AS further maths?

you NEED further maths to stand a chance for top Unis such as Warwick

hey guys, in my first year at college and i'm taking maths, economics, history and geography. i'm predicted 4 A's at AS and i'm planning on dropping geography in my second year. I've been thinking about taking economics at uni, preferably warwick depending on my grades. Do you think it would be worth taking an AS in further maths in my second year? would it be worth the effort if i'm hoping to go to warwick? thanks

No you don't.

True, but further maths is common amongst Warwick Economics applicants and a lack of it puts you at a disadvantage.

Lacking Further Maths does not necessarily put you at a disadvantage either (you could study Physics instead). I would say, perhaps, at most, it alleviates some pressure to have the best personal statement/work experience. If having a great personal statement/work experience is not a problem for you anyway though then this alleviation really doesn't mean anything for the applicant.

Whilst many students at Warwick might have taken Further Maths at A level, that is not necessarily to say that Further Maths is an important reason they got there.

That said, OP, take FM if you want to as there's no denying it might help you, but you don't need it.

First, it does put you at a disadvantage, Physics (although quantitative) does not cover it to the same depth as Warwick would like, which is evident from last years batch of applicants(i.e the majority of everyone who did not take further maths in some way was rejected) .

Work experience for economics is so rare, the only real way you can have Economics works experience is to shadow an economist. Unless it is like this, then work experience is in most irrelevant.

I would say that it was certainly a good part of why they got there.
The question is how competitive does the OP want to be?

Before I continue discussion let me make clear that my main argument is against the use of limiting, definitive language such as, "you need," or, "it is definitely" - and not much else. Also that you shouldn't strongly state your claims based on evidence which does not necessarily prove your point.

--

Like I said, FM takes pressure off obtaining good work experience and having a good personal statement (so it can be an advantage. My point was a good candidate without FM (but other good subjects) is still a good candidate and FM at AS would not really make a difference to such an applicant.)
It can be? It is an advantage whether you have a good personal statement/ work experience or not. They aren't as competitive as a candidate with good subjects and fruther maths, yes it would make a difference to such an applicant. As there are thousands of applicants who have good subjects who lack further maths, hence this gives the OP and a competitive advantage.

Not sure if you can say "Physics does not cover the same depth as Warwick would like" based on the fact that "the majority of everyone who did not take FM in some way was rejected (from Warwick)". Also this does nothing to show whether or not FM students are more likely to get in because of FM instead of bright students coincidentally taking FM.
You were referring it to being a replacement for further maths which it is not. The second point was not backing up the original statement, this was to prove the value of FM in itself. It is because they are birght that they took further maths, as they knew the top universities for economics, highly value it.

The point of Physics at A level is that it is a traditional, applied maths subject, so it shows you can somewhat think. Additionally, you have to offer four A2 subjects if you offer FM at A2 with A2 Maths, instead of the usual three. Take into consideration how likely you are to get your A* or A grades. That said, if you can't get an A or B in FM then there is not much point in wasting your time in it if you could push your Maths prediction to an A* with the time instead.
This simply means if you can't handle that workload for Warwick (the most quantitative Economics degree in Europe) and gain good grades, then you shouldn't be there.
Relevant work experience is not rare - you can find work experience which will be useful in more places than the trading floor, the Bank of England or the Big Four. Small firms can offer very insightful work experience in more ways than one. In fact, you can link almost any work experience to Economics.
Trading floor isn't economics, nor is the BofE nor the Big Four .. It is not going to be directly relevant to your ability to do economics: I can imagine no work experience that you can have done that can show economic ability. Only work experience in General can show you have people skills etc.
Work experience is irrelevant? I am trying to think of a reason as to why you would state this assuming the applicant can write.If you have finance experience and say that you want to do finance in the future, as economic qualifications are valued in that industry, this will mean you have a certain level of commitment to studying economics when it gets tough. That is the only way I can think of it as being relevant.