Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chwirkytheappleboy)
    Heh, well certainly if I took any test I'd do my best... but I'm just going by what I've seen on here to be honest. Whenever someone posts a STEP problem on the forum I usually have no idea what to do! I guess I can't really say anything for definite since I've never attempted a STEP paper, but I just figured that since I've never been able to help out with any of the problems posted here, I'd probably have quite a lot of difficulty sitting the papers myself
    Problems posted on here tend to lack quite a bit of context, and hardly anyone does the applied, which I'd expect to be fairly easy meat to a joint-physics graduate.

    Meh. I think only an over-sensitive person would be bothered by such a statement. It could be true or not depending on the context. At the end of the day, the value of a degree depends largely upon what it's used for.
    Sure, and as I said, "it's worth the piece of paper" - which is quite valuable if you need the qualification for what you do next.

    I do think any degree that you can genuinely get a first in solely by memorization is pretty pointless (even more so now we have google etc) as a degree.

    But also, looking from your posts, I think you've learned more than you think.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Physics Enemy)
    LOL if they can't do STEP and admit it, never fear; just tell them they can so you can bolster your arguments.

    The STEP solution threads are there for anyone to post solutions to problems; there's still some blanks in many papers, especially applied, as you said.
    I can do STEP, yet I don't think I've made a single post in the STEP solution threads. Doesn't really mean anything, except that I don't do STEP for fun, and am not as nice as the people providing lots of answers to help out.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Physics Enemy)

    I have a feeling you've been rejected from Ox/Cam and/or struggled/failed STEP. That's how those people usually behave. It's usually these that are quick to dismiss their woes with hard Maths and start boot-licking uni, since they get 80/90%'s for learning proofs and paying fees.
    As I recall, Dean's at Oxford, and did STEP for fun.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Physics Enemy)
    Your post was actually the worst in the entire thread. From STEP not being Maths, to STEP being like colouring in squares, to not getting the point of a small/medium syllabi, etc. And your lame insult at the end because you can't argue normally.
    a) Taking into account A-level students are reading this with a hope of what STEP actually is or thought of mathematically, my aim was to put it into perspective: there are circa 1000 original topics (with much more depth than anything touched upon at A level, with much more elegance and beauty) you can get through at University. It's like colouring in squares - with respect to real mathematics. It does not reveal any nice adaptable proofs or concepts and the results are just ridiculously specific.

    b) What? I could not care less about trying to argue passionately, appear charming or convincing over the internet to faceless users: my goal is to throw out advice (which might be incomplete, but it takes effort and time to answer something like this effectively). People are actually reasonably intelligent - they will be able to decipher my typing here and hopefully come away with a smidgen of what STEP is like compared to 'the real' world of mathematics.

    The case me be that A-level has a couple of years for teaching the syllabus; however, I can write the entire syllabus (e.g. material covered and theory) down on 20 sides of a notebook. It will probably require roughly 300 to 3000 (help uni people, that sounds right though) pages to do something similar at University.

    (Original post by Physics Enemy)
    Sure, but it's a hard Maths exam that only a small proportion are capable of doing well. Just like BMO and the IMO. You can't talk the same about uni Maths, where nearly 2/3 of graduates get a 2.1 or above.
    This is subtly incorrect. Firstly, while I am not suggesting exams at University are neccesarily geared to allow passes, there is the small case that you should be answering those questions after doing mathematics 'all the time' for years. It can't be compared to Olympiads. The IMO requires you to understand general statements while applying them to unfamiliar situations; it is as close to University mathematics as possible in regards to problem solving, in so far as the theory you learn about numbers can be adapted to answer your question on plane geometry; you usually have to have a ridicoulsly firm grasp of both relevant, difficult areas to do this. Material/syllabus there in principle may be done with no formal exposure to combinatorics, geometry, etc. but there is such a wealth of proofs and interconnections and sheer volume in those areas that you practically have to have a good understanding of writing proofs and know the core material at University (or understand things well enough to easily grasp them in the future) if you're to succeed.

