STEP or Oxford aptitude test- which is easier?

Original post by ian.slater

When I ask them, Oxford undergraduate mathmos tell me that they find Cambridge 'too intense' or 'too competitive'. Their talents seem somehow broader, if you will permit me to generalise. You can take 'Maths and Philisophy'.

Based on what? (Or is that just the application process they find too intense/competitive)

Reply 23

ian.slater

12

Original post by SimonM

Based on what? (Or is that just the application process they find too intense/competitive)

The pattern is that they prefer Oxford to Cambridge because the atmosphere of working in Cambridge is too intense/competitive, not that they were dissuaded by the admissions process.

Reply 24

Dirac Spinor

10

People keep saying that STEP is harder than the MAT on the basis that the individual questions are harder or the subject matter is more advanced. Isn't this missing the point? What I mean is that one's object when sitting the MAT is to do well relative to the rest of the people taking the exam so it doesn't matter whether individual questions are harder/easier as this just puts an emphasis on the number of questions you answer. In this case, the crux of the matter lies in who the other people taking the examination are.
Basically: two tests have different purposes so difficult to compare.
Meh, I don't know for sure. This is just my personal reaction.

Original post by Farhan.Hanif93

Well, it comes down to what you feel is a reasonable STEP grade. If it's a grade 2 or less, I wouldn't say you need to be exceptional to get it; still a respectable result, though. In fact, I'd be willing to go as far as saying that the grade S is pretty much the only grade where being exceptional is almost a requirement as it more or less comes down to how quickly you can act on your intuition as well as being able to find multiple questions that you can have a reasonable crack at in the given time frame.

That said, you'll also have to clarify what you mean by exceptional. If you mean the top 2 or 3 Y13 maths A-Level students from each school, then yes that sounds about right*. If you're talking about only those who qualify for the BMO, then probably not, as many people who don't qualify for the BMO do just fine. (for lack of a better example)

*Depending on what sort of school we're talking about here. If it's a selective school, then there may be a larger bracket of those capable of doing well. The level of help offered also makes a huge difference. There's so many things that come into it that it's hard to explain how "hard" it is...

More exceptional than you think.

1181 sat STEP I in 2011
1031 sat STEP II in 2011
635 sat STEP III in 2011

This suggests that 785 sat STEP I, 396 sat STEP I & II and 635 sat STEP II & III, a total of 1816 students. The real figure will be lower than this as some will have taken all three papers for Warwick entry.

82,995 sat A Level mathematics so it looks like just over 2% of A Level mathematicians take STEP. Not all get grade 2 or better so that narrows the field further.

A typical school sixth form might have 20 students taking A2 mathematics. With the independent sector skew, I would suggest they might see a student capable of STEP about once every three years. Obviously the picture would be different in large sixth form colleges.

Reply 26

kerily

15

Original post by Farhan.Hanif93

That said, you'll also have to clarify what you mean by exceptional. If you mean the top 2 or 3 Y13 maths A-Level students from each school, then yes that sounds about right*.

*Depending on what sort of school we're talking about here. If it's a selective school, then there may be a larger bracket of those capable of doing well. The level of help offered also makes a huge difference. There's so many things that come into it that it's hard to explain how "hard" it is...

Original post by Mr M

A typical school sixth form might have 20 students taking A2 mathematics. With the independent sector skew, I would suggest they might see a student capable of STEP about once every three years. Obviously the picture would be different in large sixth form colleges.

This. It's going to depend massively on the type of school. I only have anecdotal evidence, but I was the first person to sit STEP for two years from my school (a sixth form with about 200 students) and the boy who sat STEP two years before was, as far as anyone in the maths department has said they can remember, the first ever.

The picture will be different in selective schools/larger sixth forms/those which prepare pupils more extensively for Oxbridge/different demographics/etc, but I would imagine pupils capable of excelling at STEP come along to your average sixth form very rarely indeed.

Reply 27

Farhan.Hanif93

Original post by twig

Agree about level of "school-help" being very important. I was quite close to an S this year for STEP I; for preparation the my maths teacher just showed me the STEP website, gave me the STEP formula booklet, and entered me for the exam. Nothing else. This is partly the reason why I have been put off applying to Cam this year (alongside people like you not being accepted!).

Surely that suggests that getting your school's help wouldn't have mattered a lot to you since you nearly got an S anyway. (unless you think that you could have got closer to full marks with a bit more help? I can't say for sure but I'm skeptical of how teaching helps when you're floating around the S boundaries. This year's STEP I paper wasn't particularly nice either, from what I saw.)

