Exams

So how did your exams go /sci/?

Did well, got a 1st, so I can stay on for what's essentially an MA in all but name (But still undergraduate funding, shit is sweet)

I was one of the graders for the Calc 2 final this year, and I noticed there was one girl who turned in an absolutely blank exam.  Nothing was written anywhere, except her name.  Nothing was written and then erased.  They didn't get scratch paper, so she obviously did absolutely NO work on the test at all.

It just confuses the hell out of me.  I mean, if you're so clueless about calculus that you can't even get started on a single problem, then by the time the final rolls around, you've gotta be failing so bad that it's pointless to even show up for the final.  OTOH, if you for whatever reason *want* to get a zero on the final, again why not just skip it all together?

Noone else seemed too bothered about it, but I really want to know the story.  Too bad I didn't write down her name or I could've maybe tracked her down and asked.

I was one of the graders for the Calc 2 final this year, and I noticed there was one girl who turned in an absolutely blank exam.  Nothing was written anywhere, except her name.  Nothing was written and then erased.  They didn't get scratch paper, so she obviously did absolutely NO work on the test at all.

It just confuses the hell out of me.  I mean, if you're so clueless about calculus that you can't even get started on a single problem, then by the time the final rolls around, you've gotta be failing so bad that it's pointless to even show up for the final.  OTOH, if you for whatever reason *want* to get a zero on the final, again why not just skip it all together?

Noone else seemed too bothered about it, but I really want to know the story.  Too bad I didn't write down her name or I could've maybe tracked her down and raped her.

>>4
Forgot that part.  Thanks.

>>2

This the Trinity guy? I'm staying on too, at Clare. Bring on the fucking essay.

You guys talking about this?

http://www.maths.cam.ac.uk/postgrad/casm/

Got a nice, clean IB 7 on Bio Standard (98 %) but only a 5 at chem.

Stupid gas laws.

>>7
That's the one. I've only heard bad things.

>>7
http://www.maths.cam.ac.uk/teaching/pastpapers/

Wait I'm confused.  Do students have to take 18 different, 3-hour tests?? O_O  Four under each of part IA, IB, II, and 6 (out of a zillion) on part III?

>>6

Heh, got the 3 alphas on catam again this year as well. Thought I was gonna get a 2.i, somehow I managed to really well though, almost top 20.

>>10

You do 4 papers, 3 hours long, for each year.
Your first year is your Part 1A, your second part 1B etc.

Then 6 papers for part III.

So generally 12 hours each year decide your marks (which is a shit-feast)

>>7
>>10

So someone who wants to specialize in, say, number theory or algebraic geometry is still forced to learn all kinds of physics and relativity shit?

And to think I actually wanted to go to Cambridge once.

>>12
No.

You have to learn certain courses in the first year, in the second year you can specialise into pure and applied if you want, although you can choose to just study lots of courses.

By the third year you're free to choose from whatever's on offer.

Specialising too early is a terrible idea, you'd have a very poor background in general areas of maths, courses like mathematical methods may not seem relevant to your interest at the time, but a lot of stuff pops up in unexpected places.

Don't worry though, you probably wouldn't have been accepted.

>>13
You mean 'this' "Mathematical Methods" class? http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gio10/nst_notes.pdf  Yeah, that's just what I need.  A one semester applied course that gives a short, watered down treatment of the major points of a half dozen low-level undergrad courses.

And I'm sorry if you weren't motivated and ambitious enough that you already had a good idea what you wanted to specialize in by the time you graduated high school, but some of us were.  I can guarantee you that knowledge of Theoretical Geophysics or Fluid Dynamics would be totally useless to me professionally.

>Don't worry though, you probably wouldn't have been accepted.

Hurr hurr.  Enjoy everyone you ever meet for the rest of your life instantly hate you because you feel the need to brag about having gone to Cambridge every other sentence.

BTW, those tests are nothing to whine about. If you're having trouble with those, you may want to rethink your career choice while you have the chance.  I was surprised at how basic the questions were, even on the level III exams.  At least half the problems on this one (enough to pass, btw) are just remembering proofs from the book: http://www.maths.cam.ac.uk/teaching/pastpapers/2001/Part_3/Paper75.pdf

>>14
Well done, naming two very much optional courses, which are quite specialised in their scope, proves your point exactly. I'm not even sure if one of them is a course on the tripos.

"A one semester applied course that gives a short, watered down treatment of the major points of a half dozen low-level undergrad courses."

That seems exactly what you would need (excepting the weasel words) thanks for basically explaining my point, it's useful to know major results from other branches of maths, so you're aware of them when they invariably come up.

Secondly, sore point?
I obviously didn't have trouble with them as I passed them quite well, I was merely commenting that your entire degree boiling down to 12 hours of work is un-representative.

