Anybody with a maths degree here?

[csmager]

Well no, they prefer numerical subjects (as the pass rate for ACA type exams is higher for those that have done numerical degrees). It's harder than GCSE maths

I do it, and it really isn't. Most of my class haven't done anything remotely numerical since A-Level, and our pass rates are usually above 90%.

 

[dangerstat]

I do it, and it really isn't. Most of my class haven't done anything remotely numerical since A-Level, and our pass rates are usually above 90%.

You said GCSE?

 

[w11tho]

Oh, forgot to add. Great to see so many people on OcUK have/are doing mathematics degrees!

 

[w11tho]

You said GCSE?

I worked in an accountancy for a while, and I can't remember doing anything more complex than working out percentages. It was a while ago though, and I wasn't really doing the "top level" work, if that makes any sense.

I'm intrigued now! What other maths do accountants get up to?

 

[csmager]

You said GCSE?

Mainly because a few people would've done a Science which might involve numeracy. I think you're splitting hairs though.

Big 4 entry requirements are usually GCSE Maths at A or above, min 300 UCAS points and any degree at 2.1 or above. The guy I sit next to has a History degree and didn't do anything like A-Level maths, and that's hardly uncommon for our graduate intakes. The extent of the mathematical complexity is adding up, multiplying and percentages.

 

[Inquisitor]

Also, a software package I've found tremendously useful (and which they teach in the first year on my course) is Maple. It's great for any kind of symbolic or numerical computation and can do vector calculus, linear algebra, statistics, can plot 2D and 3D graphs, phase space analysis; you name it

 

[dangerstat]

Baby Rudin gives an excellent introduction to first year Real Analysis (Principles of Mathematical Analysis, W. Rudin).

Davenport gives a lucid introduction to the theory of numbers (The Higher Arithmetic, H. Davenport).

I'd also buy, for the pretty pictures alone, a cheap copy of Penrose's "Road to Reality". The book is pitched waaaay too high for its target audience, but can serve as a handy, informal reference point for mathematics undergraduates (and graduates!).

Personally, I'd stay away from engineering type books - they're often mathematically sloppy. In a mathematics degree you should aim to understand mathematical tools, rather than learn to mindless apply them. I would also urge you to stop attempting to "visualise" everything - a major skill you will need to develop during your degree is to think abstractly. One often needs to set aside intuition, or familiar pictures, and approach the subject from a purely abstract point of view.

Have fun!

I'm half and half on your points. Personally I think pure mathematicians are in general very poor teachers, and only students with a natural inclination to think in an abstract way tend to do well, and this is by NO means a good indicator of a persons mathematical ability. From what I have seen professionally and academically, those that excel are either excellent at thinking about problems in an abstract way (generally leaning more towards pure) or outstanding at having a visual overview of the problem (tends to be those more adapt at applied). In the real world, those that transfer to industry and make significant advances are those that can see, understand and address a problem, and unfortunately (as bright as pure maths peeps can be) they're notorious for being inept at solving real world problems with mathematics

 

[dangerstat]

Mainly because a few people would've done a Science which might involve numeracy. I think you're splitting hairs though.

Big 4 entry requirements are usually GCSE Maths at A or above, min 300 UCAS points and any degree at 2.1 or above. The guy I sit next to has a History degree and didn't do anything like A-Level maths, and that's hardly uncommon for our graduate intakes. The extent of the mathematical complexity is adding up, multiplying and percentages.

Well all sorts will join accountancy without a doubt, but I'll stick to my original argument that those with maths degrees perform better than those with alternative backgrounds.

Also, a software package I've found tremendously useful (and which they teach in the first year on my course) is Maple. It's great for any kind of symbolic or numerical computation and can do calculus, linear algebra, graphical stuff, you name it

I like Mapple, but for some reason I love MathCad (and I really shouldn't!) but (as stated above) I like simple ways to visualise complex problems, and it's great for that. But to be honest to work on anything even slightly taxing Mapple, MATLAB or Mathematica kick it's bottom

 

[Inquisitor]

Well all sorts will join accountancy without a doubt, but I'll stick to my original argument that those with maths degrees perform better than those with alternative backgrounds.



I like Mapple, but for some reason I love MathCad (and I really shouldn't!) but (as stated above) I like simple ways to visualise complex problems, and it's great for that. But to be honest to work on anything even slightly taxing Mapple, MATLAB or Mathematica kick it's bottom

Yeah we did Mathcad too, which I found less consistent, though I can see how it'd be great for modelling more visual/applied problems (it was especially good for the physics side of the course in this respect).

