Open University
Milton Keynes
Comparing first, second and third year OU Maths degree
Hi,
I'm working through MST 124 (first year) at the moment. Got the books online in advance of starting the degree.
I've read lots online about there being a big jump in 2nd year. I can understand why that might be in terms of first year being tailored to people who might have been out of education for a while. But it got me thinking when I had a look at the past papers for MST 124 and MST 125. I was surprised to see that the exam is almost all maths equations. Basically there are many things to learn in the books that are not on the exam...no definitions, no asking for explanations to theorys etc.
I'm wondering (and I might be way off track!) but is it possible that there is such a jump in second year because students preparing for the first year exams focus only (and rightly too) on equations that are possible exam questions...and maybe dont learn the nitty gritty that is explained in the books.
I can understand there is an assumption that if you can do the equations, you much have first understood the concepts in the books.
My question is are these concepts very relevant in second year...maybe when looking at real life application questions etc?
Would love to hear from someone in 2nd or 3rd year. Am I wasting my time learning everything in the books, not just the equations?
Many thanks in advance
I'm working through MST 124 (first year) at the moment. Got the books online in advance of starting the degree.
I've read lots online about there being a big jump in 2nd year. I can understand why that might be in terms of first year being tailored to people who might have been out of education for a while. But it got me thinking when I had a look at the past papers for MST 124 and MST 125. I was surprised to see that the exam is almost all maths equations. Basically there are many things to learn in the books that are not on the exam...no definitions, no asking for explanations to theorys etc.
I'm wondering (and I might be way off track!) but is it possible that there is such a jump in second year because students preparing for the first year exams focus only (and rightly too) on equations that are possible exam questions...and maybe dont learn the nitty gritty that is explained in the books.
I can understand there is an assumption that if you can do the equations, you much have first understood the concepts in the books.
My question is are these concepts very relevant in second year...maybe when looking at real life application questions etc?
Would love to hear from someone in 2nd or 3rd year. Am I wasting my time learning everything in the books, not just the equations?
Many thanks in advance
Original post by id0ntkn0w
Hi,
I'm working through MST 124 (first year) at the moment. Got the books online in advance of starting the degree.
I've read lots online about there being a big jump in 2nd year. I can understand why that might be in terms of first year being tailored to people who might have been out of education for a while. But it got me thinking when I had a look at the past papers for MST 124 and MST 125. I was surprised to see that the exam is almost all maths equations. Basically there are many things to learn in the books that are not on the exam...no definitions, no asking for explanations to theorys etc.
I'm wondering (and I might be way off track!) but is it possible that there is such a jump in second year because students preparing for the first year exams focus only (and rightly too) on equations that are possible exam questions...and maybe dont learn the nitty gritty that is explained in the books.
I can understand there is an assumption that if you can do the equations, you much have first understood the concepts in the books.
My question is are these concepts very relevant in second year...maybe when looking at real life application questions etc?
Would love to hear from someone in 2nd or 3rd year. Am I wasting my time learning everything in the books, not just the equations?
Many thanks in advance
I'm working through MST 124 (first year) at the moment. Got the books online in advance of starting the degree.
I've read lots online about there being a big jump in 2nd year. I can understand why that might be in terms of first year being tailored to people who might have been out of education for a while. But it got me thinking when I had a look at the past papers for MST 124 and MST 125. I was surprised to see that the exam is almost all maths equations. Basically there are many things to learn in the books that are not on the exam...no definitions, no asking for explanations to theorys etc.
I'm wondering (and I might be way off track!) but is it possible that there is such a jump in second year because students preparing for the first year exams focus only (and rightly too) on equations that are possible exam questions...and maybe dont learn the nitty gritty that is explained in the books.
I can understand there is an assumption that if you can do the equations, you much have first understood the concepts in the books.
My question is are these concepts very relevant in second year...maybe when looking at real life application questions etc?
Would love to hear from someone in 2nd or 3rd year. Am I wasting my time learning everything in the books, not just the equations?
Many thanks in advance
Disclaimer: I'm not a Maths student, but an OU student.
The second level in all degrees is said to be a jump, not just in Maths. This is mainly down to workload, as well as more difficulty in the subjects you learn about. Exams and TMAs are quite different and not every module in a Maths degree will have an exam (I don't think). I am pretty certain that the books will contain theory and real world applications, which you include in your assignments which are just as important as exams. I believe I have seen OU Maths student discuss their marks and related it back to the theory part of their assignment. I'm sure it won't just be equations and surely you need to know all the theories behind equations to work them out? It would be a waste of money to just learn equations and not fully jump into the nitty gritty of all things maths, surely?
Open University
Milton Keynes
Hi,
Many thanks for your reply. Its a bit difficult to explain with Maths. It is possible to learn how to solve a particular equation,and to have a general idea of the background but without fully understanding and being able to apply the knowledge in another context. I guess this is what I am getting at. How much of the first year books are relevant to the following years work.
Many thanks for your reply. Its a bit difficult to explain with Maths. It is possible to learn how to solve a particular equation,and to have a general idea of the background but without fully understanding and being able to apply the knowledge in another context. I guess this is what I am getting at. How much of the first year books are relevant to the following years work.
Original post by id0ntkn0w
Hi,
I'm working through MST 124 (first year) at the moment. Got the books online in advance of starting the degree.
