This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- What A levels should I pick for medicine
- Gap year applicant, style of interview
- Can I get into engineering with these subjects at A level?
- Applying to Cambridge Engineering with having given Maths a year early
- Maths at Oxford or Cambridge?
- Considering 4 A Levels
- Cambridge offers vs acceptances for maths
- LSE LLB Law? vs BA Law Cambridge University?
- I really don't understand Cambridge applications
- Oxford University - A-Level Entry Requirements
- A-levels needed for natural sciences at Cambridge
- Cambridge Natsci Admissions
- Oxbridge Admissions
- Cambridge Engineering
- AS level exam affecting my university application
- Oxford or Cambridge acceptance for Maths
- If I can't go to a uni for undergraduate degree, could I go to it as a postgraduate?
- A levels subjects
- Does college choice affect your overall chance of getting a maths offer at Cambridge?
- A Level Options for Medicine
Cambridge Maths Students and Applicants
Scroll to see replies
Original post by ben-smith
technical language
More seriously, you may not know this but, is there any overlap between the later mechanics modules at a level and 1st year dynamics? It would be good if there was, M4/5/6 have been pretty good so far imho.
More seriously, you may not know this but, is there any overlap between the later mechanics modules at a level and 1st year dynamics? It would be good if there was, M4/5/6 have been pretty good so far imho.
Don't know which board you're doing, mine only reached M5. This is the equivalent of the syllabus http://www.maths.cam.ac.uk/undergrad/course/schedules.pdf, page 8 is the dynamics course. My A-Level covered a significant part of the bits with Newtonian in the subheading and basically all of 'rigid bodies'. Your milage may vary.
Original post by Mr Dactyl
Don't know which board you're doing, mine only reached M5.
Like you did, according to your previous post, I try to do the STEP mechanics questions in papers and, for the really old papers, you have to use stuff that's not even on M5. My teacher knew this and so told me I should do M6, regardless of whether the actual exam exists or not.
Thanks for the replies! Those of you who didn't take A level Physics, what kind of UMS scores did you get in your maths modules? And were you any good at the SMCs? Cus there is hard competition in my year, several got through to BMO 1 and such and I just feel tiny compared to them... maths-wise
p.s.
Does -6i-3it-16j+4jt =
1)(-6-3t)i + (-16+4t)j
AND
2)(-6-3t)i - (16-4t)j
?
furthermore, if you squared both, would the answer be the same? because when I do it, the (-16+4t)j part squares to the same thing but for 1) you would end up adding it then 2) you'd end up minusing it
p.s.
Does -6i-3it-16j+4jt =
1)(-6-3t)i + (-16+4t)j
AND
2)(-6-3t)i - (16-4t)j
?
furthermore, if you squared both, would the answer be the same? because when I do it, the (-16+4t)j part squares to the same thing but for 1) you would end up adding it then 2) you'd end up minusing it
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by ben-smith
Like you did, according to your previous post, I try to do the STEP mechanics questions in papers and, for the really old papers, you have to use stuff that's not even on M5. My teacher knew this and so told me I should do M6, regardless of whether the actual exam exists or not.
Not sure it's worth the effort to learn material which is no longer on the syllabus (and if I remember rightly the kind of question we're talking about is badly out of fashion in the tripos too).
YLY
Thanks for the replies! Those of you who didn't take A level Physics, what kind of UMS scores did you get in your maths modules? And were you any good at the SMCs? Cus there is hard competition in my year, several got through to BMO 1 and such and I just feel tiny compared to them... maths-wise
p.s.
Does -6i-3it-16j+4jt =
1)(-6-3t)i + (-16+4t)j
AND
2)(-6-3t)i - (16-4t)j
?
furthermore, if you squared both, would the answer be the same? because when I do it, the (-16+4t)j part squares to the same thing but for 1) you would end up adding it then 2) you'd end up minusing it
p.s.
Does -6i-3it-16j+4jt =
1)(-6-3t)i + (-16+4t)j
AND
2)(-6-3t)i - (16-4t)j
?
furthermore, if you squared both, would the answer be the same? because when I do it, the (-16+4t)j part squares to the same thing but for 1) you would end up adding it then 2) you'd end up minusing it
Hi again. My advice is not to obsess about the scores of people already here which vary widely and are not really useful information, because it won't tell you anything about admissions the information on the University's admissions pages can. Moreover, I wouldn't get too obsessed about Cambridge. There's nothing you can do to guarantee you get an offer, if you fancy it you may as well apply and do your best, but don't get hung up about it.