    However, IMO is not the same as university mathematics, the style's clash and it wouldn't shock me if a Gold winner had a second class degree.


    (Original post by Physics Enemy)
    And STEP tests the former, with a bit of the latter too. As I told Simplicity; good problem solving requires brains and talent, but wrote learning proofs with little understanding to get a first, doesn't.
    No STEP does not test the former. I have yet to see a question that starts with; take this large set of objects. Prove a general theorem about it (which would be given). Understandably, due to the syllabus, they have to be using specific questions: such as here's a function. Cleverly fiddle with it so you can find the area under the curve, or something else. You aren't usually required to be using the fundamental theorem of calculus or algebra in unique ways in your arguments (which are the only two theorems you are exposed to at A-level).


    (Original post by Physics Enemy)
    Right ... :rolleyes: Go tell Cambridge that then.
    They realise that. They are doing the best with what little they have. I too would rather have someone who can perform tricks and competent manipulations on the small amount of material they know than not. The issue stems from A-level not being mathematics.

    (Original post by Physics Enemy)
    None of the Maths in STEP or uni is 'important', it's mental masturbation really. What use is uni/STEP Maths to my family's health? Or our broken boiler? If you want 'use' then we're better off discussing bakers, butchers and plumbers. I need to eat, I need to be warm, I need to drink. I don't need to know STEP or proofs.
    You mad brah? I was referring to being important with respect to the mathematical world. By your final remark I also think you should re-evaluate what you are doing; we live in the Western World. You need those things to survive generally; how do you get them? Through a job. How do you get a good salarly? Through a degree ...


    (Original post by Physics Enemy)
    The idea STEP is like colouring in squares is farfetched, where did you get that from? How is it 'jumping through hoops? The Qs are innovative and different from year to year, they're applied to all sorts of concepts; from pure to mech to stats and even random stuff like finance or comets. It's very much about ingenious thinking and clever problem solving. If they are hoops, most can't jump through them; unlike uni Maths. I would say wrote learning proofs is jumping through hoops; especially if you're paying money to gain a piece of paper at the end.
    The questions are different each year but they're based on the same limited areas each year all in need of a annoying trick that has little or know importance in revealing why or how the result is true. You don't even know what applied or pure mathematics involve so how do you have a right to comment - the pure mathematics in STEP is applied mathematics at University and individuals judge mathematical areas by their actual similarities or lack of; not on the basis of whether a comet or asteroid was put in the question. The piece of paper is worth the time. While it could be someone just wrote everything down and remembered with no understanding that's unlikely and will at least come out of it with some intelligent thought process or outlook - the University experience is also important with respect to life lessons.


    (Original post by Physics Enemy)
    They're not better at Maths though, they're worse. Learning material doesn't make you a better mathematician. Yes they've wrote learnt proofs, but so what? A huge chunk of grads do that ever year. Ask them any type of thinking-Maths Q, logic Q or clever problems that don't require random material; they'll do worse.
    They'll probably do better - certainly graduates. You have no understanding of proofs or what they involve so I am getting tired of arguing this but doing mathematics is learning how to do proofs.


    (Original post by Physics Enemy)
    Understanding =/= Remembering formulae. I don't expect people to remember formulae off by heart, but I don't expect their skills, understanding or nouse to evaporate soon. DFranklin had years away from Maths/STEP and didn't lost his skills. When you have a strong understanding of something, it's hard for it to evaporate; but if you blag/wrote learnt/number plug, it goes very quickly.
    He might be able to perform at STEP but this is mainly due to the job he has, which requires he use material or theory not totally unlike that in STEP or the A-level. He has certainly not remembered everything at University and would be hazy on something like if somebody asked a question in group theory terms may have to be double checked on wikipedia, or something.


