University Reputation

Visage · 21 Sep 2006 at 13:24

IceBus said:
My opinion of Oxbridge is also tempered by the fact that people from our school got in who were far less intelligent than some who got turned down - but must have appealed by coming across as studious when in actual fact they could rote memorise facts without being able to form their own opinions on anything.

IME the opposite was the case. Mindless automatons were turned down as being unsuitable. Oxford interviews and entrance exams (they no longer do the latter, formally) are generally designed to look at lateral thinking and ones ability to digest pertinent facts, for example.

Lagz · 21 Sep 2006 at 13:45

IceBus said:
My opinion of Oxbridge is also tempered by the fact that people from our school got in who were far less intelligent than some who got turned down - but must have appealed by coming across as studious when in actual fact they could rote memorise facts without being able to form their own opinions on anything.

This certainly isn't what usually happens. As the above poster said, oxbridge interviews are designed to require thought. The questions I got certainly couldn't have been prepared for in advance by memorising anything.

DaveF · 21 Sep 2006 at 13:46

IceBus said:
My opinion of Oxbridge is also tempered by the fact that people from our school got in who were far less intelligent than some who got turned down - but must have appealed by coming across as studious when in actual fact they could rote memorise facts without being able to form their own opinions on anything.

My personal experience was pretty much the complete opposite. The whole point of the interview is to get "off" the area the student knows - they won't waste time on questions you've obviously seen before.

Also worth saying AAA at A-level means pretty much nothing if you're trying to do a science subject. It's all about the STEP/S-level exams.

ironman · 21 Sep 2006 at 13:52

IceBus said:
Fair enough, but it was my choice not to go there.

Really? What unis did you apply to out of interest?

Replicant · 21 Sep 2006 at 14:14

Lagz said:
This certainly isn't what usually happens. As the above poster said, oxbridge interviews are designed to require thought. The questions I got certainly couldn't have been prepared for in advance by memorising anything.

What kinds of question, any examples? just curious i guess.

IceBus · 21 Sep 2006 at 14:16

Fair enough - I must have just been unlucky in the people I know who went there. It was a bit of a mixed bag though, some people went who I expected to, then others got in that I wasn't expecting and one I was sure would go got turned down after his interview - he was a straight-A student but had done plenty outside the box (i.e. worked for Greenpeace, taught English as a foreign language in Romania and Mongolia etc.).

gurdas said:
Really? What unis did you apply to out of interest?

I applied to Goldsmiths, SOAS, Manchester and Nottingham and got offers from them all. I chose Nottingham as the strongest politics course.

Visage · 21 Sep 2006 at 14:36

Replicant said:
What kinds of question, any examples? just curious i guess.

I was asked questions regarding the radius of curvature of the inner surface of a spirit level, the physics of a black and white painted windmill placed near a lightbulb, and about how to estimate the mass of the atmosphere based solely on its height and the value of g.

(I was applying to do Physics....)

Lagz · 21 Sep 2006 at 14:45

Replicant said:
What kinds of question, any examples? just curious i guess.

An example question (I wasn't actually asked this - but its a very good question and exactly the kind of thing you could be asked at an oxbridge interview). . .

Suppose you have a 1-meter long stick, on which you can place ants. You can place as many (or as few) ants as you like on the stick. Each ant can be placed at any point along the stick, facing in either direction.

The ants have the following properties:
· All ants start moving at the same instant.
· All ants move at 1m/s in the direction they are facing.
· When two ants collide, both ants turn around.
· When an ant reaches either end of the stick it falls off.

Given that you are allowed to place as many ants as you like on the stick (at any points in any directions), what is the maximum amount of time that an ant can remain on the stick for before it falls off (i.e. you are only interested in the time until the last ant falls off the stick).

IceBus · 21 Sep 2006 at 15:11

Lagz said:
Suppose you have a 1-meter long stick, on which you can place ants. You can place as many (or as few) ants as you like on the stick. Each ant can be placed at any point along the stick, facing in either direction.