I was shocking at the maths challenge and didn't even try BMO, no biggie in my opinion, the Tripos isn't really like that. That kind of competition is really about the training you get.
Yes those expressions are equal and should square to the same thing. But you really should post maths questions in the maths forum, not this thread.
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by Zhen LinYes, but there's a difference between using a piece of theory and actually developing it!
Original post by mares
It's possible to be interested in PDEs (and also ODEs) from a pure point of view too. The proof of Poincaré conjecture was done using PDEs.
Agreed, although development is a loaded word and advances can be made without reference to applications or even applicability. I love the head in the clouds stuff best!
As I understand it, the current motivations for studying PDEs mostly comes from the physics side, with some input from differential geometry.
Mostly physics, especially fluids and turbulence, but also some stuff in biology, and an increasing amount in sociology (hello social networking, advertising, opinion formation) and information theory, according to this interview with Peter Markowich.
What I don't understand is...a lot of applied maths research is in fluids...most of it involves PDEs...so presumably applied people learn loads about PDEs in their fluids courses...so who is Part II PDEs aimed at (other than nutcase pure types like myself, who love the maths of PDEs but whose only interest in anything applied is to assist them with pure)? (I know I'm going too far here with the notion of a division between pure and applied, but...)
Original post by GANDULF
I need S,1 in step II and III wtf
Well, they could always have not given you an offer...
Original post by YLY
Can I ask how many of you studied Physics at A level?
This link shows which colleges prefer an A level in Physics:
http://www.cam.ac.uk/admissions/undergraduate/courses/maths/requirements.html
Original post by ben-smith
Like you did, according to your previous post, I try to do the STEP mechanics questions in papers and, for the really old papers, you have to use stuff that's not even on M5. My teacher knew this and so told me I should do M6, regardless of whether the actual exam exists or not.
You probably already know this, but on each STEP paper there are 8 pure questions, 3 mechanics, and 2 on statistics or probability. STEP has its own syllabus, which you should read. It's online here. (Note that "Some questions may be largely independent of particular syllabus topics, being designed to test general mathematical potential.")
For STEP I and II, the mechanics part of the syllabus is described as "roughly equivalent" to M1 and M2, although questions may also cover anything in the pure part of the syllabus. For STEP III, there is no introductory blurb to the mechanics part.
Original post by ben-smith
Like you did, according to your previous post, I try to do the STEP mechanics questions in papers and, for the really old papers, you have to use stuff that's not even on M5. My teacher knew this and so told me I should do M6, regardless of whether the actual exam exists or not.
When I did STEP (back in 2008, oh gosh I feel so old!) I'd only done to M4 and all the FP modules on my exam board and found that for me there were enough questions that I could attempt and some of the mechanics ones were really nice. Often it's just being able to apply what you know in a different way, or using techniques you've learned in pure to help you solve mechanics questions.
Speaking from personal experience, the strategy of focussing on mechanics or statistics for STEP can work - having studied up to M5, I managed to answer all 3 mechanics questions on STEP III, which was probably the difference between a 2 and an S.
Original post by tommm
Speaking from personal experience, the strategy of focussing on mechanics or statistics for STEP can work - having studied up to M5, I managed to answer all 3 mechanics questions on STEP III, which was probably the difference between a 2 and an S.
Doing the mechanics questions was the difference between making my offer and not making my offer.
Something happen in the CMS today? There were University Security staff in the core...
Original post by Zhen Lin
Something happen in the CMS today? There were University Security staff in the core...
A woman started shouting at people and storming about. I think she must have had a mental breakdown or something, she was shouting asking if anyone knew the scandinavian defense in chess, then shouting about some philosopher. It was very surreal. Lasted about 2 hours before police escorted her out.
Original post by ForGreatJustice
A woman started shouting at people and storming about. I think she must have had a mental breakdown or something, she was shouting asking if anyone knew the scandinavian defense in chess, then shouting about some philosopher.
Who was the philosopher?
