This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- Primary Education with QTS Interview - English & Maths Test
- PGCE skill test 2023 entry
- Nhs trainee clinical coder test and interview
- Which unis to consider for a student with these predicted grades
- Maths and CS Joint at Imperial
- Wellington College 16+ exams
- how likely am i to get into cambridge university?
- TfL customer service assistant Level 2 full time
- Science Extended (Huddersfield)
- should i still apply for oxbridge Maths
- Correlation between performance in UKMT and performance in TMUA/STEP?
- Aerospace engineering with a foundation year
- Ask a Design Engineering Student! AMA
- [Birkbeck] - MSc in Data Science / Computer Science - Interview + Test
- A guide to pooling at Cambridge
- Physics at oxbridge
- RAF application for pilot
- Robert Gordon Midwifery offer
- University of Huddersfield Science Extended Degree leading to a BSc(Hons) Degree
- MA Social Work at Northampton University
Maths tests and interviews - my guide
Edit: So this thread has been split off (thanks Athena!) This isn't really a guide as such, just an overview of my whole interview experience. Any Questions Answered, except for detailed interview content.
Edit: Wow, this is long. But I need to append a bit more!
Sort-of edit: I started out thinking I would give a brief overview, but I'm only up to writing about interview #3 and I've included plenty of "nice and interesting" bits along the way. So this is my interview and test experience. I hope you find it useful in ways you didn't expect when you asked your original question.
Personal story: For me it was the test that was more important.
I was applying for M&CS. At the time (last year) the test was at interview time in mid-December, and therefore covered a bit of A2-Level content. I had done C1-C4 and FP1 in the summer of year 12 or the previous January (and all results 80+), and had done a bit of outside reading, so in terms of content I was well prepared. A certain piece of outside reading helped me a little in the exam. See the spoiler section.
I practiced with both specimen tests on the website. The format of the test had changed that year, just like it is changing this year. That year they had added the "CS" questions which (to be blunt) made the exam significantly easier for applicants for M&CS and CS. The CS questions are mostly basic logic and definitely easier than most geometry or trig questions they might set. (More on this later.)
I got about 80% on the multiple-choice section in both tests. The next part was harder to mark but I tried to do it "fairly" and even marked it in a harsh and a kind way seperately. Some of my answers were completely correct which gave me 15 marks without trouble. Teachers at school declined the option of marking my paper.
In total I got some 80-90% in the "harsh" style and about 5 marks more in the "kind" style. (I think the exam was out of 100?) I suspected this was so-so - for a further maths student, that is. I e-mailed Dr Richard Earl for advice.
He made corrections/clarifications on the website as I pointed out, refused (politely) to mark any of my questions, and explained that the multiple-choice question is on an all-or-nothing basis, i.e. they do not look at your working. You get 4 marks or you get 0. He also said people "typically" have 2-3 interviews. (More on this later too!)
He also gave me guidance on what marks are considered good and so on. I later e-mailed him asking to post the details on "an online forum" (i.e. TSR) but he told me I shouldn't. So instead I took his words and put them into vaguer terms. Now however I will post less details because the test has changed and I wouldn't want you to be misled.
I arrived in Oxford on a Sunday nervous but confident after my practice. Especially pleasing was the complete lack of time issues, which made the whole experience a little bit more relaxed. There were a few nervous giggles before the exam, and then we got started. (Please consider repping me if you are still reading this!)
I walked out confident because I had checked my answers well (in some places very thoroughly) and also explained my notation. I knew that if somebody who interviewed me looked at my paper, they would be impressed by the little extras here and there. However, if my paper was marked by somebody else, and the interviewers only saw my mark, my effort would be useless. (That was fine with me, considering how long the exam was.) I looked at the other questions, knowing that I would have an opportunity to look at them more later. I didn't start doing the other questions - that would just reek of somebody who thinks too much of themselves. Other people leaving the exam seemed less confident than me (although most of them had done other questions) and they didn't seem to be willing to discuss things. (Quite a few felt completely defeated.)
I went to the (Hertford College) library and managed to navigate to the website on a "kiosk", but the paper hadn't been put up yet.
