got an offer from Cambridge

[The_Radiation_Specialist]

This morning the letter arrived from Pembroke College offering me to study Mathematics, A four year course. I'm absolutely gobsmacked. I never thought I was good enough for Cambridge!

The offer is conditional (3 A's in A-level). I also need to take STEP ( A very challenging maths aptitude paper).

It feels extremely strange to study in the same institution as Isaac Newton, Charles Darwin, Watson, Crick, Turing ... and hundreds of other very smart people.

Wow! :)

[mahesh]

RS...this is not calculated in any way...but let me just say, "Congratulations!"

Have a great time at Pembroke. Distinguished college.

[geonuc]

Very cool. Best of luck in meeting the requirements. :)

[jokergirl]

Grats and good luck!

;)

[closetgeek]

Congradulations, I am sure you've earned it.

[Swift]

Congrats TRS, that's very cool.

[Fazor]

I'll add my 2cents to this thread (that's about the extent of my math abilities), and say Congradulations aswell. :)

[Cougar]

A four-year course in mathematics? Dude! After that, you'll be able to.... rule the world! :eek:

[Ivan Viehoff]

This morning the letter arrived from Pembroke College offering me to study Mathematics ... The offer is conditional (3 A's in A-level). I also need to take STEP ( A very challenging maths aptitude paper).
Curious. You'd think they'd make you take the maths aptitude paper first, rather than discover that some of their students weren't going to make it. And also to make sure they were getting top students, since A-levels aren't much of a test of that.

When I went to Oxford in the early 80s, the normal system was that they made you take a maths paper, and then made conditional offers to those who did best in it. Exceptionally, in maths you had to be accepted by the university before colleges were permitted to make offers to you; in all other courses colleges could offer to whom they wished and sometimes used that discretion in ways that many would not approve. Of course most people applying would already have their A-level results. But if you were applying 4th term and they accepted you, normally the conditional offer was then the formality of two Es, since they had far more confidence in their own maths paper than the A-level system. I would imagine the same would be even more true today. Also no one expected maths students to be able to do anything else, even less so than chemists, who do at least have to be able to put down their thoughts and results in writing.

But in fact you cannot precisely identify people who will thrive on a maths degree. Unlike most subjects where diligence will substitute for a lack of talent over quite a range, you do need aptitude for higher levels of maths, which differs from what is required for high school maths which is much more concrete. Several of my friends got 3rd class degrees or worse, even though they were diligent students, because they simply reached a ceiling of understanding beyond which they could not penetrate to grasp more advanced concepts.

Back in the 80s, the Cambridge maths course was a 3-year degree plus an optional 1-year advanced diploma or something. But I understand that the Oxford maths degree has been stretched to 4 years recently, without much additional content from what was previously done in 3 years, in essence to give people more time to master the material. So maybe the Cambridge degree is now a basic 4-year course too.

I subverted the Oxford system by going up to read Chemistry and transferring to read mathematics at the start of the second year. Of course I had to persuade them to accept me: in fact they gave me about 2-3 weeks to prove myself and all went well. Going straight into the 2nd year curriculum with only some rapid background reading and exercises, I found myself in my element, which was a piece of great fortune. Had I intended to study maths initially, I'd probably have applied to Cambridge on grounds of prejudice that it had a better reputation. But in fact Oxford mathematics is also very strong. And by chance I found myself at Merton College where there is (or at least was then) a concentration of top mathematicians that few places can rival. My fellow students in my year took 1st, 2nd and 4th places in the final exams. And my tutors - who were really interested in teaching their undergraduates, unlike the chemistry tutors - had previously taught many eminent mathematicians such as Andrew Wiles. Also (a bit late to tell you now, I know), but I think the Oxford degree is a bit more fun. As far as I can see, you can choose courses and specialise to greater extent on the Oxford course than at Cambridge. But that probably means the Cambridge course is more rigorous, because they force you to concentrate on a core curriculum to a higher level.

[The_Radiation_Specialist]

Thanks everyone! :)

Curious. You'd think they'd make you take the maths aptitude paper first, rather than discover that some of their students weren't going to make it. And also to make sure they were getting top students, since A-levels aren't much of a test of that.



