how different are the maths couses in these unis, in terms of relative difficulty? people say cambridge is better for maths...of course...but what criteria is this on? teaching quality, research? no of firsts?
the overall quality of the maths degree at these unis's - are they the same in this respect, in that they both have near enough the same syllabus, and difficulty in syllabus, or completely different?
Cambridge has the hardest, most rigourous course therefore it is much better than everyone elses. This is why you only need a 2.1 to get into Part III of the Tripos but a First from elsewhere (and even then there will be heavy competition).
the overall quality of the maths degree at these unis's - are they the same in this respect, in that they both have near enough the same syllabus, and difficulty in syllabus, or completely different?
It does give a convincing reason why Cambridge has a better reputation for Maths, although in terms of employment prospects, a First in Maths from Oxford is fine for getting City jobs that suck away your soul but make you lots of money...if that's your kind of thing.
"In the course of the twentieth century, Oxford mathematics made huge strides away from the melancholy picture painted by Joliffe, to such an extent that at one stage in the 1980s three holders of the internationally prestigious Fields Medal were teaching at Oxford. As early as the 1920s, Mary Cartwright, one of the country's leading mathematicians of the twentieth century and the first woman mathematician to be elected a Fellow of the Royal Society, was an undergraduate at Oxford. Again, one of the most famous mathematicians of the 1990s, Andrew Wiles (the Princeton professor who proved Fermat's last theorem) studied at Oxford as an undergraduate, later returning as a Royal Society Research Professor. These individual examples provide evidence both for the quality of the undergraduate intake and for the quality of mathematical training provided. Perhaps Oxford need no longer feel an automatic sense of mathematical inferiority in comparison with Cambridge. "
see...they are good as each other...so oxford isn't crap at maths...proof enough..the great Wiles
the reason i didn't apply to cambridge is because i wanted to avoid the STEP...but i had an entrance exam whilst at the interviews, which was pretty tuff!
sorry but andrew wiles did partIII at clare, cambridge =P which, as shiny said, is quite competitive despite requiring a first if coming from oxford =P
sorry but andrew wiles did partIII at clare, cambridge =P which, as shiny said, is quite competitive despite requiring a first if coming from oxford =P
aww..ne mind
I've just finished my whole geography coursework did it all in one night all 20 pages of it!
Cambridge has the hardest, most rigourous course therefore it is much better than everyone elses. This is why you only need a 2.1 to get into Part III of the Tripos but a First from elsewhere (and even then there will be heavy competition).
(Holds up hand and professes ignorance.) What does that mean? That people who complete a bachelor's in maths elsewhere can go to Cambridge and do the final stages of the Cambridge maths BA? What do they end up with having done so? Or do they just have to do it as a prereq for graduate study there?
sorry but andrew wiles did partIII at clare, cambridge =P which, as shiny said, is quite competitive despite requiring a first if coming from oxford =P
Yup, Wiles did his PhD at Cambridge, and it was also there that he later announced his first proof of Fermat's Last Theorem...I doubt his undergraduate teaching had as much effect on him.
In all fairness, Oxford is good at Maths, it's just hard to compare it to Cambridge because Maths@Cam is a more famous tradition...besides, the bit in that article about Oxford candidates being undeniably worse than Cambridge ones is the real reason to read it.
In all fairness, Oxford is good at Maths, it's just hard to compare it to Cambridge because Maths@Cam is a more famous tradition...besides, the bit in that article about Oxford candidates being undeniably worse than Cambridge ones is the real reason to read it.
Dude, that was back in 1920?! I'm sure the average Cambridge mathmo back then was probably better than the average Cambridge mathmo today?!