I'm sure MATLAB and Mathematica are far more powerful than Maple, but they're also more complex, and hence are unnecessary for most of the things I do

 

[w11tho]

I'm half and half on your points. Personally I think pure mathematicians are in general very poor teachers, and only students with a natural inclination to think in an abstract way tend to do well, and this is by NO means a good indicator of a persons mathematical ability. From what I have seen professionally and academically, those that excel are either excellent at thinking about problems in an abstract way (generally leaning more towards pure) or outstanding at having a visual overview of the problem (tends to be those more adapt at applied). In the real world, those that transfer to industry and make significant advances are those that can see, understand and address a problem, and unfortunately (as bright as pure maths peeps can be) they're notorious for being inept at solving real world problems with mathematics

How many pure mathematicians have you been taught by? If I remember rightly, you were an econ student, who now does some financial stats (at Bristol?). So you might be being a little harsh! Some of the best teachers I've ever had were pure mathematicians, and I'm an applied mathematician (well, applied analysis) by nature.

I used to think very much like you do, in that most people are very much "pure" or "applied". In actual fact, you find that most professional mathematicians are good at anything that would be considered Masters+ level. For example, your fluids guys will have a top notch understanding of functional analysis, your geometry guys will have an intricate understanding of Hamiltonian mechanics, and so on. Theoretical physics is a great example: lots of them spend most of their days playing around with deep index theorems, or cooking up some deep constructive quantum field theory using some heavy results from category theory. And yet if you ask them to compute the scattering amplitude for a QED process, or figure out how much the rotation of the earth will effect the trajectory of a tennis ball, they'll do it in minutes!

Strangely enough, of the people I know who chose to go into the banking industry from a mathematical background, the vast majority were pure mathematicians! I wouldn't think this was the norm though.

 

[dangerstat]

How many pure mathematicians have you been taught by? If I remember rightly, you were an econ student, who now does some financial stats (at Bristol?). So you might be being a little harsh! Some of the best teachers I've ever had were pure mathematicians, and I'm an applied mathematician (well, applied analysis) by nature.

I used to think very much like you do, in that most people are very much "pure" or "applied". In actual fact, you find that most professional mathematicians are good at anything that would be considered Masters+ level. For example, your fluids guys will have a top notch understanding of functional analysis, your geometry guys will have an intricate understanding of Hamiltonian mechanics, and so on. Theoretical physics is a great example: lots of them spend most of their days playing around with deep index theorems, or cooking up some deep constructive quantum field theory using some heavy results from category theory. And yet if you ask them to compute the scattering amplitude for a QED process, or figure out how much the rotation of the earth will effect the trajectory of a tennis ball, they'll do it in minutes!

Strangely enough, of the people I know who chose to go into the banking industry from a mathematical background, the vast majority were pure mathematicians! I wouldn't think this was the norm though.

Again I see your point. I don't agree that professional mathematicians are good at any branch of mathematics at masters level +, in fact with those I work with I'd say they're actually very different. But granted I know only 5 or around that pure professionals (not in academia - but I'd say I knew pretty well - not just been taught by). The applied folks tend to be more useful (and I tend to lump theoretical physicists into this as well), generally more flexible in the way they approach problems.

The people I know who have gone into backing from a maths background tend to be more open minded about how they understand a situation. Which isn't really anything to do with what branch of maths they studied but for some reason it doesn't seem prevalent in pure maths types. I think there's a spectrum, and we sit on opposite ends of it.

 

[JonJ678]

Different perspective here. Physics turned engineering.

Algebra and geometry by Alan F Beardon is a core text for the cambridge guys. It's exceptionally good but it's going to hurt coming from A levels. Groups, real numbers, complex plane, vectors, spherical geometry, then many more chapters I haven't got to yet. Hitting a sticking point with spherical geometry. if you find this text facinating you'll love your degree. If its infuriating then I'd also suggest a more applied course.

More useful though is a book called "mathematical methods for physics and engineering' by Riley, Hobson and Bence. This is not a pure mathematics text. However it is a 'cookbook' of sorts for dealing with a tremendous amount of problems. Reference to this when part of your course doesn't quite make sense is likely to be invaluable, as it invariably looks at the problems from a different perspective. If you need to know something explict, like which cases to consider for second order ODEs, it'll put it there in plain english which can save considerable time digging through notes.

The former is facinating but frankly conceptually beyond me. The second is the most useful book I have ever owned, and nothing short of a fire will take it from me.

 

[w11tho]

Again I see your point. I don't agree that professional mathematicians are good at any branch of mathematics at masters level +, in fact with those I work with I'd say they're actually very different.

