Oxford Maths Students and Applicants
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Themathgeek
Okay so I am split between cambridge and oxford (for a maths degree) so I would appreciate any help, advice and views on how much of a chance I stand getting an offer.
GCSE: 11A* 2A
AS: Maths (A), Further Maths (A), Economics (A), French (B)
A2 predictions 4A*: Maths, Further Maths, Additional further maths, Economics
I did 7 maths modules and average 95% ums
I've done a work placement, BMO, maths challenges, etc etc
Any advice for interview also welcome, thanks
GCSE: 11A* 2A
AS: Maths (A), Further Maths (A), Economics (A), French (B)
A2 predictions 4A*: Maths, Further Maths, Additional further maths, Economics
I did 7 maths modules and average 95% ums
I've done a work placement, BMO, maths challenges, etc etc
Any advice for interview also welcome, thanks
Have you had a look around both universities? If not, Oxford have an open day on 16th September.
Ultimately the course content is pretty similar at both universities - Cambridge's compulsory core has a bit more physics in than Oxford's. You can find out more general information in the Oxford Maths departmental prospectus, or more in-depth information in the current students section of the website. The Cambridge maths website has information about their course.
Your GCSEs don't matter overly much - what's far more important from our perspective is your performance on the Maths Admissions Test (MAT) and at interview. BMO and maths challenges are great things to put in your personal statement, and get your teacher to talk about your module performance in the teacher reference.
In terms of chance of getting an offer, you can take a look at the feedback we produce each year. Last year around 44% of applicants for Maths were short-listed for interview (short-listing is based on performance in the MAT and UCAS form/educational history). You can see that generally the higher your MAT score the more chance you have of being short-listed for interview and being made an offer. The advice we give to students thinking of applying is have a go at past MAT papers under timed exam conditions and then compare your score to the cohort average scores (all/short-listed/offers) listed on our website.
The rough rule of thumb for Oxford and Cambridge Maths is that it's hard to get an offer from Oxford, but easy to make it (A*A*A standard offer with the A*s in Maths and Further Maths), and it's easy to get an offer from Cambridge (last year they made over 2 times as many offers as places) but hard to make it.
Original post by OxfordMathsDept
Have you had a look around both universities? If not, Oxford have an open day on 16th September.
Ultimately the course content is pretty similar at both universities - Cambridge's compulsory core has a bit more physics in than Oxford's. You can find out more general information in the Oxford Maths departmental prospectus, or more in-depth information in the current students section of the website. The Cambridge maths website has information about their course.
Your GCSEs don't matter overly much - what's far more important from our perspective is your performance on the Maths Admissions Test (MAT) and at interview. BMO and maths challenges are great things to put in your personal statement, and get your teacher to talk about your module performance in the teacher reference.
In terms of chance of getting an offer, you can take a look at the feedback we produce each year. Last year around 44% of applicants for Maths were short-listed for interview (short-listing is based on performance in the MAT and UCAS form/educational history). You can see that generally the higher your MAT score the more chance you have of being short-listed for interview and being made an offer. The advice we give to students thinking of applying is have a go at past MAT papers under timed exam conditions and then compare your score to the cohort average scores (all/short-listed/offers) listed on our website.
The rough rule of thumb for Oxford and Cambridge Maths is that it's hard to get an offer from Oxford, but easy to make it (A*A*A standard offer with the A*s in Maths and Further Maths), and it's easy to get an offer from Cambridge (last year they made over 2 times as many offers as places) but hard to make it.
Ultimately the course content is pretty similar at both universities - Cambridge's compulsory core has a bit more physics in than Oxford's. You can find out more general information in the Oxford Maths departmental prospectus, or more in-depth information in the current students section of the website. The Cambridge maths website has information about their course.
Your GCSEs don't matter overly much - what's far more important from our perspective is your performance on the Maths Admissions Test (MAT) and at interview. BMO and maths challenges are great things to put in your personal statement, and get your teacher to talk about your module performance in the teacher reference.