I did have an interview at the college which consisted of discussing several tough questions. As I understand, the interview itself is a test of seeing how well you will cope with the actual teaching done in Cambridge. It seems the interview is a more important part of the application than the maths test. You can always practice for the maths test using the past papers to achieve the grade threshold but being in a one-on-one interview with a tutor while s/he throws unexpected questions at you is challenging indeed!

[HenrikOlsen]

Reminds me of an physicist who at a job interview as what he thought was the last question got "Why is the sky blue?" followed by a lot of "Why is that?"'s that had him go over pretty much all of what he knew about physics and chemistry.

[hhEb09'1]

Fireworks (http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap081219.html)! :)

[TheHalcyonYear]

A four-year course in mathematics? Dude! After that, you'll be able to.... rule the world! :eek:
Well, the scientific world anyway. :)

congratulations TRS!! :dance:

[mugaliens]

Some of those questions are designed not to observe your answer, but how you answer.

[Fazor]

Some of those questions are designed not to observe your answer, but how you answer.
Police Department interviews are notorious for this. By and large, they don't care how you answer (So long as you don't say "Shoot them mutha's" when they ask what to do about a group of jaywalkers). But they'll toss out "uncomfortable" questions just to see how you deal with the situation. I always thought it was fun. Would be more fun if there wasn't a job riding on it. :)

[BetaDust]

Congratulations TRS!

[KaiYeves]

Wow! Congrats, TRS!

[gzhpcu]

Congratulatons! If you got an offer you certainly deserved it.

[chrissy]

Congratulations TRS. I hope it goes well for you. :)

[cjl]

Reminds me of an physicist who at a job interview as what he thought was the last question got "Why is the sky blue?" followed by a lot of "Why is that?"'s that had him go over pretty much all of what he knew about physics and chemistry.
Wasn't that Clifford Stoll, author of "The Cuckoo's Egg"?
(excellent book btw)

Oh, and congrats :)

[Ivan Viehoff]

You can always practice for the maths test using the past papers to achieve the grade threshold but being in a one-on-one interview with a tutor while s/he throws unexpected questions at you is challenging indeed!
I can understand that scores in many kinds of tests improve with practice. But if described as an aptitude test, then I would hope it was designed as such, so that you couldn't reliably practice to pass it. Diligence alone is not sufficient for success in mathematics, and it should be possible to design tests that take advantage of that characteristic of the subject.

A one-on-one interview with difficult questions is indeed challenging, but I wonder whether it tests the right thing. I hope you had a board or pad to write on, as I often need to write a few things down and explore a few directions on paper to know where I am going with a maths problem. And I find that easier if it is not being conducted as a performance. Whilst it has worked for you, I would be concerned that it does not actually reliably select the most suited. Many excellent mathematicians would perform badly in this type of situation, but would show their quality being given a quiet place and a piece of paper.

[The_Radiation_Specialist]

A one-on-one interview with difficult questions is indeed challenging, but I wonder whether it tests the right thing. I hope you had a board or pad to write on, as I often need to write a few things down and explore a few directions on paper to know where I am going with a maths problem. And I find that easier if it is not being conducted as a performance. Whilst it has worked for you, I would be concerned that it does not actually reliably select the most suited. Many excellent mathematicians would perform badly in this type of situation, but would show their quality being given a quiet place and a piece of paper.

Sorry I did not explain the interview procedure clearly. You are given about 30 mins before the interview to attempt a list of questions. There is pen and paper available to make any notes. After that you follow the tutor to the room to discuss the questions. In my case we went over the questions one by one and he gave me a chance to explain my solutions. However sometimes he would ask me to generalize a result or find solutions of alternative cases. These unexpected questions were not on the list but always followed naturally from the original problem. Overall the interview experience was an enjoyable one for me and I really wanted it to be longer. I was much more nervous before the interview than during it. :)

[suntrack2]

whatever we thought the particular thing is great so it is very greatful for our mind and that is self satisfaction, and if you are satisfied then what's the problem. Cambridge means "building a bridge of knowledge".

Congratulation and wish you all the best there.

Sunil

[davidlpf]

congrats.