This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Maths! Where?!

homoterror

Even if Warwick offers aren't as hard as Oxford's it's the fact that Warwick's offer really pushes the STEP/AEA that makes people think of them as Cambridge II in my opinion. If you don't agree with this then how do you suggest the idea has gotten into people's heads that Oxford isn't second? (Which it clearly has as this thread indicates, as well as another in this forum)

ok so they offer on Step and AEA...that is a somewhat flawed argument to say that warwick is "better" for maths, isn't it? and a 3 3 in STEP 1 and 2 for a further mathematician who would generally love maths to pieces....doesn't seem that bad really, is it? If the offer was a 1S, 1 or 2 then ok, its somethign but a 3 3? and as for AEA, from what i read they ask for a Merit, which is easier to get than a distinction, so that is not that bad either...i'm sure any decent further mathematician could handle it...

As for oxford being 9th...if you read that text properly, you'll find that teaching has a big numerical weighting on teaching quality, and hence boosts Bath up to second because it has 24/24 whereas oxford as 22/24. If oxford was one point ahead in this field, i'm sure they'd be within the top 5 and certainly a good contender for the second spot. League tabels are dodgy and must be interpreted with care...you can't jsut look at the universities position and say "oh that uni is better for x or y".

Finally, oxford being "****" is your opinion, and this can vary from person to person. My maths teacher, who did a maths degree at cambridge reckons oxford is 2nd and that warwick is in a league below it.

My opinion is that Oxford is better than imperial, warwick and baths course, but lower than Cambridge's maths degree quality.

Phil

Reply 41

homoterror

You didn't follow the logic of my arguments at all, no offense Phil.

Phil23

ok so they offer on Step and AEA...that is a somewhat flawed argument to say that warwick is "better" for maths, isn't it?
That wasn't my argument was it? I was simply explaining why there's a feeling that Oxford have failed to claim a top2 spot like one would expect. It doesn't have to be a valid argument, it's merely an explanation of a trend.

As for oxford being 9th...if you read that text properly, you'll find that teaching has a big numerical weighting on teaching quality, and hence boosts Bath up to second because it has 24/24 whereas oxford as 22/24.

That's not relevant to anything, but if you're going to defend Oxford, why are you pointing out that Oxford's strength (teaching) is its pitfall?

Finally, oxford being "****" is your opinion

Explicitly NOT my opinion. This is simply the obvious alternative if you don't accept my theory that Oxford is poorly regarded because of Warwick's enthusiasm for STEP.

Reply 42

Font

homoterror

Explicitly NOT my opinion. This is simply the obvious alternative if you don't accept my theory that Oxford is poorly regarded because of Warwick's enthusiasm for STEP.

lol...that is the first time i've ever heard that. Is that the general consensus amongst your local community or are there any credible sources? Articles etc?

Reply 43

homoterror

Phil23

lol...that is the first time i've ever heard that. Is that the general consensus amongst your local community or are there any credible sources? Articles etc?

It's a theory which has been expressed on here before. And I think it's quite reasonable. Seriously, if you think it's incorrect, how do you think it has gotten into people's heads that Warwick>Bath>Oxford? Do you think it's a reflection of a changing standard? A decline of Oxford?

Reply 44

Font

homoterror

It's a theory which has been expressed on here before. And I think it's quite reasonable. Seriously, if you think it's incorrect, how do you think it has gotten into people's heads that Warwick>Bath>Oxford? Do you think it's a reflection of a changing standard? A decline of Oxford?

maybe

...but ye old Oxford has not yet lost all its steam just yet...still better than warwick and bath in most peoples opinion, which is i suppose bolstered by the 'oxbridge' factor, which other uni's in the russel group simply can't acquire overnight.

oh well...an opinions an opinion i guess...no point bickering any more about this - think what you want...lets leave it at that shall we?

pk

Reply 45

El Stevo

11

i went to Bath, Warwick, Ox, Cam, Bristol, Manchester to look at maths courses. to me, the deciding factor between Ox and Cam was the ambience of the place. bath and warwick looked ok, but neither appealed enough for me to apply. i ended up applying to ox, st andrews, bristol, nottingham, manchester and liverpool, the first 3 being the places i thought i would enjoy studying maths at the most. in the end, reputation means naff all. your gonna get whatever your gonna get no dont matter really which top uni you apply to. whats the point in going to Cam because its the best if its just not for you?

Reply 46

username22878

OP

2

Well, as you can see from my sig, indecisive me's changed my mind again :rolleyes:

.

Reply 47

perkyDani

cambridge is definitely considered superior to Oxford as far as academia and quality of the undergraduate course goes. But compared to the other top unis- ie warwick, bath,imperial etc, I'd still say oxford is in a different league, not just considering the quality of the course/teaching/ research, but when you consider reputation, prestige, money and this does attract top level academics and staff. I'm really surprised there are people saying oxford is average and clearly inferior to warwick, bristol etc,
I think that the general public still think that an oxbridge degree is second to none.
Do ppl think that employers would pick another uni with a good rep for maths over an oxford candidate?
I am applying to Cambridge math this year partly cos I just like the city more, if I dont get in however, i would rather have applied to oxford than go to any of the other unis

Reply 48

wanderer

2

I've certainly got the impression, from my Maths teachers, on here and elsewhere, that Warwick's course is at least up there with Oxford's, if not better, along with a couple of others - Nottingham, Bath, Imperial.

