The Student Room Group

Is maths in warwick at a similar level to that from oxford?

aaa
(edited 2 years ago)

Scroll to see replies

Low entry requirements??? I know someone who wants to go to Warwick and they need an A* in both maths and Further Maths and an A in a third subject. How is that low it’s the same as Oxford I think. Warwick is one of the best in the UK for those not good enough for Oxbridge. Definitely not mediocre!!
(edited 4 years ago)
Original post by JGoosey2002
Low entry requirements??? I know someone who wants to go to Warwick and they need an A* in both maths and Further Maths and and A in a third subject. How is that low it’s the same as Oxford I think. Warwick is one of the best in the UK for those not good enough for Oxbridge. Definitely not mediocre!!

Its one of the UK's top maths schools? Alongside Imperial, UCL and Oxbridge; the offers aren't easy, you need A*A*A* OR A*A*A with a grade 1 in step 2 which is hard as **** to do even for top maths students OR A*A*AA with A*s in maths and fmaths.
Reply 3
Original post by JGoosey2002
Low entry requirements??? I know someone who wants to go to Warwick and they need an A* in both maths and Further Maths and an A in a third subject. How is that low it’s the same as Oxford I think. Warwick is one of the best in the UK for those not good enough for Oxbridge. Definitely not mediocre!!

I use the word "mediocre" relatively. These grades you've just mentioned are really easy for me to get since, I repeat, I am used to olympiad level stuff. So if you were to get into warwick it doesn't tell me much about your capabilities rather than that you understand maths at a basic level. I consider myself good enough for Oxbridge even though I got rejected (I won't get into details about how I got rejected, it's just bull****). That's why I feel warwick would be too easy for me. And please don't bring Oxford's grades requirements. If you applied to Oxford you should know that there are just for the sake of them being existent and that the true test is the interview.
(edited 4 years ago)
Original post by Smough
I use the word "mediocre" relatively. These grades you've just mentioned are really easy for me to get since, I repeat, I am used to olympiad level stuff. So if you were to get into warwick it doesn't tell me much about your capabilities rather than that you understand maths at a basic level. I consider myself good enough for Oxbridge even though I got rejected (I won't get into details about how I got rejected, it's just bull****). That's why I feel warwick would be too easy for me. And please don't bring Oxford's grades requirements. If you applied to Oxford you should know that there are just for the sake of them being existent and that the true test is the interview.

The interview... which you failed. Idk what you want anyone to tell you. You aren’t going to find many places better than Warwick. Getting an A* at Further Maths A level is not basic. You can say it was bull**** that you were rejected but you can either take a year out or go to Warwick. No courses better than Warwick will be in clearing
Warwick is mediocre? Really? I struggle to believe that. Just because it's not Oxbridge does not mean its mediocre. Oxford and Cambridge are really good universities but they are not the only good universities out there.
You said, "No challenge, no other students to work with since most seem to be mediocre based on Warwick's low entry requirements." How can you base a university solely on its entry requirements? How do you know if students there have far exceeded the entry requirements? You haven't even been there, how do you know there's no challenge or no students to work with at a similar level to you? Do you honestly think that you are the only one at your level who has applied to Warwick? There may be plenty of students at "Olympiad level mathematics and competitive programming" that has applied to Warwick but you are drawing the conclusion that the university, the course, and its students are "mediocre" simply based on your shallow perception.

Not interested in knowing the details about how you got rejected but maybe it's because of your condescending and appalling attitude.
Warwick has one of the most difficult Maths courses in the country, and their entry requirements are VERY steep. Especially compared to most other uni's. Many consider the course at Warwick to actually be HARDER than the one at Oxford (though not harder than the one at Cambridge). Maybe visit Warwick for an offer holder day and get an idea of the kind of people that go there.

You sound like you have grown up in a culture with little knowledge of UK universities outside of Oxford and Cambridge.
Reply 7
This thread is taking a direction I did not wish in the beginning. I just want an objective reply about maths in oxford in comparison to that from warwick. Stop trying to refer to my calling warwick mediocre. I just wanted to give some context and if you are not familiar with the maths level I am talking about and you struggle for A levels then you won't understand my attitude which I agree that can sound arrogant. Sorry, I am by no means trying to offend anyone.
Original post by Smough
This thread is taking a direction I did not wish in the beginning. I just want an objective reply about maths in oxford in comparison to that from warwick. Stop trying to refer to my calling warwick mediocre. I just wanted to give some context and if you are not familiar with the maths level I am talking about and you struggle for A levels then you won't understand my attitude which I agree that can sound arrogant. Sorry, I am by no means trying to offend anyone.

