Which offers do I accept?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by baruba
definitely warkwick if you are studying maths. I recently went to Cambridge to sahdow a student studying Maths and I asked him about his choices and he stated that Cambridge had the best maths course and warwick was the closest to them. Oxford was third. Majority of the other students agreed so I think for MAths you should pick warwick.
Has it occurred to you that a lot of these people may be biased due to the fact that they never applied to Oxford, and most probably firmed Cambridge and insured Warwick?
Original post by Temmychan
GCSE results were 11A*, 1A.
AS Level results were AAAAA in Maths, Further Maths, Physics, Chemistry, and Politics.
AS Level results were AAAAA in Maths, Further Maths, Physics, Chemistry, and Politics.
Although this has nothing to do with the thread, I must say that your results disgust me. Well done you!
Anyway, out of the two, which do you prefer in terms of non-academic criteria? Seeing as Warwick and Oxbridge are pretty much equivalent reputation-wise for Maths, I'd suggest differentiating between the two based on where you feel you'd enjoy yourself more (as cliché as it sounds).
Original post by Noble.
Clearly though, you get a lot less individual attention with 4 other students as opposed to, at the most, just one other. My point was that, you can still gain from other people's problems without it needing to be in a tutorial/supervision.
Being in my 4th year of Warwick, I think the supervision/tutorial system works really well. Due to how the timetables work, it's mainly supervisions where you'd have this kind of learning.
I don't agree with you so much about sharing problems without needing a supervision - in my experience when you're with friends you don't generally want to talk about maths. Having said that, there are people who often work on maths problems with each other but this isn't the case with everyone - it helps to have someone there to provide some sort of direction to the sessions.
Having the supervisor there also helps in that they would be a masters or PhD student, so they'll have gone through the course recently and would know which bits are most important and where you're likely to get stuck.
Original post by und
Also, just so people realise, the Warwick offer of a 2 in any STEP paper or a Distinction in AEA is actually quite easy to achieve for most adequately prepared students at that level, especially someone who has got through the selection process at Oxford. If you look at league tables, Oxford freshers come in with better grades than their peers at Warwick.
Also, just so people realise, the Warwick offer of a 2 in any STEP paper or a Distinction in AEA is actually quite easy to achieve for most adequately prepared students at that level, especially someone who has got through the selection process at Oxford. If you look at league tables, Oxford freshers come in with better grades than their peers at Warwick.
I wouldn't underestimate STEP. It's very hard and plenty of people don't pass it to the required standards. With regards to league tables, unless you've seen a different one to ones I've seen, they often refer to ucas points for the admissions statistics.
My concern with this is that since we know everyone entering both universities will have top grades in their best a-levels, a high number of UCAS points would indicate taking on more subjects, which wouldn't necessarily say much about their mathematical ability.
At this point I'm now sorta wishing that I'd applied to Cambridge instead... ^-^;
Applying to Oxbridge never even crossed my mind until about halfway through last year, and I never really remember making a conscious decision to apply, it just happened. I didn't think I had a chance at all, so I decided to apply to Oxford based on a general opinion in my college's maths dept. that passing the MAT and interviews was broadly easier than passing STEP II and III. Not to jinx it but I think that I could handle getting a 2 in STEP I, having worked at the past papers they don't seem any more difficult than the MAT.
I've visited both universities, and also stayed at St Catherine's (the Oxford college I was accepted to) for my interviews, and I like both of them a lot. Oxford is unique because it's, well, Oxford, dreaming spires etc. Warwick doesn't have that 'feel' since it's basically located in a field a couple of miles outside Coventry, but the campus itself is lovely and the atmosphere was a lot less forbidding and austere.
It seems that the general consensus of people I've asked is that Warwick's maths department is either on par with or slightly superior to Oxford. But Oxford's international prestige is so much higher than Warwick's, and I have a feeling it would open more doors... I'm thinking Oxford at the moment.
Applying to Oxbridge never even crossed my mind until about halfway through last year, and I never really remember making a conscious decision to apply, it just happened. I didn't think I had a chance at all, so I decided to apply to Oxford based on a general opinion in my college's maths dept. that passing the MAT and interviews was broadly easier than passing STEP II and III. Not to jinx it but I think that I could handle getting a 2 in STEP I, having worked at the past papers they don't seem any more difficult than the MAT.