    (Original post by Physics Enemy)
    I agree with this, all barring anyone can master STEP. Most people just aren't clever enough, even many getting 2.1s and 1sts. But that's also why I was surprised DF put so much stock in grads, when they're busy meeting people, having parties and meeting girls.
    I don't know what I should say here. Doing something you should do in normal life doesn't retract the fact you have spent years studying mathematics looking at thousands of proofs.

    (Original post by Physics Enemy)
    I have a feeling you've been rejected from Ox/Cam and/or struggled/failed STEP. That's how those people usually behave. It's usually these that are quick to dismiss their woes with hard Maths and start boot-licking uni, since they get 80/90%'s for learning proofs and paying fees.
    I go to Oxford and achieved S1 in II,III.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DeanK22)
    blah blah blah
    This post summarizes uni mathematics awfully well.
    Also at warwick the average is about 60 pages per course, and I'd say that most students will do about 12-15 courses per year, so certainly in the thousands.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Physics Enemy)

    STEP tests problem solving ability and clever thinking. You're right, you don't need tons of material, and you're right, they don't care about copying out proofs. That's entirely the point. You keep using words 'cleverly fiddle'; that's only bolstering my arguments. You can't cleverly fiddle a proof, you need to wrote learn it.
    Certainly to me this suggests you haven't done all that much maths. Fairly frequently(particularly in graph theory I find, might be other examples), questions can be answered by taking the proof of a theorem you know, and cleverly fiddling it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Physics Enemy)
    But that's proofs given to you, and you then learn them. That's not really thinking for yourself. That's why Chewmeister has a 1st Class degree and yet can't do STEP. At least in STEP you have to figure it out yourself and think outside the box. I'm talking about thinking and brainpower, not volume of material.


    You're giving false ego boosts to people. You're telling them they can bottle STEP and hard exams, go to uni where it's easier and you wrote learn proofs, and then claim they're clever at Maths afterwards. Everyone knows the truth now.


    That's the point, you shouldn't and don't need lots of formulae and info, you need to go off brain power. To me Maths isn't about learning lots of material and wrote-learning stuff. You're trying to sway me by talking about volume of material. You should know by now I think less material the better. There are extremely difficult Qs that use pre-uni material. Questions your Maths professors can't do too.


    Out of sheer boredom and apathy maybe, not because his IQ is too low.


    STEP tests problem solving ability and clever thinking. You're right, you don't need tons of material, and you're right, they don't care about copying out proofs. That's entirely the point. You keep using words 'cleverly fiddle'; that's only bolstering my arguments. You can't cleverly fiddle a proof, you need to wrote learn it.


    Wrote learning proofs is not Mathematics in my view, anything that involves thinking and real understanding, using Maths in the process, is Mathematics. You've already heard DF say that Chewmeister's degree is worthless in his view. You're feeding me propoganda about uni via quantity of material. So what?


    Yes the mathematical world, not the real world. You were trying to sell uni Maths for education's sake, now it's just a hoop people need to pass through to get a banking job. That's exactly what it is, and what enables Chewmeister to play the system and get a 1st Class degree. I don't see the debate; people wrote learn degrees and get 1st's, but nobody wrote learns STEP/IMO/BMO. So these win.


    Again, the whole point is that volume of material isn't too big. It's about your intelligence and ingeniuity in applying that material to answer hard Qs. You're coming across quite arrogant and deluded; you couldn't do some of the Maths we're talking about, yet you're putting it aside to feed your own ego. Deluded! You're not showing respect for Maths neither you or some professors can do, instead you want to cover yourself in a grandiose uni bubble. Mmmm!


    Graduates can't do better, they're not good enough! Stop telling people like Chewmeister or Flyingscotsman with 1st class degrees what they can and can't do. You and DF are trying to ignore them to bolster your views, which is very biased. I don't think real Mathematics is wrote learning proofs one would never think of nor understand. Sure, you might understand them, but most don't.


    He remembers stuff he genuinely understands and has a firm grasp of, he hasn't and never will lose his Mathematical and thinking skills. That will be with him for life. He performs well in STEP because he's good at Maths and has a high IQ, and obviously has experience in STEP; you need to practise. He could get SS at 18.