Warwick is one of the top maths schools in the UK and is also great for employment in high end finance (investment banking and the like); aside from Warwick, Imperial, UCL and perhaps durham are the other top ones.
Reply 9
Original post by Aayush :)
Warwick has one of the most difficult Maths courses in the country, and their entry requirements are VERY steep. Especially compared to most other uni's. Many consider the course at Warwick to actually be HARDER than the one at Oxford (though not harder than the one at Cambridge). Maybe visit Warwick for an offer holder day and get an idea of the kind of people that go there.

You sound like you have grown up in a culture with little knowledge of UK universities outside of Oxford and Cambridge.

I am an international applicant so don't expect me to know about UK universities that much. Many of my friends are now studying in Oxbridge and most of them are going there with a background similar to mine - competitions and olympiads. I cannot at this period fly to UK for an holder day. That's why I created this question in the first place: not to mourn myself not getting into Oxford as many seem to think, but to get an idea about warwick in comparison to oxford. I've also displayed some of my thoughts about warwick and they are not fixed, I am trying to change them into more positive ones. Nonetheless, thank you for your answer.
(edited 4 years ago)
I would note your sense of elitism would not make you any more at home or suited at Oxford or Cambridge, so you may as well drop the pretensions.

As indicated above, Warwick has the same entry criteria as Oxford and Cambridge, and it stringently applies these. It makes offers to many students, but it knows most will fail to achieve the high offer. Warwick maths does not allow for "near miss" applicants, and its maths department is very different to most other departments at the university in this regard. The only saving grace of a "lower" offer is for students who perform very well in STEP - which is by no means easy to do well in.

So, aside from the fact that judging a course solely by it's entry criteria is a some what pointless endeavour which just leads to a feedback loop where a course is considered good because it has high entry criteria and so people with high grades apply to it because it's good which causes it to have high entry criteria etc, the premise of your argument against Warwick is null anyway. Unless you are basing this assessment on the entry criteria of other departments at Warwick, such as classics or sociology, which will not be teaching you which I think anyone can agree would be extremely foolish...

Whether you agree or not, by most metrics Warwick is one of the top maths courses in the UK, and is generally considered on par with Oxbridge and Imperial. While some 6th form students may dispute that because on account that it's not Oxbridge, and is a younger university than Imperial, the fact remains that it produces a large number of mathematicians from the UK, along with Oxbridge and Imperial, in a wide range of mathematical areas. If you don't want to go there, then don't - but don't assume that because you wouldn't deign to go there that it's incapable of having good students.

In any case @RichE may be best placed on TSR to comment on the state of maths academia at the Oxford and similar levels, so I've tagged him here should he be inclined to offer any advice.
(edited 4 years ago)
If your that good you will find your undergraduate degree easy regardless of where you take it.
It's when you do masters/ PhD that it counts more.
Original post by Levi.-
Warwick is one of the top maths schools in the UK and is also great for employment in high end finance (investment banking and the like); aside from Warwick, Imperial, UCL and perhaps durham are the other top ones.


My impression is Durham is somewhat distantly in a "third tier" if one subscribes to such methodology, along with e.g. UCL and Edinburgh; the nearest competitor to Oxbridge/Imperial/Warwick for Maths is I believe usually considered to be Bristol.
Original post by Smough
This thread is taking a direction I did not wish in the beginning. I just want an objective reply about maths in oxford in comparison to that from warwick. Stop trying to refer to my calling warwick mediocre. I just wanted to give some context and if you are not familiar with the maths level I am talking about and you struggle for A levels then you won't understand my attitude which I agree that can sound arrogant. Sorry, I am by no means trying to offend anyone.


Why didn't you go for Cambridge? That's where many of the IMO or close to that students tend to apply.
Original post by artful_lounger
My impression is Durham is somewhat distantly in a "third tier" if one subscribes to such methodology, along with e.g. UCL and Edinburgh; the nearest competitor to Oxbridge/Imperial/Warwick for Maths is I believe usually considered to be Bristol.

