The MAT vs STEP?

I was talking to a friend about the admission test Oxford uses for their mathematical degrees.

I wanted to know how hard the MAT is in comparison to the STEP exam? Also what is the highest marks that have been achieved on either paper. Is full marks a realistic outcome?

Thanks!

You can see detailed distribution charts of marks for STEP here:
http://www.admissionstestingservice.org/for-test-takers/step/scoring-and-results/

e.g. 2015
http://www.admissionstestingservice.org/images/246349-step-2015-explanation-of-results.pdf

It looks like nobody got full marks (120) in any STEP paper this year.

BTW STEP consists of 3 papers, usually STEP II & III are required for Maths applicants.

Do you happen to know how Cambridge looks at STEP results? For example, with A levels I know Cambridge look at your UMS in particular because they see it as a strong indicator of performance. Does Cambridge only look at the grades achieved for STEP? (S,1,2, etc.) or do they also look at the individual score?

Thanks for the links btw. Quite interesting.

Do you happen to know how Cambridge looks at STEP results? For example, with A levels I know Cambridge look at your UMS in particular because they see it as a strong indicator of performance. Does Cambridge only look at the grades achieved for STEP? (S,1,2, etc.) or do they also look at the individual score?

Thanks for the links btw. Quite interesting.

Quite a few Maths offers aren't achieved because of STEP requirements not being met.

In fact, most maths offers are technically failed, because of STEP. IIRC, Cambridge makes 450 offers, for 250 places. Only 150 people actually achieve the required STEP grades, so they also let in the next best 100 people (who probably only narrowly missed the required grades).

MAT is based on C1 and C2 only
I do not like MAT.
STEP is comprehensive and has stood the test of time.
AEA is better than MAT in my opinion, and the only reason MAT exists is University politics

If you mean by the bold that Oxford should be using STEP as well, then one reason they don't is because its timing means it could not be used to shortlist the field of applicants. If you didn't mean that, could you elaborate?

The main reason why MAT exists is purely so Oxford does not "humiliate" themselves in using a test administered by Cambridge. In order to disguise this fact the claim is that MAT is not competing with STEP as it is a test before an interview rather than a test after an interview and an offer.
(to an extend this is a valid reason but the Cambridge selection procedure is better for Maths true worth)

You're of course welcome to opinions on the relative merits of the MAT and the STEP for selecting candidates, but most of the above comment is uninformed prejudice. The Oxford admissions process works around shortlisting down to 3 applicants per place prior to interview, something Oxford couldn't ever use STEP for. It is also the case that the MAT is "administered" by Cambridge Assessment and some of the Oxford tests (ELAT) are actually set by Cambridge, so I don't think the use of any of the tests boil down to matters of university pride.

Lol, this. The post you quoted was nonsense.

I want to study E&M at Oxford and it does not require STEP. But would the university be impressed if I sit STEP exam ?

Cambridge might be, I doubt Oxford would be that fussed. And note, its risky to sit STEP early, I wouldn't recommend it unless you are very well prepared.

Posted from TSR Mobile

The main reason why MAT exists is purely so Oxford does not "humiliate" themselves in using a test administered by Cambridge. In order to disguise this fact the claim is that MAT is not competing with STEP as it is a test before an interview rather than a test after an interview and an offer.
(to an extend this is a valid reason but the Cambridge selection procedure is better for Maths true worth)

All the best