Masters in maths at oxbridge??
If i attend not so great uni for undergrad and get a 1st, will i still stand a chance at postgrad maths at oxbridge?
(edited 4 years ago)
Original post by d0nkey_dude
If i attempt a not so decent uni for undergrad and get a 1st, will i still stand a chance at postgrad maths at oxbridge?
What is not so decent? are we talking Bristol or like Hull.
Yes undergrad institution will have an impact but obviously grades will be more important but it will competitive regardless, just looked at the numbers. Oxford has a number of MSc maths courses and it appears about 1 in 6 students are made offers but it fluctuates depending which specific course you choose.
Original post by d0nkey_dude
If i attend not so great uni for undergrad and get a 1st, will i still stand a chance at postgrad maths at oxbridge?
You need to clarify not so great.
The modules you take for your undergrad have to sufficiently prepare you for whatever courses you want to take at masters. This can be made almost impossible [even if it doesn't make your application prohibitively uncompetitive it might mean you have to do a lot of catchup over the summer] if your university doesn't offer the modules you need, (say, in the case of "not so great unis" that focus on applied maths and you decided you wanted to specialise in pure maths), or if you don't select your modules well. (I have read this is a very, if not the most, common reason for rejection from Part III) It may alternatively mean you have to a masters at your home uni before you do a masters at Oxbridge. (which is not uncommon with maths for the reason of sufficient preparation)
Often Oxbridge expects marks way above the threshhold for a first for maths. If you dig up some threads on Part III, you'll find that it's not uncommon for an 80-85% average to be expected in the third year or overall.
(edited 4 years ago)
Original post by mnot
What is not so decent? are we talking Bristol or like Hull.
Yes undergrad institution will have an impact but obviously grades will be more important but it will competitive regardless, just looked at the numbers. Oxford has a number of MSc maths courses and it appears about 1 in 6 students are made offers but it fluctuates depending which specific course you choose.
Yes undergrad institution will have an impact but obviously grades will be more important but it will competitive regardless, just looked at the numbers. Oxford has a number of MSc maths courses and it appears about 1 in 6 students are made offers but it fluctuates depending which specific course you choose.
Original post by _gcx
You need to clarify not so great.
The modules you take for your undergrad have to sufficiently prepare you for whatever courses you want to take at masters. This can be made almost impossible [even if it doesn't make your application prohibitively uncompetitive it might mean you have to do a lot of catchup over the summer] if your university doesn't offer the modules you need, (say, in the case of "not so great unis" that focus on applied maths and you decided you wanted to specialise in pure maths), or if you don't select your modules well. (I have read this is a very, if not the most, common reason for rejection from Part III) It may alternatively mean you have to a masters at your home uni before you do a masters at Oxbridge. (which is not uncommon with maths for the reason of sufficient preparation)
Often Oxbridge expects marks way above the threshhold for a first for maths. If you dig up some threads on Part III, you'll find that it's not uncommon for an 80-85% average to be expected in the third year or overall.
The modules you take for your undergrad have to sufficiently prepare you for whatever courses you want to take at masters. This can be made almost impossible [even if it doesn't make your application prohibitively uncompetitive it might mean you have to do a lot of catchup over the summer] if your university doesn't offer the modules you need, (say, in the case of "not so great unis" that focus on applied maths and you decided you wanted to specialise in pure maths), or if you don't select your modules well. (I have read this is a very, if not the most, common reason for rejection from Part III) It may alternatively mean you have to a masters at your home uni before you do a masters at Oxbridge. (which is not uncommon with maths for the reason of sufficient preparation)
Often Oxbridge expects marks way above the threshhold for a first for maths. If you dig up some threads on Part III, you'll find that it's not uncommon for an 80-85% average to be expected in the third year or overall.
I’m talking about Universities like Aston, Coventry, Nottingham Trent, Manchester Met etc
Original post by d0nkey_dude
I’m talking about Universities like Aston, Coventry, Nottingham Trent, Manchester Met etc
Why are you considering these universities if you want to do a masters at Oxbridge? These are substantially below that level. (including some of the weakest courses academically in the country, it looks like) These are the types of universities I mentioned - they have an overwhelming focus on applied maths and have a real danger of not being sufficient preparation.