STEP is a scary prospect but I wouldn't be put off of applying to Cam if you were so close to an S! Chances are that you'll do well with STEP II and III so it's worth a shot if you want to go there. My example should really not be considered when you're deciding whether Cambridge will take you or not; as I was in the rather odd situation of having a bad module whilst most would have nothing nearly as bad as that on their application. Add to that the fact that my interviewers were all applied mathematicians... (probably not too relevant but them seeing my M1 result probably wouldn't have been helpful.)

Reply 28

twig

Original post by Mr M

More exceptional than you think.

1181 sat STEP I in 2011
1031 sat STEP II in 2011
635 sat STEP III in 2011

This suggests that 785 sat STEP I, 396 sat STEP I & II and 635 sat STEP II & III, a total of 1816 students. The real figure will be lower than this as some will have taken all three papers for Warwick entry.

82,995 sat A Level mathematics so it looks like just over 2% of A Level mathematicians take STEP. Not all get grade 2 or better so that narrows the field further.

A typical school sixth form might have 20 students taking A2 mathematics. With the independent sector skew, I would suggest they might see a student capable of STEP about once every three years. Obviously the picture would be different in large sixth form colleges.

Can I ask for the source (just curious)?

Reply 29

SimonM

Original post by twig

Can I ask for the source (just curious)?

STEP stats are on the STEP website.

Reply 30

If you get a good score on STEP ii or iii you should be able to score greater than 70% on the MAT, which is what the admissions tutors are on the lookout for. But I'd say the converse is likely to be true too. I think people who get 70% in the MAT should be capable of getting onto the 1/2 boundary for step and some quite a bit higher.

Points for the MAT being harder:
-Much less space to think in the MAT than in the STEP. You really have to rely on your intuition rather than sussing out an answer after trying out cases etc.
-You have to answer all questions on the paper, unlike STEP where you can choose the questions that suit your strengths.
-Time constraint can really mess you over, if you get hung up on one question you can't solve.
-many more questions, so if you want to get through the material you have to be quick at using nifty algebraic/ geometrical tricks to get through the material in the time.

Points for STEP being harder:
-I've found lots of the questions in STEP are an algebra grind; if you are very methodical and precise you can do well. But the algebra is really on a different level from Oxford's tests. However, I would say you still have to use just as many (perhaps slightly more) nifty tricks as the MAT.
-Questions are more interesting and are from a broader range of topics
-People you are up against would have been preparing since the start of the year, usually for a longer period of time than people prepping for the MAT- especially since there are more step revision materials than MAT
-You have to know what topics in maths you are best at
-More space to think, which may mean you have to think deeper. however, I think it's more likely that you are given more time to focus on fewer question because of the insane algebraic content of the exams , not because the exam requires more insight. Personally I think the two exams are the same with regards to insight required.

TLDR; STEP has a wider range of topics and much harder algebra than the MAT. MAT has a much worse time constraint and requires about the same level of mathematical (perhaps slightly less) insight/ tricks up your sleeve kinda thing.

People on TSR feel STEP is harder because of the wider range of topics and the harder algebra. But this gets conquered through preparation, and practicing on the many STEP past papers that are available. There are many repeated questions in STEP/ elements that are repeated so over time STep becomes a lot easier. With the MAT, there are fewer question papers, which means that learning the tricks expected by examiners is harder. Also, the earlier questions might be easier/ fairly standard, but the last few questions get quite diverse and quite hard to do in the time limit. You also need a score of 70%+ to be in with a good chance.

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 31

DFranklin

Original post by Blutooth

People on TSR feel STEP is harder because of the wider range of topics and the harder algebra.Actually, the most common reason for people on TSR to say STEP is harder is because they've looked at MAT papers and found they can get over 80% with little or no MAT preparation.

Of course, not everyone feels like this, and the people concerned have typically put in a *lot* of STEP preparation.

Edit: "most common reason" other than "I'm doing STEP and/or Cambridge is better so I'm sure STEP is harder, even though I haven't looked at the MAT". Not sure how many of those comments there are, but I suspect there are a few...

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 32

Original post by DFranklin

Actually, the most common reason for people on TSR to say STEP is harder is because they've looked at MAT papers and found they can get over 80% with little or no MAT preparation.

Of course, not everyone feels like this, and the people concerned have typically put in a *lot* of STEP preparation.

Edit: "most common reason" other than "I'm doing STEP and/or Cambridge is better so I'm sure STEP is harder, even though I haven't looked at the MAT". Not sure how many of those comments there are, but I suspect there are a few...

THe average score for successful applicants was only 70% this year, and so you're realistically looking at only about 10-15% who score 70 or above. Now, 80% or above, I'd suspect fewer than 10% of applicants to achieve. I doubt most who get a 2 or lower in STEP 2,3 could easily get above 80% in the MAT in exam conditions.