In terms of chance of getting an offer, you can take a look at the feedback we produce each year. Last year around 44% of applicants for Maths were short-listed for interview (short-listing is based on performance in the MAT and UCAS form/educational history). You can see that generally the higher your MAT score the more chance you have of being short-listed for interview and being made an offer. The advice we give to students thinking of applying is have a go at past MAT papers under timed exam conditions and then compare your score to the cohort average scores (all/short-listed/offers) listed on our website.
The rough rule of thumb for Oxford and Cambridge Maths is that it's hard to get an offer from Oxford, but easy to make it (A*A*A standard offer with the A*s in Maths and Further Maths), and it's easy to get an offer from Cambridge (last year they made over 2 times as many offers as places) but hard to make it.
The only compulsory physics / mechanics in Cambridge's degree is first year Dynamics & Relativity. One course. If this is more than Oxford, you mean to say there is no compulsory physics / mechanics in your entire course. I find this hard to believe
To OP, you can choose to take a much larger amount of theoretical physics in the Cambridge course than Oxford's, though if this is not your interest then after 1st year you can choose absolutely zero of it and focus wholly on pure mathematics.
Original post by newblood
The only compulsory physics / mechanics in Cambridge's degree is first year Dynamics & Relativity. One course. If this is more than Oxford, you mean to say there is no compulsory physics / mechanics in your entire course. I find this hard to believe
To OP, you can choose to take a much larger amount of theoretical physics in the Cambridge course than Oxford's, though if this is not your interest then after 1st year you can choose absolutely zero of it and focus wholly on pure mathematics.
To OP, you can choose to take a much larger amount of theoretical physics in the Cambridge course than Oxford's, though if this is not your interest then after 1st year you can choose absolutely zero of it and focus wholly on pure mathematics.
If you look at the course content in more depth, you'll see that in some topics Cambridge has more physics - for example in Vector Calculus you'll head into tensors, in Differential Equations you'll meet phase-plane analysis. Although these are general methods (applicable in a wide variety of areas), their treatment in the Cambridge course does appear to be more physics based (for instance in the motivating examples and example sheets). In addition the Cambridge courses are all 24 lectures, compared with Oxford's 16 lecture courses - so the courses are not directly comparable in length/depth.
Original post by OxfordMathsDept
If you look at the course content in more depth, you'll see that in some topics Cambridge has more physics - for example in Vector Calculus you'll head into tensors, in Differential Equations you'll meet phase-plane analysis. Although these are general methods (applicable in a wide variety of areas), their treatment in the Cambridge course does appear to be more physics based (for instance in the motivating examples and example sheets). In addition the Cambridge courses are all 24 lectures, compared with Oxford's 16 lecture courses - so the courses are not directly comparable in length/depth.
Cambridge similarly goes more in depth than Oxford in the pure courses also, so I can't understand why we are singling out physics in this way.
Original post by newblood
Cambridge similarly goes more in depth than Oxford in the pure courses also, so I can't understand why we are singling out physics in this way.
I don't think this is the case - there seems to be less algebra and analysis in the Cambridge first year.
Original post by newblood
Cambridge similarly goes more in depth than Oxford in the pure courses also, so I can't understand why we are singling out physics in this way.
As RichE has said, I'm not sure how you're making that assessment. In the first year, splitting into different areas:
1) Introductory courses: Cambridge has a Numbers & Sets course which covers proofs, naive set theory and an introduction to elementary number theory. Oxford splits this into "Intro to uni maths" and "Constructive maths". This is an area I agree that Cambridge's treatment is more cohesive than Oxford's.
2) Linear algebra: In the first year, Oxford's Linear Algebra I & II courses have a more "pure" course than Cambridge's Vectors & Matrices course.