The ants have the following properties:
· All ants start moving at the same instant.
· All ants move at 1m/s in the direction they are facing.
· When two ants collide, both ants turn around.

Given that you are allowed to place as many ants as you like on the stick (at any points in any directions), what is the maximum amount of time that an ant can remain on the stick for before it falls off (i.e. you are only interested in the time until the last ant falls off the stick).

Surely pretty much until the ants die if you put them so they are travelling around the circumference of the stick?

Lagz · 21 Sep 2006 at 15:14

IceBus said:
Surely pretty much until the ants die if you put them so they are travelling around the circumference of the stick?

...

Lagz said:
facing in either direction

Clearly indicates that the 'stick' should be considered as a 2D line of length 1m.

benjo plz. · 21 Sep 2006 at 15:19

Lagz said:
· All ants move at 1m/s in the direction they are facing.
· When two ants collide, both ants turn around.

what is the maximum amount of time that an ant can remain on the stick for before it falls off (i.e. you are only interested in the time until the last ant falls off the stick).

Firstly, they're damn fast ants, and secondly, why do the ants fall off

.

Lagz · 21 Sep 2006 at 15:21

Phnom_Penh said:
Firstly, they're damn fast ants, and secondly, why do the ants fall off .

Lol right. Well when ants reach either end of the stick they fall off. Secondly - the 'ants' and 'stick' just help set out the problem. If you want you can be boring and replace 'ants' with 'dots' and the stick with a '2D line'.

benjo plz. · 21 Sep 2006 at 15:22

1 second?

Lagz · 21 Sep 2006 at 15:25

Phnom_Penh said:
1 second?

Yup. The question is good because it shows very well how someone tackles what is a complex problem in a logical way. I assume you started by considering ths special cases of 1 ant, then 2 ants - from which you guessed the answer. That shows that you can 'think' about the problem.

Of course to really solve it you also have to explain why the answer must be 1 second for an arbitrary number of ants. The proof is extremely simple once you work it out.

36:) · 21 Sep 2006 at 15:26

Slinwagh said:
My sister in law is a college lecturer is she is amazed how some of her A level students got the A grades they did as the lack basic spelling and arithmetic.

I always got moaned at for not being able to spell, to which my retort is generally "Sorry, I'm not reading Spelling BSc".

I'd actually hate to think of the general reaction should that degree be introduced.

See the problem is, people believe that studying a subject has a prerequisite of spelling perfectly, when I submit to you, that it's not and shouldn't be.

theleg · 21 Sep 2006 at 15:29

36:) said:
I always got moaned at for not being able to spell, to which my retort is generally "Sorry, I'm not reading Spelling BSc".

I'd actually hate to think of the general reaction should that degree be introduced.

See the problem is, people believe that studying a subject has a prerequisite of spelling perfectly, when I submit to you, that it's not and shouldn't be.

Basic spelling and arithmatic.

Una · 21 Sep 2006 at 15:30

Balddog said:
Basic spelling and arithmatic.

More likely basic arithmetic.

I am in the same situation though above average in maths/logic but can't spell for toffee. So I don't think its a very good indication at the standard of education alone.

DaveF · 21 Sep 2006 at 15:45

Lagz said:
Of course to really solve it you also have to explain why the answer must be 1 second for an arbitrary number of ants. The proof is extremely simple once you work it out.

Sure - because collisions don't actually do anything. Have to say, I don't think this is a particularly good question - as long as you don't lose your head thinking "Oh no, arbitrary numbers of ants, it's too complicated, help!" and actually consider what happens during a collision, it's pretty straightforward.

w11tho · 21 Sep 2006 at 22:39

IceBus said:
Definitely - the reason I chose not to go to Oxbridge...

Lol, good one. I assume you also chose not to play up front for Man Utd, become Priminister or be an astronaut.

Raymond Lin · 21 Sep 2006 at 22:53

Phnom_Penh said:
1 second?

eh? The question wasn't given the length of the stick nor the speed of the ants so it is impossible to work out the time..................