What has gone wrong with Maths at Westminster?

[committedparent]

Only 1 pupil applied from Westminster to do Maths at Cambridge. 13 pupils applied to Oxford for maths or computer science. There were 0 (zero) offers from Oxford maths. Staggering.
Does anyone know what went wrong this year?
I am told that overall 25% of pupils took a gap year to re-apply last year. I don't know how this group have done with their applications.

I work at Oxbridge and have a friend who teaches maths. He freely admits that he is looking for the sort of people who dream in numbers and see and equation when they look at a structure. They're not even keen to take anyone who has had a gap year, for fear that they might lose the mathmatical saturation that they're looking for. It's all very intense and not just a little weird.

Looking for people who dream in numbers and see equations when they look at a structure? Nonsense. All very intense? Rubbish. (Nat Sci is far more intense; Maths is pretty laid back, fairly low workload at least until the MMath year.)

Mathematicians are weird? Well, this is subjective but I don't think stereotyping a group of people is ever particularly helpful.

Interesting that Westminster appears to be avoiding Cambridge maths (and the over-offering and STEP) like the plague.

I suspect that Westminster avoided Cambridge for this set of students because they knew they weren't serious candidates for Cambridge maths (which is still considered a bit harder than Oxford maths) but hoped (or parents hoped) they might get into Oxford.

uilen I'm not say pre U picks out gifted mathematicians but I understand from quite a few people that a D1 is not achieved just by graft without any gift for the subject.

Well yes quite uilen, that's what I meant!

uilen I can only tell you what my friend told me.

You might think his criterion is 'rubbish', but it is his criterion. He expects applicants who live and breathe maths, doesn't care if they have no other interests outside numbers.

And I do think that level of single minded expectation in 16/17 year olds is intense. Far more so than my department.

BTW, I didn't say mathmos were weird. I said the expectations placed upon these young applicants were.

However most of us don't expect maths students to live and breathe maths so you are extrapolating too much from one person's comments. It's true however that we don't particular care about non-academic interests in the admissions process, but that's also the case for other subjects.

All academics live and breathe their subject to some extent but clearly most mathematicians have personal lives and personal interests. It isn't true that most of us have no other interests outside mathematics. Lots of mathematicians and maths students are very keen musicians, for example.

Maybe there were just more advanced candidates from outside the UK plus enough gifted state school mathematicians.

My sister's local comp, Dame Alice Owen's got 114/200 or so taking maths last year ... 36A/39A and further maths 23 with 11A and 7 As. Quite a few to Oxbridge, I believe and totally free ...

DAO is not a comp.

Maths is the one subject where there absolutely is a right and a wrong.
One of the lads in DDs FM AS classes is on a different level than the rest of them.
Its a state college so less Oxbridge obsessed than many - I believe he's aiming for something in London.
BUT
Filling university places is about much more than raw grades and parent purchasing power.

Actually TP at that level (university) it is not right or wrong but finding different ways to solve more and more complex problems.

summerends
I know that after school it gets more interesting.

I work in the industry where first year students think 2 + 2 is 4, second years know its between 3 and 5 and third years ask why the question is being asked.

And qualified professionals ask "What would you like 2 + 2 to be?", Talkin?

Oh indeed pausing - start with the answer and work back to the sum. My favourite bit. True and Fair never Correct

Then again my Maths specialism at A Level was Statistics ....

Damned lies...

After all, 2+2 could also be either 10 or 13....

Actually, it's not really that outrageous to want students who dream in numbers - some people have an urge to find patterns in everything, and that can make them more interesting as students.

10 or 11!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(It's been a VERY long day - just had the Dep Head on the phone asking why Pupil X did not eat its lunch - because it wasn't hungry, perhaps????)

(Not Dep Head's fault - he's great; it's just Pupil X's mum is a bit needy and wanted to know why he was hungrier than usual at supper...)

Maybe the mother should have served Pi for supper

ComingThroughTheBarley 'Actually, it's not really that outrageous to want students who dream in numbers'.

Yes, it is. There are plenty of excellent mathematicians who don't dream in numbers. It's not a good indicator of maths ability, so it's not a good way of selecting students.

Committed parent, I am a bit surprised at the 13 applying for Oxford. I assume at least some of the applicants were chancing it a bit, eg hoping they had a good day at both MAT and interview. As far as I know, Westminster will warn students that they are not likely to get an Oxbridge place, but does not stop them from applying. Some then gain places. It is after all, only one line on the application form.

(FWIW good computer science degrees seem particularly hard to get onto.)

Westminster offers the advantage of a sort in that students tend to know how good they are. Following normal distribution, each year will can expect small number of really outstanding mathematicians (0-3?). Others, who might have been star of the class at other schools, will be aware of their limitations.

Our observation was that many then appeared to opt for maths-heavy degrees (engineering, physics, nat sci, economics) often putting Cambridge first followed by London. In DS' year Cambridge was tough. From the outside, maths ability seemed to play a large part. Top set mathematicians got their economics or engineering places, but some very able students bringing a lot to the table, did not. Most of DS' friends were more than happy with the courses they ended up on (Imperial seems to offer more specialisation), one or two decided to have another crack at Oxbridge, another simply had not decided what he wanted to study, and inevitably the year group had some who either did not put the work in or cracked under (parental!?) pressure.

I assume Oxbridge places are becoming very competitive. Westminster is selecting some students aged for 7+. The amount of tutoring for 7+, 8+, 11+ and 13+ pre-test has risen exponentially. If pupils at Westminster are not necessarily brighter than before, and Oxbridge places harder to come by, overall numbers of offers can be expected to drop. That does not mean however that the school is not providing a first class education, nor that pupils will not go on to suitable, challenging, and well regarded courses, either in the UK or overseas.

Needmoresleep - I agree with everything in your last post.

Do you then draw the conclusion that it is likely that Westminster will get fewer candidates to Oxbridge for the most competitive courses in future?

And if so, will that have an impact on the attractivity of W and other schools that have traditionally been a good route to Oxbridge?

I don't agree that Oxbridge places in maths are getting particularly more competitive. The number of applicants has been increasing but the increase is primarily at the bottom end: students with predictions of AAA/AA*A+ apply even when they are not strong candidates. One shouldn't read too much into Westminster's applications statistics for one Oxford course in one particular year.

Or perhaps there will be less emphasis on Oxbridge as the be-all and end-all and more focus on the education a school provides.

If you are a child who enjoys maths, it is hard to think of a better school that you could go to, or which would prepare you better for the next stage. If, because of the number of good candidates out there, the next stage is in the US, or one of the UK's other highly ranked institutions, that is far from a bad outcome.

Schools ought to be than a route to somewhere else, and sucess in life is far more than good grades or having been to the right University. The suprising thing about Westminster is that it appears to be a very happy school, not a hot house at all, and with an awful lot going on outside the classroom as well as inside. From what I have heard, the new Headmaster will nurture this.

If I've read the info correctly, 13 candidates in maths full stop is a lot, never mind 13 trying for maths at Oxford.

In 2013 there were 5 or 6 (I think) who went on to do degrees in maths (I don't know where they went though). Is that a more normal number?

But of course there were sizable numbers of young people going off to do degrees in subjects with a maths-type bias.