Oxford to drop PAT, MAT, TSA, etc

[Muu9]

https://www.ox.ac.uk/admissions/undergraduate/applying-to-oxford/guide/admissions-tests

Thoughts? I think it's a bad move for physics, as the time-pressured nature ESAT simply isn't very good at spotting the deep thinkers most physics programs look for.

Warwick has a fantastic Maths programme. Your DS can move on in any direction he likes from there.

It is great to hear that he is thriving and happy.

Thank you! Yes, the great thing is there is such a huge and varied range of modules, he can tailor the degree to suit him.

Did he choose it over Imperial and if so, was the module options/course flexibility the reason why?

He didn't apply to Imperial, he didn't like it when he went to visit and we heard the social side wasn't great with super wealthy cliquey international students.

Well I imagine that Cambridge set the STEP grade boundaries exactly so they get the right number of students!

Yes. But there are knick on effects for all the universities that make STEP offers.

STEP has always been Cambridge’s exam and it’ll be the S and 1 boundaries that they’re bothered about.

i can’t imagine there are may other people who are now using the STEP for other universities - especially now with the later TMUA entry.

the MAT is a sad loss though - I can’t imagine that the Oxford maths department are very happy.

Several other universities accept STEP as an alternative to TMUA.

Some want 1’s; others will accept 2’s. They are obviously satisfied with the boundary decisions Cambridge makes.

I also liked the MAT but it was more of an aptitude test

To select candidate using TMUA rather than MAT for maths course just like to to select the team for international maths Olympia using SMC rather than BMO. Oxfords select less applicants for interview than Cambridge (1/3 vs 80%) which makes Oxford more objective in the recruiting process. That's the reason why the top mathematicians in DC's school like to apply Cambridge maths more.

Generally the reason that universities are offering STEP as an alternative is for students who didn’t take the TMUA (or MAT before it became exclusively Oxford). Now there’s a later sitting I can’t imagine there are as many students actually choosing this route, I assume most would prefer certainty. I might have to see if I can find some data on this! Basically Cambridge are only standardising in the way that A Level exams do .

The STEP exam is tough and I wonder if more students will now apply to Oxford because it makes the gap between the applications for both even bigger! Most state schools o think would struggle to support students in preparing for STEP and it’s a difficult choice to do at the same time as other A Levels.

for the poster who said that good students don’t need to prepare for MAT etc, I think that depends on the teaching at your school. I think most students absolutely do need to prepare for the longer questions but some teachers may be able to incorporate the more problem-solving elements into lessons if they have a purely further maths class - not every school does. Some students are learning further maths on a very reduced timetable.

I agree, @ninja

The Advanced Mathematics Support Network used to provide nationwide support for the maths admissions exams. Recently MEI took this over. They had a rocky start and AFAIK are still offering less than AMSN used to.

Because I do agree so strongly that preparation, some of it implicit through an excellent maths programme within school, is important, I see this as a further equity issue.

A very, very few top pupils can teach themselves FM and presumably ace STEP or the other exams. But it’s very easy to underestimate how difficult this is. And most of these pupils have supportive families, physically and psychologically.

Have you seen the new MAT and TMUA on demand courses MEI are offering? They’re very good. Hopefully there’s more to come

And yes, definitely an equity issue

The government stopped funding the AMSP to offer university admissions support - I guess we have to hope they restart

I wonder if Oxford would ever switch to using STEP. Maybe giving interviews based on getting a 3 or 2 in STEP 2 taken in Y12? Or maybe we will see a return of STEP 1.

Was this regarding the university in general or the maths students in particular?

Imperial does have a very high percentage of Overseas students (and they are very strong). I don’t know the demographics but for life in that part of London it wouldn’t be surprising if many are wealthy. The university took the decision to accept a very high number of Overseas UGs 10-15 years ago IIRC. We all know why. I am not particularly recommending this, but at the moment it looks prescient.

It does change the social aspect of attending uni, though there can be positive impacts. You don’t need to be great friends with everyone in your year group. You just need a critical mass of pals and a few good friends. Some may even be from other countries. (I write as an immigrant)

However Imperial has some of the strongest STEM programmes in the world, albeit generally with a heavy workload. It is sad when British applicants are put off; however the numbers show that plenty aren’t.

For top Universities the internationalism can be a big advantage. There is a big mix, certainly not all Chinese and even the Chinese will be diverse. What most will have in common will be that they are very bright and very passionate about their subject. Yes some Chinese will stick within their comfort zones, as will some of the English, but others will mix and gain from the diversity.

Many graduates will go on to work in international environments, including in London where you can expect colleagues from all over. DD spent a year at Imperial during lockdown, essentially dropped into the third year of an engineering degree as an intercalation from her medical degree. Lots of project work, in her case all on-line. People from different cultures and in different times zones who had to work together to get projects finished. Not always easy, but a friend working for an American firm with a team scattered over Europe confirmed, really good real world experience.

FWIW none of the people teaching DD were British either. However most were world leaders in their respective fields and carrying out really interesting research.

