, science-ability might be on par with knowledge of science. In this case, in front of a scientific problem, one might know the solution to it just because he is well-read around the literature of that particular problem. Consequently, this would reflect no particular personal thinking abilities, for all that the candidate would do is mere stating what the solution is. In the second case, the scientific problem is resolved by critical thinking and problem-solving skills. This would reflect real abilities of the candidate.
In conclusion, given the existence of the first possibility (namely, knowing the solution to a problem just because you have read it), the claim that 'science-ability is tantamount to problem-solving ability' needs clarification in at least those two respects.

The words of someone who has no idea what they are talking about. You can read all the facts in the world about science but unless you are able to apply them you will not be a good scientist. The way maths, chemistry and physics (even at school) are taught is a problem solving environment. It is not possible to be a good chemist, physicist or mathematician without problem solving, logic and critical thinking skills. Hence ability in aforementioned subjects necessarily includes problem solving skills and therefore all that is required is ability in the subject.

If there have been some forms of disagreement, then you should question your alleged ability of being clear. Clarity is essential to discussions in order to avoid possible misunderstandings.

You're just being obtuse here... That or you're just looking for an argument.

I would also like to point out that I've been through the process of admissions too, and yes, I have studied physical sciences.

Evidently haven't studied physical sciences to a high level or you would know that ability in them would also involve ability in problem solving.

You've been through the admissions process for an entirely different area of study, with completely different selection methods.

Last thing: since you have mentioned nearly every possible thing (and expertise) about Cambridge (conversations with the director of studies etc.), your non-mentioning that you have been offered a place makes me think you haven't ACTUALLY been offered a place. Ever wondered why?

Seeing as I'm currently in my third year and you're not even here yet I would invite you to kindly shut up.

(Original post by alphil)
I have been trying to argue for the opposite claim: 'it is impossible to be a good scientist without problem-solving skills and critical thinking'. For science fundamentally seeks solutions to problems, and problems cannot be resolved without the two precious abilities I have just mentioned.

And yet you are unable to understand that scientific ability necessarily includes problem solving skills, and therefore if you are a good scientist then you have these skills by default.

[Igrisok]

(Original post by illusionz)

Last thing: since you have mentioned nearly every possible thing (and expertise) about Cambridge (conversations with the director of studies etc.), your non-mentioning that you have been offered a place makes me think you haven't ACTUALLY been offered a place. Ever wondered why?

Seeing as I'm currently in my third year and you're not even here yet I would invite you to kindly shut up.

[alphil]

The thesis 'if you are a good scientist, then it is implied that you have these skills' and 'it is impossible to be a good scientist without problem-solving skills and critical thinking' are actually very similar.
Please learn a bit of logic.

Furthermore, this is being a waste of our time. Reaching stalemate because of obtuseness is always something i wish to avoid.


Best of luck with your academic future.

[around]

(Original post by alphil)
The thesis 'if you are a good scientist, then it is implied that you have these skills' and 'it is impossible to be a good scientist without problem-solving skills and critical thinking' are actually very similar.
Please learn a bit of logic.

Furthermore, this is being a waste of our time. Reaching stalemate because of obtuseness is always something i wish to avoid.


Best of luck with your academic future.

Actually,

let P be the statement 'you are a good scientist'
let Q be the statement 'you have problem-solving skills and critical thinking'.

Then assertion one is P => Q, and assertion two is ¬Q => ¬P.

The two are equivalent.

but don't worry, you'll learn this in first year logic.

[Bulbasaur]

(Original post by DJMayes)
You should check how these compare against your schools averages as well; as the UMS relative to your schools average performance is arguably as important as the objective UMS score itself.

Hmm, how is this possible to find out, for an applicant or a school?
Also, to what extent would this impact? If, for example:

Candidate A goes to a school with a 60% average and achieves 90%.
Candidate B goes to a school with a 80% average and achieves 95%.

Would these generally be considered equal, ceteris paribus?

[Above.The.Empyrean]

What is our place in the cosmic perspective of life?

[anuradha_d]

Heyya!

Say I applied to PhysNatSci for 2013 (im in year 12). I did AS Maths in Year 11 (89,88,80 in C1 C2 and M1 respectively) and i did S1, D1, D2 this year. C3 and C4 are to come.

I am really worried that i'm going to get a B in D2, and low As in S1 and D1. Will this matter so much if i try my best to get 90s in C3 and C4 this summer? My Physics and Chemistryare fine (100% and 93% so far UMS wise). I'm soooo worried!
Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks

Edit:
Why the neg? Am i not allowed to be concerned...?

