Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

When/how to study for STEP etc etc

Scroll to see replies

Also I will ask how sure you are that you will truly enjoy maths at a university level based on your experience with as level maths? There are other subjects where you use maths to a great extent. Also yada yada oxbridge isn't the be all and end all and. I originally thought I wanted to do maths at cambridge but I honestly don't think I have the innate mathematical ability to be able to deal with step and thus the course. I mean maybe I would be capable if I worked really hard on step but yeah keep in mind that a-level maths is far far far easier than university level maths and people who do get into cambridge for maths find a-level pretty trivial and easy. I am very good at a-level maths having now finished as and a2 (with an A* as long ums boundaries being every so slightly lenient in terms of how much they correlate to %s) but I don't by any means find it easy especially initially (took about 6 months this year before I got to 90%+ on every past paper level). I also realised that the applications of maths especially within science are really where my interests lie so I'm going to go for natural sciences at cambridge instead :biggrin:

Reply 41

black1blade

However yeah from the sounds of it you aren't a massive science fan and if you do truly truly love maths go for it!

Reply 42

DFranklin

Original post by Physics Enemy

I'm don't think that's correct, the threshold for interview is much higher than 40-odd, usually 60+, it's actually not far off the mean/median score of those who got offers (low 70s). I can't see how you've concluded some with 70+ got rejected over those with 40-odd.There's a graph showing outcomes relative to MAT scores in the same report you quoted. The mean/median for interview may be high, but there's quite a lot of 'spread'. [And a surprising number of people with MAT scores over 80 don't get offers (although they are almost certain to get interviews)].

Reply 43

Nyquist

Original post by black1blade

omg good luck w/ natural sciences!!! hope u get in :biggrin:

also I LOVE MATHS!!!!!!! tbh every single applicant is prob better than me at maths however i love it 100x more than any of them!!!!!!!!!!! prob not tbh (even tho they picked FM and i didnt OOPS)

tbh i just rrly rrly love the subject and im p good at it so YEAH

Reply 44

RichE

Original post by Physics Enemy

It's the MAT or Admissions report for 2016, I was on a site which had the Q papers with the reports underneath. And it's true. Not 1 offer, even joint courses. Why even let those applicants go through the process.

Fair enough, I thought you were talking about the last complete round (so applications in 2015).

Reply 45

RichE

Original post by Doonesbury

Quack quack oops... :wink:

That's a particularly schizoid post... it seems like your id is trying to tell you something.

Reply 46

Doones

Original post by RichE

That's a particularly schizoid post... it seems like your id is trying to tell you something.

Probably something to do with this thread:
https://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=4836610

Reply 47

Physics Enemy

Original post by DFranklin

There's a graph showing outcomes relative to MAT scores in the same report you quoted. The mean/median for interview may be high, but there's quite a lot of 'spread'. [And a surprising number of people with MAT scores over 80 don't get offers (although they are almost certain to get interviews)].

You're right, I misread/skimread. You're given a score based on the MAT combined with the application, with a lower cutoff. MAT will count heavily.

I was really surprised to see people with 80+ and 90+ (!) rejected :s-smilie:

As for those with 45-50, maybe extenuating circumstances ...

(edited 6 years ago)

Reply 48

black1blade

Original post by Physics Enemy

As for those with 45-50, maybe extenuating circumstances ...

Guess it shows how important the interview really is. IDK if I should start looking into how to prepare for interview now, might be a bit presumptive considering I have to get to that point first...

Reply 49

Physics Enemy

Original post by black1blade

Guess it shows how important the interview really is. IDK if I should start looking into how to prepare for interview now, might be a bit presumptive considering I have to get to that point first...

I always found it strange that interviews count quite heavily yet no oral/interview exams are ever done at uni (or before), for virtually every subject.

Another discussion for another day, lol.

(edited 6 years ago)

Reply 50

black1blade

Original post by Physics Enemy

I always found it strange that interviews count quite heavily yet no oral/interview exams are ever done at uni (or before), for virtually every subject.

Another discussion for another day, lol.

Well if you do get involved in science you ideally need to be a good communicator, not just in your room 24/7 doing problem sheets...

Reply 51

Physics Enemy

Original post by black1blade

Well if you do get involved in science you ideally need to be a good communicator, not just in your room 24/7 doing problem sheets...

Nearly every maths/physics student at decent unis are the latter and not the former, Oxbridge especially.

They don't care about social/comms skills and don't have exams testing that. Interviews are in context of doing problems, not explaining.

I'd say it's a flaw in the system, gov needs to push this so better teachers and engaging mathmos/scientists are produced, so public will engage in maths/science.

(edited 6 years ago)

Reply 52

EnglishMuon

Original post by RichE

What sources are you referring to here?

anything by liebeck ever. Commonly read at the step kind stage is 'a concise introduction to pure mathematics'- avoid at all costs!!

Reply 53

RichE

Original post by EnglishMuon

anything by liebeck ever. Commonly read at the step kind stage is 'a concise introduction to pure mathematics'- avoid at all costs!!

I enjoyed James and Liebeck "Representations and Characters of Groups" and I recall a lot of my students finding his "concise introduction" of use - why are you so critical of it?

Reply 54

EnglishMuon

Original post by RichE

I enjoyed James and Liebeck "Representations and Characters of Groups" and I recall a lot of my students finding his "concise introduction" of use - why are you so critical of it?

nah the books alright, its just a deep potentially unjust personal grudge about liebeck and his past actions