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 100

DFranklin

18

Glutamic Acid

I'm pretty sure it's a facetious reply since i) I don't see how Trinity will know your BMO score ii) BMO seems to be quite different from university level maths from what I know.

It sounds facetious to me too.

As a counterpoint, I certainly wouldn't have got anything like 30 in BMO1 if I'd taken it, but I scored more than all the IMO team members in my IA Tripos exams.

Reply 101

henryt

17

I can't believe this thread has been dragged up from the depths of forum archives. Ah well.

My two cents, now that I'm at Oxford. We're doing (pretty much!) exactly the same things as my friends at Cambridge. Generally, I think we also get more time with tutors rather than with grad students (my friend at (I think!?) Churchill said that he was being supervised by 2 grads, whereas I have 3 tutors and a grad giving my tutes). Regardless, either as Maths courses are going to be top notch. Don't beat yourself up about it!!

Reply 102

Dystopia

10

DFranklin

As a counterpoint, I certainly wouldn't have got anything like 30 in BMO1 if I'd taken it, but I scored more than all the IMO team members in my IA Tripos exams.

Impressive. This post (and others made by the same user) also make for interesting reading.

From my personal experience of BMO, I don't really think that it has improved my ability with, say, STEP (except for the very occasional question on a topic which comes up in olympiads, like the AM-GM inequality). However, doing BMO before looking at my first STEP paper definitely made the increase in difficulty from A-Level less of a shock.

Also, may I ask whether you have looked at the more recent BMO1 papers? The papers from about 20 years ago seem to be closer to BMO2 level of difficulty; I recall becoming rather disheartened when preparing for BMO1 as I started with the earlier papers...

Reply 103

DFranklin

18

Dystopia

Also, may I ask whether you have looked at the more recent BMO1 papers? The papers from about 20 years ago seem to be closer to BMO2 level of difficulty; I recall becoming rather disheartened when preparing for BMO1 as I started with the earlier papers...

If that question is aimed at me, the problem is that I also know rather a lot more mathematics than I did 20 years ago! I also didn't spend much effort on the BMO at the time - saw a few papers, thought "blimey, they're hard", and ground a (very) few questions out on them before deciding I really couldn't be bothered. (I think I was more interested in computers at the time).

One thing many have commented on with STEP is how much difference preparation makes. Which is certainly true for STEP. But I think it's even more so for the BMO. Reading the threads on NRICH, one thing that comes across is just how well prepared many of the competitors are. And the people who actually make it onto the IMO team have probably been building up to it over several years. It's somewhat silly to compare their scores with the many people who enter for the first time in their upper sixth with little or no support. (Which would certainly have been my position).

It's also worth noting that the BMO/IMO-type exams really only cover a very small area of mathematics. There are lots of other areas that really require very different skills. Which must be well known to the Trinity interviewers, so I really can't believe they'd reject someone based on a BMO score.

Reply 104

Kolya

17

DFranklin

Which must be well known to the Trinity interviewers, so I really can't believe they'd reject someone based on a BMO score.

When I went to some Trinity day (many moons ago) the admissions tutor said that it was not important whether people had participated in the competitions or not, as, in his experience, doing poorly on BMO/IMO-style questions was not necessarily a sign that somebody was not a good Mathematician.

Reply 105

Dystopia

10

DFranklin

If that question is aimed at me, the problem is that I also know rather a lot more mathematics than I did 20 years ago! I also didn't spend much effort on the BMO at the time - saw a few papers, thought "blimey, they're hard", and ground a (very) few questions out on them before deciding I really couldn't be bothered. (I think I was more interested in computers at the time).

One thing many have commented on with STEP is how much difference preparation makes. Which is certainly true for STEP. But I think it's even more so for the BMO. Reading the threads on NRICH, one thing that comes across is just how well prepared many of the competitors are. And the people who actually make it onto the IMO team have probably been building up to it over several years. It's somewhat silly to compare their scores with the many people who enter for the first time in their upper sixth with little or no support. (Which would certainly have been my position)

Interesting, thanks.

I completely agree about the importance of practice; as the leader of the British IMO team has said, for those who have not seriously preprared, even a single mark in BMO1 is an achievement.

Reply 106

wiio

7

Dystopia

Interesting, thanks.

I completely agree about the importance of practice; as the leader of the British IMO team has said, for those who have not seriously preprared, even a single mark in BMO1 is an achievement.

I think thats a bit of an exaggeration. I reckon most good mathematicians would have done the first question on this years paper easily without any specific preparation and, if I remember correctly, the third was just application of GCSE geometry to a more complicated question, so accessible without any preparation.

Now if you meant BMO2, I would be more inclined to agree.

by the way, how did you find BMO2 this year?

Reply 107

t.w.

5

Winter

But I got 27 in BMO1. :s-smilie:

That's an awesome score isn't it? Take a look at this histogram from the 2004 paper: http://www.bmoc.maths.org/home/bmo1-2005-histogram.pdf
Only around 30-40 candidates score 25+

On that basis, I'd say you've got an extremely high chance of getting into Cambridge. You may as well go for Trinity, as you're pretty much guarenteed to get pooled (if your A-level Maths is even half as good as your BMO1). Anyway, the intake for Trinity Maths is huge: ~40 a year. Judging from ther histogram, it's unlikely that 40 people scored above you on BMO1, so I don't understand how 30 is the cut-off mark (is there any evidence for this?).
Then again, I'm not that knowledgeable about this whole topic - my journey sadly came to an end with a Kangaroo keyring consolation prize...