Edit: The rest of this post is about my interviews. You might want to stop reading now. (Although I can't imagine why, because you will probably have interviews, too. Besides, everybody knows I'm very interesting.)
I had been scheduled for one interview, at Hertford, on Monday afternoon. The interview didn't go well - the unimportant part (books etc) was OK, although I was nervous, having 3 people and this being my first interview. When they said "What bla have you learned?" I forgot to mention some of my most impressive types of bla. The important part (problems) was pretty bad because it was all about one problem, which never really "snapped" for me. Eventually the guy essentially the solution with me. I had understood it so poorly that I couldn't even replicate it (or the exact problem) later.
At some point, however, I was scheduled for a second interview, at Merton. I thought at the time this was probably due to my (assumed high) test scores. My interview was on Tuesday. I knew from TSR that this arrangement did not mean I had already been rejected from Hertford.
Dr Ong was very friendly and I was immediately put at ease. This time there were a few questions, and I went through them with little problem. I went out feeling happy and I smiled at the girl waiting outside and maybe I even said "he's very friendly". I wonder how she did.
Tuesday evening it seemed many people couldn't wait to get home.
On my sister's advice I stopped browsing the Merton websites like I did Tuesday evening, and instead I went to have a proper walk around the college on Wednesday morning.
As far as I can remember, it was at this point when I was called by the people from Hertford JCR and told that I had an interview at St Catherine's later in the day. I would meet at Hertford lodge and somebody would help me walk there. (Actually quite late, because only a few hours after that call people without appointments would be asked to leave.) So then I wandered around Merton college. Not much I could see from my point of view, of course, but it was fun nevertheless. I also popped in to the JCR.
I was on my way out, down Merton Street, when I got another call - can you get to an interview at Merton, ASAP? Would you like to be walked from Hertford lodge? - I laughed and said I was on Merton Street and returned to the lodge to wait for my interview.
This interview (#3 if you're counting) was with two more friendly people and we discussed firstly calculus and secondly combinatorics-based questions. This one was OK although I made a few "kick yourself" mistakes which I corrected soon.
Upon leaving I found somebody waiting for me telling me I had another interview at Merton! (#4) I was led to Dr Ong's room. This interview included some more questions, not significantly harder, and later we talked about my personal statement and I showed that I knew what I was talking about (in my personal statement). I second-guessed this bit occasionally. I briefly discussed Scheme and (unrelated!) Prisoner's Dilemma. As my time for the next interview was running thin, he closed off by saying that he was working in game semantics - which is apparently sort-of-not-quite related to game theory. As I walked the long walk to St Catherine's, I wondered whether my mentioning game theory made him pick out my application.
#5 was the computer science interview at St Catherine's and it was OK. The insignificant part went well (as it so often did) and the significant part started off well, but when we looked at the second or third problem I began to get confused and only fumbled my way through.
I didn't have enough time to mull over that problem (post-interview) before interview #6. This was the maths interview and I wasn't expecting it. As the fourth interview of the day, I was pretty exhausted. The number theory part didn't go well and the next part didn't go well either. I felt as though they were rushing me a little and sort of felt cheated (as in, "if I had another minute I might have figured that out").
I'm sorry I'm not giving any specific details of interview questions or topics. By now I have a bit of an emotional connection to my tutors and it would feel a bit like cheating them if I revealed the details. Plus, it could make this post twice as long.
I left #6 even more exhausted, as though I wasn't being given a fair chance (2 interviews, and 2 more unexpected interviews?!). But I knew that having 3 different colleges interview me suggested I was a good candidate. (Beyond this the story really is quite pointless.) By that time, lunch at St Cats had closed. I walked briefly around St Cats, but of course didn't get to much of it, considering how big it was. I was impressed by the large rooms but also thought I wouldn't appreciate so much walking. The JCR was showing HHGTG (although I suspected most had left) but I wasn't in the mood. I got lunch at that amazing sandwich place. There was nobody at Hertford (about 10 bags left, and everybody had already cleared their rooms), and I left.
By the end of it all, I became more confident as the waiting time decreased. I recieved the letter from Merton first, then the Hertford one a little later.