From the Cambridge course, if you take out Complex numbers (2 lectures; covered in a separate Oxford course), Tensors (around 5 lectures, not covered by Oxford in the first year), and the quadratic forms / rotation matrices stuff (2 lectures, covered in Geometry instead). Oxford's course has a separate Geometry course which focuses on the use of vectors and matrices in geometry.
3) Groups: Cambridge's course seems similar to Oxford's, once you take out the additional Mobius group stuff covered in Cambridge's course. I think it's fair to say this stuff is non-core at best.
4) Analysis: Both Oxford and Cambridge cover single-variable calculus up to integration. The courses most differ in the number of lectures offered. Cambridge's 24 is extreme (i.e. it covers the material very quickly, more so than any other university I'm aware of).
In the second year, Oxford has a compulsory set of courses including:
- Linear algebra (I assume they're similar in style, however note that Oxford is happy to define a vector space over an arbitrary field whereas Cambridge defines over R or C only. Courses look to be similar in content otherwise.
- Rings (Oxford has a couple of lectures on this so everyone knows the definitions)
- Metric spaces (covering similar material to Cambridge's "Metric & Topological spaces" without the Topology bit, obviously)
- Complex analysis (note that everyone in Oxford is doing this with a "pure" approach; Cambridge allows you to choose between "Complex analysis" and "Complex methods", the latter being more applied in nature).
- Differential equations (Oxford's course includes Picard's theorem - existence of solutions - which is a more pure approach than Cambridge which covers DE's in methods courses)
The fact that Cambridge doesn't have any compulsory courses in the second year means that many people will not have done as much pure as they would've done at Oxford.
In addition, the differences in the optional pure courses in the second year are, briefly:
- Oxford's "Rings and Modules" and "Group Theory" courses are on a part with Cambridge's "Group's, Rings and Modules" course, except Oxford's Group Theory" covers free groups, composition series and the Jordan-Holder theorem, so seems more in-depth
- Oxford's "Integration" course provides an introduction to measure theory, which you don't do in Cambridge until the third year.
- Oxford's "Topology" course covers the topological spaces part of Cambridge's "Metric and Topological spaces" course, plus some introductory topology which isn't covered by Cambridge until the third year (e.g. simplicial complexes)
- Oxford's "Number theory", "Projective geometry", "Introduction to manifolds" and "Graph theory" covers pure material that is left to the third year in Cambridge.
The only material areas that I think Oxford doesn't cover are multivariate calculus (e.g. differentiation of functions between R^m to R^n) and Cambridge's "Geometry" course.
I think it's fair to say that Oxford's course covers pure more deeply than Cambridge's, at least for the first two years. Why make a random claim when both unis put up a wealth of information and you can just have a look for yourself?
Original post by shamika
As RichE has said, I'm not sure how you're making that assessment. In the first year, splitting into different areas:
1) Introductory courses: Cambridge has a Numbers & Sets course which covers proofs, naive set theory and an introduction to elementary number theory. Oxford splits this into "Intro to uni maths" and "Constructive maths". This is an area I agree that Cambridge's treatment is more cohesive than Oxford's.
2) Linear algebra: In the first year, Oxford's Linear Algebra I & II courses have a more "pure" course than Cambridge's Vectors & Matrices course.
From the Cambridge course, if you take out Complex numbers (2 lectures; covered in a separate Oxford course), Tensors (around 5 lectures, not covered by Oxford in the first year), and the quadratic forms / rotation matrices stuff (2 lectures, covered in Geometry instead). Oxford's course has a separate Geometry course which focuses on the use of vectors and matrices in geometry.
3) Groups: Cambridge's course seems similar to Oxford's, once you take out the additional Mobius group stuff covered in Cambridge's course. I think it's fair to say this stuff is non-core at best.
4) Analysis: Both Oxford and Cambridge cover single-variable calculus up to integration. The courses most differ in the number of lectures offered. Cambridge's 24 is extreme (i.e. it covers the material very quickly, more so than any other university I'm aware of).
