This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

PlZ HELP!! I Hav a BIG Problem!

andy5788

One thing I will dive into the thick of it and say is anyone who denies that public school education (I know that does not necessarily = having money but the point remains) puts you at no advantage has their head in the sand. Tutors may have no preference but the confidence you gain in yourself, and the excellent preparation many get for interviews helps.
For example, I didn't get in because my maths wasn't good enough (average on written paper) I accept that. But I did feel woefully underprepared going into interviews with not the first idea of what would be expected of me. No doubt I am neither the first or last in that situation and no doubt if I was really good it wouldn't have mattered, but I can't help feeling that preparation would have given me the edge.
Just my two pennies worth.

I completely agree, and in fact I considered making a similar post earlier today. BUT an important caveat is that although going to a public school will help you get into Oxbridge because they will specifically prepare their students for the Oxbridge admissions process, that still shouldn't reflect badly on the universities.

For all that the interview system is trumpeted as the surest way to sort the wheat from the chaff (to use a very unflattering metaphor) it's still a fallible procedure, and it IS possible to trick it, e.g. by specifically preparing someone to get in who might not be accepted on ability alone. That's not that fault of the interviewers, though, or indeed the university. All they have to go on is the interview and the application form, and they can hardly mark people who went to independent schools down because they might have been prepared for the interview - remember that some state schools offer specific Oxbridge preparation as well.

Oh, before anyone accuses me of being biased by my background - I went to a state school!

Reply 61

andy5788

14

Yeah I know, just makes me laugh when some deny any impact.

My personal opinion is that if you're really really good it doesn't matter where you went you'll get in. It's the borderline students that really benefit when given the (USUALLY public school) extra support and thats where the skew lies.

Like you say though, hardly Oxbridge's fault, until someone comes up with a better way of conducting interviews (I feel centralising might help). And this is from a rejected state school candidate!

Reply 62

Wrangler

2

Esquire

Hate to get all playground but it doesn't. I just happen to be vocal with my opinion.

So the fact that you were rejected by Oxford will have absolutely no influence whatsoever on your opinion of their selection system. Sorry tiger, that just doesn't sit right.

Esquire

Socio-economic class isn't about the clothes you wear.

Are you really this slow? Do you not understand that we're making it very clear for you that class isn't a factor - I'm two steps away from being a full blown scally (chav), and I got through the selection process.

Fabuleuse, an excellent post, and I can only reiterate Cexy's comments. However, with regards to your remark about the difficulty (or lack thereof) of Part III. When (or if) you've crused through Part III and sailed a high distinction, I'd be more inclined to take your comments a little more seriously. All the people I've spoke to who came from other Universities to sit Part III said they noticed a considerable jump - perhaps you're the exception. I know very little algebra, so can't really comment on the subjects you mentioned. Also, I'd assume your degree was 4yrs, so there's no suprise there is some overlap with Part III material.

:smile:

Reply 63

ad absurdum

2

Esquire

I'm not totally bitter, I just don't think that oxbridge is 100% about academic achievement.

Is it not about academic potential, interest in the subject and all that stuff too?

Reply 64

Wrangler

2

Cexy

Actually, screw it, he's right. You only got in because of your good breeding anyway, Ant. Those Reebok trackies and polo shirts just scream "public school education" to me. :wink:

And Chris, you and I both know I wouldn't be seen dead in a pair of Reebok trackies.... Nike is where it's currently at. Of course, outside the CMS, I usually don the summer casual combo: chinos, blue shirt and blazer, polished off with a good pair of boat shoes, ideal for a morning at the polo, followed by tiffin.

Reply 65

Kolya

17

Wrangler

Of course, outside the CMS, I usually don the summer casual combo: chinos, blue shirt and blazer, polished off with a good pair of boat shoes, ideal for a morning at the polo, followed by tiffin.

No cravat? How ghastly!

Reply 66

ssmoose

13

Maybe i'm just not bitter because I never really beleived I was good enouhg to get in anyway.

You and me both!!

Cexy, I don't disagree with anything you're saying and I don't mean to knock people at Cambridge who went there out of love of their subject. :smile:

Wrangler

Fabuleuse, an excellent post, and I can only reiterate Cexy's comments. However, with regards to your remark about the difficulty (or lack thereof) of Part III. When (or if) you've crused through Part III and sailed a high distinction, I'd be more inclined to take your comments a little more seriously. All the people I've spoke to who came from other Universities to sit Part III said they noticed a considerable jump - perhaps you're the exception. I know very little algebra, so can't really comment on the subjects you mentioned. Also, I'd assume your degree was 4yrs, so there's no suprise there is some overlap with Part III material.

:smile:

Fair enough. But certainly for those two papers (which were the only two I could have a reasonable shot at), I wasn't bowled over by the difficulty level. I'm sure if I did Part III I would notice a jump in difficulty, but not a ginormous chasm. That's basically what I'm trying very ineloquently to say.

Yes, my degree was 4 years long, but the first year of a degree in Scotland is roughly A2-level standard because Scottish students attend university at a slightly younger age than English ones. Also, only a third of my first year curriculum and half of my second year was composed of maths, so it's the same amount of maths (or slightly less!) as a three year degree in England.

Reply 69

Wrangler

2

fabuleuse

Fair enough. But certainly for those two papers (which were the only two I could have a reasonable shot at), I wasn't bowled over by the difficulty level. I'm sure if I did Part III I would notice a jump in difficulty, but not a ginormous chasm. That's basically what I'm trying very ineloquently to say.

