This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

A great Mathematicians should be above...?

Really!!

I just wanted to know what mark you great Mathematicians out there got (Just to see how I measure up!! :wink:

)

.
what did you guys get in Maths at AS (Not grade. The actual Mark out of 300)? What did you also get in Further Maths (same as Maths. out of 300)?. I wouldn't bother with Alevels because most people are waiting for their A2 results :confused:

. But you're welcome to share it :smile:

if you possess Alevels Maths/Futher Maths (The Mark out of 600).

Please take my polls :biggrin:

.

Reply 1

Really!!

OP

Franckii05

I just wanted to know what mark you great Mathematicians out there got (Just to see how I measure up!! :wink:

)

.
what did you guys get in Maths at AS (Not grade. The actual Mark out of 300)? What did you also get in Further Maths (same as Maths. out of 300)?. I wouldn't bother with Alevels because most people are waiting for their A2 results :confused:

. But you're welcome to share it :smile:

if you possess Alevels Maths/Futher Maths (The Mark out of 600).

Please take my polls :biggrin:

.

I posted it so I'll start off.

AS Further Maths (AQA): 299/300 :biggrin:

, A2: we'll find out on 16th of august.
A Levels Maths (AQA): 596/600 (AS:298/300 :mad:

, A2:298/300 :mad:

)

Keep them coming guys :biggrin:

.

Reply 2

henryt

17

I'm not really sure that A-level Maths and Further Maths are particularly good indicators of how good a mathematician you are. The best mathematician I know (he was in the IMO team for the UK this year) got 78 on a Statistics module, and lost marks here and there, probably putting him in your bottom bracket, or below. Yet you beat him, whilst most likely (not meaning to be rude) being a worse mathematician than him. A-level is very much about jumping through hoops set out in the markschemes, and so this extra UMS information cannot necessarily be a reliable method of distinguishing candidates, whereas the broader category of grades can. Also, remember that module choice WILL make a difference - it's much harder to do well in a (usually quite subjectively marked) Statistics paper, as a lot of marks often are awarded for clear explanation. People who do, say, the Decision maths modules, will probably do a lot better than those who've done the stats modules. In addition, I've heard that the variations in difficultly to obtain 100% on a module varies from board to board. Nevertheless, on my A-level Maths (out of 600) I obtained: 100,100,98,97,95 and 80 (damn that S2!), totalling to 570, or taking my AS score, 297. I'm hardly fussed - I know I'm a fairly good mathematician! :biggrin:

Reply 3

generalebriety

16

Well, since you asked, I got: C1, C2, C3, S1, M2: 100/100; M1: 79/100. That means I got 279/300 for AS, which puts me in one of your lower categories.

Expecting a few full marks and a few slightly-less-than-full marks this year. And err, I don't expect great mathematicians to think AS is a good way of measuring. :wink:

Oh, dear.

The best people in maths seem to have 285+ in terms of UMS, but if you're comfortably able to get 270+ (ie 90%+) then I think you're good.

Reply 6

Mathemagician. Funny?

How can you judge how good someone is at Maths when they know exactly what is going to come up in their exam. They can revise for it. Maths A-level isn't a judge of how good you are at Maths but more how much you have revised for it. Of course there are people who don't revise and get As but they still do work in class don't they?

Reply 7

coffeym

10

Mathemagician. Funny?

How can you judge how good someone is at Maths when they know exactly what is going to come up in their exam. They can revise for it. Maths A-level isn't a judge of how good you are at Maths but more how much you have revised for it. Of course there are people who don't revise and get As but they still do work in class don't they?

I think this is true to an extent. However, I think, if you are a great mathematician you will undoubtedly do well at A-Level. In this way, A-Level success is, if anything, a necessary condition to be great, but most certainly not a sufficient condition.

Reply 8

eponymous

2

I think this is true to an extent. However, I think, if you are a great mathematician you will undoubtedly do well at A-Level. In this way, A-Level success is, if anything, a necessary condition to be great, but most certainly not a sufficient condition.

couldnt agree anymore :smile:

and

coffeym

In this way, A-Level success is, if anything, a necessary condition to be great, but most certainly not a sufficient condition.