My original point to this post was that without the high test score (i.e. if I had been poorly prepared) I may never have gotten my second (third, fourth, fifth, sixth!) interviews, and could have missed out on a place entirely.
There are a few leads to wrap up in this post. The first one is about whether the CS-type questions are easier than the M-type questions. I told most of my interviewers that I had been wondering whether the average scores for the different options differed, and said that in my opinion the M-type questions were harder. Apparently nobody had really checked this, but Dr Ong was sure to assure me that they would never compare scores of two students in different options.
The other lead is that most students only have 1 or 2 interviews. Well, I had 6. Although I wasn't reading TSR a lot at the time, I don't remember anybody who had a larger (or equal) number of interviews. Somebody did say that a Chemistry applicant once had 9.
That's all folks! *bows*
And finally, stuff you shouldn't read before doing all available specimens:
Edit: Wow, this is long. But I need to append a bit more!
Sort-of edit: I started out thinking I would give a brief overview, but I'm only up to writing about interview #3 and I've included plenty of "nice and interesting" bits along the way. So this is my interview and test experience. I hope you find it useful in ways you didn't expect when you asked your original question.
Personal story: For me it was the test that was more important.
I was applying for M&CS. At the time (last year) the test was at interview time in mid-December, and therefore covered a bit of A2-Level content. I had done C1-C4 and FP1 in the summer of year 12 or the previous January (and all results 80+), and had done a bit of outside reading, so in terms of content I was well prepared. A certain piece of outside reading helped me a little in the exam. See the spoiler section.
I practiced with both specimen tests on the website. The format of the test had changed that year, just like it is changing this year. That year they had added the "CS" questions which (to be blunt) made the exam significantly easier for applicants for M&CS and CS. The CS questions are mostly basic logic and definitely easier than most geometry or trig questions they might set. (More on this later.)
I got about 80% on the multiple-choice section in both tests. The next part was harder to mark but I tried to do it "fairly" and even marked it in a harsh and a kind way seperately. Some of my answers were completely correct which gave me 15 marks without trouble. Teachers at school declined the option of marking my paper.
In total I got some 80-90% in the "harsh" style and about 5 marks more in the "kind" style. (I think the exam was out of 100?) I suspected this was so-so - for a further maths student, that is. I e-mailed Dr Richard Earl for advice.
He made corrections/clarifications on the website as I pointed out, refused (politely) to mark any of my questions, and explained that the multiple-choice question is on an all-or-nothing basis, i.e. they do not look at your working. You get 4 marks or you get 0. He also said people "typically" have 2-3 interviews. (More on this later too!)
He also gave me guidance on what marks are considered good and so on. I later e-mailed him asking to post the details on "an online forum" (i.e. TSR) but he told me I shouldn't. So instead I took his words and put them into vaguer terms. Now however I will post less details because the test has changed and I wouldn't want you to be misled.
I arrived in Oxford on a Sunday nervous but confident after my practice. Especially pleasing was the complete lack of time issues, which made the whole experience a little bit more relaxed. There were a few nervous giggles before the exam, and then we got started. (Please consider repping me if you are still reading this!)
I walked out confident because I had checked my answers well (in some places very thoroughly) and also explained my notation. I knew that if somebody who interviewed me looked at my paper, they would be impressed by the little extras here and there. However, if my paper was marked by somebody else, and the interviewers only saw my mark, my effort would be useless. (That was fine with me, considering how long the exam was.) I looked at the other questions, knowing that I would have an opportunity to look at them more later. I didn't start doing the other questions - that would just reek of somebody who thinks too much of themselves. Other people leaving the exam seemed less confident than me (although most of them had done other questions) and they didn't seem to be willing to discuss things. (Quite a few felt completely defeated.)
I went to the (Hertford College) library and managed to navigate to the website on a "kiosk", but the paper hadn't been put up yet.
Edit: The rest of this post is about my interviews. You might want to stop reading now. (Although I can't imagine why, because you will probably have interviews, too. Besides, everybody knows I'm very interesting.)
