Oxford MAT 2013/2014

Nope, just C1 and C2. You could have easily gone on Oxford's MAT website to look that up, though.

Posted from TSR Mobile

well we haven't been taught about vectors or the 'degree of a polynomial'

do you need to know full a level maths for the MAT?

Aside from the generic "Are GCSEs Important?" bore, surely GCSEs are less important for subjects such as mathematics? I understand it represents a breadth of learning and dedication to study, but let's be honest now, GCSEs aren't exactly a representation of capability; more whether or not the candidate has good exam technique... After all, Oxbridge do pride themselves on the fact that they are home to the most academically able and intelligent, opposed to the best at learning by rote. Mathematics beyond A level revolves primarily around logic, insight and intelligence, and whilst dedication is obviously required, I still don't see how drilling textbooks into your head and achieving 12A*s at GCSE makes you any better a candidate than a 6A* student who has spent the equivalent time exploring further material or gaining deeper understanding in the subjects they enjoy.
I haven't been able to find a clear-cut answer yet so I'll ask it here as well: after having been invited to interview, is the decision then made primarily based on the interview - or are some invited to interview with the prospect of acceptance in fact being quite small? Arguably the interview(s) are the concrete pieces of evidence that present the way in which various candidates approach new material, and therefore must be the best indicator of capability?

A high proportion of A*s at GCSE's indicate that a candidate is quite studious and very committed to their studies. For Maths at a higher level, the number one thing that is required is dedication to the subject- as is the case for pretty much all academic disciplines at a high enough level.

Well yes I did pick up on that - but personally, I'd value a student who's committed and motivated to study a single subject or small selection of subjects opposed to a student who has studied a vast range but hasn't particularly honed in on a subject which they enjoy. I'm in no manner saying that achieving straight A*s at GCSE isn't an achievement or representative of hard work, I'm just questioning whether or not they're the best indicator with respect to actual intelligence or motivation. I'm sure I know a whole lot less than those who regulate the admissions process itself, as without a doubt, a lot of study would have been carried out to determine which indicators are the best to go by! I was just wondering.

Aside from the generic "Are GCSEs Important?" bore, surely GCSEs are less important for subjects such as mathematics? I understand it represents a breadth of learning and dedication to study, but let's be honest now, GCSEs aren't exactly a representation of capability; more whether or not the candidate has good exam technique... After all, Oxbridge do pride themselves on the fact that they are home to the most academically able and intelligent, opposed to the best at learning by rote. Mathematics beyond A level revolves primarily around logic, insight and intelligence, and whilst dedication is obviously required, I still don't see how drilling textbooks into your head and achieving 12A*s at GCSE makes you any better a candidate than a 6A* student who has spent the equivalent time exploring further material or gaining deeper understanding in the subjects they enjoy.
I haven't been able to find a clear-cut answer yet so I'll ask it here as well: after having been invited to interview, is the decision then made primarily based on the interview - or are some invited to interview with the prospect of acceptance in fact being quite small? Arguably the interview(s) are the concrete pieces of evidence that present the way in which various candidates approach new material, and therefore must be the best indicator of capability?

Well yes I did pick up on that - but personally, I'd value a student who's committed and motivated to study a single subject or small selection of subjects opposed to a student who has studied a vast range but hasn't particularly honed in on a subject which they enjoy. I'm in no manner saying that achieving straight A*s at GCSE isn't an achievement or representative of hard work, I'm just questioning whether or not they're the best indicator with respect to actual intelligence or motivation. I'm sure I know a whole lot less than those who regulate the admissions process itself, as without a doubt, a lot of study would have been carried out to determine which indicators are the best to go by! I was just wondering.

Oxford aren't as fussed by a candidate's GCSEs if they've done well on the MAT (perhaps with the exception of not achieving an A* at GCSE Maths without a good reason). However, interestingly, Oxford have found that degree success and GCSE results are pretty well correlated for mathematics (and in fact, at Cambridge, it's the only subject where GCSEs correlate better to degree success than A-Level UMS) - and I can absolutely see why. Without a shadow of a doubt, studying mathematics at a decent university is much more synonymous with the breadth of having to study 10-14 GCSEs (at Oxford at least) compared to doing 4-5 A-Levels.

