You people are ignoring the sheer rigour some Asian unis impose in undergraduate courses. Take e IITs for example, with due respect, mathmos at Cam' (or most Ivies or Ox') do very little compared to the standard IITian. Of course you lot in the UK are not expected to know these South Asian unis, but it would be nice if you didn't act like Research intensive unis necessarily have harder courses
Because maths is far more complex than any undergraduate medicine course.
That is funny given that modern medicine makes use of fluid dynamics and there is an entire field of medial statistics.
Not to mention that doing an art degree at a top institution you will most likely be exposed to many different types of art each highly complex in their own way.
And I assume you have done both, so you can compare, right?
Or is this another case of anecdotal evidence maths snobbism, Mr. Graduate in Mathematics and Medicine?
I've been to lectures, seminars, etc. for a couple of undergraduate medicine courses, including a 4th year immunology lecture which was supposed to be one of their hardest modules but it was a joke. I could understand it with just AS biology at the time. It's nothing even compared to some of the FP modules at A Level (which are obviously far more simple than undergrad maths)
Also, you might want to google what the word anecdotal means, because you actually asked for anecdotal evidence in your first paragraph.
That is funny given that modern medicine makes use of fluid dynamics and there is an entire field of medial statistics.
Not to mention that doing an art degree at a top institution you will most likely be exposed to many different types of art each highly complex in their own way.
You might want to note that I specified undergraduate medicine, what this thread relates to, I highly doubt a course which doesn't even require an A Level in maths teaches fluid dynamics.
I am actually and I have taken undergraduate maths courses.
But that's beside the point. What you and everyone else seem to echo is that "more abstract = harder". That's your opinion, as is the fact that you think maths is the height of abstractness.
I've been to lectures, seminars, etc. for a couple of undergraduate medicine courses, including a 4th year immunology lecture which was supposed to be one of their hardest modules but it was a joke. I could understand it with just AS biology at the time. It's nothing even compared to some of the FP modules at A Level (which are obviously far more simple than undergrad maths)
Also, you might want to google what the word anecdotal means, because you actually asked for anecdotal evidence in your first paragraph.
.
Why don't you come and study Medicine at Cambridge then? If you think it's likely to be no harder than AS Level Biology... Should be straightforward for someone of your vast intellect.
I've been to lectures, seminars, etc. for a couple of undergraduate medicine courses, including a 4th year immunology lecture which was supposed to be one of their hardest modules but it was a joke. I could understand it with just AS biology at the time. It's nothing even compared to some of the FP modules at A Level (which are obviously far more simple than undergrad maths)
Also, you might want to google what the word anecdotal means, because you actually asked for anecdotal evidence in your first paragraph.
You might want to note that I specified undergraduate medicine, what this thread relates to, I highly doubt a course which doesn't even require an A Level in maths teaches fluid dynamics.
Yea but what's harder, few tough courses or a ton of not so tough courses?
And I am sure that if you really wanted to you could learn about it.
Have you tried getting firsts in essay-based subjects at uni? The reading and writing you have to do for them? So what is hardest? In terms of "understanding", passing, getting a good grade, amount of other people who could do the former, amount of work the average student has to put in?
Actually, (only in my opinion) I bet that any undergrad doing maths at a top institute like Oxbridge would do very well. Writing is a hell of a lot easier than understanding some of the abstract topics in maths. That really makes you think.
Actually, (only in my opinion) I bet that any undergrad doing maths at a top institute like Oxbridge would do very well. Writing is a hell of a lot easier than understanding some of the abstract topics in maths. That really makes you think.
You'd be surprised actually. I'm an Economist at Camb and first year we're forced to do essay papers. A lot of the more Mathematical minded guys (who wouldn't look out of place doing Maths) really struggle in the essay papers. They get the high 1sts in the Maths and theoretical papers but 2.2s in the Economic History and Politics papers.
Doesn't reaaally count though, since "candidates must have completed 2 to 3 years of undergraduate studies in Science". And at a Grande Ecole (other top French institutions) you'll be expected to have done 2 years of preparation.
That's not to say that their courses aren't incredibly tough, just that it's not a like-for-like comparison.
You'd be surprised actually. I'm an Economist at Camb and first year we're forced to do essay papers. A lot of the more Mathematical minded guys (who wouldn't look out of place doing Maths) really struggle in the essay papers. They get the high 1sts in the Maths and theoretical papers but 2.2s in the Economic History and Politics papers.
I think it might be a bit different in first year. I experienced the same in my first year (doing statistical reports) and my mark well well below my average because I wasn't sure how to write an essay. Since then I've been fine, though. Mind you, I've no idea how different it is at a top uni!
Actually, (only in my opinion) I bet that any undergrad doing maths at a top institute like Oxbridge would do very well. Writing is a hell of a lot easier than understanding some of the abstract topics in maths. That really makes you think.
I agree with this. You can interpret a text however you wish and back it up with subjective analysis - analysing is exactly what mathematicians learn to do. The difference being that with maths, you analyse to discover a truth, whereas with an essay based subject, you analyse to portray your version of the truth.
Obviously I'm speaking very generally here but I think that that's true most of the time.
I am actually and I have taken undergraduate maths courses.
But that's beside the point. What you and everyone else seem to echo is that "more abstract = harder". That's your opinion, as is the fact that you think maths is the height of abstractness.
So then what would you say is more abstract than Pure Mathematics?