I had been scheduled for one interview, at Hertford, on Monday afternoon. The interview didn't go well - the unimportant part (books etc) was OK, although I was nervous, having 3 people and this being my first interview. When they said "What bla have you learned?" I forgot to mention some of my most impressive types of bla. The important part (problems) was pretty bad because it was all about one problem, which never really "snapped" for me. Eventually the guy essentially the solution with me. I had understood it so poorly that I couldn't even replicate it (or the exact problem) later.
At some point, however, I was scheduled for a second interview, at Merton. I thought at the time this was probably due to my (assumed high) test scores. My interview was on Tuesday. I knew from TSR that this arrangement did not mean I had already been rejected from Hertford.
Dr Ong was very friendly and I was immediately put at ease. This time there were a few questions, and I went through them with little problem. I went out feeling happy and I smiled at the girl waiting outside and maybe I even said "he's very friendly". I wonder how she did.
Tuesday evening it seemed many people couldn't wait to get home.
On my sister's advice I stopped browsing the Merton websites like I did Tuesday evening, and instead I went to have a proper walk around the college on Wednesday morning.
As far as I can remember, it was at this point when I was called by the people from Hertford JCR and told that I had an interview at St Catherine's later in the day. I would meet at Hertford lodge and somebody would help me walk there. (Actually quite late, because only a few hours after that call people without appointments would be asked to leave.) So then I wandered around Merton college. Not much I could see from my point of view, of course, but it was fun nevertheless. I also popped in to the JCR.
I was on my way out, down Merton Street, when I got another call - can you get to an interview at Merton, ASAP? Would you like to be walked from Hertford lodge? - I laughed and said I was on Merton Street and returned to the lodge to wait for my interview.
This interview (#3 if you're counting) was with two more friendly people and we discussed firstly calculus and secondly combinatorics-based questions. This one was OK although I made a few "kick yourself" mistakes which I corrected soon.
Upon leaving I found somebody waiting for me telling me I had another interview at Merton! (#4) I was led to Dr Ong's room. This interview included some more questions, not significantly harder, and later we talked about my personal statement and I showed that I knew what I was talking about (in my personal statement). I second-guessed this bit occasionally. I briefly discussed Scheme and (unrelated!) Prisoner's Dilemma. As my time for the next interview was running thin, he closed off by saying that he was working in game semantics - which is apparently sort-of-not-quite related to game theory. As I walked the long walk to St Catherine's, I wondered whether my mentioning game theory made him pick out my application.
#5 was the computer science interview at St Catherine's and it was OK. The insignificant part went well (as it so often did) and the significant part started off well, but when we looked at the second or third problem I began to get confused and only fumbled my way through.
I didn't have enough time to mull over that problem (post-interview) before interview #6. This was the maths interview and I wasn't expecting it. As the fourth interview of the day, I was pretty exhausted. The number theory part didn't go well and the next part didn't go well either. I felt as though they were rushing me a little and sort of felt cheated (as in, "if I had another minute I might have figured that out").
I'm sorry I'm not giving any specific details of interview questions or topics. By now I have a bit of an emotional connection to my tutors and it would feel a bit like cheating them if I revealed the details. Plus, it could make this post twice as long.
I left #6 even more exhausted, as though I wasn't being given a fair chance (2 interviews, and 2 more unexpected interviews?!). But I knew that having 3 different colleges interview me suggested I was a good candidate. (Beyond this the story really is quite pointless.) By that time, lunch at St Cats had closed. I walked briefly around St Cats, but of course didn't get to much of it, considering how big it was. I was impressed by the large rooms but also thought I wouldn't appreciate so much walking. The JCR was showing HHGTG (although I suspected most had left) but I wasn't in the mood. I got lunch at that amazing sandwich place. There was nobody at Hertford (about 10 bags left, and everybody had already cleared their rooms), and I left.
By the end of it all, I became more confident as the waiting time decreased. I recieved the letter from Merton first, then the Hertford one a little later.
My original point to this post was that without the high test score (i.e. if I had been poorly prepared) I may never have gotten my second (third, fourth, fifth, sixth!) interviews, and could have missed out on a place entirely.