In the second year, Oxford has a compulsory set of courses including:
- Linear algebra (I assume they're similar in style, however note that Oxford is happy to define a vector space over an arbitrary field whereas Cambridge defines over R or C only. Courses look to be similar in content otherwise.
- Rings (Oxford has a couple of lectures on this so everyone knows the definitions)
- Metric spaces (covering similar material to Cambridge's "Metric & Topological spaces" without the Topology bit, obviously)
- Complex analysis (note that everyone in Oxford is doing this with a "pure" approach; Cambridge allows you to choose between "Complex analysis" and "Complex methods", the latter being more applied in nature).
- Differential equations (Oxford's course includes Picard's theorem - existence of solutions - which is a more pure approach than Cambridge which covers DE's in methods courses)
The fact that Cambridge doesn't have any compulsory courses in the second year means that many people will not have done as much pure as they would've done at Oxford.
In addition, the differences in the optional pure courses in the second year are, briefly:
- Oxford's "Rings and Modules" and "Group Theory" courses are on a part with Cambridge's "Group's, Rings and Modules" course, except Oxford's Group Theory" covers free groups, composition series and the Jordan-Holder theorem, so seems more in-depth
- Oxford's "Integration" course provides an introduction to measure theory, which you don't do in Cambridge until the third year.
- Oxford's "Topology" course covers the topological spaces part of Cambridge's "Metric and Topological spaces" course, plus some introductory topology which isn't covered by Cambridge until the third year (e.g. simplicial complexes)
- Oxford's "Number theory", "Projective geometry", "Introduction to manifolds" and "Graph theory" covers pure material that is left to the third year in Cambridge.
The only material areas that I think Oxford doesn't cover are multivariate calculus (e.g. differentiation of functions between R^m to R^n) and Cambridge's "Geometry" course.
I think it's fair to say that Oxford's course covers pure more deeply than Cambridge's, at least for the first two years. Why make a random claim when both unis put up a wealth of information and you can just have a look for yourself?
1) Introductory courses: Cambridge has a Numbers & Sets course which covers proofs, naive set theory and an introduction to elementary number theory. Oxford splits this into "Intro to uni maths" and "Constructive maths". This is an area I agree that Cambridge's treatment is more cohesive than Oxford's.
2) Linear algebra: In the first year, Oxford's Linear Algebra I & II courses have a more "pure" course than Cambridge's Vectors & Matrices course.
From the Cambridge course, if you take out Complex numbers (2 lectures; covered in a separate Oxford course), Tensors (around 5 lectures, not covered by Oxford in the first year), and the quadratic forms / rotation matrices stuff (2 lectures, covered in Geometry instead). Oxford's course has a separate Geometry course which focuses on the use of vectors and matrices in geometry.
3) Groups: Cambridge's course seems similar to Oxford's, once you take out the additional Mobius group stuff covered in Cambridge's course. I think it's fair to say this stuff is non-core at best.
4) Analysis: Both Oxford and Cambridge cover single-variable calculus up to integration. The courses most differ in the number of lectures offered. Cambridge's 24 is extreme (i.e. it covers the material very quickly, more so than any other university I'm aware of).
In the second year, Oxford has a compulsory set of courses including:
- Linear algebra (I assume they're similar in style, however note that Oxford is happy to define a vector space over an arbitrary field whereas Cambridge defines over R or C only. Courses look to be similar in content otherwise.
- Rings (Oxford has a couple of lectures on this so everyone knows the definitions)
- Metric spaces (covering similar material to Cambridge's "Metric & Topological spaces" without the Topology bit, obviously)
- Complex analysis (note that everyone in Oxford is doing this with a "pure" approach; Cambridge allows you to choose between "Complex analysis" and "Complex methods", the latter being more applied in nature).
- Differential equations (Oxford's course includes Picard's theorem - existence of solutions - which is a more pure approach than Cambridge which covers DE's in methods courses)
The fact that Cambridge doesn't have any compulsory courses in the second year means that many people will not have done as much pure as they would've done at Oxford.
