Oxford MAT 2013/2014

I agree that it's better to have a dim outlook than to be overconfident, but people shouldn't be saying they have no chance when they get 57. It's very likely that there is a correlation between high MAT scores and offers, but like you said, that's partly because people who are smart get high MAT scores. If you did worse on the MAT than you could have, it's possible that your score doesn't represent your competence.
As for Cambridge interviews, their application process for Maths differs so radically from that of Oxford that I'm not sure whether that's a valid comparison. Oxford has the advantage that all applicants have taken a paper set by the university at the time of interview, whereas Cambridge doesn't.
I 100% agree that a higher MAT score makes you likelier to get an offer, but why exactly would Oxford interview people they know they're going to reject? Unless there's a fair chance (>20% of so) of getting in regardless of score, it just seems like a waste of money to accommodate and feed these applicants for 4 days, without there having been a fair chance at an offer.

I'm freaking out now. Pretty sure I'll get an interview; till now I've found that I've messed up one MCQ (I thought that f''(2x) meant differentiating f(2x) twice, haha). I'm pretty sure about my long answers, though, and I'll be surprised if I go below 80 (even 80 will be a bit of a disappointment). Anyone knows much about Skype interviews? What if there's an issue with audio/video/connectivity?

Posted from TSR Mobile

I agree someone with 57 shouldn't be told they have no chance, but to answer your query about why they'd interview someone with next to no chance - there will be the odd one or two applicants who are exceptional in the interview (and otherwise exceptional), but get a below-average to average MAT score for numerous reasons and Oxford will say it's worth financing an extra ~100 interview places to get those applicants (Oxford has more than enough money to do it anyway).

I don't really get your point about it not being "fair". Oxford could just as easily reject applicants with little chance of getting in post-MAT, but they give some of them a chance - I don't know why fairness needs to come into it, they performed worse on the MAT so they shouldn't be given an equal chance, it'd devalue the whole point of the MAT. Let's not forget that they generally interview 3-3.5 people so even if the MAT isn't taken into account at the interview stage, everyone only has a 27-30% of getting an offer. But the MAT is taken into account (along with the interview), and those applicants with 80+ on the MAT (which is easily ~125 people at interview) have a very good chance of getting an offer, this leaves everyone else fighting for the remaining ~100 places - so you'd probably be surprised at the proportion of applicants at interview that actually have a <20% chance of getting an offer.

Oxford and Cambridge's admission procedures are drastically different, but that wasn't the point I was trying to highlight - Cambridge interview people they're pretty sure they're not going to give an offer, but interview on the off chance they're brilliant in the interview, there's no reason why Cambridge would do this but Oxford not (for reasons highlighted above).

i dont understand how over half will have 80+ when in most recent years the average has been 68,71,69.... surely with that kind of average and that many getting over 80 you have loads of people filling the other ~100 places with scores in the low 60s !

I agree someone with 57 shouldn't be told they have no chance, but to answer your query about why they'd interview someone with next to no chance - there will be the odd one or two applicants who are exceptional in the interview (and otherwise exceptional), but get a below-average to average MAT score for numerous reasons and Oxford will say it's worth financing an extra ~100 interview places to get those applicants (Oxford has more than enough money to do it anyway).

I don't really get your point about it not being "fair". Oxford could just as easily reject applicants with little chance of getting in post-MAT, but they give some of them a chance - I don't know why fairness needs to come into it, they performed worse on the MAT so they shouldn't be given an equal chance, it'd devalue the whole point of the MAT. Let's not forget that they generally interview 3-3.5 people so even if the MAT isn't taken into account at the interview stage, everyone only has a 27-30% of getting an offer. But the MAT is taken into account (along with the interview), and those applicants with 80+ on the MAT (which is easily ~125 people at interview) have a very good chance of getting an offer, this leaves everyone else fighting for the remaining ~100 places - so you'd probably be surprised at the proportion of applicants at interview that actually have a <20% chance of getting an offer.

Oxford and Cambridge's admission procedures are drastically different, but that wasn't the point I was trying to highlight - Cambridge interview people they're pretty sure they're not going to give an offer, but interview on the off chance they're brilliant in the interview, there's no reason why Cambridge would do this but Oxford not (for reasons highlighted above).

I think there was an 8th power in it, only since you differentiated it became a 7th power.

Sorry, I meant 70+. Clearly those getting accepted isn't going to be a bell-curve, it'll be weighted towards the higher scores.

Are you scaremongering or something? There are about 180 places at Oxford and you're telling me 125 easily have score 80
with an average of 68 in one year? Im sorry but Im gonna call crap on that one. That leads to the rest of the people having an average of 40 - 41 lol

oh wait so to be clear, if someone has just over 70 it is likely that they are in the top 125 (pretty much at the 125th end) and have a fairly high chance of an offer?

Already replied to IceKidd saying I meant 70+ not 80+. 125 might be on the high side although I do have a good reason to suspect quite a lot of applicants do get 80+ on the MAT.

Someone worked the whole thing out and said that they got a coefficient of 0 for that, which is very, very annoying if it's true. Hopefully it ISN'T true and I get some more marks....

What do you think the distribution looks like, roughly? How many people do you estimate get 90+/ 80-89/ 70-79/ 60-69/ 50-59/ below 50? What fraction in each band do you think finally get selected?

Posted from TSR Mobile

I don't know, any values I give for the people scoring the different bands and the fraction in each band getting selected would be a guess. Although the distribution will probably consist of the majority getting 60-70, and then a large chunk of all those with 70+ also getting selected.

Notice to all CompSci students.. Just spoke to my director of studies and he said MAT isn't that important for CompSci. A few years ago, they gave somebody an offer who got in the bottom 20%! They consider every application separately

Okay. I think I'm getting 80-90 at least, so what will they be looking for in my interview? In that range, what are the things that lead to rejections? I'm international and I applied with literally minimum qualifications - anything less and I wouldn't have been able to apply. Just the SAT I and 3 SAT II's, most internationals will have more credentials. Btw, do you know how many incoming international undergrads get the Reach Oxford Scholarship every year? I'm guessing it's around 10, probably even less, but I don't have much data.

Posted from TSR Mobile

x

One more thing. In my PS I probably mentioned that I started studying a bit of real analysis and learnt about things like metric spaces over the summer. They'll understand that I'm just talking about an introduction, right? If they expect me to know that stuff as if I've been taught at Oxford then I'm screwed.

Posted from TSR Mobile