Best universities for pure Mathematics

Scroll to see replies

5th best in the country according to http://www.thecompleteuniversityguide.co.uk/league-tables/rankings?s=mathematics but St. Andrews is in the middle of nowhere and my friends who go there wouldn't recommend it!

Oh I thought you meant above Warwick and Imperial. Even so Durham doesn't even ask for STEP and isn't known for its strength in Maths (I have no doubt that it's a good uni) so I'm a bit dubious. I remember a post somewhere which had a link to the research ratings and so on suggesting that Bath and Bristol are the next best after COWI.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 21

Hannahmay01

Original post by yl95

I've friends who do maths at Durham and they say it's a very demanding course even though they got a*a*a in A levels. The professors are very experienced and experts in their subjects. However, they have been known to set impossible questions for fun!

Reply 22

Hannahmay01

Original post by Read Euler

From Hannahmay01's profile:

"Hi I'm a first year at Durham University studying primary education!"

Biased much?

Maybe Durham > Warwick for something like Physics, but for Maths just no.

They were in no particular order. I don't think people would deny that Durham is a fantastic university including maths.

Reply 23

Mpagtches

University of Huddersfield

Reply 24

Gregorius

Original post by RichE

I would suggest that the Cambridge maths course is somewhat more specialized and with more of a theoretical physics slant than a balanced maths course ought to be.

I would be the first to agree that finding the right balance in a maths degree course is difficult (espscailly at the beginning) and that some of the decisions made about e.g. vector spaces are arguable. But a defence can be made along the lines of better to expose students to examples before hitting the machinery of abstraction.

When I did the course (many, many years ago) at the height of the Bourbaki approach to pure mathematics, the sudden exposure to unmotivated abstraction was a shock even to one who went on to become a pure mathematician!

Of course that's only an opinion, but it implies that a particularly pure-inclined mathematician would probably be less happy doing the Cambridge first year.

This raises the other concern that I have: very few beginning mathematics undergraduates really have a grasp of (a) what "pure" and "applied" mathematics really means; and (b) where their strengths (and inclinations) really lie. The general Cambridge approach (as I understand it) is to keep options open; this is reflected too in the Natural Sciences Tripos - for which Cambridge also sometimes receives criticism!

Reply 25

username638250

Original post by Hannahmay01

In most good unis this is the case. University maths is meant to be a big step up from school maths unless you go to a low ranked uni.

Reply 26

Buses

LOL durham is only slightly above average for maths, along the likes of Manchester. Doesn't come close to Imperial and definitely nowhere near the level of oxbridge/warwick.
Durham doesn't even ask for STEP. I know a guy there who got A*AAB and he worked so hard for those grades and couldn't get an A* in further maths and failed STEP miserably. He's on track for a first class degree.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 27

username638250

Original post by Buses

It is interesting that Warwick now accepts A*A*A* with no STEP. Would say the 1 is harder.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 28

Buses

Original post by yl95

It is interesting that Warwick now accepts A*A*A* with no STEP. Would say the 1 is harder.

Posted from TSR Mobile

They still accept offer with 1/2 in STEP? But yeah they are mixing up the entry criteria a bit.
EDIT: I heard its a trial to see how people who can handle well the sheer workload of A-levels do on a maths degree vs. people with inherent talent. Apparently they are reverting back to the STEP 1 offer next year. tbh it's interesting but also random lol

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 29

username638250

Original post by Buses

Oh, interesting. Yeah they do.

Reply 30

hassassin04

Original post by Buses

STEP and inherent talent are not really that correlated..

Reply 31

Buses

Original post by hassassin04

STEP and inherent talent are not really that correlated..

lol tell that to the cambridge mathmos

Reply 32

Mautarema

It's better Durham or St Andrews ?

Reply 33

username638250

Original post by hassassin04

STEP and inherent talent are not really that correlated..

Eh...

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 34

Mighty_Master

Cambridge is the best university in the country for maths. Second to that I would say Imperial.

Can't speak for pure maths in particular

Reply 35

hassassin04

Original post by Buses

lol tell that to the cambridge mathmos

I did. If anyone has objections- fire away. But note that I did not say STEP is no indicator at all.

Reply 36

Mautarema

It's better Durham or St Andrews ?

Any idea ?

Original post by RichE

All of which I think could be considered what I termed "related maths". Yes, these subjects are also of interest to pure mathematicians, but your post suggests that their presence in Cambridge's first year hasn't pushed out other - I would suggest - more fundamental mathematics (not necessarily all pure). It seems weird to me that the Cambridge course is teaching Special Relativity, Mobius transformations and Cartesian tensors in the first year and omitting vector spaces and Fourier series. I would suggest that the Cambridge maths course is somewhat more specialized and with more of a theoretical physics slant than a balanced maths course ought to be. Of course that's only an opinion, but it implies that a particularly pure-inclined mathematician would probably be less happy doing the Cambridge first year.

That's... an interesting assessment of Cambridge's course. I tend to look at what is considered "core" (i.e. what is compulsory) and what isn't when comparing courses. Whilst only the first year at Cambridge is compulsory, there are still courses in the second year which pretty much everyone takes: Linear Algebra (which covers vector spaces rigorously) and Methods (which covers Fourier Series) are taken by a vast majority of all students. In addition, my understanding is that the first year "Vectors and Matrices" course does introduce vector spaces, albeit in passing (along with the concepts of linear dependence and span amongst other fundamental concepts).

No course is perfect - I personally agree with you regarding Special Relativity for example - but there is plenty of pure maths in Cambridge's first year. In particular, the "Numbers & Sets" course is a neat way (both in the literal sense and as the American colloquialism) to discuss "foundational" topics without any formal logic or set theory. Conversely, Oxford's course is more broad in the first year, but with less depth. From an outsiders perspective, that's the biggest difference: Cambridge's "depth" versus Oxford's "breadth". however taking the first two years together, I don't really see fundamental differences between Oxford's and Cambridge's pure.

PS: I am intrigued by Oxford's data course in Prelims, I like that people are getting exposure to a modern and important part of mathematics.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 39

Jj15

Original post by Buses

You can't judge a person on his past performance in A Level, it is the latest performance that matters and counts most. Maybe he has put in even more effort in his university years and hence justifying his acomplishments.