In addition, the differences in the optional pure courses in the second year are, briefly:
- Oxford's "Rings and Modules" and "Group Theory" courses are on a part with Cambridge's "Group's, Rings and Modules" course, except Oxford's Group Theory" covers free groups, composition series and the Jordan-Holder theorem, so seems more in-depth
- Oxford's "Integration" course provides an introduction to measure theory, which you don't do in Cambridge until the third year.
- Oxford's "Topology" course covers the topological spaces part of Cambridge's "Metric and Topological spaces" course, plus some introductory topology which isn't covered by Cambridge until the third year (e.g. simplicial complexes)
- Oxford's "Number theory", "Projective geometry", "Introduction to manifolds" and "Graph theory" covers pure material that is left to the third year in Cambridge.
The only material areas that I think Oxford doesn't cover are multivariate calculus (e.g. differentiation of functions between R^m to R^n) and Cambridge's "Geometry" course.
I think it's fair to say that Oxford's course covers pure more deeply than Cambridge's, at least for the first two years. Why make a random claim when both unis put up a wealth of information and you can just have a look for yourself?
It was intended as a snide remark. Oxfordmathdept reasoned at the end that Cambridges applied courses go more in depth than Oxfords because they're 24 lectures.
Well by that logic, the pure courses similarly cover more depth.
What you say about 2nd year being optional applies to applied aswell, after all as you say its all optional. To paraphrase yourself:
"The fact that Cambridge doesn't have any compulsory courses in the second year means that many people will not have done as much Applied as they would've done at Oxford."
While it may look optional to an outsider such as yourself, the 2nd year michaelmas courses are essentially core courses that every DoS will seriously force you to go to as they arrange supervisions for all courses. So I dont buy this compulsory maths rubbish that is being spouted. People at Cambridge aren't simply taking courses for exams but to study for their own sakes. I fear this is something you are not comperhending.
Original post by RichE
I don't think this is the case - there seems to be less algebra and analysis in the Cambridge first year.
Disagree overall
- yes oxford seems to cover a little more in groups
- Ox linear algebra content is very much the same as cam vectors & matrices, and then this is taken alot further in IB Lin Alg
On the other hand Oxf Analysis I, II and III cover the same as Cambridges one first year course on Analysis. All same topics: series, continuity (uniform cont lectured at Cam though nonexaminable as it is not mentioned in.schedule), differentiation, integration, power series
Original post by newblood
It was intended as a snide remark. Oxfordmathdept reasoned at the end that Cambridges applied courses go more in depth than Oxfords because they're 24 lectures.
Well by that logic, the pure courses similarly cover more depth.
Well by that logic, the pure courses similarly cover more depth.
Can you show me where that was said? The most relevant quote I could see was that the (individual) courses aren't directly comparable in length/depth. (I would quote properly but on a phone and TSR has made its reply system even worse than I remember it).
That's why I spent ages going through each year at a time, to try to make that comparison clear for people. As I explained at length, Cambridge does not cover pure in more depth than Oxford does in the first two years. (In the first year I would say they're pretty similar, but that wasn't you're original assertion, which was Oxford covers pure in less depth than Cambridge in the first year.)
*
*What you say about 2nd year being optional applies to applied aswell, after all as you say its all optional. To paraphrase yourself:
"The fact that Cambridge doesn't have any compulsory courses in the second year means that many people will not have done as much Applied as they would've done at Oxford." *
*While it may look optional to an outsider such as yourself, the 2nd year michaelmas courses are essentially core courses that every DoS will seriously force you to go to as they arrange supervisions for all courses. So I dont buy this compulsory maths rubbish that is being spouted. People at Cambridge aren't simply taking courses for exams but to study for their own sakes. I fear this is something you are not comperhending.
