Prof Brian Cox got a D in a-level maths!

Why? he's had more of an impact of getting the masses interested/into science than say Alan Guth or George Smoot, who outside of people who follow phyics have heard of him?

Even top science people often cite Sagan as "the reason they got into science"

I'm sure someone like you would moan sagan wasn't accomplished enough as an scientist but at least he got the newer generation interested

Like the other guy said, I think me meant in one exam and Bill Turnbull says something to him and Cox responds, you can't make out what they say to each other I think it might have been something along the lines of you retook it or something like that.

It probably was just one A level module and there's no doubt he'll be competant at maths, he probably just didn't try. If you had the ability to be the best mathematician in the world, but had never studied the syllabus for an A level maths paper, you would fail.

I don't think they would have had modules at that time if he did A levels before 2000. When did he do them?

Give him an Olympiad paper or IMO/IPO paper and he wouldn't have a clue.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12344973

How did he get onto a physics course at uni with only that?

or was that when a-levels were harder and virtually noone got 'A's?

It did just say 'A level maths exam' so maybe just the one exam.. and he re sat it... dunno though

What makes him better than any other physics professor, other than the fact that he's also a TV presenter, which has no bearing on his ability to do physics? I'm not saying he isn't, I'm just curious as to why the public hold him in such high regard when, as far as I know, he hasn't actually contributed major to physics (other than publicising it). Which puts him in the same position as most other physics professors. Why does he warrant the title of 'Absolute genius?'. I'm curious.

Secondly, no one's good at everything, true but you need to be pretty damn good at maths to do well in a physics degree. Obviously he's very capable, which is why it's surprising he got a D.

When people say that a levels are not necessarily an indicator of intelligence or an ability in that subject they can often be right.
In a subject like maths if you're actually good at maths then you'll do well, even if you put in minimal effort.
He may have just a really bad day on the exam...it's possible.
A level maths wasn't much harder back then. I'd looked at a paper from the early 70s and yes, it was harder than the further maths I did at A level, but not vastly harder as I understood most of the questions.

Another talentless tin-pot academic, but granted that slow voice and fresh(er) face popularised science a little more. Give him an Olympiad paper or IMO/IPO paper and he wouldn't have a clue. But then, many of them don't.

I hate to break it to you, but more important things will happen in your life than A levels.

I knew about B.E.Cox years before most of you plebs had heard of him. He first took part in a documentary called "The 6 Billion Dollar Experiment" in 2007. He has a minor role, but that's one of the best Horizon's I've seen, torrent or youtube it

Eistein failed school entirely!

Just because he got a D then doesnt mean that he was stupid. Many teenagers might not care then and later on "blossom". I remember I got a C in the equivalent of your GCSE's (I'm from Sweden) and to the equivalent of your further maths at A2 I got a big fat A , reason is I wasnt focused and didnt care about school before and do now.

I hate to break it to you, but more important things will happen in your life than A levels.

They are in no way indicative of intelligence, and he has obviously proven himself since then.

Who cares?