If you don't want to go to Oxbridge for whatever reason - why not look at Warwick, Imperial, UCL, Bath, Bristol, etc.? (or universities like Lancaster, Birmingham, Nottingham and so on if these are out of your reach for the time being)
edit: I read that your earlier posts were more concerned with employability and going into teaching/finance rather than going into research. Part III is principally geared towards preparing people for research, (I forgot the exact statistics but the majority of graduates do a PhD afterwards) so this is also something you should consider.
(edited 4 years ago)
Original post by _gcx
Why are you considering these universities if you want to do a masters at Oxbridge? These are substantially below that level. (including some of the weakest courses academically in the country, it looks like) These are the types of universities I mentioned - they have an overwhelming focus on applied maths and have a real danger of not being sufficient preparation.
If you don't want to go to Oxbridge for whatever reason - why not look at Warwick, Imperial, UCL, Bath, Bristol, etc.? (or universities like Lancaster, Birmingham, Nottingham and so on if these are out of your reach for the time being)
edit: I read that your earlier posts were more concerned with employability and going into teaching/finance rather than going into research. Part III is principally geared towards preparing people for research, (I forgot the exact statistics but the majority of graduates do a PhD afterwards) so this is also something you should consider.
If you don't want to go to Oxbridge for whatever reason - why not look at Warwick, Imperial, UCL, Bath, Bristol, etc.? (or universities like Lancaster, Birmingham, Nottingham and so on if these are out of your reach for the time being)
edit: I read that your earlier posts were more concerned with employability and going into teaching/finance rather than going into research. Part III is principally geared towards preparing people for research, (I forgot the exact statistics but the majority of graduates do a PhD afterwards) so this is also something you should consider.
I feel like i wouldn’t be able to cope at a RG, i’m only predicted AAA(bio chem maths) and majority at RG’s will have FM and i don’t think i’m naturally capable enough to keep up!
Original post by d0nkey_dude
I feel like i wouldn’t be able to cope at a RG, i’m only predicted AAA(bio chem maths) and majority at RG’s will have FM and i don’t think i’m naturally capable enough to keep up!
AAA is sufficient for universities like Nottingham, Lancaster and Newcastle! People without A-level FM do manage on these degrees - otherwise they'd require FM.
Not thinking you can cope with an RG to doing a masters at Oxbridge is a fair jump. (RG isn't the be all and end all either - Lancaster for instance is not an RG and is better than many RGs for maths) Both Part III and OMMS would expect that your mathematical background is roughly equivalent to an undergrad degree at Cambridge and Oxford respectively. Part III is reputed to be one of the hardest taught maths courses going, too.
I'd recommend any maths applicants to read some bridging material (there are plenty of texts out there, an introductory text on say analysis would work too), just to ensure that a maths degree is for them, since the style is quite distinct from school maths particularly in terms of pure maths. (what you know as pure maths at A-level is actually closer to applied maths) The weaker (this sounds harsh, can't think of a better word) the university, the longer it will spend recapping school level maths before diving into undergraduate level work.
Original post by _gcx
AAA is sufficient for universities like Nottingham, Lancaster and Newcastle! People without A-level FM do manage on these degrees - otherwise they'd require FM.
Not thinking you can cope with an RG to doing a masters at Oxbridge is a fair jump. (RG isn't the be all and end all either - Lancaster for instance is not an RG and is better than many RGs for maths) Both Part III and OMMS would expect that your mathematical background is roughly equivalent to an undergrad degree at Cambridge and Oxford respectively. Part III is reputed to be one of the hardest taught maths courses going, too.
I'd recommend any maths applicants to read some bridging material (there are plenty of texts out there, an introductory text on say analysis would work too), just to ensure that a maths degree is for them, since the style is quite distinct from school maths particularly in terms of pure maths. (what you know as pure maths at A-level is actually closer to applied maths) The weaker (this sounds harsh, can't think of a better word) the university, the longer it will spend recapping school level maths before diving into undergraduate level work.
Not thinking you can cope with an RG to doing a masters at Oxbridge is a fair jump. (RG isn't the be all and end all either - Lancaster for instance is not an RG and is better than many RGs for maths) Both Part III and OMMS would expect that your mathematical background is roughly equivalent to an undergrad degree at Cambridge and Oxford respectively. Part III is reputed to be one of the hardest taught maths courses going, too.