[cooldudeman]

so my exams are finally over (im in AS) and i want at least get an offer for maths at Cambridge (yeah i know, 'don't we all'...). i recently looked at the TSR Cambridge stalking page and all of the maths people had like 90%+ in their average AS grades.

i think hopefully i may get AAAA in maths, fm, physics and law but i really don't think ill average more than 90% in the three best. is that a disadvantage?

also, im sure they don't just look at grades. do they want or prefer any type of work experience to do maths?

some people fail to get an interview, is this because of their personal statement? i hear people talk about their work experience in the statements, but i don't have any what do you have to emphasise in it?

[Nick_]

I would quite like to know how important UMS scores are to cambridge, and what average would be considered bad/average/good/very good.

[DJMayes]

(Original post by Bulbasaur)
Hmm, how is this possible to find out, for an applicant or a school?
Also, to what extent would this impact? If, for example:

Candidate A goes to a school with a 60% average and achieves 90%.
Candidate B goes to a school with a 80% average and achieves 95%.

Would these generally be considered equal, ceteris paribus?

I'm not privy to exactly how Cambridge quantify their contextual data - I would assume that it's done based upon your percentile rank with regards to the kind of background and schooling you have experienced. For example, I think this might be a better example:

Candidate A is on free school meals and attends a comprehensive low down on school league tables. He comes from a background where few people attend higher universities. He has achieved a UMS average of 90%, which places him in the top 2% of students from similar backgrounds.

Candidate B comes from a family of doctors and has attended a prestigious private school all his life, one renowned for sending people to Oxbridge every year. He has achieved a UMS average of 95%, which places him in the top 10% of people from similar backgrounds.

Objectively speaking, Candidate B has better grades than Candidate A. However, Candidate A has significantly outperformed B relative to similar Candidates, resulting in Candidate A getting an offer.



Obviously, all the figures I just quoted are bogus. However, the important point is that Cambridge uses contextual data to find people who have performed exceptionally under the circumstances they were given in. To simply assume that being poor gives you a better shot at Cambridge is wrong. Cambridge are looking for the top group of candidates from all the groups who apply. However, the grades indicative of exceptional ability can vary dependent on the background the candidate is from - you might expect the top proportion of privately educated pupils to achieve higher than the top proportion of pupils from care homes, for example, due to their circumstances. However, if two candidates in different groups are ranked equally with regards to their respective backgrounds then they will be treated equally by Cambridge, even if there is a relatively significant difference in their actual scores.

tl;dr - Cambridge is not so much interested in candidates with specific UMS thresholds but for those who are significantly outperforming other candidates with similar backgrounds and circumstances.

[milienhaus]

You don't need work experience for maths. Some reading on first year course type material would be pretty good, and the best thing of all is probably to look at STEP papers and take your maths ability up a step.

Not going to lie, not getting above 90%ish in Maths and Further Maths at least might be an issue, most applicants for Cambridge maths found A levels pretty trivial.

[ukdragon37]

(Original post by DJMayes)
tl;dr - Cambridge is not so much interested in candidates with specific UMS thresholds but for those who are significantly outperforming other candidates with similar backgrounds and circumstances.

I usually take a neutral position regarding admissions (because frankly, only the DoS of the college for your subject knows what he's looking for so for anyone else to guess or even generalise across the colleges is just futile). However if you want some insight, read this, probably one of the best articles on the Guardian about Cambridge.

[DJMayes]

(Original post by ukdragon37)
I usually take a neutral position regarding admissions (because frankly, only the DoS of the college for your subject knows what he's looking for so for anyone else to guess or even generalise across the colleges is just futile). However if you want some insight, read this, probably one of the best articles on the Guardian about Cambridge.

I have read this article and found it very interesting; it's one of the few articles I have read which have managed to inspire a sense of optimism with regards to Oxbridge admissions. However, I would take it with a pinch of salt - it's only focused on one college in Cambridge, and the process probably varies quite a bit between them.

[The Mr Z]

(Original post by DJMayes)
I have read this article and found it very interesting; it's one of the few articles I have read which have managed to inspire a sense of optimism with regards to Oxbridge admissions. However, I would take it with a pinch of salt - it's only focused on one college in Cambridge, and the process probably varies quite a bit between them.

No, Churchill's process is fairly typical (Although the number of admissions tutors for this particular selection is likely to be higher than average - 12 tutors at the meeting - but that's because Churchill is a science-heavy college and this is NatSci)

There is one thing that the colleges all do the same and that's how they choose. They may have different tests and place different emphasis in different places, but the admissions tutor's methods and the sort of traits they are looking for are broadly identical.