Oxford MAT 2013/2014

Yay!

My pleasure Was it you that I ended up walking to Pembroke with?

Slightly unfair to compare Oxford's interview process to that used by Trinity, Cambridge - given that Trinity's interviews are noticeably harder than other college interviews in Cambridge (and even their pre-interview test is easily more challenging than STEP).

I do find it surprising both you and hilbert_spaces were rejected, you both seemed to be exceptional applicants. I think at least part of the issue is that if you're already an undergrad studying maths, they're clearly going to expect a higher performance in the MAT (considering they already expect a higher performance for gap year students who aren't undergrads). I'm purely speculating here, but it might be that they'd expect a score of 80+ from a Warwick 1st year undergrad, even though this seems a bit silly considering you're not very far into the degree when you take the MAT. They might also expect a better interview performance, or realise that you'd probably sail through a standard post-AS interview and they try and give you more difficult problems. Either way, a big issue with it does seem to be standardisation. Clearly, compared to other applicants, you did very well on the MAT - but once they take into consideration the expected higher score on the MAT, and perhaps a more difficult interview (or expected high score on the interview) it makes it difficult for people in your situation to get an offer without pretty much doing incredibly well on both the MAT and in the interviews.

Arr lol, while Oxford interviews were very enjoyable (apart from the logic question!), I preferred the Trinity maths interviews if I'm honest, much more challenging and interesting. I guess I can only expect to be rejected by Oxford, since Warwick and Oxford are in a similar league, after choosing to not re-apply to Cambridge. I sent an email to the Oxford maths department regarding whether or not I should apply, and this was their response:

"
The gap year policy is much the same as deferred entry, in that we would expect applicants to be undertaking structured activity and developing their mathematical knowledge. You would be welcome to apply in the next admission round but you will have to start again in the first year and therefore need to consider if the financial implication of an extra year at University, repeating much the same work, will be of any benefit to you when you are already studying at a highly regarded university. All applicants are teated the same and the admission cirteria, if you did decide to apply, would be A*A*A at A Level. You would need to sit the MAT test in November and if you score well enough would be invited to interview. "

From the email it seems they don't have any issues with gap year applicants studying at Warwick for the gap year, and given I was happy with the financial and academic implications, I'm not sure why I was rejected.

I guess it may be because of what you mentioned about the tutors opinion being different. Anyhow I would be interested to hear what the admission feedback will be. Maybe they simply didn't find me 'teachable' or good at logic questions! Overall not too sure.

It certainly was! Who knows, perhaps without you I would never have made it to the interview there? :L

Any advice for the next step on the Philosophy side? What can I do to prepare?

I think its pretty unfair to expect a student who studies at Warwick, and that too one who has barely started his degree to score much higher than a typical gap year applicant, as you correctly say. Warwick on the whole doesn't have nearly as good a reputation as the University of Oxford, and that's why I chose to apply in the first place. Warwick maths may be a strong department, but I don't think its fair to reject me based on one logic interview question, which technically isn't on the core maths syllabus of the degree. Even on the MAT, the logic questions are answered by maths with computer science applicants! Also my second and third interviews were exceptional; they asked me about quadratic residues relating to prime numbers, and floor functions to devise a minimal factor test for primes at my third one! In my second one I didn't do much wrong and even if I made some minor errors I quickly fixed them. I would be interested to hear their admissions feedback though.
At least if I knew beforehand it was the case that I needed exceptional mat scores and interviews to get in, I wouldn't have applied in the first place! They could have mentioned to me beforehand in the email that it was unlikely I would get in.

you have your third interview at jesus by any chance, because I had one like that
i feel sorry for you, but i think in maths nearly everyone is of relatively similar ability and they would rather give a year 13 of similar place than an undergrad
i got rejected and although i feel hard done by, its over
good luck with your degree, ill probably be at warwick next year now

Dont worry about it too much, its just a university after all. Although it is disappointing, many still go on to succeed, take for example JK Rowling. Oxford didn't think she was good enough...
I disagree with your statement that everyone is of relatively similar ability. This is because while they all achieved above a certain threshold MAT score there is nothing to separate someone who scored 98 on the MAT compared to someone who scored 62, going by the shortlisting.
I agree with your statement that they would rather give a year 13 a place as opposed to a gap year student. Its almost like I'm doing this for a bit of 'fun' in their eyes, although it couldn't be further from the truth. I suppose I regarded Oxford too highly, maybe things would have been different had I applied to a different Cambridge college.
Warwick is still amazing though! Good luck with your degree too, and don't worry about Oxford. Sometimes its just bad luck!