The MAT certainly looks more accessible than STEP because it's examined a year before and assumes much less knowledge, but getting some of the longer answer questions out in the time limit is a lot harder. You get lulled into a false sense of security by the first few easier questions, but when you realise you have an hour left on the clock and you haven't answered any of the long answer questions, you soon revise your expectations of the difficulty of the exam. Trust me, I know. :smile:

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 33

Original post by DFranklin

Actually, the most common reason for people on TSR to say STEP is harder is because they've looked at MAT papers and found they can get over 80% with little or no MAT preparation.

Of course, not everyone feels like this, and the people concerned have typically put in a *lot* of STEP preparation.

Edit: "most common reason" other than "I'm doing STEP and/or Cambridge is better so I'm sure STEP is harder, even though I haven't looked at the MAT". Not sure how many of those comments there are, but I suspect there are a few...

Also, I think it is worth noting that the interview is the final admissions process at Oxford, and the MAT is only a precursor to this; something that whittles down the playing field. I know there are some colleges which take candidates on their MAT scores alone, but they are in the minority. So if you are unhappy with the MAT, you can expect further conceptually challenging problems at interview. The interview questions I had were as hard as most of the step II questions I had attempted- and were pretty much exactly the same in format and difficulty.

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 34

Dirac Spinor

10

Original post by Blutooth

The MAT certainly looks more accessible than STEP because it's examined a year before and assumes much less knowledge, but getting some of the longer answer questions out in the time limit is a lot harder. You get lulled into a false sense of security by the first few easier questions, but when you realise you have an hour left on the clock and you haven't answered any of the long answer questions, you soon revise your expectations of the difficulty of the exam. Trust me, I know. :smile:

I've found the time constraints on STEP to be pretty brutal too though.

Reply 35

Intriguing Alias

Original post by ben-smith

I've found the time constraints on STEP to be pretty brutal too though.

For STEP III I'd certainly agree with this; especially if you're trying to get 5+ questions done.

Reply 36

DFranklin

Original post by Blutooth

THe average score for successful applicants was only 70% this year, and so you're realistically looking at only about 10-15% who score 70 or above. Now, 80% or above, I'd suspect fewer than 10% of applicants to achieve.

The fact remains that *most* of the people on TSR doing STEP who've also looked at the MAT think they could get that kind of score. Some may be deluding themselves, but on average the STEP entrants are a fairly rational bunch. On the other hand, they've usually put in *much* more preparation than someone sitting the MAT (and are typically post A-level).

The MAT certainly looks more accessible than STEP because it's examined a year before and assumes much less knowledge, but getting some of the longer answer questions out in the time limit is a lot harder. You get lulled into a false sense of security by the first few easier questions, but when you realise you have an hour left on the clock and you haven't answered any of the long answer questions, you soon revise your expectations of the difficulty of the exam. Trust me, I know. :smile:

I'd have to disagree that the time limit is harder than STEP (caveat: it's useful to have done a practice paper to get used to the format, particularly the multiple choice).

The one time I looked at the MAT against the clock, I got somewhere in the 90's with over an hour to spare. Sure, I am not the "typical applicant", but at the same time I couldn't do that with STEP.

Reply 37

TGH1

6

Original post by nbird94

I've decided I'm applying to either Oxford or Cambridge and I wouldn't mind which one I went to. What would you say is the easier entrance test? That might influence my decision.

Your performance in the MAT will partly determine whether you have an interview and ultimately an offer for Oxford, whilst STEP would form part of a Cambridge/Warwick offer. So it primarily depends on when you'd rather sit the exam(s).

Reply 38

Original post by DFranklin

The fact remains that *most* of the people on TSR doing STEP who've also looked at the MAT think they could get that kind of score. Some may be deluding themselves, but on average the STEP entrants are a fairly rational bunch. On the other hand, they've usually put in *much* more preparation than someone sitting the MAT (and are typically post A-level).

I'd have to disagree that the time limit is harder than STEP (caveat: it's useful to have done a practice paper to get used to the format, particularly the multiple choice).

The one time I looked at the MAT against the clock, I got somewhere in the 90's with over an hour to spare. Sure, I am not the "typical applicant", but at the same time I couldn't do that with STEP.

Not to sound like a stalker :P, but I thought you have said in previous threads that you'd be capable of SS in step and be getting close to full marks in STEP ii. Didn't you also get a distinction in the cambridge entrance exams when you sat them? Perhaps you are just showing a bias to your alma mater, because previously you have said that you could get those kind of scores in STEP. Anyway 90% on the MAT is obviously a lot easier than 108/ 120 in STEP. I'd be comparing 70% in the MAT to 60-70/ 120 in STEP ii/iii which is probably what you'd need to meet your offer at Cambridge.

Original post by ben-smith

I've found the time constraints on STEP to be pretty brutal too though.

I agree that the STEP III time limit is very tight having done a bit of practice on them- having said that I still feel as though you have more time to think.

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 39

DFranklin