Competition - post a photo you've taken of nature >>

Oxford PPE (Philosophy, Politics and Economics) Students and Applicants

Scroll to see replies

Reply 160

Crazy Mongoose

primitivefuture

Mods, please make this thread into a sticky.

There is a forum called "Ask A Mod", it's down as AAM right at the top of your bar.

Reply 161

London Prophet

Crazy Mongoose

There is a forum called "Ask A Mod", it's down as AAM right at the top of your bar.

Scooooore!

Amen.

If you haven't done two of the subjects in PPE, surely it would be a lot harder for you to get in? People say you don't need to have done any of the subjects etc because they're looking for people who can think not necessarily people with knowledge, but surely given the fact that it's Oxford there will be enough candidates already doing two/three of the subjects that there will be enough intelligent people from that pool of people to reject those who have only done one or none of the subjects? How are you supposed to impress an interviewer if you only know a tiny bit about the subject? Or are you expected to have done a lot of reading beforehand?

Reply 164

edmundwillis

The prospectus only recommends Mathematics and History for A Level but even these are not required by any means. I study Mathematics, History, Physics and Further Mathematics and received an offer. It really is not so uncommon to have studied none of the degree components at A Level.

For reading around the subject see: http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?p=4071525#post4071525.

I should emphasise that amounts of further reading vary from candidate to candidate. Also, an academic, textbook understanding of subjects not studied at A Level is not required. However, applicants should probably know enough about the subjects to be able to explore the basic questions and ideas and to know why they wish to commit themselves to the degree programme.

Reply 165

London Prophet

The Ace is Back

Enthusiasm and the ability to think is all they care about. I would say the average PPEist has done one of the three subjects beforehand (for me it was Economics). In interview they can see how well you think better if you haven't done one of the subjects.

Reply 166

sebbie

Just had a look at the admissions test on the site: http://www.admissions.ox.ac.uk/interviews/tests/PPE.pdf

For the maths questions are these the right answers?

3a i) 30 minutes
ii) everyone will apply as everyone will want a chance to cut journey times by 10 minutes

b) i)not sure on this, presumably everyone will try by car as it offers the potential of getting there faster?
ii) 4000 people will drive
iii) 60% choose train

what about the question in the original post, "There is a game with two players, You may guess numbers between 1-100. The object is to guess half the opponents number. What do you guess?" i would say around 10?

Reply 167

Champagne Breakfast

sebbie

I would guess 1 because that way it's impossible for him to guess the right answer for yours but there is still the possibility he will guess a 2.

Guessing 100 would be silly because his answer can't possibly be 200, and therefore you can also assume that you shouldn't guess 50 (as you assume his answer also won't be 100). From this you can assume you shouldn't guess anything above 50 either because double that can't possibly be his number, so that leaves only 1-49. But because you assume that your opponent has worked this out as well and won't be guessing 50-100, you can also decide not to guess anything between 25-50 (half those numbers). That leaves you 1-24. But if he decides not to guess anything between 25-50 as well, then that leaves you with 1-12 (I think). And at this point I'm *bloody* confused. I would just go with 1.

Oh hang on I think you can cancel it all the way down - 1-6, 1-3, 1-1

Reply 168

Champagne Breakfast

3a i) is right
ii) I agree, everyone will apply for a license (assuming their aim is to cut their travel time)

b) i) I think not everyone will drive because some will assume that everyone else will apply, or at least that enough will apply to make the travel time longer than that of the train, and thus not take the risk and go by train as they know exactly how long it will take. Usually those who definitely have at least 40 minutes to spare.
ii) 4001 surely? Unless I've done my maths wrong. Which is quite possible. I said it would be 20 + n/200 = 40, and then once I got n adding on 1 because you start off with the 1 driver who does it in 20 minutes.
iii) correct

Reply 169

Alan Smithee

Hmm, I put 4000, but your logic seems right.

Those questions are surprisingly easy compared to what I would've expected.

Reply 170

samlangfield

The Ace is Back

(assuming their aim is to cut their travel time)

b) i) I think not everyone will drive because some will assume that everyone else will apply, or at least that enough will apply to make the travel time longer than that of the train, and thus not take the risk and go by train as they know exactly how long it will take. Usually those who definitely have at least 40 minutes to spare.

Firstly, it states that the objective is to minimise travel time as an axiom in the question.

