the difference between a MMath and MSci degree?
jr
MMath degree is?
i'm been looking at uni's which offer maths degree courses and some uni's
offer the MSci degree(Imperial is one) and some offer the MMath degree(UMIST
being one such uni).
i've not confused the MSci degree with the one year MSc degree which i know
exists.
is it just that they follow different structures or have different course
content?
most uni's seem to offer the MMath, but is there much of a difference?
thanx in advance
jr
Severian
>
> could someone please tell me the what the difference between a MSci and a
> MMath degree is?
MSci is in science, while MMath is in mathematics.
--
Severian
---------------------------------------------------------------
Victor Meldrew: "The police can use sperm now as
a way of fingerprinting people."
Mrs Warboys: "I don't see what was wrong with the old inkpads."
---------------------------------------------------------------
David Renwick, _One Foot in the Grave_
Flexiblegoat
>could someone please tell me the what the difference between a MSci and a
>MMath degree is?
>i'm been looking at uni's which offer maths degree courses and some uni's
>offer the MSci degree(Imperial is one) and some offer the MMath degree(UMIST
>being one such uni).
>i've not confused the MSci degree with the one year MSc degree which i know
>exists.
>
>is it just that they follow different structures or have different course
>content?
>
>most uni's seem to offer the MMath, but is there much of a difference?
>
>thanx in advance
>
>
>jr
And why is it that Cambridge give a BA for maths. I'd have thought
that would have especially appealed to Thakker - why didn't you go
there? What will you get, since you do a foul mixture?
321 gone
paul
_
I used to think that obstacles to love were out of date...
Paul Young
same as the BSc course for the 1st and 2nd year. The only difference is in
the 3rd year Bsc. students (which is what I decided to become) get a free
choice of options, whereas MMath have to complete the Analysis options, and
then obviously carry on into the fourth year.
I gained a 2:1 and there are some excellent lecturers there and some bad
ones. I then completed a one year PGCE in Maths at the University of
Manchester and start my first job in two weeks.
Sean
A search on DejaNews or Altavista might pick it up for ya.
Sean
Mark Thakkar
> And why is it that Cambridge give a BA for maths. I'd have thought
> that would have especially appealed to Thakker - why didn't you go
> there? What will you get, since you do a foul mixture?
Well, Engles, it's quite difficult to get a BSc at Oxford. You have to
be doing a science, for a start, which Maths isn't. (See previous
threads, passim.) And you have to be doing it unadulterated. Even then,
I think you get the choice.
Mine's a BA, along with all Maths students. (Unless they do 4 years, in
which case they get an MMath.)
Mark.
Flexiblegoat
I read in the independent that all maths courses bar Cambridges were
erm something other than BA.
Mark Thakkar
> I read in the independent that all maths courses bar Cambridges
> were erm something other than BA.
Which goes to show not just that you shouldn't believe everything you see
in the papers, but that papers' education correspondents really /don't/
bother to do any research before coming up with their peculiar brand of
politically-slanted bollocks.
Mark.
--
Journalism is intellectual prostitution at its basest
Flexiblegoat
<mark.t...@balliol.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>Paul,
>
>> I read in the independent that all maths courses bar Cambridges
>> were erm something other than BA.
>
>Which goes to show not just that you shouldn't believe everything you see
>in the papers, but that papers' education correspondents really /don't/
>bother to do any research before coming up with their peculiar brand of
>politically-slanted bollocks.
>
>Mark.
No, but its reasonable for me to believe something like that. If, for
example, I read that you had spent yesterday cavorting on the second
deck of an open-toped omnibus with several nubile, naked and acclaimed
actresses (including Katherine Hiegle) and singing the praises of
Thames Valley University, through the streets of a small village in
southern Languedoc, I might raise an eyebrow in suprise. Before
hurrying to join or replace you. But I didn't. So I saw no reason to
doubt the claim's veracity.
Ray Pang
"Mark Thakkar" <mark.t...@balliol.ox.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1407a53e5...@news.breathe.com...
> Paul,
>
> > And why is it that Cambridge give a BA for maths. I'd have thought
> > that would have especially appealed to Thakker - why didn't you go
> > there? What will you get, since you do a foul mixture?
>
> Well, Engles, it's quite difficult to get a BSc at Oxford. You have to
> be doing a science, for a start, which Maths isn't. (See previous
> threads, passim.)
Well it most certainly isn't an art. It's neither science nor art - it's
superior to both.
news.demon.co.uk
> i've not confused the MSci degree with the one year MSc degree which i
know
> exists.
That's not the distinction. One (the MSc I think) is for postgraduate
science studies which build on a first degree foundation. The MSci
meanwhile, is a postgrad science-orientated degree for graduates from a
non-scientific background -- usually not research-based and usually in a
namby pamby subject like IT.
Josh
Ian Johnston
: Well, Engles, it's quite difficult to get a BSc at Oxford.
Difficult? It's impossible!
: Mine's a BA, along with all Maths students.
