Do UKMT math challenges really matter for top uni applications?

I don't know whether they reflect your true mathematical ability, but if you do well in any thing mathematical it's bound to look good on your application (for maths of course).

Probably less so now there's A* at A-level. They're worth mentioning, but they're hardly Maths, it's all numeracy, it's like saying you're great at French in an application for an English language course.

Well in my opinion no and I have consulted others on this matter. The reason why: compare a STEP paper to UKMT maths challenge paper - the STEP is a MUCH BETTER representation of what maths is like at uni.

Okay. That's good to know. I just got a little worried cause I didn't get an award at all even though I'm probably one of the brightest in my maths class.

I would say I'm looking forward to STEP but from what I've heard it's not the sort of thing to look forward to.

Thanks for your help.

Probably less so now there's A* at A-level. They're worth mentioning, but they're hardly Maths, it's all numeracy, it's like saying you're great at French in an application for an English language course.

I would disagree. I think they require greater skills in logic and ingenuitive thinking than GCSEs and A level. The content may be predominantly numerical, but the thought processes required are, in my opinion, more in the spirit of university maths. I'm speaking as someone who has done all of the aforementioned and is studying maths at university.

I'm speaking as exactly the same, and I think it's safe to say anyone who comments will be too, it's meaningless for anyone else to say anything.
You kind of need to remember that different unis do different sorts of Maths though, there's no standardised syllabus at this level. Yours is obviously more of an applied course, which is in the minority by far. I agree they need more, which is why I said they're still worth mentioning, but they only need more in that you're not explicitly shown what you need to be using, it's a practically negligible difference.

Well, although you're correct, it would be meaningless for them to comment, they still do on this forum, and in voume. And I have no idea why you think I am doing an applied course; I take almost exclusively pure modules. You've then gone on to agree with me that they need more? For a maths student, your arguments are a bit disorganised.

Wow, you're quick enough to bite there. Ever thought that you might have mistook what I said since we're using subjective terms?
Pure and Applied themselves aren't so clear cut, pure isn't everything that's not stats or mechanics. Read up on a couple of pure mathematicians and you'll find they all have very different ideas of what does and doesn't constitute pure maths, the same can happen here. And even then, pure modules can be taught in a more applied fashion to help understanding, their basis doesn't discount it at all.
Don't be so quick to assume others have screwed up, you can misunderstand things, or even just not know them.

As for agreeing with you, I don't see how it went against what I was saying at all personally. Yes you had a valid point, but I think you're overstating it. You said the same sort of thing to me originally too, it doesn't mean everything you said is wrong.

Read innerhollow and OMGWTFBBQ's comments, they've said the same as me more anecdotally, it might help you understand what I was saying.