I'd recommend any maths applicants to read some bridging material (there are plenty of texts out there, an introductory text on say analysis would work too), just to ensure that a maths degree is for them, since the style is quite distinct from school maths particularly in terms of pure maths. (what you know as pure maths at A-level is actually closer to applied maths) The weaker (this sounds harsh, can't think of a better word) the university, the longer it will spend recapping school level maths before diving into undergraduate level work.
I don’t wanna move too far, the nearest RG is uni of birmingham but the course seems to have a heavy emphasis on applied maths too
Original post by d0nkey_dude
I don’t wanna move too far, the nearest RG is uni of birmingham but the course seems to have a heavy emphasis on applied maths too
Fair enough! I'm not sure about the specifics of the Birmingham course, but is certainly leagues better than the likes of Aston/Cov/Trent/etc. so I'd say look into it.
Original post by d0nkey_dude
I don’t wanna move too far, the nearest RG is uni of birmingham but the course seems to have a heavy emphasis on applied maths too
Original post by d0nkey_dude
I’m talking about Universities like Aston, Coventry, Nottingham Trent, Manchester Met etc
Original post by d0nkey_dude
I feel like i wouldn’t be able to cope at a RG, i’m only predicted AAA(bio chem maths) and majority at RG’s will have FM and i don’t think i’m naturally capable enough to keep up!
If you get AAA & want an Oxbridge MSc then go to more traditionally "prestigious" uni, whilst its still possible to go from an ex-poly to Oxbridge, it will much harder then if you went to Manchester, Bristol, Leeds, or any other well regarded uni (and your uni results from there will need to impecable like 80-90% probably , fyi only like 1-2% of students get above 79%).
Your talking about wanting to get onto a course where 1 in 6 will be accepted & these applicants applying are super ambitious, therefore it will require a very strong track record both results wise & institution wise and if you want any chance of passing the masters, then you will have to be capable of completing a degree at a RG, not in a rude way but if you cant cope their, what makes you think you could handle an Oxbridge masters...
This post isnt intended to be rude, just hopefully provide some perspective...
Original post by mnot
If you get AAA & want an Oxbridge MSc then go to more traditionally "prestigious" uni, whilst its still possible to go from an ex-poly to Oxbridge, it will much harder then if you went to Manchester, Bristol, Leeds, or any other well regarded uni (and your uni results from there will need to impecable like 80-90% probably , fyi only like 1-2% of students get above 79%).
Your talking about wanting to get onto a course where 1 in 6 will be accepted & these applicants applying are super ambitious, therefore it will require a very strong track record both results wise & institution wise and if you want any chance of passing the masters, then you will have to be capable of completing a degree at a RG, not in a rude way but if you cant cope their, what makes you think you could handle an Oxbridge masters...
This post isnt intended to be rude, just hopefully provide some perspective...
Your talking about wanting to get onto a course where 1 in 6 will be accepted & these applicants applying are super ambitious, therefore it will require a very strong track record both results wise & institution wise and if you want any chance of passing the masters, then you will have to be capable of completing a degree at a RG, not in a rude way but if you cant cope their, what makes you think you could handle an Oxbridge masters...
This post isnt intended to be rude, just hopefully provide some perspective...
This doesn't sound right. Maths seems to attract higher marks than other subjects. (for example, I know last year that top 5/300 odd at Warwick was 94%+) Based on what I've read for Part III/OMMS, your guide of 80%+ seems to be about accurate.
Also it should be emphasised that, based on what has been said by Cambridge online, in many cases the issue is not that the candidate is not bright/getting good results, it's that their modules do not show that they have the requisite knowledge to cope on the course. (Gowers said something to this effect)
Original post by mnot
If you get AAA & want an Oxbridge MSc then go to more traditionally "prestigious" uni, whilst its still possible to go from an ex-poly to Oxbridge, it will much harder then if you went to Manchester, Bristol, Leeds, or any other well regarded uni (and your uni results from there will need to impecable like 80-90% probably , fyi only like 1-2% of students get above 79%).
Your talking about wanting to get onto a course where 1 in 6 will be accepted & these applicants applying are super ambitious, therefore it will require a very strong track record both results wise & institution wise and if you want any chance of passing the masters, then you will have to be capable of completing a degree at a RG, not in a rude way but if you cant cope their, what makes you think you could handle an Oxbridge masters...
This post isnt intended to be rude, just hopefully provide some perspective...
