Oxford MAT 2013/2014

I am so annoyed with myself- I genuinely don't think I'm going to be shortlisted for an interview. I didn't click with Question 4 at all, or the fact it was geometry- I was using calculus to calculate the area! Will I get any marks for this at all? Can't describe how annoyed I am with myself, especially when I realised how easy it was the second I was out of the exam hall! Questions 2,3 and 5 were okay (five being my strongest, I think) and in Question 1, I reckon I have got a minimum of 6/10. P.s., I checked the coefficient of x^7 in that multiple choice question, and I got a positive number :smile:

Doesn't mean it is right though! Do you think you can get shortlisted with a score of 50 or above (I'm hoping I've at least got this!)

Are you sure about the coefficient? 2 people said they're sure it was 0 but if you remember the question, that'd be even better. Yep, you would be interviewed but you'd have to impress them a lot.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 1241

Noble.

17

Original post by shamika

Completely irrelevant for most people on the thread, but shame on you for thinking metric spaces are merely a precursor to complex analysis! They're incredibly important in their own right :tongue:

Spoiler

Sorry! I didn't mean to suggest it's just a precursor to complex analysis, that's just the way it's initially bought up in the way Oxford teaches metric spaces/complex analysis (as they use results from metric spaces to teach complex analysis - although I know it can be done without metric spaces or even the other way around).

Reply 1242

Blazy

8

Original post by shamika

Completely irrelevant for most people on the thread, but shame on you for thinking metric spaces are merely a precursor to complex analysis! They're incredibly important in their own right :tongue:

Spoiler

If you're lucky, you might even get asked 'What books have you read?' despite mentioning them on your personal statement - i.e. they don't even bother reading your PS... :tongue:

Reply 1243

1298977

1

Original post by shamika

Completely agree with not putting them on your PS though, god help the person who gets asked about anything metric space related at interview. The chances of getting asked about metric spaces, even if mentioned on your PS, are minimal. I mentioned elliptic curves and modular forms on my PS and never got asked once about them.

Okay.

We can unanimously agree that I'm an idiot. How much should I know about metric spaces in case they choose to grill me on it?

Original post by revelry26

80-90?! Whoa! I thought you said the test was okay, not that good. 80-90 is okay?? :P

Posted from TSR Mobile

Well...

I wanted a bit more. :tongue:

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 1244

Noble.

17

Original post by souktik

Okay.

We can unanimously agree that I'm an idiot. How much should I know about metric spaces in case they choose to grill me on it?

Well... :biggrin:

I wanted a bit more. :tongue:

Posted from TSR Mobile

Isn't it overly obvious? :tongue:

If they're going to "grill" you on it, by definition they're going to go hardcore :lol:

There's nothing interesting to be learnt by "grilling" someone on basic definitions/theorems which just requires someone to learn it off by heart - instead they'd look for actual understanding and knowledge of "what's going on behind the scenes".

It's still very unlikely they'll ask you about it though.

Reply 1245

1298977

1

Original post by Noble.

Isn't it overly obvious? :tongue:

If they're going to "grill" you on it, by definition they're going to go hardcore :lol:

There's nothing interesting to be learnt by "grilling" someone on basic definitions/theorems which just requires someone to learn it off by heart - instead they'd look for actual understanding and knowledge of "what's going on behind the scenes".

It's still very unlikely they'll ask you about it though.

Okay. I know I'm being paranoid, but what kind of questions should I be able to answer to satisfy them even a little? Can you give me a couple of examples, please? Yeah, I know that they won't care if I know some simple theorem by heart. :tongue:

Since I learnt just a little and completely by myself, I really don't know if I've got any actual understanding at all.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 1246

Noble.

17

Original post by souktik

Okay. I know I'm being paranoid, but what kind of questions should I be able to answer to satisfy them even a little? Can you give me a couple of examples, please? Yeah, I know that they won't care if I know some simple theorem by heart. :tongue:

Since I learnt just a little and completely by myself, I really don't know if I've got any actual understanding at all.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Well, since you also mentioned real analysis, one relevant question would be something along the lines of:

Let

(M,d)

be a metric space and

(x_n)

a sequence in M. Suppose that

x_n \rightarrow x \in M

and

x_n \rightarrow x' \in M

. Show that

x=x'

(i.e. uniqueness of limits in a metric space, it's a fairly basic result which is also a basic limit result of the sequences in the reals).

Another question that uses a bit of analysis and basic metric spaces would be showing, using open sets, that if

f: R \rightarrow S

and

g: S \rightarrow T

are continuous then

g \circ f

is continuous.

On the metric spaces front alone probably being able to work out whether subsets are open and/or closed, showing that a set union the set of limit points of that set is the smallest closed subset containing the original set. Completeness and connectedness are also two fairly basic ideas you'd get to in next to no time with metric spaces so if you've done those showing something like if

C

is a closed and open subset of a metric space

X

and

A

is a connected subset of

X

, then either

A \subset C

or

A \cap C = \emptyset

If you could make serious headway on any of those question I wouldn't worry about being grilled on it.

Reply 1247

shamika

16

Original post by souktik

Okay.

We can unanimously agree that I'm an idiot. How much should I know about metric spaces in case they choose to grill me on it?

Don't bother learning anything about metric spaces. I would really focus on A-Level material; you can certainly be asked hard questions based on what you're supposed to know already. STEP might also be useful for question practice.