Reply 49

Neapolitan

2

wanderer

I've certainly got the impression, from my Maths teachers, on here and elsewhere, that Warwick's course is at least up there with Oxford's, if not better, along with a couple of others - Nottingham, Bath, Imperial.

If you compare the courses' syllabi I'm not sure that's right. Bath don't even do pure analysis till the second year and Imperial looks around a semester behind Oxford. Warwick look to go at the same pace but seem to have fewer options. All the universities you mention are good but I don't see Oxford Maths is behind them. I haven't even mentioned the tutorial or collegiate systems.

Reply 50

Gaz031

15

Phil23

ok so they offer on Step and AEA...that is a somewhat flawed argument to say that warwick is "better" for maths, isn't it? and a 3 3 in STEP 1 and 2 for a further mathematician who would generally love maths to pieces....doesn't seem that bad really, is it? If the offer was a 1S, 1 or 2 then ok, its somethign but a 3 3? and as for AEA, from what i read they ask for a Merit, which is easier to get than a distinction, so that is not that bad either...i'm sure any decent further mathematician could handle it...

I believe the offer including an extension paper is AAB+2/merit (not 3).
If you don't take F. Maths or an extension paper then the offer is AAAB.
Your confidence regarding extension papers surprises me when you didn't take one yourself. :smile:

I believe the typical Cambridge offer for Maths is AAA+12/22 and so S or 1 grades are certainly nothing to be taken lightly.

Reply 51

username22878

OP

2

Gaz031

I believe the offer including an extension paper is AAB+2/merit (not 3).
If you don't take F. Maths or an extension paper then the offer is AAAB.
You're confidence regarding extension papers surprises me when you didn't take one yourself. :smile:

I believe the typical Cambridge offer for Maths is AAA+12/22 and so S or 1 grades are certainly nothing to be taken lightly.

Gaz, just out of curiosity, did you apply to Cambridge/Oxford? If you did, and they didn't let you in they must have been mad :eek:

.

Reply 52

Gaz031

15

ljfrugn

Gaz, just out of curiosity, did you apply to Cambridge/Oxford? If you did, and they didn't let you in they must have been mad :eek:

.

I didn't apply to either Oxford or Cambridge.

Reply 53

Font

Gaz031

I believe the offer including an extension paper is AAB+2/merit (not 3).
If you don't take F. Maths or an extension paper then the offer is AAAB.
Your confidence regarding extension papers surprises me when you didn't take one yourself. :smile:

I believe the typical Cambridge offer for Maths is AAA+12/22 and so S or 1 grades are certainly nothing to be taken lightly.

Doesn't stop me from trying a few in prep for the Oxford entrance paper :p:

They aren't that bad. Yes you had to think more than for A-level papers, but it wasn't so hard that I would have failed miserably if i had done it.

I'm just pissed off people are 'gunning' Oxford so much...i'm going to be going there! Have to defend it at all costs :rolleyes:

...otherwise i'll be supporting the argument that it is crap for maths, which it isn't...

Reply 54

El Stevo

11

Phil23

Doesn't stop me from trying a few in prep for the Oxford entrance paper :p:

They aren't that bad. Yes you had to think more than for A-level papers, but it wasn't so hard that I would have failed miserably if i had done it.

I'm just pissed off people are 'gunning' Oxford so much...i'm going to be going there! Have to defend it at all costs :rolleyes:

...otherwise i'll be supporting the argument that it is crap for maths, which it isn't...

you've spent most of tsr mocking oxford and its students. hypocrite :rolleyes:

Reply 55

Font

El Chueco

you've spent most of tsr mocking oxford and its students. hypocrite :rolleyes:

got to grow up some day don't i :wink:

Reply 56

Wrangler

2

Having seen the exam papers from Warwick, Bath and Oxford - I'd have to say Oxford was in a different league. There seemed to be more material covered, and the questions seemed to have much more of a problem element.

None of this "reduce the following matrix to JNF - 20 Marks; Find the Fourier Transform of this - 20 Marks; Find the Riemann Invariants of this - 20 Marks; Solve the following SDE - 20 Marks" malarky!

Cambridge seemed a level up again.

Reply 57

Neapolitan

2

Wrangler

Having seen the exam papers from Warwick, Bath and Oxford - I'd have to say Oxford was in a different league. There seemed to be more material covered, and the questions seemed to have much more of a problem element.

None of this "reduce the following matrix to JNF - 20 Marks; Find the Fourier Transform of this - 20 Marks; Find the Riemann Invariants of this - 20 Marks; Solve the following SDE - 20 Marks" malarky!

Cambridge seemed a level up again.