    Quantity of material again, yawn.


    Very good, interesting how your views clash entirely with SimonM who is of a similar calibre to you. I think I agree with him a lot more than you, because it makes the most common sense and tallies with what I see and know.
    How much mathematics have you done?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    My goodness this debate is getting slightly out of hand now. Maybe we should all just be friends

    (Original post by DFranklin)
    Problems posted on here tend to lack quite a bit of context, and hardly anyone does the applied, which I'd expect to be fairly easy meat to a joint-physics graduate.

    But also, looking from your posts, I think you've learned more than you think.
    Thank you kindly I think you're probably right that 4 years of Uni maths has likely solidified my understanding of the basics in the A level syllabi. I am of the opinion that even instrumental learning can eventually confer some relational understanding (I refer to the terms "relational" and "instrumental" in the way described by Richard Skemp)
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    No way on earth could I do STEP these days....

    But then I specialised (from 2nd year onwards) in logic and set theory, thus killing my ability to do anything even remotely practical.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Physics Enemy)
    But that's proofs given to you, and you then learn them. That's not really thinking for yourself. That's why Chewmeister has a 1st Class degree and yet can't do STEP. At least in STEP you have to figure it out yourself and think outside the box. I'm talking about thinking and brainpower, not volume of material.


    You're giving false ego boosts to people. You're telling them they can bottle STEP and hard exams, go to uni where it's easier and you wrote learn proofs, and then claim they're clever at Maths afterwards. Everyone knows the truth now.


    That's the point, you shouldn't and don't need lots of formulae and info, you need to go off brain power. To me Maths isn't about learning lots of material and wrote-learning stuff. You're trying to sway me by talking about volume of material. You should know by now I think less material the better. There are extremely difficult Qs that use pre-uni material. Questions your Maths professors can't do too.


    Out of sheer boredom and apathy maybe, not because his IQ is too low.


    STEP tests problem solving ability and clever thinking. You're right, you don't need tons of material, and you're right, they don't care about copying out proofs. That's entirely the point. You keep using words 'cleverly fiddle'; that's only bolstering my arguments. You can't cleverly fiddle a proof, you need to wrote learn it.


    Wrote learning proofs is not Mathematics in my view, anything that involves thinking and real understanding, using Maths in the process, is Mathematics. You've already heard DF say that Chewmeister's degree is worthless in his view. You're feeding me propoganda about uni via quantity of material. So what?


    Yes the mathematical world, not the real world. You were trying to sell uni Maths for education's sake, now it's just a hoop people need to pass through to get a banking job. That's exactly what it is, and what enables Chewmeister to play the system and get a 1st Class degree. I don't see the debate; people wrote learn degrees and get 1st's, but nobody wrote learns STEP/IMO/BMO. So these win.


    Again, the whole point is that volume of material isn't too big. It's about your intelligence and ingeniuity in applying that material to answer hard Qs. You're coming across quite arrogant and deluded; you couldn't do some of the Maths we're talking about, yet you're putting it aside to feed your own ego. Deluded! You're not showing respect for Maths neither you or some professors can do, instead you want to cover yourself in a grandiose uni bubble. Mmmm!


    Graduates can't do better, they're not good enough! Stop telling people like Chewmeister or Flyingscotsman with 1st class degrees what they can and can't do. You and DF are trying to ignore them to bolster your views, which is very biased. I don't think real Mathematics is wrote learning proofs one would never think of nor understand. Sure, you might understand them, but most don't.


    He remembers stuff he genuinely understands and has a firm grasp of, he hasn't and never will lose his Mathematical and thinking skills. That will be with him for life. He performs well in STEP because he's good at Maths and has a high IQ, and obviously has experience in STEP; you need to practise. He could get SS at 18.


    Quantity of material again, yawn.