And well done for finding a paper in one subject, over 7 years that you think you could....well just about pass.

Surely the mathematical methods one is for the Natural Sciences as it says on the motherfucking PDF?

>>15
>I'm not even sure if one of them is a course on the tripos.

How do you think I knew about them?

>it's useful to know major results from other branches of maths, so you're aware of them when they invariably come up.

It's even more useful to study linear algebra or complex analysis or diffeqs *properly* so you have more than just a passing familiarity of such basic concepts.

>Secondly, sore point?

Haha, w/e. I wasn't the "Bust my ass in school and get perfect grades so I can go to the hardest college" type, which is why I almost flunked out of my last year of high school lol.

>And well done for finding a paper in one subject, over 7 years that you think you could....well just about pass.

Or maybe I just clicked the first interesting test I saw in the first year on the list... ¬_¬

The tests on algebraic number theory (74) and algebraic geometry (14) are just as bad.  I actually lol'd when I saw the first problem on the elliptic curves (19) test.  As near as I can tell, though, 95% of the rest aren't even *math* tests.

>>17

How do you think I knew about them?

No idea, The first one you linked to a course in natural sciences, and I've never even heard of the second one (I'm pretty certain it's not on the first three years of the course, of which only the first are you forced to do any specific courses, let's not lose track of the point)

It's even more useful to study linear algebra or complex analysis or diffeqs *properly* so you have more than just a passing familiarity of such basic concepts.

Ignoring that I merely picked a course at random and that the contents of the course weren't the point, I might also add here that you're pretty much required to do an undergrad course on all of those (you can just about avoid linear analysis if you really want), try looking in the maths schedules instead of the natural sciences ones.



As for part III, it's an odd part of the tripos, from what I understand mainly the idea is try and get you, as far as possible, up to speed on developments in field to prepare you for research in them. Due to this the sheer volume of material covered I think is quite large, hence the approach to the examinations.

For parts I and II, from all the exams I've seen from other universities the cambridge exams require generally a higher level of ingenuity and original thought to actually do well.

>>18

I got four alphas in Lin Al. I find that fucking hilarious, since the course still seems quite clouded in my head and most of my revision consisted of going through and memorising the ideas of all the major proofs. Got three alphas in Catam also... that's the maximum you can get this year, right? 50 marks for it but I've no idea what that's out of. 60 I presume.

>>19
The nice thing about Lin Al was the bit that I think the lecturer did worst (Or I missed the most lectures on) on weak topology was non-examinable.

Just noticed I wrote analysis where I meant algebra in the post above.

Number fields however was a bastard. I basically taught myself the key bits of the course a week before the exam cause the lectures were shit. Managed to get at least 2 alphas on all the past papers I did, but the questions they set were ridiculous.
For one thing they asked or a proof of dirichlet's unit theorem, which was only "statement of" in the schedules. Also his terminology was incredibly opaque, who refers to ideals as sub Z-modules?!

The one thing I was surprised by was I only dropped 2 marks on galois theory, even though I know for a fact I got half of one of the questions entirely wrong. I got the answer right, but my reasoning was literally nonsense, and to be honest I wouldn't have given me full marks for any of the other questions either.

>>18
Theoretical Geophysics was in 2001 II-A4.  Fluid Dynamics II was in 2001 II-B2.  I don't intend to search through all the papers on that site to see how often they come up.

>For parts I and II, from all the exams I've seen from other universities the cambridge exams require generally a higher level of ingenuity and original thought to actually do well.

Well, I'll admit they're harder than any of the tests I did as a first or second year undergrad, but that ain't saying much considering where I went.  The focus does seem to be on establishing a hugely wide range of experience rather than going very deeply into any particular area. Here you might learn 4-6 different subjects a year, but in greater depth.  So the finals questions would be harder, but would draw from a smaller knowledge base.

Tomorrow I think I'll look more closely at how the system there compares to american schools.  If a "first year" student is learning this stuff, then "first year" can't mean the same thing that "freshman" does here.  Even at MIT, students might not learn abstract algebra until their third year, but there are group theory questions on the IA exams.

>>20
>asked for a proof of dirichlet's unit theorem
Are you sure?  The proof of the unit theorem is at least 3 pages long in every textbook I've seen.  Just writing it out, assuming you remember it, would take a huge chunk of your time.

>who refers to ideals as sub Z-modules
A Z submodule isn't the same thing as an ideal. For instance, the submodule of Z[√2] generated by √2 isn't an ideal in Z[√2], since √2*√2=2 isn't in it. (or is a "sub Z-module" different from a "Z submodule"?  I've never heard that exact phrase before).