There are a few leads to wrap up in this post. The first one is about whether the CS-type questions are easier than the M-type questions. I told most of my interviewers that I had been wondering whether the average scores for the different options differed, and said that in my opinion the M-type questions were harder. Apparently nobody had really checked this, but Dr Ong was sure to assure me that they would never compare scores of two students in different options.
The other lead is that most students only have 1 or 2 interviews. Well, I had 6. Although I wasn't reading TSR a lot at the time, I don't remember anybody who had a larger (or equal) number of interviews. Somebody did say that a Chemistry applicant once had 9.
That's all folks! *bows*
And finally, stuff you shouldn't read before doing all available specimens:
Spoiler
Scroll to see replies
DeathAwaitsU
Thanks for that. Do you find out exactly what you got in the admission test? If not, did you ask anyway? If so, how and when?
I don't think any of the tutors give out the test scores, but you can probably find out from your own tutors who get some feedback after the whole process.
DeathAwaitsU
Thanks for that. Do you find out exactly what you got in the admission test? If not, did you ask anyway? If so, how and when?
As a current student said in the Hertford lodge, "after the admissions process you won't care about your mark anyway" (and they don't give it to you). Well, it's almost true. My 1,1 in STEP II+III are more significant to me as "proof of my ability" than a test I did back in December.
I don't think I'll ask my tutors how I did. They'd probably just give me a funny look.
they're required to destroy all their notes on applicants the moment they finalise their decisions, anyway, so unless they've got a good memory they're unlikely to be able to tell you even if you did want to know.
The two merton M+CS's are Dane and Ryan. Dane's a cool guy i went to school with, but a complete slacker who's lucky he didn't fail mods, while ryan is a workaholic who's collection paper was given to dane as a worked solution.
The two merton M+CS's are Dane and Ryan. Dane's a cool guy i went to school with, but a complete slacker who's lucky he didn't fail mods, while ryan is a workaholic who's collection paper was given to dane as a worked solution.
thomasjtl
they're required to destroy all their notes on applicants the moment they finalise their decisions, anyway, so unless they've got a good memory they're unlikely to be able to tell you even if you did want to know.
(Took me a while to think of this) surely they will want to correlate test performance to A-Level performance, just like they already correlate A-Level performance to degree performance. They get the results of all applicants, even if they didn't receive offers or didn't accept their offer.
They would probably like to correlate the test to the degree performance but they keep changing the format of the test so that might not be the best approach.
Well, here are my two cents on the whole process:
I applied for straight Maths, so I had (essentially) 5 Pure questions to answer in the exam. Back in the day (i.e. December), the test was based on C1-3 knowledge, but I found that some Further Maths concepts like roots of equations and formal proof by induction helped me in part. Now it's based on C1 and C2, since it's being sat earlier. The only thing I would stress is that you know these two modules inside out for the exam. Looking at the specimens is also advisable - just to get a feel for the structure and style. And that by the time interviews come, you should probably know C3 to a similar depth, along with C1 and C2. Any other Pure modules and a good knowledge of elementary stats could well help. By the time interviews came, I'd already sat C1/2, M1, S1 and FP1 (in June), and was about to sit (in January) M2, S2, C3 and C4. Questions in my interviews pooled knowledge from all of my pure modules in some form, but mostly the Core content, and from S1.
About the actual test, I was told that I got 85%, a respectable score for this year - the last question on this year's test was (according to a tutor) 'too easy', and so raised the average of those gaining offers up into the 80s. This, of course, means nothing for the future cohorts, as your tests could be easier, harder or just the same difficultly - what I think is appreciated is clarity in the 4 longer questions, which is why I aimed to quickly, but not hastily, finish the 1st (multiple choice) question.
As for interviews - I applied to Merton, and was assigned St. Hugh's as my 2nd choice college (the department assign 2nd and 3rd choice colleges as standard, and you're guaranteed an interview at 1st and 2nd choices). I had 2 interviews at Merton on the first day, the first of which I came out very happy - the two interviewers, Dr. He and (I think) a postgrad student of his, were very friendly, and started interview with some pointless but comforting chat about some books that I'd read. The maths itself varied from thought-provoking to algebra-crunching to nasty in every sense. The second interview, in which I made a lot of ridiculous mistakes (hence coming out mildly distraught), was similar in structure, was taken by Professor Tillman and another tutor whose name has temporarily slipped my mind - they made me feel at home on their very comfortable sofas, but had little time for chit-chat. The questions seemed to be more logic/almost philosophy based - I'm not really sure if this difference was intended, or whether it was just the tutors' pick of questions. Both interviews had some combinatorics or probability, both had some calculus, and both had graph sketching, suggesting that these are important skills that the tutors are looking for, so perhaps practice these.