I've read lots online about there being a big jump in 2nd year. I can understand why that might be in terms of first year being tailored to people who might have been out of education for a while. But it got me thinking when I had a look at the past papers for MST 124 and MST 125. I was surprised to see that the exam is almost all maths equations. Basically there are many things to learn in the books that are not on the exam...no definitions, no asking for explanations to theorys etc.
I'm wondering (and I might be way off track!) but is it possible that there is such a jump in second year because students preparing for the first year exams focus only (and rightly too) on equations that are possible exam questions...and maybe dont learn the nitty gritty that is explained in the books.
I can understand there is an assumption that if you can do the equations, you much have first understood the concepts in the books.
My question is are these concepts very relevant in second year...maybe when looking at real life application questions etc?
Would love to hear from someone in 2nd or 3rd year. Am I wasting my time learning everything in the books, not just the equations?
Many thanks in advance
I'm working through MST 124 (first year) at the moment. Got the books online in advance of starting the degree.
I've read lots online about there being a big jump in 2nd year. I can understand why that might be in terms of first year being tailored to people who might have been out of education for a while. But it got me thinking when I had a look at the past papers for MST 124 and MST 125. I was surprised to see that the exam is almost all maths equations. Basically there are many things to learn in the books that are not on the exam...no definitions, no asking for explanations to theorys etc.
I'm wondering (and I might be way off track!) but is it possible that there is such a jump in second year because students preparing for the first year exams focus only (and rightly too) on equations that are possible exam questions...and maybe dont learn the nitty gritty that is explained in the books.
I can understand there is an assumption that if you can do the equations, you much have first understood the concepts in the books.
My question is are these concepts very relevant in second year...maybe when looking at real life application questions etc?
Would love to hear from someone in 2nd or 3rd year. Am I wasting my time learning everything in the books, not just the equations?
Many thanks in advance
The other stuff should help inform your understanding of the content of the modules you're doing currently, even if it's not directly examinable. However a lot of it is actually laying groundwork for later modules, especially I should imagine (looking at the syllabuses) the pure maths modules. Content on e.g. intervals, set theory notation, limits and so on will be very relevant once you start doing analysis for example, even if you're not likely to use them in a routine calculus computation question.
However, if you are finding yourself falling behind, this is content that perhaps you can spend less time on now, or focus your attentions on more exam material style versions of it, and take some additional time e.g. over the summer to absorb more fully, if it's not going to be on the exam. In theory though, anything on the syllabus should be examinable unless it specifically says it is non-examinable. Stuff on the history and cultural aspects of maths is obviously unlikely to be relevant, although may be interesting in of itself. But don't spend time learning about the Leibniz-Newton priority debate over actually learning to do calculus of course!
Original post by artful_lounger
The other stuff should help inform your understanding of the content of the modules you're doing currently, even if it's not directly examinable. However a lot of it is actually laying groundwork for later modules, especially I should imagine (looking at the syllabuses) the pure maths modules. Content on e.g. intervals, set theory notation, limits and so on will be very relevant once you start doing analysis for example, even if you're not likely to use them in a routine calculus computation question.
However, if you are finding yourself falling behind, this is content that perhaps you can spend less time on now, or focus your attentions on more exam material style versions of it, and take some additional time e.g. over the summer to absorb more fully, if it's not going to be on the exam. In theory though, anything on the syllabus should be examinable unless it specifically says it is non-examinable. Stuff on the history and cultural aspects of maths is obviously unlikely to be relevant, although may be interesting in of itself. But don't spend time learning about the Leibniz-Newton priority debate over actually learning to do calculus of course!
However, if you are finding yourself falling behind, this is content that perhaps you can spend less time on now, or focus your attentions on more exam material style versions of it, and take some additional time e.g. over the summer to absorb more fully, if it's not going to be on the exam. In theory though, anything on the syllabus should be examinable unless it specifically says it is non-examinable. Stuff on the history and cultural aspects of maths is obviously unlikely to be relevant, although may be interesting in of itself. But don't spend time learning about the Leibniz-Newton priority debate over actually learning to do calculus of course!
Many thanks for your reply. I was beginning to feel a bit stupid taking every bit of the books as equal importance. Sounds like you might have done this degree or something similar involving maths modules? I guess I had heard so much about maths being a really difficult degree I went into it with the idea...I must know everything or I'll drown in second year! That might still be true but its great to hear how content from year one bleeds into the following years. Thanks again
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Is the open university really 'two-thirds' of a brick uni degree?
- Is there any way to switch degrees without having to start from the beginning?
- Transferring from the OU
- 2nd year transfer on to different course?
- Studying at the Open University
- The Official 'Ask a Current Open University Student' Thread
- full time psych degree at OU alongside full time work?
- 2 degrees on Open University
- Using OU Credits To Get Into Uni - November Results
- Open University Chat Thread
- Dropping out of uni and starting a few years later as a mature student
- Transfer From the OU?
- Should I take the standard route or go specialised for 2nd year modules?
- Job options for non-honours degree
- Is Engineering a wise choice for me?
- Transferring Universities
- Credit Transfer From OU to Brick Uni
- OU vs arden
- BSc in Physics
- Does a certificate of higher education and a diploma make a degree
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 weeks ago
I don’t know what to do about my law degree. I’m so worried.Trending
Last reply 2 weeks ago
I don’t know what to do about my law degree. I’m so worried.