"The fact that Cambridge doesn't have any compulsory courses in the second year means that many people will not have done as much Applied as they would've done at Oxford." *
*While it may look optional to an outsider such as yourself, the 2nd year michaelmas courses are essentially core courses that every DoS will seriously force you to go to as they arrange supervisions for all courses. So I dont buy this compulsory maths rubbish that is being spouted. People at Cambridge aren't simply taking courses for exams but to study for their own sakes. I fear this is something you are not comperhending.
I think you meant I said many (Cam) people won't have done as much pure as at Oxford. I stand by that statement. Plenty of people I've advised or helped during Cambridge haven't done all of the Michaelmas pure courses, so they're not as "compulsory in practise" as you might think from your college's practices.
I also stand by my assessment about coverage of pure at both unis. There is a greater variety of pure in Oxford's second year and a lot of it covered in more detail than the corresponding Cambridge course (in the second year). But arguing about this is pretty pointless. The real reason I went into so much depth wasn't to prove a point, it was to help students who want to understand the differences in courses in case this helps them make up their mind between the two courses.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by shamika
Can you show me where that was said? The most relevant quote I could see was that the (individual) courses aren't directly comparable in length/depth. (I would quote properly but on a phone and TSR has made its reply system even worse than I remember it).
That's why I spent ages going through each year at a time, to try to make that comparison clear for people. As I explained at length, Cambridge does not cover pure in more depth than Oxford does in the first two years. (In the first year I would say they're pretty similar, but that wasn't you're original assertion, which was Oxford covers pure in less depth than Cambridge in the first year.)
*
I think you meant I said many (Cam) people won't have done as much pure as at Oxford. I stand by that statement. Plenty of people I've advised or helped during Cambridge haven't done all of the Michaelmas pure courses, so they're not as "compulsory in practise" as you might think from your college's practices.
I also stand by my assessment about coverage of pure at both unis. There is a greater variety of pure in Oxford's second year and a lot of it covered in more detail than the corresponding Cambridge course (in the second year). But arguing about this is pretty pointless. The real reason I went into so much depth wasn't to prove a point, it was to help students who want to understand the differences in courses in case this helps them make up their mind between the two courses.
That's why I spent ages going through each year at a time, to try to make that comparison clear for people. As I explained at length, Cambridge does not cover pure in more depth than Oxford does in the first two years. (In the first year I would say they're pretty similar, but that wasn't you're original assertion, which was Oxford covers pure in less depth than Cambridge in the first year.)
*
I think you meant I said many (Cam) people won't have done as much pure as at Oxford. I stand by that statement. Plenty of people I've advised or helped during Cambridge haven't done all of the Michaelmas pure courses, so they're not as "compulsory in practise" as you might think from your college's practices.
I also stand by my assessment about coverage of pure at both unis. There is a greater variety of pure in Oxford's second year and a lot of it covered in more detail than the corresponding Cambridge course (in the second year). But arguing about this is pretty pointless. The real reason I went into so much depth wasn't to prove a point, it was to help students who want to understand the differences in courses in case this helps them make up their mind between the two courses.
You seem quite adamnt to ignore the facts, instead going on your own anecdotal evidence which means nothing.
I shan't waste my time replying any longer
Original post by newblood
Disagree overall
- yes oxford seems to cover a little more in groups
- Ox linear algebra content is very much the same as cam vectors & matrices, and then this is taken alot further in IB Lin Alg
On the other hand Oxf Analysis I, II and III cover the same as Cambridges one first year course on Analysis. All same topics: series, continuity (uniform cont lectured at Cam though nonexaminable as it is not mentioned in.schedule), differentiation, integration, power series
- yes oxford seems to cover a little more in groups
- Ox linear algebra content is very much the same as cam vectors & matrices, and then this is taken alot further in IB Lin Alg
On the other hand Oxf Analysis I, II and III cover the same as Cambridges one first year course on Analysis. All same topics: series, continuity (uniform cont lectured at Cam though nonexaminable as it is not mentioned in.schedule), differentiation, integration, power series
I don't know what synopses you were looking at before making these claims. I think it is also worth saying (especially for any prospective students looking at the two courses trying to decide between the two) that no-one is saying the Cambridge course is worse for having different emphases to the Oxford course, just that these different emphases exist and Cambridge's course has slightly more of an applied ethos about it, but this is not at all surprising given DAMTP also includes theoretical physicists.