Secondly, everyone will apply for a license. The fact that everyone else will apply is a disincentive, given that it would reduce the odds for getting a license, but it would not turn them off completely (there's still a fairly good chance). Enough cannot apply to make the travel time longer than that of the train, because the council will only give out licenses to a select few, and these few on the roads would make travelling by car quicker, whatever.

Reply 171

Champagne Breakfast

samlangfield

Firstly, it states that the objective is to minimise travel time as an axiom in the question.

No it doesn't. Their decision is based 'solely on the basis of the expected journey time'. Thus if we're going to be accurate/pedantic about it, we have to say 'assuming their aim is to cut travel time'.

samlangfield

Secondly, everyone will apply for a license. The fact that everyone else will apply is a disincentive, given that it would reduce the odds for getting a license, but it would not turn them off completely (there's still a fairly good chance). Enough cannot apply to make the travel time longer than that of the train, because the council will only give out licenses to a select few, and these few on the roads would make travelling by car quicker, whatever.

Not everyone will apply for a license, because the local council 'decides instead that car usage should be unrestricted', and thus there will be no licenses to be applied for. Prospective PPE student? Pssshhh.

Reply 172

RxB

you can get more than one person in a car!

Reply 173

sebbie

i fail to see how its 4001, i think its 4000! (it says it adds ONE MINUTE TO EVERYONE's driving time per 200 cars, therefore i fail to see why you need to add 1)

obviously you can get more than one person in a car but i thought the question implied people wouldnt share lifts otherwise surely they'd just get a coach or something....

Reply 174

London Prophet

Td = Time taken for Drivers, Tt = time taken for train goers (40 mins) n = number of people driving

Td = 20 + n/200 (where n/200 is assumed rounded down to the nearest integer)

3)a)i) How long would it take for those that applied for the license?

Td = 20 + 2000/200 = 30 mins

3)a)ii) How many would apply for a licens[e

Even at full capacity the driving journey is quicker so everyone will apply (i.e. all 10,000 people of which 2,000 will get it)

3)b)i) If there were infinite licenses then would everyone travel by car?

If all 10,000 drove then Td = 20 + 10000/200 = 70 mins which is longer than the train trip so NO

3)b)ii) If car journey time equals train jourmey time then how many people drive?

Td = Tt, what is n

20 + n/200 = 40

n/200 = 20 (remembering n/200 rounded DOWN to nearest integer)

we need to know the limiting number first

n = 4,000, therefore Td = 40

If n = 3,999 then Td = 20 + 19.xxxx (rounds down to 39), therefore more trainers will drive.

For the upper limit:

n/200 < 21 (remembering n/200 rounded DOWN to nearest integer)

n < 4,200

So:
4,000 people will DEFINITELY go by Car
199 people are indifferent to either Car or Train

3)b)iii) What percentage take the train

5,801 of 10,000 people DEFINITELY take the train (58.01%)
199 of 10,000 people are indifferent to car or train (1.99%)

% of people taking the train is between 58.01% and 60% inclusive

Reply 175

London Prophet

You've all fallen into the trap of believing "20 + n/200" is the formula .... it's not unless you add a stipulation that n/200 is rounded DOWN to the nearest integer

The concise version of the post above:

3)a)i) 30 mins
3)a)ii) Everyone
3)b)i) Debatably Yes (ignore above answer)
3)b)ii) Between 4,000 - 4,199 (inclusive)
3)b)iii) Between 58.01% - 60% (inclusive)

Reply 176

Champagne Breakfast

sebbie

Ahhhh good point, good point. It's going to take me years to understand what Tom Holder has done.

Reply 177

London Prophet

The Ace is Back

Ahhhh good point, good point. It's going to take me years to understand what Tom Holder has done.

Essentially i came up with 4,000 the sme way you will have, but if you add one more person driving it will not change the length of time taken (it takes a full 200 people to make any change). So that 199 people could take the train or car and not change the length of time taken to do either.

Reply 178

Champagne Breakfast

Tom can you explain all this rounding down to the nearest integer stuff please? Would they honestly expect people to do that?

Reply 179

London Prophet

I doubt they'd expect it.

I'm re-reading the question and I'm becmoing unsure of it as well.

"each additional 200 cars adds 1 minute to everyone's driving time"

Does that mean an extra 100 cars adds half a minute or that an extra 100 cars doesn't change the driving time? If the former then I'm wrong and the answer is 4,000, If the latter then I'm right with my above answers.