    Very good, interesting how your views clash entirely with SimonM who is of a similar calibre to you. I think I agree with him a lot more than you, because it makes the most common sense and tallies with what I see and know.
    You are ignorant. STEP maths does not represent what modern mathematics is about. If you want to know what that is, or rather, get some idea of what that is (it's hard to describe explicitly, maybe impossible), you have to focus on university maths. Stop obsessing with "intelligence" and "ability". Ingenuity, however magnificent, is quite worthless when applied to STEP questions.

    "Rote learning isn't maths in my view", whilst I agree with that, from my point of view neither is STEP. If mathematicians all decided 100 years ago that STEP questions were the dogs *******s, and that the only thing to do was to prove to each other how "smart" or "ingenious" they are, we would be a lot behind where we are today. The truth is, most mathematicians have a kind of reverent respect for most other mathematicians, because they most likely work in completely different areas. They mostly would talk fairly different languages anyway. Graph theorists don't compete for intellectual supremacy with PDE theorists; they just move in different circles and think about different things.

    But ignorance is the main problem; you act like you are the **** because you did STEP, or whatever, and maybe you are. But you don't really know anything.

    Because you don't have a degree in mathematics.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    University mathematics and STEP mathematics are extremely different.

    University seems to have a lot more emphasis on studying mathematical theory in lots of different topics. For example, I've been studying Geophysical Fluid Dynamics, Mathematics for General Relativity, Biomathematics etc. It seems quite clear that none of this will be much help in a STEP paper, which is more geared towards problem solving skills rather than knowledge of the theory which has been developed for a specific type of Mathematical problem.

    At university, you're there to learn, and the exams are there to test how much you've learnt. STEP papers test things like your logical thinking and lateral thinking ability, but in a mathematical context.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by im so academic)
    Which begs the question, what skills have they actually learnt during their "maths degree"?
    No, it raises the question... and not a very good one at that.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Physics Enemy)
    Yes shown, not done it themselves. So unless they've seen it in model answers/lectures (in other words, copying the lecturers work), they're screwed if they aren't good enough. If the STEP examiners knew uni people would sit STEP one year, they would avoid Qs that are gifts to uni students, and just have ones that focus on A-Level knowledge. This wouldn't affect the distribution for the usual STEP candidates though.

    This isn't different to your complaints about the odd STEP 1 Q being gifts for Further Maths students. If a uni student has to dig through their notes and basically remember model answers, that's proof in the pudding.

    Furthermore, a 'STEP Grade 3'performance when faced with the unfamiliar Qs, would indicate their true ability. It says they're of that calibre.

    I was expecting some sort of 'these Qs are easy for uni students, they're now smarter and have better skills, they should have the intuition to spot how to solve them, irregardless of knowledge' type of response.
    With this post, you have contradicted your biggest point of argument ever since you first started posting about STEP. That is, you believe that grads/friends at Imperial can't do STEP but you've just acknowledged that the 'tricks' they learn at University will make STEP doable. Just saying.

    I'm not going to Judge what 'real' maths is because I haven't seen anywhere near enough of it yet but I'd imagine that Dean is along the right lines here. Being able to do puzzles etc DOES NOT make someone a good mathematician. Besides, as far as puzzles go, STEP isn't really a crazily difficult 'puzzle', things get a lot more difficult than STEP.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Physics Enemy)
    To me Maths isn't about learning lots of material and wrote-learning stuff.
    You have no idea what maths is. It's absolutely about learning vast quantities of information. Like any other degree, a good mathematician will be able to pick up a paper, understand it, and perhaps build on the ideas in the paper. That's how science grows. That involves learning a lot of material. How do you expect to be an expert in a field which has grown for potentially hundreds of years without learning some basic facts about the field?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    To put it more strongly

    I'm in second year studying Maths and studying stuff that has been worked out 150 years ago. Next year I'll probably be learning stuff that is 100 years old. Then, last year learning stuff that is 80 year olds. If my history of Maths is correct.

    So in a sense, being able to do stuff that is 200 year old isn't actually that good. Being a genius at step shouldn't mean you can get away without learning 200 years of work.