But to the facts of this particular post of yours. The relevant synopses/schedules can be found at
https://www.maths.ox.ac.uk/system/files/attachments/Prelims2016-17_DRAFT.pdf
https://www.maths.cam.ac.uk/undergrad/course/schedules.pdf
What the Cambridge course is covering in its Vectors and Matrices course (24 lectures) is covered in the Oxford first year courses of Geometry, Linear Algebra I+II, Intro to Complex Numbers (39 lectures in all - though probably only 35 of those are pertinent to this point). Unsurprisingly Oxford covers more in those lectures so that when you look at the successor course of
Part IB Linear Algebra in Cambridge
then you'll see the following
Definition of a vector space, subspaces, the space spanned by a subset. Linear independence, bases, dimension. Direct sums and complementary subspaces.
Linear maps, isomorphisms. Relation between rank and nullity. The space of linear maps from U to V, representation by matrices. Change of basis. Row rank and column rank.
Determinant and trace of a square matrix. Determinant of a product of two matrices and of the inverse matrix. Determinant of an endomorphism. The adjugate matrix.
Inner product spaces, orthonormal sets, orthogonal projection, orthogonal complement. Gram–Schmidt orthogonalisation. Spectral Theorem for symmetric matrices (general case, not just distinct eigenvalues)
is being covered, and all this is first year Oxford material. And Oxford's successor course in the second year likewise goes further again.
Likewise
Part IB Analysis II in Cambridge
begins with
The general principle of uniform convergence. A uniform limit of continuous functions is continuous. Uniform convergence and term-wise integration and differentiation of series of real-valued functions. Local uniform convergence of power series. Uniform continuity and integration
Continuous functions on closed bounded intervals are uniformly continuous.
all of which is first year Oxford material.
Of course in the meantime first year Oxford mathematicians are learning no special relativity, no cartesian tensors, and don't know what the Lorentz group is. It all just boils down to slightly different emphases.
(edited 7 years ago)
Hey,
I know this thread is just maths, but I thought I'd post just in case! My blog is currently running a guest series on applying to Oxford for various subjects. Today's post is about maths and computer science - I'll create a separate thread for the blog links but thought I'd post it here too in case anyone was interested
https://carambalache.wordpress.com/2016/09/05/applying-to-oxford-maths-computer-science/
I know this thread is just maths, but I thought I'd post just in case! My blog is currently running a guest series on applying to Oxford for various subjects. Today's post is about maths and computer science - I'll create a separate thread for the blog links but thought I'd post it here too in case anyone was interested
https://carambalache.wordpress.com/2016/09/05/applying-to-oxford-maths-computer-science/
Original post by such_a_lady
Hey,
I know this thread is just maths, but I thought I'd post just in case! My blog is currently running a guest series on applying to Oxford for various subjects. Today's post is about maths and computer science - I'll create a separate thread for the blog links but thought I'd post it here too in case anyone was interested
https://carambalache.wordpress.com/2016/09/05/applying-to-oxford-maths-computer-science/
I know this thread is just maths, but I thought I'd post just in case! My blog is currently running a guest series on applying to Oxford for various subjects. Today's post is about maths and computer science - I'll create a separate thread for the blog links but thought I'd post it here too in case anyone was interested
https://carambalache.wordpress.com/2016/09/05/applying-to-oxford-maths-computer-science/
https://carambalache.wordpress.com/2016/09/05/applying-to-oxford-maths-computer-science/
good advice
Does anyone have the notes for the lecture series in Hilary term for first years on Fourier series and PDEs? from last year or before would be fantastic help
Original post by newblood
You seem quite adamnt to ignore the facts, instead going on your own anecdotal evidence which means nothing.