Well, I guess I'm considering people who have been in the field for a little while - say 5+ years. Stats may well be different, but I can certainly say that applied mathematicians have, on average, a very good knowledge of pure mathematics. That's what the job is about: applying mathematics to study problems. This doesn't mean your toolkit is only compromised of some calculus, a little geometry and what not. It's why I mentioned fluids + functional analysis: if someone is doing serious research in fluid dynamics, they will quickly (or not so quickly) come to realise that understanding some operator analysis might help them in their research (e.g Orr-Sommerfeld). It's not so cut and dry.

But granted I know only 5 or around that pure professionals (not in academia - but I'd say I knew pretty well - not just been taught by). The applied folks tend to be more useful (and I tend to lump theoretical physicists into this as well), generally more flexible in the way they approach problems.

Wow - that's a pretty small sample to construct a rather damning opinion!

The people I know who have gone into backing from a maths background tend to be more open minded about how they understand a situation. Which isn't really anything to do with what branch of maths they studied but for some reason it doesn't seem prevalent in pure maths types. I think there's a spectrum, and we sit on opposite ends of it.

To be fair, you don't know many pure mathematicians! You're being a little harsh!

 

[w11tho]

The former is facinating but frankly conceptually beyond me. The second is the most useful book I have ever owned, and nothing short of a fire will take it from me.

Ha! I know lots of people who became very attached to that particular book.

 

[MumboJumbo]

Do any of you have learning disabilities like dyslexia? Do you know if id be able to get these books with book tokens I believe i am eligible for? They are adding up to quite a bit. Leeds sent me an advert to get one as well, "what its like to be a mathematician" think thats it.

Also im not just doing a maths degree for the money. Its my best subject and i very much enjoy it. But i would never of taken a uni degree I couldn't make a good amount of money out of either. I see no reason to aim low in life.

 

[w11tho]

Not sure to be honest. If they give you book tokens, then I imagine you can spend them on any book relevant to your degree.

Or you could just save up for them? I think the Roger Penrose book I mentioned goes for around a tenner.

 

[dangerstat]

Do any of you have learning disabilities like dyslexia? Do you know if id be able to get these books with book tokens I believe i am eligible for? They are adding up to quite a bit. Leeds sent me an advert to get one as well, "what its like to be a mathematician" think thats it.

Also im not just doing a maths degree for the money. Its my best subject and i very much enjoy it. But i would never of taken a uni degree I couldn't make a good amount of money out of either. I see no reason to aim low in life.

As per my post in the Dyslexia thread, I'm dyslexic. Though I didn't realise whilst I was at the unis I've attended, so I can't really answer your question.

 

[Vixen]

I wouldn't bother buying books until you start the course and see if you think you'll actually need them. It all depends on the lecturer - some will provide material that follows the recommended books very closely, some will just provide so much material that you never need to look at a book and some provide as little as they possibly can. I have found that books are more important in practical subjects or for projects than things like maths where you won't be asked to work on something you've not covered.

 

[dangerstat]

Well, I guess I'm considering people who have been in the field for a little while - say 5+ years. Stats may well be different, but I can certainly say that applied mathematicians have, on average, a very good knowledge of pure mathematics. That's what the job is about: applying mathematics to study problems. This doesn't mean your toolkit is only compromised of some calculus, a little geometry and what not. It's why I mentioned fluids + functional analysis: if someone is doing serious research in fluid dynamics, they will quickly (or not so quickly) come to realise that understanding some operator analysis might help them in their research (e.g Orr-Sommerfeld). It's not so cut and dry.


Wow - that's a pretty small sample to construct a rather damning opinion!


To be fair, you don't know many pure mathematicians! You're being a little harsh!

It is a small sample I'll accept that. But I'll agree to disagree with you on the pure maths bods being able to exercise a knowledge of applied maths at at least a masters level.

 

[w11tho]

I think it's more prominent from the applied->pure direction, i.e. more applied guys know a fair bit of pure maths. This is the nature of the beast: applied guys often need to understand a few different areas to attack a problem. Pure guys tend to specialise more and more, working on a variant of a proof of a conjecture in a super-duper advanced area. Whilst they wouldn't be so upto date with the applied side of things, I'm fairly sure most of them would pick it back up again. In fact, I'm positive.

And as I mentioned, theoretical physics is absolutely rife with advanced pure mathematics. Many pure mathematicians, sometimes accidentally, find out they've been working on a major problem in physics.

But hey, if you know 5 guys... then I guess you know best!