    Granted with practice in by reading books like this http://www.maths.cam.ac.uk/undergrad...tep/advpcm.pdf you could probably become really good at anwsering STEP questions. However, it would be a waste of time as it's not uni Maths(or even Maths itself) and time would be better spent on either uni maths or having fun.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Physics Enemy)
    I think I agree with him a lot more than you, because it makes the most common sense and tallies with what I see and know.
    Clearly much of your previous comments were ridiculous and ill founded, though this particularly (as did your comment on proofs - if the only way to know proofs is via copying how do we come about them? OK - so you do honestly think that even DFranklin can remember 4000 proofs 4 lines each length (generous here with 4 lines also it would be more like 10 to 40)? I do not so he obviously has to work on them; literally prove them again.

    Besides the point: please inform me, other than naming 2 individuals who have firsts on the thread yet cannot 'perform' STEP, what do you see and know to base such a conclusion?

    Because DFranklin is the most informed: being older than everyone and seeing for himself what and how people panned out, there approach to STEP et al. he can look back on his decades of experience and make a judgement. I am not suggesting what he says his Gospel but from my time - just as the other students - at University and during STEP we appear to have similar views.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    You have avoided my questions: how much mathematics are you exposed to + what level?

    (Original post by Physics Enemy)
    Exactly, he won't be able to remember them, but I expect he´ll still have his great thinking ability and skills even after a lay off. This is why he can do STEP and so on because he can use his natural talent. Other people even with degrees, can't.
    Hardly. If I asked him to prove the image of a compact set is compact if the function's continuous then he needs to remember:

    What a metric space involves / a topology entails. What a compact set is (so the notion of a distance / open sets). What a continuous function is or what properties they have with respect to a topology.

    All of these are pretty basic so to be honest they will not be forgotten - more so because DFranklin specialises in Analysis. My point here is that he needs to know and understand roughly about one side of pure information - not proofs, just simply information that must all be used.

    Of course, there is then drawing on experience - I would be surprised if given that information solely that some 18 year old kid would prove that result without having spent some time mucking about in the space of real analysis and metric spaces.

    There is then the argument which to be honest, despite everyone's efforts, is not something one advises to learn by heart (it can be done but you need to know hundreds of proofs - again, do you think any graduate can remember a hundred proofs?) so you have to prove the result 'fresh'. My emphasis is that even though he could prove the result from memory, almost nobody does due to the sheer amount of information.

    (Original post by Physics Enemy)
    Virtually nobody on TSR can help with STEP II/III who goes/went to a worse uni than Cam and Warwick. Hardly any of the people I met at Imperial were of STEP calibre. I have a Maths friend at Leeds on 78% in his degree and can't pass AEA. Then people who openly admit it in real life or on here.
    Yes we can. We just do not want to spend our day working to then go one here and do a STEP question.

    Once more you mention your single friend or the handful of individuals at Imperial: many there WILL have no issue with STEP considering that there are loads of cam Warwick rejects who got 2s.


    (Original post by Physics Enemy)
    Yes he can look back and offer his wisdom. I just don't believe what he says tallies with the present. I'm sure more and more Maths grads will pop in and tell us they can't do STEP. The others will stay quiet or pretend they can. Have you noticed all the STEP-calibre people go/went to Warwick or Cam?
    So the people who have a STEP grade go to a University that demands STEP in their requirements. Yes.

    I am beginning to grow irritated by you, for two reasons the first is your ignorance and the second is the incorrect portrait you're painting for potential STEP students, to be honest if I was DFranklin I would bar you from this thread for simply **** scaring half of the kids who have yet to take the exam but hey whatever floats your boat you arrogant little prick.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Physics Enemy)
    Of course you can, you've already done it! And you've been in the STEP threads before. Simplicity is on here lots and has never helped with STEP. The other guys in this thread graduated, post on TSR but don't help; they say they can't.

    So who are we left with? Oxford, Cambridge and Warwick UGs or Grads.
    Actually I think the issue is more because it's time consuming to post FULL solutions to STEP questions, all 'LaTeX'ed up.