I've visited both universities, and also stayed at St Catherine's (the Oxford college I was accepted to) for my interviews, and I like both of them a lot. Oxford is unique because it's, well, Oxford, dreaming spires etc. Warwick doesn't have that 'feel' since it's basically located in a field a couple of miles outside Coventry, but the campus itself is lovely and the atmosphere was a lot less forbidding and austere.
It seems that the general consensus of people I've asked is that Warwick's maths department is either on par with or slightly superior to Oxford. But Oxford's international prestige is so much higher than Warwick's, and I have a feeling it would open more doors... I'm thinking Oxford at the moment.
Original post by ttoby
Being in my 4th year of Warwick, I think the supervision/tutorial system works really well. Due to how the timetables work, it's mainly supervisions where you'd have this kind of learning.
I don't agree with you so much about sharing problems without needing a supervision - in my experience when you're with friends you don't generally want to talk about maths. Having said that, there are people who often work on maths problems with each other but this isn't the case with everyone - it helps to have someone there to provide some sort of direction to the sessions.
Having the supervisor there also helps in that they would be a masters or PhD student, so they'll have gone through the course recently and would know which bits are most important and where you're likely to get stuck.
I wouldn't underestimate STEP. It's very hard and plenty of people don't pass it to the required standards. With regards to league tables, unless you've seen a different one to ones I've seen, they often refer to ucas points for the admissions statistics.
My concern with this is that since we know everyone entering both universities will have top grades in their best a-levels, a high number of UCAS points would indicate taking on more subjects, which wouldn't necessarily say much about their mathematical ability.
I don't agree with you so much about sharing problems without needing a supervision - in my experience when you're with friends you don't generally want to talk about maths. Having said that, there are people who often work on maths problems with each other but this isn't the case with everyone - it helps to have someone there to provide some sort of direction to the sessions.
Having the supervisor there also helps in that they would be a masters or PhD student, so they'll have gone through the course recently and would know which bits are most important and where you're likely to get stuck.
I wouldn't underestimate STEP. It's very hard and plenty of people don't pass it to the required standards. With regards to league tables, unless you've seen a different one to ones I've seen, they often refer to ucas points for the admissions statistics.
My concern with this is that since we know everyone entering both universities will have top grades in their best a-levels, a high number of UCAS points would indicate taking on more subjects, which wouldn't necessarily say much about their mathematical ability.
I think any supervision system is going to work really well, regardless of the logistics - I was just nitpicking. Obviously when someone is trying to decide between Oxford and Warwick a lot of it is going to boil down to nitpicking between the two (as is arguably any choice within the COWI universities).
I don't disagree that the maths department at Warwick easily can be just as good as Oxford's in reality (although claims that it's superior to Oxford's department I've only seen spouted by people who firmed Cambridge and failed to get in, so ended up in Warwick).
Also, while STEP is considerably more difficult than A-Level (Maths, Science) exams, which really aren't difficult by any stretch of the imagination, the difficulty of STEP isn't really comparable to the kind of mathematics and problem sheets you get subjected to as a first year in Cambridge/Oxford/Warwick. Clearly people have it in their minds that any university that doesn't ask for STEP papers for admission must be running some "dumbed-down" course in mathematics, which is clearly nonsense.
Original post by Noble.
Also, while STEP is considerably more difficult than A-Level (Maths, Science) exams, which really aren't difficult by any stretch of the imagination, the difficulty of STEP isn't really comparable to the kind of mathematics and problem sheets you get subjected to as a first year in Cambridge/Oxford/Warwick. Clearly people have it in their minds that any university that doesn't ask for STEP papers for admission must be running some "dumbed-down" course in mathematics, which is clearly nonsense.
Also, while STEP is considerably more difficult than A-Level (Maths, Science) exams, which really aren't difficult by any stretch of the imagination, the difficulty of STEP isn't really comparable to the kind of mathematics and problem sheets you get subjected to as a first year in Cambridge/Oxford/Warwick. Clearly people have it in their minds that any university that doesn't ask for STEP papers for admission must be running some "dumbed-down" course in mathematics, which is clearly nonsense.