Your talking about wanting to get onto a course where 1 in 6 will be accepted & these applicants applying are super ambitious, therefore it will require a very strong track record both results wise & institution wise and if you want any chance of passing the masters, then you will have to be capable of completing a degree at a RG, not in a rude way but if you cant cope their, what makes you think you could handle an Oxbridge masters...
This post isnt intended to be rude, just hopefully provide some perspective...
Bit in bold is certainly not true for maths.
1sts are most common in maths and because of that it's not uncommon for people to aim for much higher than the threshold because of that. I've been told by tutors that I'd need 90%+ to be considered for a PhD. I'd naïvely say that's not a requirement in a lot of other subjects. With a masters there's more leeway, but it's lessened with maths because of the large number of people with firsts (the most firsts go to maths students iirc).
And for OP, I'm in my third year of maths, I did maths and further maths, got A*A* and there are people who did only AS further maths who have done better than me during university (a Russell group).
Remember, although at a much faster pace (cannot emphasise this enough), A level maths and further maths is essentially retaught in a slightly more rigourous fashion in the first year, along with a lot of new stuff. And as I've been told by one staff member at my uni, there is no correlation between A level grades and first year university assignment grades after about 3 months.
Also ask yourself why you'd want to continue at oxford or cambridge. I have suspicion that you actually want to get to a "higher ranked" institution. Don't base your choices on that.
Original post by _gcx
x
Original post by NotNotBatman
x
Ok 1-2% is a bit too far, (i have a STEM, non-math degree) and I found whilst plenty of students get 1st and the vast majority get 2.1s, actually gaining a mark in the 80s/90s is a very rare occurrence, maybe in maths its more common then engineering but I think the sentiments still there, if OP wants to go Oxbridge for an MSc there best just going to as well regarded an undergrad course they can (and if they want to be able to cope on the masters, then they should be able to cope with BSc at a "normal RG").
having spoken to quite a few Oxbridge math grads going the other way (ie doing an Oxbridge math BSc/MA then going to a RG for the MSc, they seem to think Oxbridge difficulty is considerably higher and hence I would think OP should understand coping with the BSc shouldn't be a problem if they also want to cope with an Oxbridge MSc.
----
"I've been told by tutors that I'd need 90%+ to be considered for a PhD"
Id be surprised if this true
in other subjects you certainly do not need 90% for a PhD, I got a PhD with a mid-70s average, and i think this is pretty common mark for PhDs tbh, Id be surprised if any subject required a 90% average, although I could imagine students who have that being chased by Profs to do one if they get that can of average... I think having good academics is obviously important but there are also other important considerations for a PhD other than your average mark.
(edited 4 years ago)
Original post by mnot
Ok 1-2% is a bit too far, (i have a STEM, non-math degree) and I found whilst plenty of students get 1st and the vast majority get 2.1s, actually gaining a mark in the 80s/90s is a very rare occurrence, maybe in maths its more common then engineering but I think the sentiments still there, if OP wants to go Oxbridge for an MSc there best just going to as well regarded an undergrad course they can (and if they want to be able to cope on the masters, then they should be able to cope with BSc at a "normal RG").
having spoken to quite a few Oxbridge math grads going the other way (ie doing an Oxbridge math BSc/MA then going to a RG for the MSc, they seem to think Oxbridge difficulty is considerably higher and hence I would think OP should understand coping with the BSc shouldn't be a problem if they also want to cope with an Oxbridge MSc.
----
"I've been told by tutors that I'd need 90%+ to be considered for a PhD"
Id be surprised if this true
in other subjects you certainly do not need 90% for a PhD, I got a PhD with a mid-70s average, and i think this is pretty common mark for PhDs tbh, Id be surprised if any subject required a 90% average, although I could imagine students who have that being chased by Profs to do one if they get that can of average... I think having good academics is obviously important but there are also other important considerations for a PhD other than your average mark.
having spoken to quite a few Oxbridge math grads going the other way (ie doing an Oxbridge math BSc/MA then going to a RG for the MSc, they seem to think Oxbridge difficulty is considerably higher and hence I would think OP should understand coping with the BSc shouldn't be a problem if they also want to cope with an Oxbridge MSc.
----
"I've been told by tutors that I'd need 90%+ to be considered for a PhD"
Id be surprised if this true
in other subjects you certainly do not need 90% for a PhD, I got a PhD with a mid-70s average, and i think this is pretty common mark for PhDs tbh, Id be surprised if any subject required a 90% average, although I could imagine students who have that being chased by Profs to do one if they get that can of average... I think having good academics is obviously important but there are also other important considerations for a PhD other than your average mark.
