This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Mathematicians

I've got an offer from Cambridge for maths, and I'm deciding what to put down for my insurance.

It would be really helpful if you could answer the poll, and even more helpul if you could post reasons for your choice below. (This is only for maths students btw)

Thanks

Reply 1

fishpaste

I had warwick, I felt with their asking for STEP/AEA, and the general impression they gave at open day that they shared the cambridge ethos

Reply 2

led_zep

Don’t you think it’s a little presumptuous for you to assume that some people haven’t chosen these places over cam?

Reply 3

inequality

OP

7

led_zep

Don’t you think it’s a little presumptuous for you to assume that some people haven’t chosen these places over cam?

I doubt many have. But if that was the case I would be interested to know why.

Reply 4

synaesthesia

9

I didn't apply for Maths, but I know a fair bit about various Maths courses around the country. Depending on what you want, I'd go for either Imperial or Bath.

Warwick - seemed pretentious to me. I thought their asking for STEP was more of an effort to elevate themselves, given that what they want in STEP isn't *that* much of a differential when you have someone who has done double Maths. I don't like the location and I don't really like what the university has to offer in terms of socials and activities.

Bath - there are two really, really great lecturers there who would sway me, rather than the institution itself. Chris Budd - applied, Geoff Smith - pure. Both v. likeable people who teach very well - Smith is leader of the IMO atm, and Budd is in demand to give lectures showing how 'Maths can be fun' around the country. Compared to lecturers at some places, they're certainly lively and worth going to Bath for. Also lovely city, if a bit tourist-y, the rooms are self-contained if a little small, and nice campus.

Imperial - good teaching, good on research, and it's in London. Bonus. Gives impression of 'focused' instead of pretentious, and people there seemed easy to talk to.

Reply 5

trigtrig

synaesthesia

I didn't apply for Maths, but I know a fair bit about various Maths courses around the country. Depending on what you want, I'd go for either Imperial or Bath.

Warwick - seemed pretentious to me. I thought their asking for STEP was more of an effort to elevate themselves, given that what they want in STEP isn't *that* much of a differential when you have someone who has done double Maths. I don't like the location and I don't really like what the university has to offer in terms of socials and activities.

Bath - there are two really, really great lecturers there who would sway me, rather than the institution itself. Chris Budd - applied, Geoff Smith - pure. Both v. likeable people who teach very well - Smith is leader of the IMO atm, and Budd is in demand to give lectures showing how 'Maths can be fun' around the country. Compared to lecturers at some places, they're certainly lively and worth going to Bath for. Also lovely city, if a bit tourist-y, the rooms are self-contained if a little small, and nice campus.

Imperial - good teaching, good on research, and it's in London. Bonus. Gives impression of 'focused' instead of pretentious, and people there seemed easy to talk to.

thanks, v helpul

Reply 6

Mop

synaesthesia

Warwick - seemed pretentious to me. I thought their asking for STEP was more of an effort to elevate themselves, given that what they want in STEP isn't *that* much of a differential when you have someone who has done double Maths.

They only ask for STEP if you've just done single maths though. Anyway, I put Warwick as insurance, although I would have chosen Imperial if it wasn't in London (and obviously if I'd actually applied to it).

Reply 7

shiny

12

synaesthesia

Bath - there are two really, really great lecturers there who would sway me, rather than the institution itself. Chris Budd - applied, Geoff Smith - pure. Both v. likeable people who teach very well - Smith is leader of the IMO atm, and Budd is in demand to give lectures showing how 'Maths can be fun' around the country. Compared to lecturers at some places, they're certainly lively and worth going to Bath for. Also lovely city, if a bit tourist-y, the rooms are self-contained if a little small, and nice campus.

I think Chris Budd was teaching my supervisor when he was a fellow at Oxford :eek:

Reply 8

mctcdc0710

1

synaesthesia

I didn't apply for Maths, but I know a fair bit about various Maths courses around the country. Depending on what you want, I'd go for either Imperial or Bath.

Warwick - seemed pretentious to me. I thought their asking for STEP was more of an effort to elevate themselves, given that what they want in STEP isn't *that* much of a differential when you have someone who has done double Maths. I don't like the location and I don't really like what the university has to offer in terms of socials and activities.

Bath - there are two really, really great lecturers there who would sway me, rather than the institution itself. Chris Budd - applied, Geoff Smith - pure. Both v. likeable people who teach very well - Smith is leader of the IMO atm, and Budd is in demand to give lectures showing how 'Maths can be fun' around the country. Compared to lecturers at some places, they're certainly lively and worth going to Bath for. Also lovely city, if a bit tourist-y, the rooms are self-contained if a little small, and nice campus.