I then had a free day on day 2, and an interview at St. Hugh's (what a way away it was!) on day 3. That interview was entirely based on one topic, but progressed in difficulty, as had the other 2 interviews. It's probably a good sign if you are set a really nasty problem, as the interviewers wouldn't set it to you if they didn't think you could do it, even if with a little hinting, prodding or shoving.
All in all, just make sure you know your stuff. If you don't, you might not pick up on a hint, which can leave you stuck on the same problem for aaaages. If you haven't covered a specific topic they set you, do tell them, but extra knowledge is always (obivously!) good. Make sure you talk in the interview. A constant silence whilst you think is not helping you or the interviewers. Say what you are thinking - tell them about how you arrived at your answer, or why you think your method is better than an alternative. That really will help them help you go in the right direction if you are stuck, as well as helping them to gauge how good you are, and could clarify the problem for you. Lastly, everyone needs a bit of good luck, so here it is - good luck!
I applied for straight Maths, so I had (essentially) 5 Pure questions to answer in the exam. Back in the day (i.e. December), the test was based on C1-3 knowledge, but I found that some Further Maths concepts like roots of equations and formal proof by induction helped me in part. Now it's based on C1 and C2, since it's being sat earlier. The only thing I would stress is that you know these two modules inside out for the exam. Looking at the specimens is also advisable - just to get a feel for the structure and style. And that by the time interviews come, you should probably know C3 to a similar depth, along with C1 and C2. Any other Pure modules and a good knowledge of elementary stats could well help. By the time interviews came, I'd already sat C1/2, M1, S1 and FP1 (in June), and was about to sit (in January) M2, S2, C3 and C4. Questions in my interviews pooled knowledge from all of my pure modules in some form, but mostly the Core content, and from S1.
About the actual test, I was told that I got 85%, a respectable score for this year - the last question on this year's test was (according to a tutor) 'too easy', and so raised the average of those gaining offers up into the 80s. This, of course, means nothing for the future cohorts, as your tests could be easier, harder or just the same difficultly - what I think is appreciated is clarity in the 4 longer questions, which is why I aimed to quickly, but not hastily, finish the 1st (multiple choice) question.
As for interviews - I applied to Merton, and was assigned St. Hugh's as my 2nd choice college (the department assign 2nd and 3rd choice colleges as standard, and you're guaranteed an interview at 1st and 2nd choices). I had 2 interviews at Merton on the first day, the first of which I came out very happy - the two interviewers, Dr. He and (I think) a postgrad student of his, were very friendly, and started interview with some pointless but comforting chat about some books that I'd read. The maths itself varied from thought-provoking to algebra-crunching to nasty in every sense. The second interview, in which I made a lot of ridiculous mistakes (hence coming out mildly distraught), was similar in structure, was taken by Professor Tillman and another tutor whose name has temporarily slipped my mind - they made me feel at home on their very comfortable sofas, but had little time for chit-chat. The questions seemed to be more logic/almost philosophy based - I'm not really sure if this difference was intended, or whether it was just the tutors' pick of questions. Both interviews had some combinatorics or probability, both had some calculus, and both had graph sketching, suggesting that these are important skills that the tutors are looking for, so perhaps practice these.
I then had a free day on day 2, and an interview at St. Hugh's (what a way away it was!) on day 3. That interview was entirely based on one topic, but progressed in difficulty, as had the other 2 interviews. It's probably a good sign if you are set a really nasty problem, as the interviewers wouldn't set it to you if they didn't think you could do it, even if with a little hinting, prodding or shoving.