Reply 9

Gooner

14

I don't do maths myself, but wouldn't it be a better indicator to go off raw marks in papers, because UMS marks can be quite misleading, especially in a subject as hard as maths where, correct me if i'm wrong, you only need around 60% raw marks to get an A (please don't shoot me if I've made a blip there :p:

).

Reply 10

Excalibur

15

gooner1592

I don't do maths myself, but wouldn't it be a better indicator to go off raw marks in papers, because UMS marks can be quite misleading, especially in a subject as hard as maths where, correct me if i'm wrong, you only need around 60% raw marks to get an A (please don't shoot me if I've made a blip there :p:

).

Hmm, for AQA at least the general raw marks boundary seems to be around 80% - sometimes it goes down to about 74% when the papers are hard, but never around 60%! I've heard that to get full UMS in maths, it's usually full raw or very near full raw marks, because maths answers are so black and white.

I agree, I don't think getting high UMS at A level necessarily proves you are a good mathematician; but if you are a good mathematician then you should find A level Maths comfortable.

Reply 11

.ACS.

19

gooner1592

I don't do maths myself, but wouldn't it be a better indicator to go off raw marks in papers, because UMS marks can be quite misleading, especially in a subject as hard as maths where, correct me if i'm wrong, you only need around 60% raw marks to get an A (please don't shoot me if I've made a blip there :p:

).

If we were to take A-Level Maths and A-Level Further Maths as indicators, it would be a lot better to go off raw marks instead of UMS marks. However, as others have said, I don’t think Maths/Further Maths are any good at actually testing how good a mathematician you are.

Reply 12

Gooner

14

Excalibur

Hmm, for AQA at least the general raw marks boundary seems to be around 80% - sometimes it goes down to about 74% when the papers are hard, but never around 60%! I've heard that to get full UMS in maths, it's usually full raw or very near full raw marks, because maths answers are so black and white.

I agree, I don't think getting high UMS at A level necessarily proves you are a good mathematician; but if you are a good mathematician then you should find A level Maths comfortable.

Oh right, I see :smile:

I'm just not familiar with A-Level maths you see, and thought the grade boundaries would have been similar to those at GCSE. Obviously not :p:

Reply 13

Excalibur

15

gooner1592

Oh right, I see :smile:

I'm just not familiar with A-Level maths you see, and thought the grade boundaries would have been similar. Obviously not :p:

lol, no worries. I wish the grade boundaries were as low as that though, it's easy to make a lot of stupid mistakes in maths (particularly decision.... grrr).

Reply 14

webbers

4

I don't think you have to get amazingly high UMS to be a great mathematician. If you make a few stupid mistakes in the exams that you don't spot when checking through the paper (ie you accidently completely change a number in your working), then you'd be in one of the lowest brackets in the polls, but might be just as good a mathematician as someone that gets 295-300.
Just trying to argue my case as I got 277 :p:

oh well!

Reply 15

Mitch87

5

UMS marks do not illustrate how good you are at maths, particularly those who have suggested that 'great mathematicians' should get 290+. Anyone, regardless of how amazing you are at maths, can make a simple mistake in their algebra or arithmatic, particularly in decision and statistics. A-level maths is a poor discriminator for someones real ability...I think.

Reply 16

Mitch87

5

.....such mistakes may include the incorrect boundaries in stats for grouping data, as in the above poll. :smile:

265 - 270
271 - 275 (not 270 - 275)

Reply 17

Mathemagician. Funny?

Mitch87

UMS marks do not illustrate how good you are at maths, particularly those who have suggested that 'great mathematicians' should get 290+. Anyone, regardless of how amazing you are at maths, can make a simple mistake in their algebra or arithmatic, particularly in decision and statistics. A-level maths is a poor discriminator for someones real ability...I think.

There are loads of people out there who just sit down and do past paper after past paper until they get the understanding of everything into their head and get 1200 UMS overall but not have an ounce of mathematical ability. A better indicator would be AEA and STEP. Anyone who has a distinction in AEA and an S grade in each STEP paper would in my eyes be considered a great mathematician in my eyes because those are so difficult. You are not taught any of it. You just sit down and do it.