Cambridge Maths Students and Applicants

I also have no idea why Cam students don't crowdsource a solution pack if the faculty is too stuck in its ways.

At least one of my supervisors has typed solutions for several courses, and does not release them. There must be a good reason for it.

There's basically no point doing a supervision if you've given out your supervision solutions already (speaking as a supervisor).

As the saying goes, "if you see a lone gatepost in the desert, don't take it down until you know why it was built". Several times I have been very tempted to begin one of these, and several times I have almost released my scanned lecture notes into the wild. However, the former especially is an action which is completely irreversible: if I ever released anything, someone would take a copy, and then if I discovered that really the world was better without the solutions, I couldn't take them down.

At least one of my supervisors has typed solutions for several courses, and does not release them. There must be a good reason for it.

Also, even though the full consequences of releasing answers may not be apparent at this point, I think it is safe to say that the consequences are not going to be severe enough either way to let the irreversibility be a serious factor in determining whether to start a collaborative effort or not.

For all I know, the consequences could be "over the next ten years, a quarter of Cambridge mathmos are irreparably stunted because they didn't work hard enough because the past paper answers were available".

past papers are available at every other uni with solutions...are those departments completely flawed?

insufficient data for meaningful answer

What data would you like. to compare with a lesser, but similarly regarded institution for maths, here are imperials resources: www.imperial.ac.uk/natural-sciences/departments/mathematics/study/students/undergraduate/pastexampapers

The syllabuses aren't the same. Of the various papers from various years I've looked at, they are either all trivial (because I've done them before) or impossible (because I've never seen the material - mainly refers to applied courses and scattered bits of terminology in the pure courses). I can't compare them. Anyway, what was this meant to prove?

I dony know what it was meant to prove. you vaguely asked for data so i provided what i best thought that meant in the context.

Trivial or not many of those papers are on the same courses at cambridge. Were not disputing cambridge math is harder, but if you look you will see a top instituion for maths as imperial (and warwick also, but theyre behind passwords alongside papers for student access only) provide solutions.

So you seem to be implying then that all top math institutions are being very damaging and frankly then misinformed?

i dont wish to attack you personally, just your argument. To me it seems more like the math department are just stuck in their ways, and dont really care if theyre making things awkard as it just makes it harder for students to do well so they can differentiate more (but differentiation not on mathematics then)

I don't assert "very damaging". Merely "may be damaging". It would be so easy for them to release solutions, that there must be a good reason for their not doing it.

(Read this in all-caps - TSR corrected it)

insufficient data for meaningful answer

Or maybe theres not..i dont seevwhy there must be.

In general, cambridge tned to stick with tradition rather than pathing out a new, better route. I think its fairly clear theyre just stuck in their ways..

Does anyone have a list of grade boundaries for 1A pre-2013?

Yarp. In the format YEAR: mark (alphas,betas) for each of the 1/2.1, 2.1/2.2, 2.2/3 boundaries:

2005: 354 (11,11), 256 (7,11), 199 (4,9)
2006: 360 (10,14), 261 (5,11), 176 (3,6)
2007: 360 (10,12), 260 (4,10), 205 (2,10)
2008: 330 (12,8), 231 (7,6), 181 (5,4)
2009: 295 (10,8), 210 (6,5), 161 (4,4)
2010: 330 (13,5) / 364 (11,12), 248 (8,6) / 261 (6,11), 195 (5,5) / 220 (3,6)
2011: 334 (12,8) / 311 (13,7), 263 (4,13) / 257 (7,6), 210 (4,7) / 223 (2,11)
2012: 361 (13,8) / 321 (15,4), 296 (7,11) / 270 (10,7), 230 (8,5) / 240 (6,8)

Is that mark the raw mark, or merit mark?

Yarp. In the format YEAR: mark (alphas,betas) for each of the 1/2.1, 2.1/2.2, 2.2/3 boundaries:

2005: 354 (11,11), 256 (7,11), 199 (4,9)
2006: 360 (10,14), 261 (5,11), 176 (3,6)
2007: 360 (10,12), 260 (4,10), 205 (2,10)
2008: 330 (12,8), 231 (7,6), 181 (5,4)
2009: 295 (10,8), 210 (6,5), 161 (4,4)
2010: 330 (13,5) / 364 (11,12), 248 (8,6) / 261 (6,11), 195 (5,5) / 220 (3,6)
2011: 334 (12,8) / 311 (13,7), 263 (4,13) / 257 (7,6), 210 (4,7) / 223 (2,11)
2012: 361 (13,8) / 321 (15,4), 296 (7,11) / 270 (10,7), 230 (8,5) / 240 (6,8)

As the saying goes, "if you see a lone gatepost in the desert, don't take it down until you know why it was built". Several times I have been very tempted to begin one of these, and several times I have almost released my scanned lecture notes into the wild. However, the former especially is an action which is completely irreversible: if I ever released anything, someone would take a copy, and then if I discovered that really the world was better without the solutions, I couldn't take them down.

At least one of my supervisors has typed solutions for several courses, and does not release them. There must be a good reason for it.