No, when you get to the interview stage the MAT still plays a massive role (and St. John's used to admit this on their website, stating that interviews were given less of a weighting than the MAT) and I can't imagine different colleges having vastly different admission policies so it's pretty safe to assume that every college takes note of a candidate's MAT performance throughout the entire application process. Also, interviews aren't always the best indicator of ability; for a subject like mathematics I'd say performance on the MAT is more important than interview performance just on the basis that it's quite difficult to ascertain the ability of a candidate when they're very nervous, and it's even more difficult trying to determine suitability for the tutorial system (which is generally why you'd have at least two interviews for mathematics).

I got straight A*s at GCSE, and believe me, it required a lot of motivation. Personally, I think that top grades in a wide variety of subjects shows an ability to think proficiently in different ways, not to mention the hard work as you've already stated.

It got me an offer anyway, and I didn't exactly deliver a spectacular performance on the MAT

I wasn't denying it was a lot of work, I just thought that the level at which GCSEs are set aren't particularly challenging if you've memorised the related textbook, and congratulations! Which college?

I think by recognising that GCSEs aren't "particularly challenging", you're reinforcing the need for Oxford to see as many A*s as possible!

Maths and Philosophy at Pembroke. I did my final A level exam on Tuesday, so now I've got the long wait to see if I actually met the offer!

Have you applied?

Note the bit about learning textbooks - they may not be challenging if you can be bothered to learn material that you wouldn't otherwise be interested in! That's what I like about studying maths, everything's interesting haha! Considered economics at one point, which I enjoy reading about outside of the specification, but in all honesty I cannot tolerate the exams nor the content, they're so pathetic: you could be a fantastic economist and get a C but a poor economist with great exam technique and get full UMS! -_-
Well done, by the sounds of it well deserved too! I'm sure you've met the offer as well haha! I haven't applied yet but plan to this coming year, I have my fingers crossed! AS levels all went pretty well other than those horrid AQA physics ISAs! Do you have any personal advice or anything that you would have done differently if you were to go back and apply again? (Not that you could have done too much wrong seeing as you got in! )

Thanks - I hadn't heard of that correlation before so that's interesting to hear. Obviously each case will vary from candidate to candidate, thus the weighting of each element will probably vary too depending on each candidate's background, not to mention differences in college preferences, but I see where you're coming from. I guess the MAT will be critical in that case, but it would have been great for offers to be based on STEP too; school just initiated a STEP "preparation course" if you like, and the questions that are set are by far the most enjoyable (and challenging) out of any set of papers that I've have had a go at.

I never understood what you say (and most people to be fair) about "being bothered" to learn things for GCSE. Remember Oxford are looking for people who are very academically motivated, so this shouldn't be a problem for successful applicants!

Thank you - I'm hopeful, but nonetheless the apprehension is always niggling away.

My advice would be to start preparing for MAT and interviews ASAP. I left it until September until I began to practice for them, without realising how fast things happen once you start the application process. Have you been through a paper yet? Do you know which college you're looking at?

I never understood what you say (and most people to be fair) about "being bothered" to learn things for GCSE. Remember Oxford are looking for people who are very academically motivated, so this shouldn't be a problem for successful applicants!

This kind of attitude is probably exactly why Oxford care about you doing well over a wide range of GCSE subjects.

The chances are you will find many mathematical topics you cover at university that you don't find fun, easy or interesting. You have to be able to do well in topics that don't immediately appeal to you - if you're just going to ignore the stuff you don't fancy, you are likely to struggle, badly.

Well, if the material is not particularly difficult, an otherwise bright student might not feel challenged enough to do well. Being academically motivated doesn't imply that one will be interested in exam techniques, etc as well for an otherwise easy course, in my opinion.