One way of looking at it that my tutor once mentioned is that there are universities that teach the 'gold standard' of mathematics and universities that teach below the gold standard. Of course, this leaves open the question of what the 'gold standard' is but I think the point he was making was that all of the top universities for maths are good.
Original post by Temmychan
At this point I'm now sorta wishing that I'd applied to Cambridge instead... ^-^;
Applying to Oxbridge never even crossed my mind until about halfway through last year, and I never really remember making a conscious decision to apply, it just happened. I didn't think I had a chance at all, so I decided to apply to Oxford based on a general opinion in my college's maths dept. that passing the MAT and interviews was broadly easier than passing STEP II and III. Not to jinx it but I think that I could handle getting a 2 in STEP I, having worked at the past papers they don't seem any more difficult than the MAT.
I've visited both universities, and also stayed at St Catherine's (the Oxford college I was accepted to) for my interviews, and I like both of them a lot. Oxford is unique because it's, well, Oxford, dreaming spires etc. Warwick doesn't have that 'feel' since it's basically located in a field a couple of miles outside Coventry, but the campus itself is lovely and the atmosphere was a lot less forbidding and austere.
It seems that the general consensus of people I've asked is that Warwick's maths department is either on par with or slightly superior to Oxford. But Oxford's international prestige is so much higher than Warwick's, and I have a feeling it would open more doors... I'm thinking Oxford at the moment.
Applying to Oxbridge never even crossed my mind until about halfway through last year, and I never really remember making a conscious decision to apply, it just happened. I didn't think I had a chance at all, so I decided to apply to Oxford based on a general opinion in my college's maths dept. that passing the MAT and interviews was broadly easier than passing STEP II and III. Not to jinx it but I think that I could handle getting a 2 in STEP I, having worked at the past papers they don't seem any more difficult than the MAT.
I've visited both universities, and also stayed at St Catherine's (the Oxford college I was accepted to) for my interviews, and I like both of them a lot. Oxford is unique because it's, well, Oxford, dreaming spires etc. Warwick doesn't have that 'feel' since it's basically located in a field a couple of miles outside Coventry, but the campus itself is lovely and the atmosphere was a lot less forbidding and austere.
It seems that the general consensus of people I've asked is that Warwick's maths department is either on par with or slightly superior to Oxford. But Oxford's international prestige is so much higher than Warwick's, and I have a feeling it would open more doors... I'm thinking Oxford at the moment.
I doubt Oxford will open more doors practically. Of course, Oxford has higher prestige, but this is rather the "wow"-factor from people on the street. I highly doubt that going to Warwick instead of Oxford will have any difference on any practical side, whether you plan to go into employment, academia,etc.
Original post by crunchychips
I doubt Oxford will open more doors practically. Of course, Oxford has higher prestige, but this is rather the "wow"-factor from people on the street. I highly doubt that going to Warwick instead of Oxford will have any difference on any practical side, whether you plan to go into employment, academia,etc.
It would open more doors if you were looking at employment overseas.
Original post by psychedelicious
Rightly or wrongly, the Oxford name carries a lot of weight. It's also worth taking into consideration that Oxford have a means-tested bursary and fee reduction scheme that could potentially see you leave with 18,900 less debt than you would have at another university. Details are here:
http://www.ox.ac.uk/feesandfunding/ugcurrent/oob/oob2012/
http://www.ox.ac.uk/feesandfunding/ugcurrent/oob/oob2012/
That is true, the funding at Oxford exceeds even the maximum amount of loan you can get studying in London (Imperial specifically).
Original post by caveman123
If I read you correctly, are you suggesting the students from HK and Taiwan are 2 years ahead of their British counterparts at age 16, yet miraculously two years later, either:
A) The HK and TW students slow down
B) The British pick up the pace
C) A combination of both the above?
A) The HK and TW students slow down
B) The British pick up the pace
C) A combination of both the above?
Regardless, people generally reach a level standard at uni. For example I'm doing a science degree and we covered pretty much everything in Further Maths (FP1-3, M1, M2, S2) in a few weeks. Eventually it gets to the stage where people encounter material they've never seen and at that point it's a level playing field.
Original post by Noble.
It would open more doors if you were looking at employment overseas.
Would it really make a huge difference though?
Original post by crunchychips
Would it really make a huge difference though?
It's obviously hard to say
I can't see it making a HUGE difference, but I can see, looking at international league tables, and Warwick's positioning (as a university), that Oxford would have the edge overseas, especially considering how - if an employer in america had an understanding of maths-specific rankings in the UK - that both universities are at a similar/comparable standard. I'd imagine if choosing between 2 applications - one from Warwick and one from Oxford (same class) that it'd go down to non-academic stuff, work experience etc.
Of course this is just me speculating
Have had a thought on this one and am a little surprised there's not been much talk about Imperial, after all it is part of COWI.
The reason is that for a university as a whole, I think it has more prestige than Warwick but for maths Warwick would be more prestigious.
However, for an 18 year old who does not know whether or not they'll do well at uni, they should choose the one that will open more doors for them at the end of it.
Suppose choose Warwick and do well, then
can continue in academia (at Warwick or anywhere else) or get job in real world.
If academia, Warwick will open doors else job, Warwick opens fewer doors (than Imperial)
if not do well then job and again Warwick opens fewer doors (than Imperial)
On the other hand, if choose Imperial and do well, then
can continue in academia (at Imperial or anywhere else) or get job.
If academia, Imperial will open doors but not as many as Warwick
else job, Imperial opens more doors (than Warwick)
if not do well then job and Imperial again opens more doors (tha Warwick)
The critical point is that if one chooses to remain in academia, academics will know about both Imperial and Warwick, with Warwick given an edge.
However outside of academia, Imperial would have a bigger edge, especially in the Far East.
Like to hear Warwick / Imperial students / grads view.
The reason is that for a university as a whole, I think it has more prestige than Warwick but for maths Warwick would be more prestigious.
However, for an 18 year old who does not know whether or not they'll do well at uni, they should choose the one that will open more doors for them at the end of it.
Suppose choose Warwick and do well, then
can continue in academia (at Warwick or anywhere else) or get job in real world.
If academia, Warwick will open doors else job, Warwick opens fewer doors (than Imperial)
if not do well then job and again Warwick opens fewer doors (than Imperial)
On the other hand, if choose Imperial and do well, then
can continue in academia (at Imperial or anywhere else) or get job.
If academia, Imperial will open doors but not as many as Warwick
else job, Imperial opens more doors (than Warwick)
if not do well then job and Imperial again opens more doors (tha Warwick)
The critical point is that if one chooses to remain in academia, academics will know about both Imperial and Warwick, with Warwick given an edge.
However outside of academia, Imperial would have a bigger edge, especially in the Far East.
Like to hear Warwick / Imperial students / grads view.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by dugdugdug
Have had a thought on this one and am a little surprised there's not been much talk about Imperial, after all it is part of COWI.
The reason is that for a university as a whole, I think it has more prestige than Warwick but for maths Warwick would be more prestigious.
However, for an 18 year old who does not know whether or not they'll do well at uni, they should choose the one that will open more doors for them at the end of it.
Suppose choose Warwick and do well, then
can continue in academia (at Warwick or anywhere else) or get job in real world.
If academia, Warwick will open doors else job, Warwick opens fewer doors (than Imperial)
if not do well then job and again Warwick opens fewer doors (than Imperial)
On the other hand, if choose Imperial and do well, then
can continue in academia (at Imperial or anywhere else) or get job.
If academia, Imperial will open doors but not as many as Warwick
else job, Imperial opens more doors (than Warwick)
if not do well then job and Imperial again opens more doors (tha Warwick)
The critical point is that if one chooses to remain in academia, academics will know about both Imperial and Warwick, with Warwick given an edge.
However outside of academia, Imperial would have a bigger edge, especially in the Far East.
Like to hear Warwick / Imperial students / grads view.
The reason is that for a university as a whole, I think it has more prestige than Warwick but for maths Warwick would be more prestigious.
However, for an 18 year old who does not know whether or not they'll do well at uni, they should choose the one that will open more doors for them at the end of it.
Suppose choose Warwick and do well, then
can continue in academia (at Warwick or anywhere else) or get job in real world.
If academia, Warwick will open doors else job, Warwick opens fewer doors (than Imperial)
if not do well then job and again Warwick opens fewer doors (than Imperial)
On the other hand, if choose Imperial and do well, then
can continue in academia (at Imperial or anywhere else) or get job.
If academia, Imperial will open doors but not as many as Warwick
else job, Imperial opens more doors (than Warwick)
if not do well then job and Imperial again opens more doors (tha Warwick)
The critical point is that if one chooses to remain in academia, academics will know about both Imperial and Warwick, with Warwick given an edge.
However outside of academia, Imperial would have a bigger edge, especially in the Far East.
Like to hear Warwick / Imperial students / grads view.
Do you want me to give you the sole reason Imperial has not been mentioned in this thread? This thread is supposed to be about whether or not the OP should firm Warwick or Oxford...
Original post by Noble.
Do you want me to give you the sole reason Imperial has not been mentioned in this thread? This thread is supposed to be about whether or not the OP should firm Warwick or Oxford...
True but Cambridge was mentioned as well along the way.
Regardless, what do you think of my reasoning?
personally id go to Oxford, i had the interview there too this year and had a really great time, i visited warwick on an open day and it just didnt have the same feel...so i'd choose based on the place rather than the course as it seems course is pretty similar and similar standard...im applying for maths too, got rejected by oxford after interview- when did you hear from st andrews? i havent heard anything from them, not even a 'thanks for applying' email :/
Oh and congrats on all your offers
Oh and congrats on all your offers
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by dragonrabbit
It's obviously hard to say
I can't see it making a HUGE difference, but I can see, looking at international league tables, and Warwick's positioning (as a university), that Oxford would have the edge overseas, especially considering how - if an employer in america had an understanding of maths-specific rankings in the UK - that both universities are at a similar/comparable standard. I'd imagine if choosing between 2 applications - one from Warwick and one from Oxford (same class) that it'd go down to non-academic stuff, work experience etc.
Of course this is just me speculating
I can't see it making a HUGE difference, but I can see, looking at international league tables, and Warwick's positioning (as a university), that Oxford would have the edge overseas, especially considering how - if an employer in america had an understanding of maths-specific rankings in the UK - that both universities are at a similar/comparable standard. I'd imagine if choosing between 2 applications - one from Warwick and one from Oxford (same class) that it'd go down to non-academic stuff, work experience etc.
Of course this is just me speculating
That's what I thought. Degree, Degree class, work experience, extracurriculars, etc. probably make far more of a difference than whether you want to Oxford or Warwick.
Original post by dugdugdug
Have had a thought on this one and am a little surprised there's not been much talk about Imperial, after all it is part of COWI.
The reason is that for a university as a whole, I think it has more prestige than Warwick but for maths Warwick would be more prestigious.
However, for an 18 year old who does not know whether or not they'll do well at uni, they should choose the one that will open more doors for them at the end of it.
Suppose choose Warwick and do well, then
can continue in academia (at Warwick or anywhere else) or get job in real world.
If academia, Warwick will open doors else job, Warwick opens fewer doors (than Imperial)
if not do well then job and again Warwick opens fewer doors (than Imperial)
On the other hand, if choose Imperial and do well, then
can continue in academia (at Imperial or anywhere else) or get job.
If academia, Imperial will open doors but not as many as Warwick
else job, Imperial opens more doors (than Warwick)
if not do well then job and Imperial again opens more doors (tha Warwick)
The critical point is that if one chooses to remain in academia, academics will know about both Imperial and Warwick, with Warwick given an edge.
However outside of academia, Imperial would have a bigger edge, especially in the Far East.
Like to hear Warwick / Imperial students / grads view.
The reason is that for a university as a whole, I think it has more prestige than Warwick but for maths Warwick would be more prestigious.
However, for an 18 year old who does not know whether or not they'll do well at uni, they should choose the one that will open more doors for them at the end of it.
Suppose choose Warwick and do well, then
can continue in academia (at Warwick or anywhere else) or get job in real world.
If academia, Warwick will open doors else job, Warwick opens fewer doors (than Imperial)
if not do well then job and again Warwick opens fewer doors (than Imperial)
On the other hand, if choose Imperial and do well, then
can continue in academia (at Imperial or anywhere else) or get job.
If academia, Imperial will open doors but not as many as Warwick
else job, Imperial opens more doors (than Warwick)
if not do well then job and Imperial again opens more doors (tha Warwick)
The critical point is that if one chooses to remain in academia, academics will know about both Imperial and Warwick, with Warwick given an edge.
However outside of academia, Imperial would have a bigger edge, especially in the Far East.
Like to hear Warwick / Imperial students / grads view.
Imperial opens more doors in the job world than Warwick? I doubt that. Warwick is the top targeted universities by employers in the UK. Saying that it opens fewer doors than Imperial is simply not true.
Original post by crunchychips
That's what I thought. Degree, Degree class, work experience, extracurriculars, etc. probably make far more of a difference than whether you want to Oxford or Warwick.
Imperial opens more doors in the job world than Warwick? I doubt that. Warwick is the top targeted universities by employers in the UK. Saying that it opens fewer doors than Imperial is simply not true.
Imperial opens more doors in the job world than Warwick? I doubt that. Warwick is the top targeted universities by employers in the UK. Saying that it opens fewer doors than Imperial is simply not true.
Uh oh, I fear someone has been reading the Telegraph.
Original post by crunchychips
That's what I thought. Degree, Degree class, work experience, extracurriculars, etc. probably make far more of a difference than whether you want to Oxford or Warwick.
Imperial opens more doors in the job world than Warwick? I doubt that. Warwick is the top targeted universities by employers in the UK. Saying that it opens fewer doors than Imperial is simply not true.
Imperial opens more doors in the job world than Warwick? I doubt that. Warwick is the top targeted universities by employers in the UK. Saying that it opens fewer doors than Imperial is simply not true.
I assume you are quoting the report in the Torygraph?
May I remind you everything you read is biased. Looking at today's education section in DT, you'd be forgiven for thinking there are only two universities in the UK, with articles about someone living in the library, summer students missing out, etc.
With regard to league tables, this ones puts Manchester top with LONDON (including Imperial second).
http://www.highfliers.co.uk/download/GMReport12.pdf
Taking a step further, imagine if you believed in the Guardian's table for maths.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/table/2012/may/22/university-guide-mathematics
Their top 23 reads:
1.McDonalds
2.Burger King
3.KFC
4.Cambridge
5.St Andrews
6.Warwick
7.Oxford
8.Lancaster
9.Central Lanc
10.Stirling
11.Durham
12.Glasgow
13.Keele
14.Birmingham
15.Aberdeen
16.Liverpool JM
17.Oxford Brookes
18.Strathclyde
19.Bristol
20.Reading
21.LSE (which only offers maths with stats)
22.Exeter
23.Imperial
So this thread would be meaningless!
(OK the top 3 were made up but no doubt the Guardian would add them next time round, as I'm sure they score highly in student satisfaction)!
Frankly I think someone should have a word with the Guardian. To publish absurd tables such as this could do serious damage to any potential student's career prospects.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by Temmychan
GCSE results were 11A*, 1A.
Original post by Temmychan
Applying to Oxbridge never even crossed my mind until about halfway through last year, and I never really remember making a conscious decision to apply, it just happened. I didn't think I had a chance at all
Applying to Oxbridge never even crossed my mind until about halfway through last year, and I never really remember making a conscious decision to apply, it just happened. I didn't think I had a chance at all
Nice lying work there, Chris.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Sixth form application - Results day
- Queen Mary Malta A100 2024 Entry
- What to do after alevel results day?
- Uni accidentally gave me an unconditonal offer but hasn't noticed?
- MORSE-Warwick
- Entry requirements
- Still waiting on one response - do I withdraw it?
- Am I being lowballed? should I accept or take my chance at a higher salary?
- Accepting an Imperial College PhD offer
- Tu delft aerospace offer conditional?
- i messed up my uni degree
- Near Miss Bath Econ Offer
- Missing conditions for a course, instead being considered for a different one?
- Kingston foundation art offer
- Unconditional offer
- St Andrews Sutton trust
- Can I get into KCL Biomed if I missed my offer by one point?
- University Vet Med entry requirements
- How likely are Cardiff or Liverpool to give me an offer?
- Ucas questions
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 weeks ago
71 on the MAT, rejected for interview by both Oxford and Imperial.Trending
Last reply 3 weeks ago
71 on the MAT, rejected for interview by both Oxford and Imperial.
