Maths at Oxford/Cambridge

Hey!

I am planning on taking a gap year and applying for Maths with hopefully 3A*A. I also plan to apply to LSE (maths with data science), Imperial, Warwick and Bath.

My GCSEs aren’t super great (mainly 7s with 6s in English and a few 9s in Maths/Further Maths). I don’t have any amazing maths accomplishments like olympiads but have done some math challenges.

My dilemma is down to my ability and the entrance exams.

I have heard the MAT is easier. My problem is that if I perform well enough in the MAT to get an Oxford interview I will probably get a Warwick/Imperial offer, which I would be equally as happy to go to. So, in a way, it feels like a waste of an option to have both Oxford, Imperial and Warwick.

STEP is harder, but that isn’t a bad thing. Even if I don’t do well enough to meet a Cambridge offer (assuming I get an offer), studying for the STEP is still helpful for the first year. So say I do well in MAT, get an Imperial offer but fail to meet a S in STEP, the time spent studying for the STEP is not wasted.

This makes it seem obvious to apply for Cambridge, but I hear the Cambridge course is infamously hard. I love maths, but I’m far from a genius. Oxford is also very hard obviously, but I feel like a lot of the true geniuses are more likely to apply for Cambridge due to its famed difficulty, especially the Part III masters. Therefore I would be more out of place at Cambridge.

Of course there are lots of assumptions here, but I like to be prepared, and need to make a decision.

Any help appreciated : )

Hey!

I am planning on taking a gap year and applying for Maths with hopefully 3A*A. I also plan to apply to LSE (maths with data science), Imperial, Warwick and Bath.

My GCSEs aren’t super great (mainly 7s with 6s in English and a few 9s in Maths/Further Maths). I don’t have any amazing maths accomplishments like olympiads but have done some math challenges.

My dilemma is down to my ability and the entrance exams.

I have heard the MAT is easier. My problem is that if I perform well enough in the MAT to get an Oxford interview I will probably get a Warwick/Imperial offer, which I would be equally as happy to go to. So, in a way, it feels like a waste of an option to have both Oxford, Imperial and Warwick.

Please be aware that assuming you will get any offer simply because you meet or exceed the entry requirements, or think you can get a high grade in a test, is not a sensible attitude. Many people have applied to all top Unis this year and been disapointed - and those with too many high-grade choices have discovered there is no such thing as a certain offer and jearnt that the hard way - because have no offers at all.

Everyone needs to be far more realalistic this coming admissions cycle - one of two top choices only, and more choices at 'other Unis'.

Hey!

I am planning on taking a gap year and applying for Maths with hopefully 3A*A. I also plan to apply to LSE (maths with data science), Imperial, Warwick and Bath.

My GCSEs aren’t super great (mainly 7s with 6s in English and a few 9s in Maths/Further Maths). I don’t have any amazing maths accomplishments like olympiads but have done some math challenges.

My dilemma is down to my ability and the entrance exams.

I have heard the MAT is easier. My problem is that if I perform well enough in the MAT to get an Oxford interview I will probably get a Warwick/Imperial offer, which I would be equally as happy to go to. So, in a way, it feels like a waste of an option to have both Oxford, Imperial and Warwick.

STEP is harder, but that isn’t a bad thing. Even if I don’t do well enough to meet a Cambridge offer (assuming I get an offer), studying for the STEP is still helpful for the first year. So say I do well in MAT, get an Imperial offer but fail to meet a S in STEP, the time spent studying for the STEP is not wasted.

This makes it seem obvious to apply for Cambridge, but I hear the Cambridge course is infamously hard. I love maths, but I’m far from a genius. Oxford is also very hard obviously, but I feel like a lot of the true geniuses are more likely to apply for Cambridge due to its famed difficulty, especially the Part III masters. Therefore I would be more out of place at Cambridge.

Of course there are lots of assumptions here, but I like to be prepared, and need to make a decision.

Any help appreciated : )

Since you're unsure about the STEP, it does make sense to apply for Oxford because it's alot less stress at A level time and once you've got an offer you're basically in. Also consider how well you think you might do in the interview because this is likely more important for Oxford than Cambridge. However, Oxford places more emphasis on GCSEs than Cambridge so that might also be worth considering. I applied to Oxford instead of Cambridge for the same reason, the STEP. Bear in mind that if you underperform in the MAT, you would likely be rejected from Imperial but still get an offer with Warwick where you would have to get a 2 in STEP, which is alot harder but still an option. For that reason I would still advise to keep warwick, Imperial and Oxford/Cambridge as options.