>>20
Didn't take number fields but I sympathise. Baron's terminology has always been, and always will be, opaque. I've heard he's one of the most brilliant minds in DPMMS and his lectures are rigorous and well-structured... but you tend to have to go through a couple of hours worth of decoding and thinking for every hour of lecturing to really see why. That's my experience from his GRM anyway.

I knew Galois would screw me. I love algebra but there's something about the way you have to fiddle around with polynomials and radicals in that course that always throws me. I thought I'd do better than I did in Rep Theory too. PQM was alright though, my other big scorer. Thinking of some of the quantum foundations stuff next year, looks fascinating.

Shiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit. This sounds like a fuckton of work. Thank fuck I go to a shit college that's more compatible with my natural laziness. (^.^)

>>10
So when do this years tests cum out on the website. those only go to 2008.

>>20,22
opaque terminology

It's not bad terminology, it's a different concept, tards. A sub module isn't the same as an ideal.

1+1=3

>>24
2 1s are 2

>>23
Didn't do the question, was told he used some stupid name for an ideal that no-one uses, can't remember the exact wording, so sue me.

I'm pretty certain though, that given a ring R, you can say that an ideal of R is an R-submodule of R.

But you can agree that saying "consider an R-submodule", is a shitty way to denote an ideal, if only for brevity's sake.

>>26

He's an algebraic geometer.  Does he use "divisor" instead of ideal maybe?  In the case of a Dedekind domain, it's the same thing as an ideal, and maybe more natural for him to talk about.

If you're looking at a ring as a module over itself, then a submodule is the same as an ideal, but not when the module is an extension of the base ring.  I agree it would be weird to say "R-submodule of R" instead of "ideal".  Maybe he was subtly trying to get you to think about the problem from a module-theory standpoint or sumthing, I dunno.

>>25
No, 21's are 21.  lrn2 count.

>>28
"Lrn2" type Learn to.

>>29
lrn2 not be an asspirate.

BTW, any of you Cambridgefags ever take a class from Kevin Buzzard?  I watched a recorded lecture of his on some website a few months ago, and he seemed very...ummm...interesting.  He was wearing this bright green tshirt with a Super Mario Bros. 1UP mushroom on it, and seemed like he was borderline autistic or something.

Pretty certain from wiki he's at a london college, just did his undergrad years here, so no.

>>31
Oops, you're right.  Dunno why I thought he was at Cambridge. :/

>>32
Oh I know why, I saw that he got his PhD from Cambridge and got mixed up.

>>28
>No, 21's are 21.  lrn2 count.
>Not 2 1s are 2, but rather some property(s) of 21 is / are 21 in quality. learn to count.

???

>>34
Cool story bro.

First Year Science Degree:

First in Chemistry, Biology and Maths (all the subjects I do)

Now comes the real challenge, actual challenges next year with the same stuff.

>>30
I'll be an "asspirate" all I want. What're you going to do about it? "Lrn2" type Learn to.

>>37
Lern to suck less cock.

>>38
Cool comeback bro.

gonna have results they day after tomorrow at last :( in meh country you ought to wait for more than a month till you finally know whether you screwed up or not

>>40
Still better than fuckin 4-5 months for the Putnam results.

>>41
What level of maths is the putnam stuff aimed at, I never did olympiad shit, but it seems marginally higher level than that (if less plane geometry dominated from what I remember of the olympiad), but it still seems quite low level to be aimed at anything above first year undergrad.

>>42
You're eligible for the Putnam as long as you haven't gotten a bachelor's yet.  The knowledge base required is restricted to basic undergraduate stuff: Calculus, rational number theory, linear algebra, and combinatorics. Maybe graph theory, complex analysis or group theory here and there.  The purpose of the test, though, isn't to test your subject knowledge, but to test cleverness, creativity, speed, and general problem solving ability.  On the other hand, if you're not *absolutely* fluent with these subjects to the point that they are second nature, to the point that you can solve the relevant questions on those TRIPOS tests almost without thinking, you'll be seriously handicapped during the actual test.  Many people who wind up with PhD's from top universities (including one from MIT that I know personally) never score higher than 10 or 20 out of 120.

If you haven't already found it, here's the official problem archive: http://www.unl.edu/amc/a-activities/a7-problems/putnamindex.shtml
Problem #1 on either half is typically a giveaway, and #6 is typically next to impossible.  The ones in between vary randomly in difficulty.

>>43
interesting, might give some a go for a whirl.

I never liked the idea behind these maths competitions though, the questions always seemed to neat.

>>44
Yeah, solving them is usually a matter of spotting "the trick", so to some degree it's more of an intelligence test than a straight mathematics test, but some people like that.  I like it somewhat, but only in small doses usually.

I got an A (not A-, A) in my multivariable integral calculus class.

\o/

For the summer, I will learn linear algebra. I already got Friedberg's Linear Algebra in e-book form! I love this text so far.