Cambridge Maths Students and Applicants

I would greatly appreciate any help on this matter, thank you!

Here's the original thread with those questions and (some?) answers. I suspect if you could solve 30% within a few minutes of Jessica posting the list you'll be fine at interview...

http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=320602

Posted from TSR Mobile

I worked through those questions too. Some of them are harder than others but I am pretty sure that they won't be ask. I watched the interview video, and they asked to a girl to sketch 1/sin(x) (not really hard ^^) so it will be probably less harder.

I'm french so I studied all my math program of this year and when I went to Cambridge during open days I bought pure core 2 and 3 and further core 2 and 3. I only studied all pure 2 and 3 and if I have an offer I will study further.
And yes I've been looking at Step I and II, but compare to questions above Step is a bit harder and longer, however I think it's a good practise.

Oh cool, so prior to the interview you will have only completed Core 1, 2 and 3? What about the applied modules such as Decision, Mechanics and Statistics? What are you wearing for your interview?

So do you think it is worth practicing with STEP papers?

It's always worth practising with STEP papers!

We do lot of statistics and probabilities in France, and I don't think they will ask me something about Mechanic because I didn't say that I studied it in my SAQ and I didn't choose math with physic.

i don't know if it is really worth practising Step but you should practise because if you have an offer you will have to do it so it won't be a waste of time.

3) I know why I want to do Maths and why I have chosen my specific college. Obviously this is important but considering the interview is only 45 minutes how much time will they spend asking you about this?

4) I know a bit about the history of Mathematics too - is this something they go into (Role model, favourite Mathematician, favourite topic)?

6) Lastly, what is everybody wearing? I was thinking of wearing something like this except with smart trousers and shoes. Is that appropriate or should I just go for a suit?

Other questions

- If you have an early interview are you going to travel there on the day or will you get there the night before and stay in a B&B?
- Do they ask you about your non-maths A-Levels as well?

Thank you for your time and good luck!

Can't give you too specific maths advice. But they won't ask you anything about why you picked that college - in fact, interviewers are forbidden to ask this. If you have a 'general interview', you might go into some of your personal statement, why you want to study maths. If you only have academic interviews, they won't spend any time on this and will just ask you questions about maths.

For clothes, wear what's comfortable - please don't go in a suit, if only because you'll look like a **** in front of the other applicants. I'm pretty sure I went in a hoody and jeans.

If you have an early interview and live far away, most colleges will provide accomodation - I'm surprised you haven't heard anything about this.

They won't ask about your non-maths A-Levels.

Right now I'm very reluctant to direct towards Cambridge (for example) a quiet, unassuming kid who is very advanced mathematically. I'm not at all sure that she won't be bored the first year with classes in material she already knows, and sit quietly in supervisions that don't teach her anything; she won't say anything, and generally just study on her own much as she has to in school now.

anyone who is capable of benefiting from learning it before their third year (Cambridge has an undergraduate course which is highly unusual) is able to ask to take supervisions in that course early.

Cambridge in many ways breeds yes-men who haven't got much intellectual ground to stand on of their own making, ground from which they could give a considered view of 'the system' and of what very bright, very driven students might be able to get out of it. Someone like Grothendieck would have been crushed at Cambridge. Cambridge won't yield any Grothendiecks or even a Wolfram.

One might argue that Cambridge's not yielding a Wolfram is really a blessing…

I don't much like Stephen Wolfram's personality, nor do I think his work is anywhere near as earth-shattering as he thinks it is (I don't think anybody does!), but he went off on a really big one intellectually, he got his teeth into it for years on end, and he pushed it a long way (even if it doesn't explain the universe, so he's mistaken about how deep he's pushed it) - and he deserves credit for that. Those are aspects of what I'd call a good research attitude, for all else that might be said about Wolfram's work or indeed his research attitude. All of what I've italicised also applies to Alexander Grothendieck, Isaac Newton, etc.

I think Wolfram has more intellectual drive and oomph than most academics who work their way up through the journal system. That's even if he could have used a bit of advice in earlier life to examine his assumptions. ("Hey Steve, I know you went to Eton but are you sure that cellular automata are the answer to everything? I mean really sure? Or is it just an idea you're investigating, and which might turn out to be false? So how might you falsify it, Steve? Let's meet once you've had some thoughts on that ")

He's rigorous, though. Got to admit that. You couldn't even tell him "hey, when Leibniz published on the binary system he was influenced by the I-Ching, so be careful you don't get too AI-y from being too bogged down in the preconceptions of this benighted tiny little period in history you're living in", because he's been there and considered that, albeit (unfortunately) not in those exact terms and even if he does seem to believe that Leibniz's role in the history of the universe was as a precursor to the great Steve

I've read some of his book A New Kind of Science, and although I only knew about a few tiny areas among those that he covers, I can confirm that he covers those areas with rigour and that he makes a serious effort to get to the bottom of them. That's the opposite of the feeling I get from a lot of academic articles (and other kinds of article), where if the author mentions parenthetically or in a footnote some area that's tangential to his main focus, and it happens to be an area you know a lot about, you often think "oh goodness, he's pretending he's got this wide outlook but he doesn't really know what he's talking about on this point - he makes elementary errors".

smaug123 - if you get the feeling that the Cambridge system doesn't teach people how really to think, I'd call you very bright, not the opposite.

I'm in Year 11. I was planning to apply to do Maths at Cambridge but I heard that only one person from my school has got in in the last ten years, and his offer was 44 points at IB (which is ridiculously high), so now I am not so sure. How important are GCSE results, and do most people have all or nearly all A*s? And do most people do more than 4 AS-levels? Also, my school offers the choice between IB and A-levels. Will one be easier to get in with than the other? I know that at IB I would have to do HIgher Level Maths and Physics, and I would have to do double Maths if I choose A-levels, but would doing Physics A-level make much of a difference? This year I sat the UKMT Senior Challenge and got through to the Kangaroo. To have a realistic chance of getting in do you need to be the kind of person who's getting a high score in the BMO1 or getting through to the BMO2? I go to a private school, so that would probably set the bar a bit higher (hence the 44 points offer). I know that's a lot of questions but I would really appreciate it if you could answer any of them. Thanks

I'm in Year 11. I was planning to apply to do Maths at Cambridge but I heard that only one person from my school has got in in the last ten years, and his offer was 44 points at IB (which is ridiculously high), so now I am not so sure. How important are GCSE results, and do most people have all or nearly all A*s? And do most people do more than 4 AS-levels? Also, my school offers the choice between IB and A-levels. Will one be easier to get in with than the other? I know that at IB I would have to do HIgher Level Maths and Physics, and I would have to do double Maths if I choose A-levels, but would doing Physics A-level make much of a difference? This year I sat the UKMT Senior Challenge and got through to the Kangaroo. To have a realistic chance of getting in do you need to be the kind of person who's getting a high score in the BMO1 or getting through to the BMO2? I go to a private school, so that would probably set the bar a bit higher (hence the 44 points offer). I know that's a lot of questions but I would really appreciate it if you could answer any of them. Thanks