All in all, just make sure you know your stuff. If you don't, you might not pick up on a hint, which can leave you stuck on the same problem for aaaages. If you haven't covered a specific topic they set you, do tell them, but extra knowledge is always (obivously!) good. Make sure you talk in the interview. A constant silence whilst you think is not helping you or the interviewers. Say what you are thinking - tell them about how you arrived at your answer, or why you think your method is better than an alternative. That really will help them help you go in the right direction if you are stuck, as well as helping them to gauge how good you are, and could clarify the problem for you. Lastly, everyone needs a bit of good luck, so here it is - good luck!
r3m0t
(Took me a while to think of this) surely they will want to correlate test performance to A-Level performance, just like they already correlate A-Level performance to degree performance. They get the results of all applicants, even if they didn't receive offers or didn't accept their offer.
They would probably like to correlate the test to the degree performance but they keep changing the format of the test so that might not be the best approach.
They would probably like to correlate the test to the degree performance but they keep changing the format of the test so that might not be the best approach.
I think they have better things to do. The staff at the department already have a lot to keep themselves busy.
r3m0t
(Took me a while to think of this) surely they will want to correlate test performance to A-Level performance, just like they already correlate A-Level performance to degree performance. They get the results of all applicants, even if they didn't receive offers or didn't accept their offer.
They would probably like to correlate the test to the degree performance but they keep changing the format of the test so that might not be the best approach.
They would probably like to correlate the test to the degree performance but they keep changing the format of the test so that might not be the best approach.
I think the point of all the aptitude tests is that at the top end of USM marks, within the AAA bracket, universities don't feel that A-levels and degree performance correlate terribly well at all. Hence the existence of tests, and of interviews.
henryt
About the actual test, I was told that I got 85%, a respectable score for this year - the last question on this year's test was (according to a tutor) 'too easy', and so raised the average of those gaining offers up into the 80s.
They told you? Lucky you! ;-) If that's the math test (80+), I wonder what the computer science test was...
RichE: They would at least want to correlate test performance to A Level performance. I would anyway...
I've got a Maths offer from Balliol, and I was fortunate enough to have just two interviews, one at Balliol and one at Queens. I also found out my score on the test paper.
My advice to candidates is to make sure you do the past papers available and ensure you know C1-C3 very thoroughly. Looking through past Oxbridge questions will help as well. in the exam work slowly and carefully, I found there was more than enough time and obviously you don't want to rush and make silly mistakes....
My advice to candidates is to make sure you do the past papers available and ensure you know C1-C3 very thoroughly. Looking through past Oxbridge questions will help as well. in the exam work slowly and carefully, I found there was more than enough time and obviously you don't want to rush and make silly mistakes....
Well done on the offer from Balliol 
I've seen the Physics and Maths papers on the Oxford website but where can I get more practice papers from? I'm a bit worried by the comment from henryt that he found the stuff he'd done on the FP and Stats modules helped him as I've only done C1-3, M1,2 and D1 so far and just started FP and Stats so I won't have done much by the end of Oct.
I've seen the Physics and Maths papers on the Oxford website but where can I get more practice papers from? I'm a bit worried by the comment from henryt that he found the stuff he'd done on the FP and Stats modules helped him as I've only done C1-3, M1,2 and D1 so far and just started FP and Stats so I won't have done much by the end of Oct.
JaxT
Well done on the offer from Balliol
I've seen the Physics and Maths papers on the Oxford website but where can I get more practice papers from? I'm a bit worried by the comment from henryt that he found the stuff he'd done on the FP and Stats modules helped him as I've only done C1-3, M1,2 and D1 so far and just started FP and Stats so I won't have done much by the end of Oct.
I've seen the Physics and Maths papers on the Oxford website but where can I get more practice papers from? I'm a bit worried by the comment from henryt that he found the stuff he'd done on the FP and Stats modules helped him as I've only done C1-3, M1,2 and D1 so far and just started FP and Stats so I won't have done much by the end of Oct.
I think henryt was talking about the maths test for maths applicants though rather than physics applicants. They don't expect all physics applicants to have studied FM (I didn't) and they usually ensure that the maths test only includes topics covered by single maths students (in my day it was called P1-3 and then M1&2).
So you'll be fine.