    It's harder to help with STEP questions on here because it's usually quite likely that people are going to become stuck in the latter stages of the question and, in most cases, the earlier parts are required to make sense of the question, which most of the people willing to help probably cannot be bothered to do. Therefore it takes a lot more effort than most people are required to put in just to help someone over the internet. We just don't have enough time to help others for little or no benefit but a thanks at the end.

    Since we're taking tiny samples of maths students and trying to suggest that their situation holds true for most people in similar circumstances, I'd like to say that I don't study at any of those Universities yet I have posted solutions to a few STEP questions on the solution threads. I would have posted more solutions had there not already been solutions to many of the problems and if I had more free time. If you acknowledge that I'm a special case or non-representative of other mathematicians heading towards Imperial then you have to acknowledge that the 9 or so people you are using as evidence of your theory are very likely to be special, non-representative cases too.

    I think you should realise that you're a physicist arguing with maths UG or grads, it's pretty likely that they have a better appreciation of what maths is than you may do.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Physics Enemy)
    I'm not sure what you're alluding to here, but the reason only Cam/Warwick/Ox people help with STEP is because they're the only ones that can. There's many UGs/Grads from other unis on here, who spend a lot of time on here, who never do. It's not because they aren't bothered; that's a really poor excuse. Especially when they're telling you that they can't do it. I agree none of us have concrete evidence, but the fact is you CAN get a 1st Class Maths degree with little talent and by wrote learning. As DF says, what's the point of that really?

    Remember, this discussion wasn't about my quantity of maths knowledge, my IQ or who's better than who. This was about whether Maths Grads can do STEP. I know Maths grads on here and in the real world, who can't, hence my answer. If you wish to ignore me, listen to SimonM or Tazarooni. Same stuff, different guy.
    I disagree. The only reason those help with STEP is because they've actually done it before. You won't find many people helping others with things they have never experienced themselves. It's not a poor excuse, it's fact. We're not getting paid to help others, we do it for the sake of it. I help with A-Level stuff on here because it's easy, good revision and helps me to become more proficient when it comes to communicating my mathematical thoughts.

    I think it's pretty ignorant to assume that people can't do it simply because they don't help other people with it. It's like me saying that you don't know how to handle physics problems (despite the fact you have a degree in it for a top institution) simply because you don't post on the physics forum/help with the mechanics problems in the maths forum. Do you see how similar that is to what you're saying. Don't even tell me you're crap at Physics because I won't believe that for one second.

    The other MAJOR flaw with your argument is that you're forcing your opinion of what mathematical talent is upon others. You seem to think that being good at maths is being able to do puzzles (i.e. STEP). Others on here are arguing that a good mathematician will be one that can memorise proofs, learn from them and use them to prove other results. As I said before, I can't judge which is the better definition yet but I'd be more inclined to agree with the mathematicians rather than the physicist (with no disrespect to you).

    The reason you're getting grilled on here is because you're making the sweeping statement that maths grads that aren't at Oxbridge/Warwick cannot do STEP. I'm sure there are THOUSANDS of counter examples to that. One of my maths teachers, for example, studied at UCL. He has helped me with STEP before and is an incredibly intelligent mathematician. I'm sure a lot of them have simply not needed to do STEP and thus have never bothered with it. You seem to think that a good mathematician needs to be able to do STEP well.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I'd just like to say that, having wasted the last 45 minutes of my life reading this thread: @Physics Enemy: It's rote learning, not wrote learning. That is all.

    (Original post by DeanK22)
    to be honest if I was DFranklin I would bar you from this thread for simply **** scaring half of the kids who have yet to take the exam but hey whatever floats your boat you arrogant little prick.
    I agree with you entirely. However, I think most people taking STEP in the summer a) cba to read this whole bloody thread

    b) are hopefully intelligent enough to be able to recognise the distinct, faecal whiff of 100% concentrated bull****
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.