You have to get used to being taken right of your comfort zone and asked something ridiculous, if you fly through their standard questions. That doesn't mean you should expect to solve it. Don't panic about a minimal chance of bring asked something on metric spaces / analysis, and concentrate on all the other prep you were doing already.

(For the avoidance of doubt you're clearly not an idiot! Good luck at interview, assuming you get one of course.)

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 1248

1298977

1

Original post by Noble.

Well, since you also mentioned real analysis, one relevant question would be something along the lines of:

Let

(M,d)

be a metric space and

(x_n)

a sequence in M. Suppose that

x_n \rightarrow x \in M

and

x_n \rightarrow x' \in M

. Show that

x=x'

(i.e. uniqueness of limits in a metric space, it's a fairly basic result which is also a basic limit result of the sequences in the reals).

Another question that uses a bit of analysis and basic metric spaces would be showing, using open sets, that if

f: R \rightarrow S

and

g: S \rightarrow T

are continuous then

g \circ f

is continuous.

On the metric spaces front alone probably being able to work out whether subsets are open and/or closed, showing that a set union the set of limit points of that set is the smallest closed subset containing the original set. Completeness and connectedness are also two fairly basic ideas you'd get to in next to no time with metric spaces so if you've done those showing something like if

C

is a closed and open subset of a metric space

X

and

A

is a connected subset of

X

, then either

A \subset C

or

A \cap C = \emptyset

If you could make serious headway on any of those question I wouldn't worry about being grilled on it.

I could do 1 and 2, I hope I didn't get them wrong. I didn't use open sets for 2, do I have to? :-/
And I think I've forgotten connectedness, so I had to skip 3. Thanks for sharing the problems, by the way. I feel a little less scared now (though I still don't want my first college interview to also be my first test on things that I've just looked at passively, haha). :smile:

Original post by shamika

Don't bother learning anything about metric spaces. I would really focus on A-Level material; you can certainly be asked hard questions based on what you're supposed to know already. STEP might also be useful for question practice.

You have to get used to being taken right of your comfort zone and asked something ridiculous, if you fly through their standard questions. That doesn't mean you should expect to solve it. Don't panic about a minimal chance of bring asked something on metric spaces / analysis, and concentrate on all the other prep you were doing already.

(For the avoidance of doubt you're clearly not an idiot! Good luck at interview, assuming you get one of course.)

Thanks, but I need to get introduced to just a little bit of group theory for a problem set anyway. Yeah, it'll be pretty disappointing if it turns out that I've messed up the MAT and I don't get an interview. :tongue:

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 1249

megiddo_

OP

fairly confident I messed the whole thing up, and I'm talking 40-50 here. perhaps even less...

Reply 1250

nbojinov

Any idea on what material a Computer Science applicant should focus?

Reply 1251

username638250

7

Anything from 59 to 63, hmmm.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 1252

gavinlowe

11

Original post by nbojinov

Any idea on what material a Computer Science applicant should focus?

Have a look at http://www.cs.ox.ac.uk/ugadmissions/how_to_apply/interviews.html.

Reply 1253

RichE

15

The test is online now at

https://www.maths.ox.ac.uk/prospective-students/undergraduate/specimen-tests

Reply 1254

Arcane1729

12

Original post by RichE

The test is online now at

https://www.maths.ox.ac.uk/prospective-students/undergraduate/specimen-tests

Thats fantastic thanks. When do we get letters inviting to interview(or not)?

Reply 1255

dutchmaths

Original post by RichE

The test is online now at

https://www.maths.ox.ac.uk/prospective-students/undergraduate/specimen-tests

Looked at this long and hard, came to the conclusion that I probably have something in the 65-70 range. Slightly bummed since literally all my practice papers went better than that (I got 87 for three of them, and ~75 for the rest). Is this something more people have experienced? The test itself didn't feel like I was messing it up due to stress, but obviously I'm not objective.

Reply 1256

username638250

7

Original post by RichE

The test is online now at

https://www.maths.ox.ac.uk/prospective-students/undergraduate/specimen-tests

When will the mark scheme come up? Are you able to provide an estimate of a mark breakdown for Q5 and Q3? I only got i), iv) and v) of Q5 right seeing as how I misinterpreted the whole of ii)....and for Q3, I got iii) and iv) completely correct and I can't recall whether I made a silly mistake on i). Fo r ii), I was too vague (only said 'has 3 distinct roots').

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 1257

Arcane1729

12

Original post by RichE

The test is online now at

https://www.maths.ox.ac.uk/prospective-students/undergraduate/specimen-tests

Looking back at this paper it was not so hard :facepalm:

- in fact it was easier than pretty much all the past papers Iv done in general- I am mad at letting panic and exam stress get the better of me because I just checked some of the questions which made me weep during the real thing and will post my working and solutions soon.
If I dont get in, Ive learnt an important lesson. :tongue:

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 1258

kapur

Original post by yl95

When will the mark scheme come up? Are you able to provide an estimate of a mark breakdown for Q5 and Q3? I only got i), iv) and v) of Q5 right seeing as how I misinterpreted the whole of ii)....and for Q3, I got iii) and iv) completely correct and I can't recall whether I made a silly mistake on i). Fo r ii), I was too vague (only said 'has 3 distinct roots').