Hey!

I am planning on taking a gap year and applying for Maths with hopefully 3A*A. I also plan to apply to LSE (maths with data science), Imperial, Warwick and Bath.

My GCSEs aren’t super great (mainly 7s with 6s in English and a few 9s in Maths/Further Maths). I don’t have any amazing maths accomplishments like olympiads but have done some math challenges.

My dilemma is down to my ability and the entrance exams.

I have heard the MAT is easier. My problem is that if I perform well enough in the MAT to get an Oxford interview I will probably get a Warwick/Imperial offer, which I would be equally as happy to go to. So, in a way, it feels like a waste of an option to have both Oxford, Imperial and Warwick.

STEP is harder, but that isn’t a bad thing. Even if I don’t do well enough to meet a Cambridge offer (assuming I get an offer), studying for the STEP is still helpful for the first year. So say I do well in MAT, get an Imperial offer but fail to meet a S in STEP, the time spent studying for the STEP is not wasted.

This makes it seem obvious to apply for Cambridge, but I hear the Cambridge course is infamously hard. I love maths, but I’m far from a genius. Oxford is also very hard obviously, but I feel like a lot of the true geniuses are more likely to apply for Cambridge due to its famed difficulty, especially the Part III masters. Therefore I would be more out of place at Cambridge.

Of course there are lots of assumptions here, but I like to be prepared, and need to make a decision.

Any help appreciated : )

Hey! I am aware that the step is very tricky, but because I would be on a gap year, it would not clash with my other exams. I will probably end up doing it recreationally as practice for first year maths anyways.

As for interviews, how can you figure out how good you are in them?

I have really good relationships with my teachers, so I think I’m fairly likeable from a teaching standpoint, but I would need to figure out what else they look for.

It's not just about getting in, it's about surviving and getting the degree classification you want. It's no use getting in and then failing. If you want to practise first year maths, rudin's real analysis is good. Solutions can be found with a google search. Also join some discord servers, you can probably get into the cambridge servers if you dig around enough.

Would also recommend you look at spivak's calculus, and apostol's books. Joseph Blitzstein's introduction to probability is good if you have time.

Put very simply, they look for people amazing at maths, and with a somehow reasonable attitude. Cambridge's first year past papers are also available online

It's not just about getting in, it's about surviving and getting the degree classification you want. It's no use getting in and then failing. If you want to practise first year maths, rudin's real analysis is good. Solutions can be found with a google search. Also join some discord servers, you can probably get into the cambridge servers if you dig around enough.

Would also recommend you look at spivak's calculus, and apostol's books. Joseph Blitzstein's introduction to probability is good if you have time.

Put very simply, they look for people amazing at maths, and with a somehow reasonable attitude. Cambridge's first year past papers are also available online

Without intending to **** on LSE, their "maths with data science" course is not comparable to maths any of the other places you list. (nor is their maths and [...]) It seems like principally a data science course, (and has some compulsory economics) and from a skim of the course handbook I'd more compare it to just Data Science (though it does have a bit more advanced maths - perhaps MORSE's stats and maths pathway/maths and stats would be a better comparison) at Warwick. I would recommend looking at UCL or KCL instead if you want another London choice, I don't think someone who wants to do maths as a main thing should go to LSE. LSE's main demographic imo is to people who primarily want to study economics or statistics but also want to do some decently advanced maths on the side.

You'll be fine with entry exams and those GCSEs aren't a problem outside of a select few universities.

I have read how GCSEs are used in Oxford maths admissions, but it's slipped my mind. You should check in any case. You can expect a Warwick offer however well you do in MAT, though if you don't do very well you will have to sit STEP. The other option would be sitting the TMUA alongside the MAT. The MAT is "easier" in raw difficulty however I found that it diverged more from A-level maths and appealed to people who were better at UKMT-type thinking whereas STEP was more regimental.

I get that impression too, I know some people apply to Oxford because they are put off by STEP, but you are right that it occupies a bit of an awkward middle. There are geniuses at Cambridge, it's entirely possible that you may have a future fields medallist in your year for instance, but they don't make up the majority of the year and many of the students have a fairly normal high level of intelligence and a reasonable number could have ended up at Warwick or Imperial on a bad day.