JaxT
Well done on the offer from Balliol
I've seen the Physics and Maths papers on the Oxford website but where can I get more practice papers from? I'm a bit worried by the comment from henryt that he found the stuff he'd done on the FP and Stats modules helped him as I've only done C1-3, M1,2 and D1 so far and just started FP and Stats so I won't have done much by the end of Oct.
I've seen the Physics and Maths papers on the Oxford website but where can I get more practice papers from? I'm a bit worried by the comment from henryt that he found the stuff he'd done on the FP and Stats modules helped him as I've only done C1-3, M1,2 and D1 so far and just started FP and Stats so I won't have done much by the end of Oct.
Sorry - I should've been clearer - I applied for Maths, and so didn't do the Maths for Physicists paper... I shouldn't think that Further Maths would explicitly help you for it, having looked at the specimen...
Just to clear up any ambiguity, I did this paper: http://www.maths.ox.ac.uk/prospective-students/undergraduate/specimen-tests/test06.pdf
You'll be doing these papers (assuming you are applying for Physics): http://www.physics.ox.ac.uk/admissions/sample.htm
Thanks Hoofbeat and henryt. I am possibly getting overly anxious about the whole application/aptitude tests/interview process (I am inclined to do that about things that really matter to me). I am so determined to study Physics at degree level as it really is my passion......and obviously I couldn't do better than study it at Oxford, particularly as I find the whole idea of tutorials so exciting. I think I need to calm down a bit before I go completely 
!!
!!If you are preparing now you are in a considerably better position than many other applicants, at the end of the day you can only try your best! Once you've completed the Physics sample papers (and thought about why you couldn't do/incorrectly answered some questions) then it may be an idea to have a look at the ones for Maths applicants.
Although Further Maths may help in the paper, there will ALWAYS be a way to do the question using C1-C3 methods so you will be OK.
Although Further Maths may help in the paper, there will ALWAYS be a way to do the question using C1-C3 methods so you will be OK.
Guys, what if you are a Scottish Advanced Higher candidate?!
I am, and our contents and the order we learn them are probably quite different.
I am, and our contents and the order we learn them are probably quite different.
dasoulseeker
Guys, what if you are a Scottish Advanced Higher candidate?!
I am, and our contents and the order we learn them are probably quite different.
I am, and our contents and the order we learn them are probably quite different.
There is a syllabus on the website of material the test may be set on:
http://www.maths.ox.ac.uk/prospective-students/undergraduate/specimen-tests/syllabus.pdf
Related discussions
- Primary Education with QTS Interview - English & Maths Test
- PGCE skill test 2023 entry
- Nhs trainee clinical coder test and interview
- Which unis to consider for a student with these predicted grades
- Maths and CS Joint at Imperial
- Wellington College 16+ exams
- how likely am i to get into cambridge university?
- TfL customer service assistant Level 2 full time
- Science Extended (Huddersfield)
- should i still apply for oxbridge Maths
- Correlation between performance in UKMT and performance in TMUA/STEP?
- Aerospace engineering with a foundation year
- Ask a Design Engineering Student! AMA
- [Birkbeck] - MSc in Data Science / Computer Science - Interview + Test
- A guide to pooling at Cambridge
- Physics at oxbridge
- RAF application for pilot
- Robert Gordon Midwifery offer
- University of Huddersfield Science Extended Degree leading to a BSc(Hons) Degree
- MA Social Work at Northampton University
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 hours ago
Weidenfeld Hoffmann Trust (WHT) Scholarship Notification (2024-2025)Last reply 6 hours ago
Oxbridge applicants for modern languages - 2025 entry (applying in 2024)Last reply 1 week ago
Will I get into Oxford with my GCSE results? - EngineeringLast reply 3 weeks ago
will 5 a levels give me a better chance at getting into oxford?Trending
Last reply 2 hours ago
Weidenfeld Hoffmann Trust (WHT) Scholarship Notification (2024-2025)Last reply 6 hours ago
Oxbridge applicants for modern languages - 2025 entry (applying in 2024)Last reply 1 week ago
Will I get into Oxford with my GCSE results? - EngineeringLast reply 3 weeks ago
will 5 a levels give me a better chance at getting into oxford?
