Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drogue)
    Is that Charlotte? I didn't know she had to be reinterviewed with everyone else! :eek: That's harsh, sometime they just let people do their prelims in one subject and switch to the first year of another after that.
    Yes it is. Yep, they made her come back and be re-interviewed. She only did the first term and wanted to quit then, so she didn't want to sit her prelims.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Phil23)
    hi,

    i'm hating oxford maths, its rigour and proofs and all that. I am thinking of deferring and changing to either engineering or physics but am not sure what to do.

    can people please discuss the pros and cons of sticking with maths, or going to do one of the other two subjects?

    I had the worse 1st term of my life at Oxford...so miserable and maths is so depressing and boring

    PK
    I think you should stick at it...Maths at a top uni is a very good credential to hold and it will serve you well. However, even a maths degree from Oxford, if at a 2:2, will be close to useless when competing against titan uni's like Imperial and Cambridge if their grads can pull in a 2:1. Overall, change to Physics/Engineering if you think you cant get a 2:2 in maths otherwise stick at it. Remember, this was you first term....it may just be that you need time to adjust. uni is supposed to be different from the mundane a-level standards most of us are used to. You should be embracing the challenge!!!

    --------------

    Perhaps transfer to another uni (Imperial perhaps)???
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Actually I take back my previous post. I think you are a total pillock. You got in to Oxford maths, convincing the tutors of your love for the subject; only to change your mind. Total schizophrenic. You do realise that someone who would of really loved maths could of taken your place instead of the complete ****wit you are.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Esquire)
    Actually I take back my previous post. I think you are a total pillock. You got in to Oxford maths, convincing the tutors of your love for the subject; only to change your mind. Total schizophrenic. You do realise that someone who would of really loved maths could of taken your place instead of the complete ****wit you are.
    What? did your oxford rejection letter come today or something?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Esquire)
    Actually I take back my previous post. I think you are a total pillock. You got in to Oxford maths, convincing the tutors of your love for the subject; only to change your mind. Total schizophrenic. You do realise that someone who would of really loved maths could of taken your place instead of the complete ****wit you are.
    Or maybe because the entrance exam and interview questions are A-Level style Maths and not the rigorous proofs that they do at uni, and Phil likes applied/methods/problem solving etc. rather than rigour and proof. I don't think it's his fault tbh. They don't even test proof/rigour in the exam or interviews.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nima)
    Or maybe because the entrance exam and interview questions are A-Level style Maths and not the rigorous proofs that they do at uni, and Phil likes applied/methods/problem solving etc. rather than rigour and proof. I don't think it's his fault tbh. They don't even test proof/rigour in the exam or interviews.
    Well, they can't really ask stuff about at interview because almost nobody has met proof before uni (just the odd bit of induction say).

    On the matter of proof, it's one of the main differences in style between uni and A-level - at any good uni, not just Oxford. And it's hyperbolic of Phil23 to say that everything is proof in the first year. It's only really the analysis stuff that is focused on it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nima)
    Or maybe because the entrance exam and interview questions are A-Level style Maths and not the rigorous proofs that they do at uni, and Phil likes applied/methods/problem solving etc. rather than rigour and proof. I don't think it's his fault tbh. They don't even test proof/rigour in the exam or interviews.
    Hehe, if he liked applied things, then he should have applied to applied sciences first! It is his fault not to have been able to differentiate a pure science from an applied one.

    On the matter of proofs: I agree to someone's post. Proofs help you understand the core of equations/theorems you are using. Once you understand the limitation and assumptions of a certain theorem, you will understand when and where it can be applied to yield a satisfactory result.

    I am regretting that in Engineering, we just skip important underlying Maths details and just prove a few superficial equations. Such a method of teaching would not benefit us when systematic knowledge is required. Nor would it in the case of innovations as you don't know the limitation of your Maths tools.

    Phil23: 50% of Physics is Maths. The other 50% is physical details. But remember that you will have to prove even more as you cannot rigorously describe a physical process with an essay
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ipsen)
    Hehe, if he liked applied things, then he should have applied to applied sciences first! It is his fault not to have been able to differentiate a pure science from an applied one.

    On the matter of proofs: I agree to someone's post. Proofs help you understand the core of equations/theorems you are using. Once you understand the limitation and assumptions of a certain theorem, you will understand when and where it can be applied to yield a satisfactory result.

    I am regretting that in Engineering, we just skip important underlying Maths details and just prove a few superficial equations. Such a method of teaching would not benefit us when systematic knowledge is required. Nor would it in the case of innovations as you don't know the limitation of your Maths tools.

    Phil23: 50% of Physics is Maths. The other 50% is physical details. But remember that you will have to prove even more as you cannot rigorously describe a physical process with an essay
    hmm...i loved straight maths at highschool. I didn't know that maths at uni would be so different and incorporate as a major element the part of maths i most disliked, i.e. proof. I had the idea maths was like A level pure maths, just more techniques. Analysis and linear algebra hit me as bit of a shock, so to did the other proofs in stats and the applied topics. I suppose i prefer applied maths to pure, and to those u said i lied to the tutors "up yours". I liked maths at the time, and have just lost my lust for it...no showy show was involved...if this was the case, i wouldn't have got in, cos i'd have been found out. No more conspiry theories please...

    phil
 
 
 
Poll
Were you ever put in isolation at school?

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

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