I shan't waste my time replying any longer
I shan't waste my time replying any longer
Ehhh bro! Back at it again are we ?...
. You a second year now- how did IA go?Hi!
I'd like to ask what exactly am I supposed to write answers to MAT questions?
1.) Will my rough working under the problems of the 1st question be marked in any way and any case?
2.) How much explaining should I do under other questions? Should I as deep as they go in solutions?
Any answers would be really appreciated!
~Nervous Candidate
I'd like to ask what exactly am I supposed to write answers to MAT questions?
1.) Will my rough working under the problems of the 1st question be marked in any way and any case?
2.) How much explaining should I do under other questions? Should I as deep as they go in solutions?
Any answers would be really appreciated!
~Nervous Candidate
Original post by nervcandidate
Hi!
I'd like to ask what exactly am I supposed to write answers to MAT questions?
1.) Will my rough working under the problems of the 1st question be marked in any way and any case?
2.) How much explaining should I do under other questions? Should I as deep as they go in solutions?
Any answers would be really appreciated!
~Nervous Candidate
I'd like to ask what exactly am I supposed to write answers to MAT questions?
1.) Will my rough working under the problems of the 1st question be marked in any way and any case?
2.) How much explaining should I do under other questions? Should I as deep as they go in solutions?
Any answers would be really appreciated!
~Nervous Candidate
1) no
2) use your judgement, it's gonna vary from q to q, but you don't need as much detail as solutions. Just make your work logical
Original post by nervcandidate
Hi!
I'd like to ask what exactly am I supposed to write answers to MAT questions?
1.) Will my rough working under the problems of the 1st question be marked in any way and any case?
I'd like to ask what exactly am I supposed to write answers to MAT questions?
1.) Will my rough working under the problems of the 1st question be marked in any way and any case?
No. Tutors might look at what you've written, but you shouldn't waste time trying to present a neat solution; tutors will just be trying to see whether you seem to have used a sensible approach; if you did it in your head, that's fine.
2.) How much explaining should I do under other questions? Should I as deep as they go in solutions?
As a general rule, you should give enough explanation to show that you understand, and that would persuade one of your colleagues. The suggested solutions are roughly the expected amount of explanation. But as Zacken said, use your judgement.
Gavin
Really struggling, not even the teachers at my college can help me with some of the questions.
When will shortlisted applicants invited for interview?
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Oxford University - A-Level Entry Requirements
- Maths at Oxford or Cambridge?
- Oxford University for Computer Science
- Oxford Maths and Computer Science Students and Applicants
- Which unis to consider for a student with these predicted grades
- Chat to an Oxford Student
- LMH Oxford: Ask us anything
- are my gcse grades important for Oxford
- further maths for engineering
- Should I bother applying to Oxford?
- A level subjects for computer science at oxford n other unis
- Can I get into engineering with these subjects at A level?
- Canadian Intl. Student Help
- Is a post-A level application for Oxford a good idea?
- Four Subjects important for Oxford?
- Oxford Law GCSE Grades
- University application with 3 alevels
- Oxford gcse grades
- should i still apply for oxbridge Maths
- grades for oxbridge???
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
University of Oxford 2025 Undergraduate Applicants Official ThreadLast reply 2 weeks ago
University of Oxford 2024 Undergraduate Applicants Official ThreadLast reply 2 weeks ago
Oxford Colleges - pianos available to play recreationallyLast reply 1 month ago
BA (Hons) - Law (Jurisprudence) at Oxford only allows choice of 2 optional papers?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
University of Oxford 2025 Undergraduate Applicants Official ThreadLast reply 2 weeks ago
University of Oxford 2024 Undergraduate Applicants Official ThreadLast reply 2 weeks ago
Oxford Colleges - pianos available to play recreationallyLast reply 1 month ago
BA (Hons) - Law (Jurisprudence) at Oxford only allows choice of 2 optional papers?