@poetryandwine I went to a talk given by the Director of LSE 12 years ago, where he explained that the proportion of funding that came from the UK Government was low, less than 10%, and not likely to rise. They had taken stock and thought their strength was in being a world class institution in a world city. Quality was the key to survival, so no plans for expansion but instead to aim to preserve that reputation for excellence. I assume that Imperial did similar. Pick the strongest students and attract the strongest academics and the research money would follow. (LSE was also working to attract British students but admitted that the London location put off many from the North. Imperial is richer and so is able to offer better bursaries.) Given Imperial's rise through the international league tables, it looks like they may have made the right call. Our young people are lucky to have this option on their doorstep.

Interesting, @Needmoresleep

Imperial and LSE have a lot in common. They are both fantastic national resources.

I just took a look at the headline figures in Imperial’s 2024-25 budget report. Overall income was, on the order of £1.4B, about a 10% increase from the previous year. Approx 37% of this came from each of tuition fees and grant income; obviously most of the former is in the form of Overseas fees. Grant income includes all sources.

I haven’t heard anything to suggest that Imperial is vulnerable financially. I think they are doing pretty well. OTOH (as I’m sure you know, but others may not) it is a myth that large grants, particularly in STEM, make money for universities.

I really don't know that much about Imperial, though will I did start posting here about a decade ago largely in response to one poster who took it upon herself to rubbish both Imperial and studying in London on the basis that her DD, several years earlier, had been unhappy on a fashion course in London. I felt it a pity that UK students were not being encouraged to look at a world-class resource on their doorstep. And DD loved her time there, and appreciated the level of organisation and structure as well as the interesting ways in which they assessed students.

The LSE talk was interesting in that they talked about attract more British students (bursaries, courses like the four year PPE degree which would not require as much maths on entry etc) and about how they promoted academic study when much of the demand was for high level technical education. (Accountancy was/is their largest degree.) Issues familiar elsewhere.

Both LSE and Imperial have the advantage that they can select the strongest students. They do not have take sub-par international students simply because they need the money. Indeed anecdotally it appeared (DD was at school with several boarders who would be counted as international) that it was easier to get into Imperial if you were a home student as they were keen to retain a reasonable ratio. Imperial is near perfect for someone who is very engaged in their subject and who will not much care where their equally enthusiastic peers come from. (Though with the caveat that you don't get the breadth of college life that Oxbridge offer.)

If 37% is fees and grant, what is the rest? And no, I did not mean to give any impression that Imperial or LSE were vulnerable financially. Indeed, based on LSE's building programme (a tour of their estate during last's years London Open House weekend was fascinating) the opposite seems to be true.

I would like to have a look at the content of these (free) support materials, but it appears I need to register with MEI in order to do so. No thank you.

I understand that MEI may find registration useful for getting good metrics. But Cambridge and others provide free STEP revisions materials without registration or restriction. Absent a pupil-centred reason, I think this is better. TBF, the MEI STEP activity calls for facilitated small group work so personal data is needed for that.

The other MEI admissions exam stuff sounds good in theory. But like online STEP materials, one needs to see the actual examples to assess.

I can’t find the report with the pie chart headline now! But it was about 37% each from tuition fees and grants income, for nearly 75% of income in 2024-25.

Now I can access only the AR online, headlining figures instead of percentages. It appears that other significant income sources are residential fees, investment income, etc. The endowment is well over £200M and increasing steadily.

PS No, @Needmoresleep , I did not think you suggested IC takes sub par international students. No one who knows anything about the place could think this

The on demand courses are only available to state school students (because of funding) and are interactive so very different from what’s available online. Registering is just to give students a login.

MEI is an educational charity Whiteley in external funding and so will have KPIs on engagement which means they’ll require this kind of registration

I’ve just been back to the MEI and AMSP sites.

Grade B I think. The crux of the problem is that HMG massively cut funding to AMSP last year. That was a huge equity issue, especially in that pupils from a number of schools cannot now access FM AFAIK.

AMSP used to do loads of FM support activities for all (and actually teach it online). Now, their FM support is just a collection of older videos - very good ones, but nothing like what they used to offer.

MEI’s only student-focused activities seem to be the prep for the admissions exams and university interviews, and some contests. They talk up their connection with the AMSP and its offerings, as if it were continuing to offer the type of thing it used to do. Bittersweet to say the least. As a minor point, the MEI top line info on STEP and MAT has been swapped around (under the wrong headers). The impression is of little interest in actual pupils.

The emphasis is on teacher workshops and what we might call the educational enterprise. This perpetuates inequity, as opposed to the AMSP which directly reached underserved pupils.

Contemporaneous reports concerning the cuts to the AMSP explicitly and implicitly note MEI’s acceptance thereof. As MEI has some oversight of the AMSP, one would hope they would be doing more for underserved pupils.

In particular FM should not become restricted to the middle class. MEI is the obvious entity to work against this and so far they haven’t stepped up.