haha lol it stings but i think once i got to a visit day or two ill be over it
actually you do make a fair point, although having said that i think at the high end of the spectrum applicants are exceptional, but between 50-70 there isn't so much difference as the maths isnt overly hard, its just whether you see it or know what to do in the exam room
You mind me asking how is warwick, and specifically maths there
as some say its an awesome uni, others say its too quiet or dead an area

Yep, well I could imagine feeling similar if I was in your position, but you still should be happy about having multiple interviews at Ox! Ok fair enough, you didn't get in but you got to have a taste of what it would be like to actually live there and have one-to-one contact with the tutors, as well as interact with some amazing individuals like yourself!

They aren't really exceptional at the higher end, its just that they did better on one STEP 1-style (maybe easier) maths exam. STEP 2/3 is a far better differentiator of exceptional mathematical proficiency at its higher end!

Warwick is good. Vibrant social scene, amazing mathematics, plethora of clubs and socs, and some incredible departmental facilities. Theres even regular lectures from prominent people in the media and occasionally for maths. You should consider it if you prefer a nice campus as well as the above over a better overall reputation, if youre debating between Imperial and Warwick. I chose Warwick because I had applied to Cam first time, and was taking STEP 1 for fun, so felt Warwick was a safer insurance than Imperials.

I can't help but sympathise, what the tutor said was pretty unfair.

I got rejected this year as well. I have a feeling my mat score was around 85, and my first interview didn't go very well, so that's probably why.

Probably if I hadn't been asked that logic question, things may have been different.
I don't really know.

I guess they're harsher with gap year applicants.

Oh well, I'm going to be trying to get a masters at Cambridge/Oxford anyhow (if I don't fail at Warwick exams that is, which is perfectly possible)

Posted from TSR Mobile

If anyone's got a sec, can you post on this thread: http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=2561023

Should be useful for future applicants

Would you consider going to US to do a PhD? Oxbridge masters are not hard to get into compared to many US schools. Also you get to do more research in US.

The international competition for Cambridge at least as far as I know is intense to the extent that unless you have a gold medal at the IMO you could very likely be rejected by Trinity. (I had a friend who applied to Trinity last year with a gold medal in the APMO and got rejected).

Are you talking about undergrad admissions? I'm surprised because a friend of mine from the IMO Training Camp (he wasn't in the final six) got an offer from Trinity a week back. Surely it's not THAT tough for internationals?

Posted from TSR Mobile

I think your friend must have had an amazing interview, or was very lucky. Trinity, Cambridge is very hard to get into. Three iPhO bronze medallists from Thailand who I know, got rejected from Trinity last year. Your friend is an exception to the general rule.

Posted from TSR Mobile

I think your friend must have had an amazing interview, or was very lucky. Trinity, Cambridge is very hard to get into. Three iPhO bronze medallists from Thailand who I know, got rejected from Trinity last year. Your friend is an exception to the general rule.

While I think it would be incredible to study at an ivy league US university for a PhD, I'm pretty sure I wouldnt get in as an international. The international competition for Cambridge at least as far as I know is intense to the extent that unless you have a gold medal at the IMO you could very likely be rejected by Trinity. (I had a friend who applied to Trinity last year with a gold medal in the APMO and got rejected).

I don't think the competition for places at Cambridge is quite as touch as you think it is. Sure it's competitive, so it's not surprising that good people get rejected (as with all Oxford and Cambridge courses).

And the same is true of Trinity. Yes it gets strong applicants. But at the same time, from my state sixth form college (admittedly a large place, but with not all that many top level maths applicants) there have been three Trinity Maths offers in three years. And to hammer home further that Trinity is not uber hard to get into, Trinity have this year taken people from the pool, people who other colleges didn't want.

I'm not denying it's hard, but I don't think it's exceptionally hard.

No, he's brilliant. His interviewer gave up asking questions after a while and asked him to teach something instead. And called him a "true mathematician" in the end. Did the IPhO guys apply for physics or maths? And why weren't they pooled?

Posted from TSR Mobile

I would agree for domestic applicants, but I was referring to internationals. If you were referring to international admissions then Trinity still is extremely hard to get into, speaking from my limited knowledge.