Since you're unsure about the STEP, it does make sense to apply for Oxford because it's alot less stress at A level time and once you've got an offer you're basically in. Also consider how well you think you might do in the interview because this is likely more important for Oxford than Cambridge. However, Oxford places more emphasis on GCSEs than Cambridge so that might also be worth considering. I applied to Oxford instead of Cambridge for the same reason, the STEP. Bear in mind that if you underperform in the MAT, you would likely be rejected from Imperial but still get an offer with Warwick where you would have to get a 2 in STEP, which is alot harder but still an option. For that reason I would still advise to keep warwick, Imperial and Oxford/Cambridge as options.

Please be aware that assuming you will get any offer simply because you meet or exceed the entry requirements, or think you can get a high grade in a test, is not a sensible attitude.

Hey! I am aware that the step is very tricky, but because I would be on a gap year, it would not clash with my other exams. I will probably end up doing it recreationally as practice for first year maths anyways.

As for interviews, how can you figure out how good you are in them?

I have really good relationships with my teachers, so I think I’m fairly likeable from a teaching standpoint, but I would need to figure out what else they look for.

Mathematics is a weird course.

Mathematics is the one course where the only thing your tutor truly cares about is your raw mathematical ability. They don't care what you got in GCSE French or DT. They might care what your got in maths, maybe physics. At Cambridge, I have had admissions tutors say directly to my face that they wouldn't care if you failed your A Levels, so long as you pass the STEP requirement. Oxford tutors don't quite take this attitude, but they more or less agree. They want to know how good of a mathmo you are, no more, no less. They may use GCSEs to give some picture of the accuracy of your teacher's predictions, however if you already have your A Levels then there's no point?

It's also worth pointing out to the OP the stellar truth of this particular comment:



I have had Oxford (computer science, but it's similar for maths) Tutors say that the admissions process is a black box. They chuck information in, there is a lot of painful jostling about and they, ultimately, pick the candidates they like best at the end (which is an intuitive consideration, not necessarily an objective one.) It is more or less random from a student perspective (unless you get one of the top scores on the MAT I suppose?) @crashcody, you cannot guarantee you will get in because you cannot guarantee a tutor will like you or the black box will spit you out a favourable score.

Though, to give an insiders perspective as a student who just finished their Oxford maths degree: Oxford is obviously the best and Cambridge is obviously stinky. Duh.

(Srs, the Oxford course is much better imo. Oxford expects most undergrads to continue to part C and recieve an MMath for their trouble. Part C is quite similar to Part B in teaching style, with the Dissertation now mandatory but also good fun. We also have Robin Knight who is my king, and an absolute corker of a course on Godel's Incompleteness thoerems, and others besides.)

Thanks for the advice! I visited Oxford on a school trip a couple years ago and found the maths department really cool. Our guide was also awesome - I don’t remember his name, but I just remember he was really cool. I believe he was a Phd student.

How close is the STEP to uni level mathematics? My problem with the MAT is that if I was to do well enough to get an offer (assuming I pass the black box of course) from Oxford, I would probably also do well enough to get into Imperial. Whilst Imperial is not the same standard, I would still be very happy going there.

Doing the STEP would allow for an extra chance if I do not have an Oxford level MAT score, and IF it is similar to beginner uni maths, I feel like it could be valuable to study for anyways. Even if the STEP is harder, it is still another opportunity, and a different style of exam (from what i’ve been told it’s less math challengey).

Also, one final thing is that I come from an underperforming school. Do you know which uni ‘appreciates’ this more?

Thanks again, I hope I have presented my query clearly.

I know this isn't a reply to me but I think I'll give my two cents. Hopefully vic can then give their perspective so you have two.

I don't think STEP is really "just like" university maths. First I'll say something about uni level maths: university maths becomes a lot more like other sciences in the sense that you will need to memorise a fair amount. You might get questions that are "state and prove ..." with a significant number of marks available just for reciting something from memory. These might be easier than even A-level questions. (of course, relative to content) Then you kind of have "seen similar" questions which are like calculations or proofs seen in lectures but with slight variations, these are often not too hard.