Reply 108

t.w.

5

By the way, I have been wondering if pretty much everyone invited to sit the BMO2 gets 600/600 in A-level Maths and something similar in Further Maths? Anyone with any experience of the competition have any idea?

Reply 109

Dystopia

10

wiio

I think thats a bit of an exaggeration. I reckon most good mathematicians would have done the first question on this years paper easily without any specific preparation and, if I remember correctly, the third was just application of GCSE geometry to a more complicated question, so accessible without any preparation.

Now if you meant BMO2, I would be more inclined to agree.

by the way, how did you find BMO2 this year?

Fair enough; the statement is perhaps not as true as it once was (now that they have added an easier first question). But yes, it is certainly still true for BMO2.

It went fairly well; managed to get (what I think are) complete solutions to Q1 and Q2, but made no progress with the others. It's not quite as good as my average from the past papers, but that's to be expected since these things are always easier at home... plus I think it was generally considered a relatively difficult paper. What did you think of it?

t.w.

That's an awesome score isn't it? Take a look at this histogram from the 2004 paper: http://www.bmoc.maths.org/home/bmo1-2005-histogram.pdf
Only around 30-40 candidates score 25+

It should be noted that then the paper was out of 50; since 2005, there has been an additional question added which is intended to be easier. This year 99 people got 32 or above.

t.w.

By the way, I have been wondering if pretty much everyone invited to sit the BMO2 gets 600/600 in A-level Maths and something similar in Further Maths? Anyone with any experience of the competition have any idea?

No. I assume most people who do BMO2 would prefer to spend time doing interesting maths rather than looking through A-Level past papers and mark schemes to ensure 100% on every module...

Reply 110

t.w.

5

Dystopia

It should be noted that then the paper was out of 50; since 2005, there has been an additional question added which is intended to be easier. This year 99 people got 32 or above.

Ok, I didn't know that, that does change things a bit. But if you're good enough for BMO2 surely you're good enough to apply for Trinity?

No. So far I have 862/900. I assume most people who do BMO2 would prefer to spend time doing interesting maths rather than looking through A-Level past papers and mark schemes to ensure 100% on every module...

Fair enough.

Reply 111

harr

15

wiio

I think thats a bit of an exaggeration. I reckon most good mathematicians would have done the first question on this years paper easily without any specific preparation and, if I remember correctly, the third was just application of GCSE geometry to a more complicated question, so accessible without any preparation.

I messed up question 1 (though I tried the right approach) and didn't even understand question 3, yet I've still got a Cambridge offer, so I think you overestimate the ability of good maths students to tackle the BMO. I did however feel that question 2 was very easy and really didn't expect to encounter such a simple simultaneous equations question.

t.w.

By the way, I have been wondering if pretty much everyone invited to sit the BMO2 gets 600/600 in A-level Maths and something similar in Further Maths?

They don't necessarily get close to full marks. I think this is a good example.

Reply 112

wiio

7

harr

I messed up question 1 (though I tried the right approach) and didn't even understand question 3, yet I've still got a Cambridge offer, so I think you overestimate the ability of good maths students to tackle the BMO. I did however feel that question 2 was very easy and really didn't expect to encounter such a simple simultaneous equations question.

You're right really, I overstated my case - its not guaranteed that anyone will get any marks. I know some good mathematicians who got low single figures on it. But I don't think it is an extraordinary achievement for a good mathematician to answer 1 or 2 whole questions without any serious preparation. You need to be pretty competent to do that, but you don't by any means need to be a genius.

Reply 113

hermaphrodite

15

Pardon my ignorance - but if your school doesn't offer A Level Further Mathematics will Oxbridge let you in with a single Maths at A-Level?

Reply 114

Hashshashin

13

hermaphrodite

Pardon my ignorance - but if your school doesn't offer A Level Further Mathematics will Oxbridge let you in with a single Maths at A-Level?

Oxford will consider you, but Cambridge now expect Further Maths to at least AS level (so if you can't do it through your school, then you need to get hold of some textbooks and plough through them yourself).

Reply 115

hermaphrodite

15

Hashshashin

Oxford will consider you, but Cambridge now expect Further Maths to at least AS level (so if you can't do it through your school, then you need to get hold of some textbooks and plough through them yourself).

Thank you.

Reply 116

b-i-r-g-i-t

I'm sorry if I sound stupid but if you get AAA and 11 in step part 2 and 3, are you most likely to get a place at Cambridge?

Reply 117

RichE

15

b-i-r-g-i-t

I'm sorry if I sound stupid but if you get AAA and 11 in step part 2 and 3, are you most likely to get a place at Cambridge?

For most applicants that question is the wrong way around, in that the AAA11 offer comes after interview but before the exams are taken. If you're saying you're going to be applying post those results then those grades will do your chances some good of getting an offer but it won't guarantee an offer.

Reply 118

b-i-r-g-i-t

Oh right. Thank you

Reply 119

RageC

7

how many hours does the average cambridge mathematician do a week?

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

Related discussions

Articles for you

How The Student Room is moderated