Mathematics Applicants 2012

I dont know if you have any tips, but im finding it hard to choose a maths course because unlike say german where it says: culture, language, literature etc... I dont know what some of the maths modules are so I dont know if i'll like them...?
Any ideas??

I dont know if you have any tips, but im finding it hard to choose a maths course because unlike say german where it says: culture, language, literature etc... I dont know what some of the maths modules are so I dont know if i'll like them...?
Any ideas??

Well you can look at first year syllabi if you like but the general layout will be something like this:

Top level unis (Oxbridge, Imperial, Warwick, Bath, Bristol etc.): analysis, calculus, linear algebra, maybe some other applied stuff like differential equations or stats.

Mid-level unis: some of the above and some stuff from further maths

Low-level unis: further maths.

After first year you will most likely get some choice and you will generally go down the "pure" or the "applied" route. This is not the same as A-level "pure" and "applied" - in fact A-level is almost all applied. Pure at uni level is analysis and linear algebra (and some other crazy things).

You shouldn't base your university decision on syllabus though, as you won't be able to tell what you like and don't like based on A-level maths.

I'm trying to choose places with lots of different 3rd/4th year modules, so that when I know what I'm interested in I'll be able to do it.

You don't have choose when you're applying do you? Isn't it only after you actually start the course

i cant believe someone said the mat is harder than step....no it aint!

MAT asks questions which are a bit twisted.....so does STEP! MAT isnt easy....as apparentli on average those tht do it get about half right. STEP requires more knowledge...even some may argue STEP 1 alone is harder than the MAT

i will be doing both next year...

So you're applying to Oxford and Warwick? Thought you'd be going for Cambridge, a "" such as yourself

Of course, they both test very different things. STEP requires a thorough understanding of A-Level Maths/Further, it's why spending 6 months 'revising' for STEP makes the exam considerably easier. I get the impression someone who isn't naturally talented at maths would find the MAT impossible (it definitely seemed to be like this at my old college, people who have to work a lot on maths struggle more with the MAT). I'm fairly sure the girl who didn't get interviewed the year before me (at Oxford) got something like S,1 in STEP for Warwick, but apparently she spent all of A2 revising for it (as she spent her summer holiday between AS and A2 working on A2 modules and the MAT).

oxford is better for maths than cambridge....there is a minute differance....and secondly....i feel it will be easier for me to go to oxford.....also the signs around me and advice given suggest....oxford is for me (not oxford brookes fffs )

u?

I havent done and arent planning on doing STEP or MAT....does it matter/hinder my chances? To be honest the only place ive heard about them is on here!! What are they exactly?

With maths do you just have exams or for some options can you do some other assessment method and no exam?

oxford is better for maths than cambridge....there is a minute differance....and secondly....i feel it will be easier for me to go to oxford.....also the signs around me and advice given suggest....oxford is for me (not oxford brookes fffs )

u?

oxford is better for maths than cambridge....there is a minute differance....and secondly....i feel it will be easier for me to go to oxford.....also the signs around me and advice given suggest....oxford is for me (not oxford brookes fffs )

u?

Really? Most of the really good mathematicians I know (i.e. international maths Olympiad participants/squad members) would not even consider oxford; with regard to consistently producing famous/successful alumni in maths/physical sciences, Cambridge has a much better history/ record (e.g. Hardy, Dirac, Littlewood, etc...). I feel that a very good mathematicians (who knows they are competent enough to get in to either...) has a better chance of getting into to Cambridge, as obtaining an offer is statistically easier. Some Oxford applicants apply not because of their preferences of one uni over another, but because of the reluctance to do STEP.

With regard to MAT/step/admission tests, I think Cambridge’s admission exams are more "intense". You may have time to prepare for step, but some colleges (e.g. trinity, churchill I think?) also have their own MAT style test before your interview, as well as the step-offer. This test alone for me seems harder than the MAT, and you are sitting them roughly around the same time.

That said, I may apply to oxford, because of personal reasons and as their people seemed nicer in the visit (e.g. Cam seems quite cramped, I was screamed at by a builder, and one of the guide students was run over quite badly by a speeding bike...).

How the hell does going to lectures, either so dumbed down that an a-level student could understand, or of such a standard you wouldn't be able to understand, possibly have any indication on the 'quality' of a university?

From what I've gathered over time, Oxford and Cambridge are around about the same level at undergraduate, but it's part III where Cam takes a definite lead.

Really? Most of the really good mathematicians I know (i.e. international maths Olympiad participants/squad members) would not even consider oxford; with regard to consistently producing famous/successful alumni in maths/physical sciences, Cambridge has a much better history/ record (e.g. Hardy, Dirac, Littlewood, etc...). I feel that a very good mathematicians (who knows they are competent enough to get in to either...) has a better chance of getting into to Cambridge, as obtaining an offer is statistically easier. Some Oxford applicants apply not because of their preferences of one uni over another, but because of the reluctance to do STEP.

With regard to MAT/step/admission tests, I think Cambridge’s admission exams are more "intense". You may have time to prepare for step, but some colleges (e.g. trinity, churchill I think?) also have their own MAT style test before your interview, as well as the step-offer. This test alone for me seems harder than the MAT, and you are sitting them roughly around the same time.

That said, I may apply to oxford, because of personal reasons and as their people seemed nicer in the visit (e.g. Cam seems quite cramped, I was screamed at by a builder, and one of the guide students was run over quite badly by a speeding bike...).

How the hell does going to lectures, either so dumbed down that an a-level student could understand, or of such a standard you wouldn't be able to understand, possibly have any indication on the 'quality' of a university?

From what I've gathered over time, Oxford and Cambridge are around about the same level at undergraduate, but it's part III where Cam takes a definite lead.

I can't speak for all maths courses but at Bath the vast majority are assessed by exam. Only final year projects (dissertations) have no exam element.

Some modules like stats in 1st and 2nd year and programming in 1st year have a coursework element. For stats it was 25% of the module and for programming it was 50%. Most modules are 100% exam though.

Saturday lectures tbh

Part III is fourth year right? I only plan on studying for 3 years regardless of which uni I go to