Does anyone know a quick way of looking up who are the leading figures in a field (with a view to working out whether it's worth pursuing getting supervised by them for a doctorate), other than going through 'Annals', 'Acta', 'Inventiones', etc. and seeing who's had stuff published there on the MSC codes you're after; and other than doing the obvious, asking around, asking a biggie in the field, etc.? There can't be a wholly objective definitive list, but I wondered whether someone had some tips?
(edited 12 years ago)
Nominations for worst lecturer, worst supervisor, and worst DOS.
Nomination: worst lecturer: did every lecture by running his cursor down a previous lecturer's notes, projected onto a screen, occasionally commenting that the previous lecturer could have done things better, when he wasn't telling everyone how easy the course was. Since the notes were online, there was absolutely no point in attending his lectures. Most people figured that out after the first 2 or 3. (He probably got a lot of complaints, because he didn't get to lecture the course the following year).
Nomination: worst supervisor: didn't go through any of our answers or even look at any of the questions, saying he found all of the questions "excruciatingly boring" (not just some of them, but all of them!!). Instead, he spent the time saying whatever came into his head about the subject - not especially interesting stuff, just stuff at the same kind of level as the questions. Notorious for using supervision time not listening to whatever his supervisees were saying (when they got a word in edgeways), but marking the answers of the guys he'd supervise in the following time-slot, usually on his lap where he thought we wouldn't notice.
Nomination: worst supervisor: covered every page with red ink, especially when everything on it was correct and the only 'corrections' were for things like 'writing a word with a letter sticking out slightly below the line' and 'writing an equals sign 2 millimetres to the left of where the supervisor would have preferred'. (Maybe was thinking of the advice given to exam markers, who are told to put some red ink on every page to indicate to checkers that they haven't turned over two pages by mistake?). Notorious for trying to wind up one member of each pair to get him to think he was mentally inferior to the other member. Abso-*******-lutely clueless!
None of this is the slightest bit exaggerated!!
Nomination: worst DOS: don't get me started! I know so many people who'd like to nominate theirs, at colleges ranging from the most prestigious to the newest.
Frankly you wonder how much training some of these people are given, and how often those responsible for their training actually a) notice they're not responding properly and learning what they should be learning about the job they want to be doing, b) try to instil some skill into them, and c) write down that 'this person did not respond to training, and ain't good enough to be a lecturer, DOS, or supervisor (whichever it might be)'.
I mean does anyone ever fail the training for being a lecturer, supervisor, or DOS? (This isn't a rhetorical question. I'd be very interested if someone who knows the answer could post it).
Or is it a case of 'appoint first, train later', with training being little more than a formality?
Come back 'rate your professor' - all is forgiven!
Yes...yes...I know many lecturers and supervisors, and even the occasional DOS, are very good at what they do. There are some excellent people in all of these roles at all types of college, and among postgrad students as well as professors - just as there are also some complete incompetents in all of those groups too. I'm only concentrating on the bad stuff here.
But nominations are now open!
Nomination: worst lecturer: did every lecture by running his cursor down a previous lecturer's notes, projected onto a screen, occasionally commenting that the previous lecturer could have done things better, when he wasn't telling everyone how easy the course was. Since the notes were online, there was absolutely no point in attending his lectures. Most people figured that out after the first 2 or 3. (He probably got a lot of complaints, because he didn't get to lecture the course the following year).
Nomination: worst supervisor: didn't go through any of our answers or even look at any of the questions, saying he found all of the questions "excruciatingly boring" (not just some of them, but all of them!!). Instead, he spent the time saying whatever came into his head about the subject - not especially interesting stuff, just stuff at the same kind of level as the questions. Notorious for using supervision time not listening to whatever his supervisees were saying (when they got a word in edgeways), but marking the answers of the guys he'd supervise in the following time-slot, usually on his lap where he thought we wouldn't notice.
Nomination: worst supervisor: covered every page with red ink, especially when everything on it was correct and the only 'corrections' were for things like 'writing a word with a letter sticking out slightly below the line' and 'writing an equals sign 2 millimetres to the left of where the supervisor would have preferred'. (Maybe was thinking of the advice given to exam markers, who are told to put some red ink on every page to indicate to checkers that they haven't turned over two pages by mistake?). Notorious for trying to wind up one member of each pair to get him to think he was mentally inferior to the other member. Abso-*******-lutely clueless!
None of this is the slightest bit exaggerated!!