Then there are unseen questions which you won't have seen before that can be exceptionally hard (sometimes well beyond the level of STEP with few making even non-trivial progress on some questions), they might draw on proofs or calculations that you've seen before but with very significant twists or a very different setting. To be able to do these questions you need to not only know the bookwork well, but have a solid understanding of it and have a good problem solving ability to apply it. I think this is what STEP prepares you for: a few times when I've done these unseen questions I've had brief flashes back to STEP questions. STEP makes you start thinking critically about problems rather than just following a blueprint you've followed several times before.

Because of quirks in how much unseen/bookwork there is, I've had exams that were felt similarly hard to how I found A-level maths in y13, (if that makes sense) a few exams have even been easier, (because the lecturer put so much bookwork in it) and one or two disasters I'd compare more to how I found STEP III. (though that was more when they were unseen online) To me university maths isn't uniformly harder than A-level [again using the same caveat as before: as exams get harder you get better at maths, and if you are keeping up then the perception of difficulty isn't really changing, if ygm] but a lot of people get seriously unstuck when they start doing university level maths. Some people are just never happy with it and never really "get it". These people might struggle even accessing the marks I'm calling "easy", bear in mind, so I should really say "easy if you get it". Some of this failing is on A-levels, proofs should not be presented as a separate topic because you cannot really separate proof from (at least pure - but a lot of "applied" works on far greater levels of rigour than A-level maths) maths.

That said STEP still feels definitely like "very advanced school maths". I can't quite put nicely why, it just kind of is. Maybe I'm just saying this because of the topics concerned.

Since you're unsure about the STEP, it does make sense to apply for Oxford because it's alot less stress at A level time and once you've got an offer you're basically in.

Hey! I am aware that the step is very tricky, but because I would be on a gap year, it would not clash with my other exams. I will probably end up doing it recreationally as practice for first year maths anyways.

STEP is hard and challenging and it's also remarkably well designed and you learn a lot from doing it. In a sense it's Part 0 of the Tripos rather than being purely a test. Past questions and preparation materials (highly recommended) written by Stephen Siklos are available online for free. Read and work through those materials. All of the top scorers do. A "genius" is someone who works extremely hard and well and in a sustained way. That you consider STEP something you'd like to do recreationally is an excellent sign. Go for it.

It's true that Cambridge is superior to Oxford for undergraduate maths provision, but Oxford is still a very strong university for undergraduate maths and there might be several good and sensible reasons for choosing Oxford over Cambridge. But the wimpy "I'm no genius" is not one of them :-)

I would advise considering the following plan: work hard at STEP while enjoying it; get good enough at it to get into Cambridge if that is where you would most like to go.

PS Out of interest, why do you want a gap year?

For Maths it's not an unreasonable assumption at all. It's literally how Warwick's admissions sytem works, provided the OP has a personal statement that isn't ridiculous (eg written for the wrong course) and makes the grade and admissions test requirements for that year then they'll get in, can't confirm whether this is also the case at imperial but probably also is, just that you don't have an other way to fulfill the offer if you bomb the MAT, just a straight rejection. Maths applications are very black and white.

Hey!

I am planning on taking a gap year and applying for Maths with hopefully 3A*A. I also plan to apply to LSE (maths with data science), Imperial, Warwick and Bath.

My GCSEs aren’t super great (mainly 7s with 6s in English and a few 9s in Maths/Further Maths). I don’t have any amazing maths accomplishments like olympiads but have done some math challenges.

My dilemma is down to my ability and the entrance exams.

I have heard the MAT is easier. My problem is that if I perform well enough in the MAT to get an Oxford interview I will probably get a Warwick/Imperial offer, which I would be equally as happy to go to. So, in a way, it feels like a waste of an option to have both Oxford, Imperial and Warwick.

STEP is harder, but that isn’t a bad thing. Even if I don’t do well enough to meet a Cambridge offer (assuming I get an offer), studying for the STEP is still helpful for the first year. So say I do well in MAT, get an Imperial offer but fail to meet a S in STEP, the time spent studying for the STEP is not wasted.

This makes it seem obvious to apply for Cambridge, but I hear the Cambridge course is infamously hard. I love maths, but I’m far from a genius. Oxford is also very hard obviously, but I feel like a lot of the true geniuses are more likely to apply for Cambridge due to its famed difficulty, especially the Part III masters. Therefore I would be more out of place at Cambridge.

Of course there are lots of assumptions here, but I like to be prepared, and need to make a decision.

Any help appreciated : )