Warwick Maths better than Oxford?

Why do you think this? e.g. Oxford just beat Cambridge in the 2008 RAE

I was talking to my maths teacher and he said that Warwick's maths course is arguably better than Oxford's - is it true? if so how can that be? I always thought that oxford maths is second after cambridge just because it's oxford, albeit there's a massive gap between the two... and considering league tables Warwick certainly isn't the best...

What do you guys think?

Have you seen the warwick offer for maths compared to the Oxford one?

Well, was the OP referring to undergrad teaching? It's not clear. The question "Warwick Maths better than Oxford?" is incredibly vague and it was bound to attract in all the nutters, some of whom don't even study maths.

I was talking to my maths teacher and he said that Warwick's maths course is arguably better than Oxford's - is it true? if so how can that be? I always thought that oxford maths is second after cambridge just because it's oxford, albeit there's a massive gap between the two... and considering league tables Warwick certainly isn't the best...

What do you guys think?

Look at:

http://www.maths.manchester.ac.uk/~bl/maths_league/uk-maths-league-tables.html

Research isn't the same as undergraduate teaching and even if it was, we all hate league tables. (In their current form)

I think it's unreasonable (though trite in this case) to claim of two institutions, of comparable size and research activity, that one can be miles better than the other. Certainly it's ridiculous to do so in such an offhand way without saying why, especially when the two have such similar teaching methods.

Tables measuring one thing (research here) are not useless. Bill Lionheart's much respected webpage is full of such tables; he just doesn't make the mistake (as the papers do) of trying to clump them all into one table using arbitrary weightings for the different categories.

I am currently in my 1st year at Warwick studying maths. Externally Warwick is regarded very highly by emplyers and other academics as having an excellent maths dept. Internally it is also recognised as one of the best depts in the university. Just looking at the higher entrance requirements quite clearly shows that the only thing that means Warwick is not higher than oxford is the fact that oxford has the name "oxford". Its reputation alone means it attracts brilliant students, professors etc but so does Warwick. In academic circles it is very highly regarded and has some very famous members of staff (Ian Stewart for example). A university that has only been in existence for 40 years cannot hope to compete with a 1000 year reputation that has been ingrained into peoples minds. It's hard to imagine when you're at school what necessarily uni will be like (at least it was for me) and the most important aspect is the course. Really university is far more than that though, you will be living, cooking, eating, socialising, partying...and working there. I know a couple of friends who went to oxbridge, hated it and have now left, reapplying to places such as warwick for next year. Thats not to say that oxbridge isnt for everyone, obviously for some people it is exactly the right place to be but all I am suggesting is that you think hard about what exactly you want from university.

I was talking to my maths teacher and he said that Warwick's maths course is arguably better than Oxford's - is it true? if so how can that be? I always thought that oxford maths is second after cambridge just because it's oxford, albeit there's a massive gap between the two... and considering league tables Warwick certainly isn't the best...

What do you guys think?

Yes. It's generally considered if you want the best course possible you apply to oxbridge.

But anyway. I'd say that Warwick is certainly easier to get into than oxford. I know two people who applied to oxford for maths, and both failed (one before interview and one after interview), wheras with Warwick getting just 4A's was a breeze for both of them. Talking about STEP is pretty stupid for Warwick considering you don't need it to get in; one of the above people failed STEP I.

Talking about STEP is pretty stupid for Warwick considering you don't need it to get in; one of the above people failed STEP I.

You do need STEP, it's compulsory for all applicants. Your friend got in last year when there was still one non-STEP offer, AAAA.

They changed the entry requirements this year so you have to do STEP

Ok, didn't know that. Is it still a 2, and do they give an option of an AEA?

My offer stipulates 2/Merit in STEP/AEA. So that / means and, does it?

My offer stipulates 2/Merit in STEP/AEA. So that / means and, does it?

Id imagine it depends on what areas of maths you are into. I seem to remember that Oxford is > statistics than Cambridge while its maths department obviously isnt as strong overall.

When you get this close, where you would rather study is the major factor. The courses are both excellent

Is uni maths like STEP?

No, you need to either sit STEP (and get 2) OR AEA (and get a Merit).