Before I sat Part III, I could answer a few GR questions, and maybe a spattering of questions in other topics, and I've come out of Part III with the fairly unanimous that it's a very tough course. No doubt I'm making a mountain out of a mole hill, but having spent the previous few months of my life revising for, and sitting the toughest exams I'll ever sit, and seeing someone saying they don't look that bad, and I can do a few questions easily, wound me up a little. But anyhoo, no harm done!

Seeing as the algebra is totally foreign to me, I don't suppose you have copies of the Glasgow exam papers in other areas? I've just noticed that there are courses on fluids, so perhaps I could have a quick look? No worries if not.

:smile:

Reply 70

fabuleuse

1

OK, maybe I was too hasty in saying "easy". I was aiming to be controversial. :p:

But I'm coming from the opposite perspective - being told these are exams only for the elite and then I see, hmm yeah that looks familiar...

I can email you a couple of Fluid Dynamics and Magnetohydrodynamics papers if you PM me your email address. They are officially 4th year courses (English 3rd year standard) but are also accessible to 3rd years (I think, unless they changed the rules again). There's also Newtonian Mechanics, which is compulsory for 3rd years.

Reply 71

Wrangler

2

fabuleuse

OK, maybe I was too hasty in saying "easy". I was aiming to be controversial. :p:

But I'm coming from the opposite perspective - being told these are exams only for the elite and then I see, hmm yeah that looks familiar...

Well, you're not really coming from the opposite perspective - I believe you got a 1st, in which case you'd very be in a strong position to be accepted onto Part III, and give the exams a crack!

With regard to the exam papers - use the addy in my profile. I'll try and give you an idea of how they compare. :smile:

Sent.

Cheers. Just looked at the Fluids, and the main difference I can see is the problem element of the quesitons. There seems to be little need for original thought: many of the questions are leading the student through well known results. The other major difference is that the majority of the material in the exam is covered in the 2nd year at Cambridge, whereas it's 4th year there. We have 2 more fluids courses in 3rd year, and a loads more in Part III. Similarly, our Newtonian Mechanics course (called Dynamics in the Tripos) is a 1st year course, whereas it's 3rd year at Glasgow. Even taking into account the additional year, it would seem somewhat behind. The other point I'd make is the lengths of the questions, and the time alloted to each. The length of the questions are comparable, but there seems to be quite a bit more time available on the exams you sent.

There's not a world of difference between the courses, but certainly a noticeable one. :smile:

Reply 74

Purple

15

Rocky27

rite, i rely luv maths and i wuz planning2 apply2 maths at uni, but my a grade is in serious jeopardy az da a2 maths modules were soo hard! Do u fink any good unis will consider me even if i hav a b in maths. alos if i wuz 2 retake a module in my gap year would the top unis look down on it? Plz help if u can, i need all the input i can get!

Obviously you have problems with English as well as Maths.

If they ask for an A, they will need an A due to the content of the degree. Obviously a degree will be a lot harder than A Level.

Reply 75

fabuleuse

1

Wrangler

Cheers. Just looked at the Fluids, and the main difference I can see is the problem element of the quesitons. There seems to be little need for original thought: many of the questions are leading the student through well known results. The other major difference is that the majority of the material in the exam is covered in the 2nd year at Cambridge, whereas it's 4th year there. We have 2 more fluids courses in 3rd year, and a loads more in Part III. Similarly, our Newtonian Mechanics course (called Dynamics in the Tripos) is a 1st year course, whereas it's 3rd year at Glasgow. Even taking into account the additional year, it would seem somewhat behind. The other point I'd make is the lengths of the questions, and the time alloted to each. The length of the questions are comparable, but there seems to be quite a bit more time available on the exams you sent.

There's not a world of difference between the courses, but certainly a noticeable one. :smile:

Fair enough.

Out of interest, how many courses is it usual to take in Part IB and Part II?

Reply 76

Cexy

Most people take 4-5 courses per term for the first two terms, and then perhaps 1-2 in the third term, depending on what's being offered.

I took 9 in both Part IB and Part II, if I remember right, although I didn't really look at all of them for the exams. Probably focused on about 7 courses in Part II.

Reply 77

AlphaNumeric

10

Courses are almost always either 16 or 24 lectures. For undergrads it's recommended students attempt to do around 96 hours of lectures a term, so if it's 72 one term and 120 the next there's not a lot of problem. Third term courses are generally considered 'spares'. Only 16 lectures in the course and generally not a pivitol course for later study. Most people don't bother with them.

Part III has the same 16 or 24 lecture courses, 16's are worth 2 units and 24's worth 3. If you're aiming for a merit or distinction you should sit 17~19 (19 is the max) units in the exams, though an essay can be done for 3 units. If someone is only aiming for a pass 12 units can be sat but almost noone does that, even if it means sitting a course they plan to crash and burn in.

Reply 78

fabuleuse

1

Quite a complicated system, all our courses are worth the same number of credits and we have to sit the exams for 8 courses.

Reply 79

AlphaNumeric

10

It's not too bad, allows you to branch out a bit if you want without having to put in the same amount of time and effort you would for a 'main course' (like relativity or analysis). For instance I took an 8 lecture Geometry course in the 3rd term of my second year. It was the last time I got any marks for a pure maths course in an exam :p:

For undergrads there are 4 3 hour exams and a question from at least 75% of the courses is in every exam (16 hour courses appear on 3 out of the 4 papers, 24 hour ones in all papers) so there's no need to offically pick your courses, the exams cover all of them. It allows you to memorise a single bit of bookwork or a result from a course and if it comes up, you've got a question you can do outside your main courses.

Part III is different. You have to declare which courses you're doing for the exams then the exams will be on only one course at a time, so you have to concentrate on those 6 or 7 instead of picking bits and pieces from loads of courses.

PlZ HELP!! I Hav a BIG Problem!

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you