The difference between a 2:1 and a First with regards to career opportunities?

I actually agree with Jake22. Was just giving the counterpoint. Note, don't think students are being scammed.

Royal Holloway. Yes, the lecturer does have office hours; but again, if I were to go, I'd have to know what questions to ask. For that, I'd need a basic level of understanding of the content, which I seem to have.

The questions, however, seem to be drawing from intuition far more than the other courses - ie, there's no "groups" to the questions (where you can understand the proof for one question and then adapt it to other, similar questions), mostly because we haven't seen enough questions to become familiar with them.

I admit that I don't read around this module in particular, because I've lost all passion for it. I read around Calculus topics or Mechanics modules because they interest me and I genuinely enjoy doing them, but the lecturer hasn't made the topic interesting, and I have another 40 people who would completely agree with me.

To be fair, I try not to rote learn. I understand what I'm doing so I can at the very least know why I can create a solution in one way, whereas I cannot in another. I know plenty of peers who rote learn and can in no way remember, for example, what a vector space is from last year, which I agree, is pathetic and depressing. There are, however, the individuals with some level of understanding and enjoyment of mathematics who want to enjoy a topic but aren't inspired.

That, in my opinion, is a real shame. I actually learnt last year's course on Matrix Algebra from videos of a series of MIT lectures, since I had the same problem with a lecturer last year. The MIT lecturer made the subject interesting and taught it well, and I understood the concepts far more clearly than I ever did sitting in the lectures listening to the monotonous voice of my bored teacher. I got my highest mark in that module.

If my Group/Graph theory lecturer was a little more adept at teaching/inspiring, perhaps I'd be more inclined to learn the subject rather than complain about it.

My point was that Jake proposes students being pro-active, inquisitive, self-learning, etc. Rather than puppets who wrote learn and past-paper whore. I fully agree, but my point was universities can't charge thousands for 'tuition fees' and then force students to teach themselves from books. Students will be very happy to self-learn if the fees were scrapped; clearly they'd benefit from it too, as they'll understand the stuff rather than parrot learn. But the unis want the money.

What about those many times you think you're right but there's a flaw in your proof? Or what if you have a solution but there is a much better way to do things?

My point is that just because students now how to pay - why should our culture suffer by changing the nature of our universities just so that people feel that they are getting value for money? Surely the accreditation, guidance and resources are worth the money alone without anything else?

I actually felt the opposite - seeing as I had to pay for a university education; that was what I wanted, not just another 3-4 years of school which is basically what most maths degrees now are.

I guess this brings the debate of whether there's any point in degrees and going to university, other than jumping the hoop for employer tick-boxes. Obvious reasons for a doctor or engineer; but a maths degree can be learnt via the library/online. True (even moreso perhaps) for arts degrees.

Model solutions are awful - they don't tell you if there is a flaw in your proof, they tell you here is someone else's proof and 99% of the time people just believe it without checking it. They teach you nothing and detract from your mathematical education.

I agree with this. The big problem is that students have paid £3,000 a year to do it. So the idea that you should be paying someone so you can learn for yourself seems like a scam.

Meh. Engineering could be done through apprenticeships + book learning

3k? You're telling me that alot, are you?

The puppets at Imperial/other unis just learn them, with little understanding, and get 1sts/2.1's. As long as that is possible, it will continue. Degrees are just a passage people need to go through now, to get a job.

If you want to be stretched, look at IMO/BMO/STEP III/Hard IQ tests or whatever. Wrote learning model answers and doing familiar exam Qs will not stretch you.

I think you mean, rote?

Meh. Engineering could be done through apprenticeships + book learning

You're obviously not too fussed about the cost, and perhaps a potential lack of jobs after a degree, so you're happy. I like the idea in theory, and agree that understanding rather than wrote learning is what it should be about. But given the fees, and given the type of exams set and the 'model answers' handed out for every problem sheet and exam paper, the unis/gov have made it like this.

No. My point was that I prefer the old system of what universities used to be. I don't agree with tuition fees - I disagree with the whole system. What I am saying is that I am not going to change my mindset just because all of a sudden I have to pay (which is only on paper anyway seeing as it was all loans that I haven't even started to pay back yet) but rather I will approach university and try and get out of it what I want.

I just don't see the argument that just because people are paying, we have to turn universities into some job factory cum middle class national service.

I think you mean, rote?

I do. But rote reminds of writing, so I'm inclined to type 'wrote'. Rote reminds me of rota, which is pretty much unrelated. Sneaky language.

That's your problem then. If you can't be bothered to even try and say what you are confused about, then how you meant to correct misunderstanding. A lot of people complained about the linear algebra lecturer last year, however if you talked to her she helped. Again, at least try next time.

Thats a good thing. Sooner or later you need to get away from the copy and paste crap that you have been doing for years. Again, buy a book on abstract algebra and read it.

Having 40 people agree with you is the norm. Mostly the people who are going to score low. The people who are going to score high will say the complete opposite. I don't know if inspiration works like that. Still don't know what you want the lecturer to do? some sort of magic.

The MIT lecturer is the best lecturer in linear algebra, his books are probably the best introduction to it. So don't see your problem. Everyone last year complained about the linear algebra lecturer I had last year, but if you just spend like ten minutes talking to her she would help massively. Alternatively, you could say you got the highest mark in that because you did some independent work.

I would just say you suck at group theory and are using it as a excuses. You can't be good at every subject. Sooner or later rote learning and depending on the lecturer to make you do work is going to fail. Note, I feel your pain as I hated number theory I had to do last year and never really understood it.