Nomination: worst DOS: don't get me started! I know so many people who'd like to nominate theirs, at colleges ranging from the most prestigious to the newest.
Frankly you wonder how much training some of these people are given, and how often those responsible for their training actually a) notice they're not responding properly and learning what they should be learning about the job they want to be doing, b) try to instil some skill into them, and c) write down that 'this person did not respond to training, and ain't good enough to be a lecturer, DOS, or supervisor (whichever it might be)'.
I mean does anyone ever fail the training for being a lecturer, supervisor, or DOS? (This isn't a rhetorical question. I'd be very interested if someone who knows the answer could post it).
Or is it a case of 'appoint first, train later', with training being little more than a formality?
Come back 'rate your professor' - all is forgiven!
Yes...yes...I know many lecturers and supervisors, and even the occasional DOS, are very good at what they do. There are some excellent people in all of these roles at all types of college, and among postgrad students as well as professors - just as there are also some complete incompetents in all of those groups too. I'm only concentrating on the bad stuff here.
But nominations are now open!
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by trollbuster
But nominations are now open!
...wha? I don't know what you're trying to achieve. I'm not sure that naming and shaming, on TSR of all places, will do much to help. If you've had such a bad experience, have you complained to the Faculty?
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by nuodai
...wha? I don't know what you're trying to achieve.
Airing. Sharing. Discussion. Support. Knowledge.
Original post by nuodai
...I'm not sure that naming and shaming, on TSR of all places, will do much to help.
I wasn't suggesting anyone should name anyone. (Or that they shouldn't). I haven't named anyone anyway...
Original post by trollbuster
I mean does anyone ever fail the training for being a lecturer, supervisor, or DOS? (This isn't a rhetorical question. I'd be very interested if someone who knows the answer could post it).
I don't know how this works out in practice, but it's worth noting that my supervisors for more basic courses were generally better than those for more obscure courses. This suggests to me that the idea works, at least to some extent (I had a good DoS; it's possible that all that happened is that my college ended up taking the good supervisors and other colleges ended up with the bad ones). Where there are more people who can supervise, the better supervisors are chosen. Where there are fewer potential supervisors, you have to put up with what you can get.
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by trollbuster
Nomination: worst lecturer: did every lecture by running his cursor down a previous lecturer's notes, projected onto a screen, occasionally commenting that the previous lecturer could have done things better, when he wasn't telling everyone how easy the course was. Since the notes were online, there was absolutely no point in attending his lectures. Most people figured that out after the first 2 or 3. (He probably got a lot of complaints, because he didn't get to lecture the course the following year).
I know exactly who this is! I felt a great deal of pity when, 5 minutes into his first lecture, I decided "nope" and I haven't looked at the course since.
Related discussions
- What A levels should I pick for medicine
- Gap year applicant, style of interview
- Can I get into engineering with these subjects at A level?
- Applying to Cambridge Engineering with having given Maths a year early
- Maths at Oxford or Cambridge?
- Considering 4 A Levels
- Cambridge offers vs acceptances for maths
- LSE LLB Law? vs BA Law Cambridge University?
- I really don't understand Cambridge applications
- Oxford University - A-Level Entry Requirements
- A-levels needed for natural sciences at Cambridge
- Cambridge Natsci Admissions
- Oxbridge Admissions
- Cambridge Engineering
- AS level exam affecting my university application
- Oxford or Cambridge acceptance for Maths
- If I can't go to a uni for undergraduate degree, could I go to it as a postgraduate?
- A levels subjects
- Does college choice affect your overall chance of getting a maths offer at Cambridge?
- A Level Options for Medicine
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Official University of Cambridge offer-holders thread for 2024 entryLast reply 4 days ago
The Official Cambridge Applicants for 2024 Entry ThreadLast reply 5 days ago
The Official Cambridge Applicants for 2025 Entry ThreadLast reply 1 month ago
Myth of Cambridge admissions being just merit based - Mainly international studentsTrending
Last reply 3 days ago
Official University of Cambridge offer-holders thread for 2024 entryLast reply 4 days ago
The Official Cambridge Applicants for 2024 Entry ThreadLast reply 5 days ago
The Official Cambridge Applicants for 2025 Entry ThreadLast reply 1 month ago
Myth of Cambridge admissions being just merit based - Mainly international students