Bath is stronger than Bristol for Maths these days :smile:
Are you just assuming that you are too good for any other uni? Are you amazing, right?
Original post by Smough
I am an international applicant so don't expect me to know about UK universities that much. Many of my friends are now studying in Oxbridge and most of them are going there with a background similar to mine - competitions and olympiads. I cannot at this period fly to UK for an holder day. That's why I created this question in the first place: not to mourn myself not getting into Oxford as many seem to think, but to get an idea about warwick in comparison to oxford. I've also displayed some of my thoughts about warwick and they are not fixed, I am trying to change them into more positive ones. Nonetheless, thank you for your answer.


Well ... you're talking to a fellow Oxford reject so I somewhat understand your position.

With regards to Warwick, it seems to be very divisive in terms of whether people like it. I would recommend at least trying to talk to some current students if at all possible to get an idea of what the place is like. It is pretty much the top end of Maths courses in the UK, and as per the views of someone I know there, the course is pretty challenging. If you're looking for a challenge, you almost certainly will get one at Warwick. And if it is still too easy, then you could choose to take a more difficult courseload :smile:
(edited 4 years ago)
Reply 17
Original post by Aayush :)
Well ... you're talking to a fellow Oxford reject so I somewhat understand your position.

With regards to Warwick, it seems to be very divisive in terms of whether people like it. I would recommend at least trying to talk to some current students if at all possible to get an idea of what the place is like. It is pretty much the top end of Maths courses in the UK, and as per the views of someone I know there, the course is pretty challenging. If you're looking for a challenge, you almost certainly will get one at Warwick. And if it is still too easy, then you could choose to take a more difficult courseload :smile:

They’re right. I read another thread saying the difficulty of Warwick is really up to you. you can pick the harder modules and realistically it’s up to you how hard you make the course.
If you’re really that elite apply to Cambridge next year or even MIT. The SAT math will be a breeze for you.
Otherwise maybe Imperial you can compete with all the international students who also likely did not get in. Otherwise maybe a year abroad with Imperial to NUS and that could be up to your “Olympiad” level.
Reply 18
Original post by Aayush :)
Well ... you're talking to a fellow Oxford reject so I somewhat understand your position.

With regards to Warwick, it seems to be very divisive in terms of whether people like it. I would recommend at least trying to talk to some current students if at all possible to get an idea of what the place is like. It is pretty much the top end of Maths courses in the UK, and as per the views of someone I know there, the course is pretty challenging. If you're looking for a challenge, you almost certainly will get one at Warwick. And if it is still too easy, then you could choose to take a more difficult courseload :smile:

Aayush is right. I read another thread saying the difficulty of Warwick is really up to you. you can pick the harder modules and realistically it’s up to you how hard you make the course.
If you’re really that elite apply to Cambridge next year or even MIT. The SAT math will be a breeze for you.
Otherwise maybe Imperial you can compete with all the international students who also likely did not get in. Otherwise maybe a year abroad with Imperial to NUS and that could be up to your “Olympiad” level.
I don’t doubt your intelligence but it’s a shame that you’re so condescending to these people you haven’t even met. Warwick is a very rigorous course and very good for maths.
Original post by Smough
I am an international applicant for a Maths degree. I was rejected by Oxford and now my best choice left is Warwick. I am used to olympiad level mathematics and competitive programming so I thought Oxford was really fitting. Since the day of rejection I began looking in a depressive view at my future student life. I have the feeling that nothing can replace Oxbridge in UK and that if I were to go to Warwick, it would just be like spending +9k$ per year just to be maybe the best in my class and easily get out of there. No challenge, no other students to work with since most seem to be mediocre based on Warwick's low entry requirements. I am not the type of person to take a gap year and try again next year so I am really lost. Is Warwick that mediocre or can Oxbridge-level stuff be done there? I would really like to hear from people who have a solid understanding of how maths works in both Oxford and Warwick.

I never really understand these kind of threads for maths as the content of all modules at most universities is always there to see. If you are serious about doing mathematics why don't you research what each course offers and see how difficult the content is? (you may also need to do research on this, but if you have a module that goes up to say van Kampen and another that starts with Homology you should be able to reason the latter is a harder course. Or a module given at both universities with the same recommended book but different chapters are used, 1-4 in one uni but 3-7 in another it should be clear).

Quick Reply

Latest