Imperial - good teaching, good on research, and it's in London. Bonus. Gives impression of 'focused' instead of pretentious, and people there seemed easy to talk to.

Oh comon! It depends on what field of mathematics u want to practice on. For example Warwick has an exceptional team in geometry (non-euclidiean of course :p:

) wheras Imperial is very good in combinations with physics(i.e Mathematical Physics. etc) I hear Sheffield for example has an excellent team on Number theory and Combinatorics (stuff that are very interesting indeed). Also ppl outgh to look how easily they may get positions for a PhD degree afterwards if they attend to a specific university. Imperial is the best of the 4 for the latter I mentioned.

Reply 9

synaesthesia

9

I still didn't like Warwick; there was a distinct arrogant feel about it to me. Wasn't helped by the fact that they still haven't got back to me, even with a receipt confirmation, from appying to Physical NatSci whilst I know that others have, and I'm sitting on some pretty nice offers from everywhere else I applied. And it's the middle of nowhere - debating is my life, so any university which wouldn't let me all the time was ruled out :wink:

/is geek

It's scary how many times I've just 'bumped into' Chris Budd. He's ubiquitous with his chaotic double-pendulum and bicycle...

Don't like combinatorics, number theory was fun when I could do it. Unfortunately, I mostly couldn't, which would be why I didn't get far on the IMO squad. The other issue being my distinct lack of work ethic. But hey, I could do the geometry. And what's this; Euclidean geometry is by far cleaner and more elegant than any other form. :P

Reply 10

shiny

12

I can't do pure maths!

Reply 11

minimo

15

synaesthesia

IThe other issue being my distinct lack of work ethic. :P

Hahaha...arn't you doing 8 A-Levels or something?! True Cambridge modesty!!
See you in Trinity...I'm up for Economics. (sort of thought I'd look at this thread since well...erm...there's Maths in Economics too :embarasse )

Reply 12

Mop

minimo

erm...there's Maths in Economics too :embarasse )

Stupid not particularly rigorous fake maths though :p:

... at least you're not as bad as the e*gineers, who all secretly want to be mathmos but can't resist primal urges to hit things with hammers and make grunting noises :wink:

Reply 13

shiny

12

Mop

Stupid not particularly rigorous fake maths though :p:

... at least you're not as bad as the e*gineers, who all secretly want to be mathmos but can't resist primal urges to hit things with hammers and make grunting noises :wink:

*gets out his hammer* *proud to be an engineer* :biggrin:

Reply 14

xyro

@michael mourao, can you tell me where you got this information from? i´ve been looking for that for months on google without any relevant results. or did you just browse through the different faculty pages stalking particular uni mathematicians? :biggrin:

Reply 15

fishpaste

Mop

Stupid not particularly rigorous fake maths though :p:

... at least you're not as bad as the e*gineers, who all secretly want to be mathmos but can't resist primal urges to hit things with hammers and make grunting noises :wink:

lol i dunno, one of my engineer friends was doing what basically looks like our A+G course the other day.

Reply 16

shiny

12

fishpaste

lol i dunno, one of my engineer friends was doing what basically looks like our A+G course the other day.

Engineers study methods, we just don't do all the proof stuff.

Reply 17

mctcdc0710

1

xyro

@michael mourao, can you tell me where you got this information from? i´ve been looking for that for months on google without any relevant results. or did you just browse through the different faculty pages stalking particular uni mathematicians? :biggrin:

Well I've done that also. But my father was a theoretical physicist who became a mathematician (he is now working at ITS Portugal). He knows ppl or ppl who know ppl. And because he is familiar with the subject he helped me out. Inner investigation :p:

synaesthesia

And what's this; Euclidean geometry is by far cleaner and more elegant than any other form. :P

Have you actually tried any other kind other than euclidian and/or analetic? The whole general theory of relativity is based on those things for goodness sake :p:

. Oh and also u can concider euclidian as a specific chapter of higher dimension geometries . Riemann >> Euclid :tongue:

layingba

Reply 18

shiny

12

Michael Mourao

Well I've done that also. But my father was a theoretical physicist who became a mathematician (he is now working at ITS Portugal). He knows ppl or ppl who know ppl. And because he is familiar with the subject he helped me out. Inner investigation :p:

Have you actually tried any other kind other than euclidian and/or analetic? The whole general theory of relativity is based on those things for goodness sake :p: