This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Maths at Oxford or Cambridge - How Did You Decide!?!?

Hi

I want to study Maths at Oxford or Cambridge but am yet to deviate between the two. You may have seen a couple of my threads in the Oxford and Cambridge forums trying to decide on my shortlist of colleges at each university. Unfortunately, I remain as confused as ever as to which university to apply to! Each has it's own pro's and con's, and everytime I manage to convince myself through logical reason to apply to one, I conjure up some sort of counter argument about why I should be applying to the other. Firstly, my shortlist of colleges in order of preference for each (not as yet definitive):

Oxford
St. John's
Wadham
Christ Church
St. Catz
Worcestor

Cambridge
King's
Churchill
St. John's
Queen's
Trinity

I am planning to go back to each university and visit every shortlisted college and will then come to my definite first choice college for each. Now for my personal list of thought processes for each university (which may differ in opinion to other's):

Oxford

•

Generally perceived to be 'less hard' to get into, and I definitely feel I have a greater chance of getting an offer

•

Oxford seems a nicer city to live in

•

Oxford is closer to home

•

I feel more attracted to some of my shortlisted colleges

•

An Oxford degree in Maths would be more than adequate for a good job in my desired line of work (Actuarial work) i.e. a Cambridge degree will not give an advantage, so why take the risk of not getting in?

•

All colleges give a test at interview, which I'd prefer

•

STEP papers are not part of the conditional offer

•

The Mathematical Institute building leaves much to be desired

•

Not all colleges provide accomodation for the duration of the course

Cambridge

•

Generally perceived as 'better' for Maths

•

Will provide the grandeur of having studied Maths at Cambridge

•

Will rid me of the underlying questions: 'Would I have got into Cambridge?' and 'What if I'd gone to Cambridge?'

•

Not all colleges give a test at interview, which is my preference so my choice of colleges is limited

•

The Mathematcial Institute building looks like something by NASA (which is good :wink: )

•

Cambridge colleges tend to have greater annual intakes of Mathematicians

•

Cambridge colleges tend to provide accomodation for the duration of the course

As you can see, I'm in quite a conundrum. Current students, or students with offers to study Maths at Oxbridge, how did you decide where to apply to!? Any feedback you can offer will be of paramount importance in terms of trying to decide where to apply, so many thanks in advance. I've incorporated a poll to make clear your recommendations, based on my opinions.

Reply 40

FadeToBlackout

15

My school has a 100% Oxbridge success rate. :biggrin:

Which kind of pales when I say that it was just me, and I'm the first ever person to get in.

Reply 41

kizer

15

henryt

Unfortunately, going to an "amazing school" doesn't make you particularly clever/self-confident - it only has that effect after exam results! Also, I think my school is one of the better ones with Oxbridge admissions - 48% of students (last year) ~ 75 students getting places. And my school is very proud of it's record in Maths - it's basically the only subject where all the teachers are amazing. There are a few who have a really odd style, or a few who only like clever people, but they still make good mathematicians out of us! This year, there are 40 of us doing F. Maths, and about 110 doing Single (out of 180 - so only 30 people don't do Maths). But Set 3 is hardly great. We've got someone from Set 4 applying for Maths at Oxford too. But that's not really the dilemma... Arg.

Most teachers are great...others not.

Last year much more did further maths - did they cut it down?

Reply 42

henryt

17

FadeToBlackout

My school has a 100% Oxbridge success rate.

Well done!! But there is just a slight difference between success rate and admissions rate methinks... :p:

kizer

Most teachers are great...others not.
Last year much more did further maths - did they cut it down?

OK - well a few have somehow remained, and one or two of the newer teachers aren't great...

And I think MCD placed far higher restrictions on the new students coming in - that might be why there are fewer.

Reply 43

apd35

9

Illusionary

Cockcroft Lecture Theatre, New Museums Site

http://www.cam.ac.uk/map/v3/drawmap.cgi?mp=nmus;tl=New%20Museums%20Site

Only in the first two terms of first year. In the last term and throughout second year they are at Mill lane
http://www.cam.ac.uk/map/v3/drawmap.cgi?mp=main;xx=1700;yy=1040;gf=png
or
http://www.cam.ac.uk/map/v3/drawmap.cgi?mp=city
and in third year, lectures are at the Centre for Mathematical Sciences (CMS), same place as Isaac Newton Institute
http://www.cam.ac.uk/map/v3/drawmap.cgi?mp=main;xx=1100;yy=560;gf=png
or
http://www.cam.ac.uk/map/v3/drawmap.cgi?mp=city

Reply 44

z0mbie

As far as the content of the courses go it is almost irrelevant. Do not base your judgement on something like that.

As for reputation, we all know Cambridge has the superior one. However, apart from the ego aspect of this, it really doesn't matter either. You are just as employable from oxford as from cambridge.

If you are worried about your MATHS career, only part III of the cambridge degree(the fourth year of the course;actually it's a standalone masters essentially) could influence this aspect of your decision(See below).

If I was you, THIS is what I would do.

Apply to Oxford and get accepted.
Do three years of maths at oxford and graduate with your 1st
Do part III of cambridge

This is probably the best advice you will receive on this matter. Regards

Reply 45

Chewwy

17

z0mbie

This is probably the best advice you will receive on this matter. Regards

humble.

Reply 46

meef cheese

10

z0mbie

If I was you, THIS is what I would do.

Apply to Oxford and get accepted.
Do three years of maths at oxford and graduate with your 1st
Do part III of cambridge

Do you not then have funding problems for Part III, which you wouldn't have if you did your BA at Cambridge?

Reply 47

ShaneP

OP

4

apd35

Only in the first two terms of first year. In the last term and throughout second year they are at Mill lane
http://www.cam.ac.uk/map/v3/drawmap.cgi?mp=main;xx=1700;yy=1040;gf=png
or
http://www.cam.ac.uk/map/v3/drawmap.cgi?mp=city
and in third year, lectures are at the Centre for Mathematical Sciences (CMS), same place as Isaac Newton Institute
http://www.cam.ac.uk/map/v3/drawmap.cgi?mp=main;xx=1100;yy=560;gf=png
or
http://www.cam.ac.uk/map/v3/drawmap.cgi?mp=city

OK, so if I applied to Churchill, the benefit of it's location will only function in the third year. I guess everyone else will then have to take the bike ride in the morning..... :biggrin:

Reply 48

henryt

17

e-unit

Do you not then have funding problems for Part III, which you wouldn't have if you did your BA at Cambridge?

Not necessarily - according to the Maths Faculty website, they still offer LEA grants etc.

Lusus Naturae

The solution to your application problem is trivial;

Taking each college in turn, multiply the displacement of a particle, ShaneP

to the lecture location by the number of lectures at the locations

. Do this for all the locations and all the colleges. Divide by the number of lectures,

to get the average displacement from the college,

to each lecture. Now multiply this value by the square of the applications per place,

at each college.

You should end up with a Lusus Value,

for each college

Generally,

The college with the smallest Lusus Value is the one you apply to. This is applicable to both Oxford and Cambridge colleges.

I was going to suggest something like this, but I can't type in TeX quickly enough! Beat me to it!! :p:

I guess I could still come up with a "T" value. Or indeed a "Henry" value, or a "HT" value!!

Reply 49

ShaneP

OP

4

Lusus Naturae

The solution to your application problem is trivial;

Taking each college in turn, multiply the displacement of a particle, ShaneP $S_p$ to the lecture location by the number of lectures at the locations $L_1, L_2, L_3, .. , L_n$ . Do this for all the locations and all the colleges.

Nice. Unfortunately I can't see the symbol you've given for the ShaneP particle. Damn.

And I assume you use the summation of the displacement-lecture products before dividng by the number of lectures. You haven't made that clear in your explanation. :p:

Reply 50

Wrangler

2

henryt

Not necessarily - according to the Maths Faculty website, they still offer LEA grants etc.

I'm afraid you will have funding problems. Only those who did their undergrad at Cambridge are entitled to LEA funding - because in that case Part III can be seen as a clear continuation of your degree; obviously this isn't the case if you've studied elsewhere.

:frown:

Reply 51

shinyhappy

14

a) Who says Oxford is easier to get into? :s-smilie:

Both unis are going to look at modular scores in future, which was the main reason that oxford was regarded as easy. And a smaller percentage of Oxford applicants are given interviews than Cambridge applicants (although both still interview the majority of applicants.)
b) This thread should be called 'What did you decide' not 'How did you decide' surely? Based on your poll...
c) I know nowt about the courses, so I'm not a good judge, but - Oxford!

Reply 52

RichE

15

shinyhappy

a) Who says Oxford is easier to get into? :s-smilie:

Both unis are going to look at modular scores in future, which was the main reason that oxford was regarded as easy. And a smaller percentage of Oxford applicants are given interviews than Cambridge applicants (although both still interview the majority of applicants.)

The application-to-place ratios are pretty much the same these days, and both (for maths) pretty much interview everyone. However it is more effort to apply to Cambridge because of STEP papers - in this sense you might say Cambridge is harder to get into - but as many schools can't help with STEP and, arguably, practising STEP only makes you any better at doing STEP papers rather than understanding maths, I'm not convinced this is a good way to spend time.

Reply 53

wanderer

2

RichE

The application-to-place ratios are pretty much the same these days, and both (for maths) pretty much interview everyone. However it is more effort to apply to Cambridge because of STEP papers - in this sense you might say Cambridge is harder to get into - but as many schools can't help with STEP and, arguably, practising STEP only makes you any better at doing STEP papers rather than understanding maths, I'm not convinced this is a good way to spend time.

I know STEP improved my ability to cope with A level questions (not that I had that much difficulty with them, but I got a lot faster) and seems to have made BMO questions more accessible to me. Can't really say whether its helped me 'understand maths'.

Reply 54

FWoodhouse

5

RichE

The application-to-place ratios are pretty much the same these days, and both (for maths) pretty much interview everyone. However it is more effort to apply to Cambridge because of STEP papers - in this sense you might say Cambridge is harder to get into - but as many schools can't help with STEP and, arguably, practising STEP only makes you any better at doing STEP papers rather than understanding maths, I'm not convinced this is a good way to spend time.

I disagree, I think practising STEP most definitely helped my mathematical ability in general, not just my ability to do STEP questions. But this is rather a can of worms which is now already half-open.

EDIT: Except for my BMO ability. I have, and always will, suck at BMO questions. STEP did nothing for that! :smile:

Reply 55

RichE

15

FWoodhouse

I disagree, I think practising STEP most definitely helped my mathematical ability in general, not just my ability to do STEP questions. But this is rather a can of worms which is now already half-open.

EDIT: Except for my BMO ability. I have, and always will, suck at BMO questions. STEP did nothing for that! :smile:

Ah, well, maybe I'll have to remain in the minority here. The STEP questions I did over Easter I found pretty boring and most of the time wondered what they were aiming at - they never really seemed to be teaching anything and more commonly relied on brute force than I would have expected and were good practice only for doing long manipulative calculations.

I'm not much more of a fan of BMO questions, but I usually find that you have to stop and think for a while about how to approach them, what degrees of freedom you have within the problem etc., and in this sense they seem to teach more. That said that may well be because, having finished my degree, I end up doing them very differently to how they were intended to be done. :rolleyes:

Reply 56

Kolya

17

RichE

That said that may well be because, having finished my degree, I end up doing them very differently to how they were intended to be done. :rolleyes:

Are you doing a PhD or something else RichE?

Reply 57

Chumbaniya

17

RichE

Ah, well, maybe I'll have to remain in the minority here. The STEP questions I did over Easter I found pretty boring and most of the time wondered what they were aiming at - they never really seemed to be teaching anything and more commonly relied on brute force than I would have expected and were good practice only for doing long manipulative calculations.

I'm not much more of a fan of BMO questions, but I usually find that you have to stop and think for a while about how to approach them, what degrees of freedom you have within the problem etc., and in this sense they seem to teach more. That said that may well be because, having finished my degree, I end up doing them very differently to how they were intended to be done. :rolleyes:

I feel the same way, and I'm still pre-degree. I haven't taken STEP (yet) but from what I've seen, they aren't particularly interesting questions. They just require more calculations than A-level questions and don't guide you through so much. The BMO questions are much more appealing because it's thinking of a clever way to tackle them that's important, not just remembering the correct techniques to apply.

Reply 58

FWoodhouse

5

Chumbaniya

I feel the same way, and I'm still pre-degree. I haven't taken STEP (yet) but from what I've seen, they aren't particularly interesting questions. They just require more calculations than A-level questions and don't guide you through so much. The BMO questions are much more appealing because it's thinking of a clever way to tackle them that's important, not just remembering the correct techniques to apply.

Rubbish, there're plenty of STEP questions which need clever thinking. Some of the integration ones especially can require a fair bit of thought before you suddenly realise exactly how to do it. What you described is AEA, not STEP.

Reply 59

kizer

15

RichE

The application-to-place ratios are pretty much the same these days, and both (for maths) pretty much interview everyone. However it is more effort to apply to Cambridge because of STEP papers - in this sense you might say Cambridge is harder to get into - but as many schools can't help with STEP and, arguably, practising STEP only makes you any better at doing STEP papers rather than understanding maths, I'm not convinced this is a good way to spend time.

Application to place ratio may be the same, but the quality of the candidates -at least at the very top - is different. Pretty much all the IMO squad members apply to Cambridge, and most of those to Trinity. Because Cambridge has more of a reputation, you might also expect more confident people to apply.

I like BMO questions, they suit me.. can't say much about STEP because I didn't do them. But from what I have seen they look more like very tough A Level questions, while the BMO (certainly Round 2 at least) is more creative problem solving.

Maths at Oxford or Cambridge - How Did You Decide!?!?

Related discussions

Articles for you

How The Student Room is moderated