I was sceptical of that claim as well, but he did say that entry requirements are only listed as "2:1 preferably first " as a means of formality, but then you aren't considered with a lower first. I cannot say anything about this other than that's what I've been told, by someone credible.
Given the few number of phDs per institution and the number of firsts in maths (over 30%) I don't think it's too exaggerated, although maybe slightly.
Also, I'm not sure how much this info translates to a masters (I thought that oxford and Cambridge didn't do individual masters programmes and just had part I -III in undergraduate), but I agree that OP should be able to handle a maths degree at a 'normal' RG beforehand.
Original post by NotNotBatman
I
Also, I'm not sure how much this info translates to a masters (I thought that oxford and Cambridge didn't do individual masters programmes and just had part I -III in undergraduate), but I agree that OP should be able to handle a maths degree at a 'normal' RG beforehand.
Also, I'm not sure how much this info translates to a masters (I thought that oxford and Cambridge didn't do individual masters programmes and just had part I -III in undergraduate), but I agree that OP should be able to handle a maths degree at a 'normal' RG beforehand.
Yes my reaction was the same, that Oxbridge likely didn't offer 1 year maths MSc's.
But browsing their websites it looks like Oxford have a couple options:
-maths
-maths & theoretical physics
-maths & computational finance
https://www.ox.ac.uk/admissions/graduate/courses/msc-mathematical-sciences?wssl=1
I suspect tho Oxford grads school largely focuses on the DPhil students and the MSc is probably something they could put together by bolting on modules from various CDT schemes and undergrad finals etc.
I suppose its a route Oxford can also direct potential DPhil candidates into to see what their like before offering them funding for another 4 years. I know other research unis have started to request some students do masters at their uni before they move onto a PhD (even if they already hold a masters).
Original post by mnot
Yes my reaction was the same, that Oxbridge likely didn't offer 1 year maths MSc's.
Oxford didn't offer a standalone taught MSc for maths until a year or two ago, so that's probably why you haven't heard of it. It seems Cambridge opened up Part III maths to external candidates quite a while ago, though I can't find a date for that. (Part III maths is almost the taught masters course in maths top candidates go for)
Original post by _gcx
Oxford didn't offer a standalone taught MSc for maths until a year or two ago, so that's probably why you haven't heard of it. It seems Cambridge opened up Part III maths to external candidates quite a while ago, though I can't find a date for that. (Part III maths is almost the taught masters course in maths top candidates go for)
Oxford maths department have offered several one year taught masters for a good while in:
MMSC - mathematical modelling and scientific computing
MCF - mathematical and computational finance
MF - mathematical finance (part-time)
MFoCS - mathematics and foundations of computer science (run jointly with CS)
MSc in mathematical and theoretical physics (run jointly with physics)
MSc in statistical science (run by Stats)
but you're right that the undergraduate fourth year has been possible as a standalone is just in the midst of its second year.
(edited 4 years ago)
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Oxbridge Master CS/Math from Germany: your grades & activities
- Picking between bath and warwick (maths)
- Can i go into quant finance if im not going to a "top 5" university?
- Applying at Oxford, Cambridge and Russells group
- University course help asap!!!!!!!!
- Is going to Oxford for masters from Nottingham or similar ranked uni possible?
- Best degree to be quant analyst
- How does the GDE work- do you need a maths background, and where can it get you?
- Deleted by author
- how does redoing y12 affect my chances at unis (oxbridge)
- Likelihood of getting an offer at an undergrad Psychology course?
- Is it possible to do a masters in maths after an undergraduate in natural sciences
- Warwick Economics or Imperial Econ, Finance, Data Science
- Bristol orgap year IB
- Can I get into oxbridge
- If I can't go to a uni for undergraduate degree, could I go to it as a postgraduate?
- Mathematics Masters Chances?
- Am I Good Enough to Apply for Oxford Masters?
- Computer Science vs Joint Mathematics and Computer Science
- Am I too dumb to go to Oxbridge?
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 weeks ago
71 on the MAT, rejected for interview by both Oxford and Imperial.Trending
Last reply 3 weeks ago
71 on the MAT, rejected for interview by both Oxford and Imperial.