Actually, it's an MA, just like first degrees in the older Scottish
universities. But they'll give you a BA as a provisional award after
3 years, since the archaic regulations say it takes 7 years for an MA.
Ian MA (Engineering)
Mark Thakkar
>: Well, Engles, it's quite difficult to get a BSc at Oxford.
>
> Difficult? It's impossible!
Ah, you've resurfaced, and are quite right.
>: Mine's a BA, along with all Maths students.
>
> Actually, it's an MA, just like first degrees in the older
> Scottish universities. But they'll give you a BA as a provisional
> award after 3 years, since the archaic regulations say it takes
> 7 years for an MA.
True.
> Ian MA (Engineering)
You confuse me somewhat. What do you do now? Your address is an Oxford
one, but you've not done an MEng.
Mark.
Sean
At my university an MSci in Maths was a four year Maths degree where the
fourth year was very difficult and definitely built on the previous
three years material.
Also I am currently studying an MSc (in Namby Pamby Computer Science)
which isn't research based and isn't based on my degree at all. (My
degree was Mathematics, but there are some namby pamby graduates too in
the class)
Sean
Paul Bolchover
Flexiblegoat <pa...@nocuntingspamengles.dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>And why is it that Cambridge give a BA for maths. I'd have thought
>that would have especially appealed to Thakker - why didn't you go
>there? What will you get, since you do a foul mixture?
Cambridge give a BA for everything...
Paul Bolchover
Paul Bolchover
jr <h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>could someone please tell me the what the difference between a MSci and a
>MMath degree is?
>i'm been looking at uni's which offer maths degree courses and some uni's
>offer the MSci degree(Imperial is one) and some offer the MMath degree(UMIST
>being one such uni).
I think that there's essentially no difference between the two, the university
merely chooses the title that they think is best.
Paul Bolchover
Paul Bolchover
Ian Johnston <engs...@sable.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>In uk.education.maths Mark Thakkar <mark.t...@balliol.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>
>Difficult? It's impossible!
Well, I suppose that you could become Prime Minister, pass a law forcing
Oxford to do BSc degrees, then enroll as an undergraduate :-)
Paul Bolchover
Mark Thakkar
> Ian,
> [...]
> Ah, you've resurfaced
But of course you haven't, because it's a cross-post. Confused me for a
moment there. Don't forget to send any repetitive A-Level posters over
to us on alt.uk.a-levels. (Well, not if they're /too/ repetitive...)
Mark.
Ian Johnston
: Cambridge give a BA for everything...
And to just about anything, or so they tell me. Sniff.
Ian (Oxon)
robert...@my-deja.com
> > that would have especially appealed to Thakker - why didn't you go
> > there? What will you get, since you do a foul mixture?
>
to
> be doing a science, for a start, which Maths isn't
Chemistry is a BA, well its an MChem but I think you get a freebie BA
as well after your 3rd year.
Rob
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Chris Share
says...
> In article <399d7bcc...@news.dircon.co.uk>,
> Flexiblegoat <pa...@nocuntingspamengles.dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >that would have especially appealed to Thakker - why didn't you go
> >there? What will you get, since you do a foul mixture?
>
>
> Paul Bolchover
Well, almost everything. I am sure the medical and vet science courses
end up as something else....
chris
Paul Bolchover
Chris Share <chris...@newscientist.net> wrote:
>> Cambridge give a BA for everything...
>>
>> Paul Bolchover
>
>Well, almost everything. I am sure the medical and vet science courses
>end up as something else....
Yes, but I'm fairly sure that they graduate with a BA after the first
three years, and that get another qualification on top...
Likewise, the 4-year Engineering graduate with both a BA and an MA, etc
Paul Bolchover
Niall Saville
wrote:
>>> Cambridge give a BA for everything...
>>
>>Well, almost everything. I am sure the medical and vet science courses
>>end up as something else....
>
>Yes, but I'm fairly sure that they graduate with a BA after the first
>three years, and that get another qualification on top...
>
>Likewise, the 4-year Engineering graduate with both a BA and an MA, etc
What about the BEd?
--
Niall Saville
Celibate when sober : Still eating yogurt : Maths through engineering
Find me up a cliff or mountain or way down in the pits of depression.
Trying to set up a CU Hypnosis Society - Email me for details....
James Mackay
dependant upon the institution. I am fairly confident in saying MMath is a
University of London thing only,
as for Cambridge you graduate with a BA and then a year or so later are
given an MA. A similar thing applies with Oxford as well. But these courses
at Oxbridge are only 3yr courses where MMath and MSci are 4yr and will have
a project involved, which I believe according to colleagues can be fun.
Hope that this is of some help
James
"Paul Bolchover" <pb1...@cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:8nu1ml$lk7$1...@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk...
> In article <MPG.140b9505...@News.CIS.DFN.DE>,
> Chris Share <chris...@newscientist.net> wrote:
>
> >> Cambridge give a BA for everything...
> >>
> >> Paul Bolchover
> >
> >Well, almost everything. I am sure the medical and vet science courses
> >end up as something else....
>
> Yes, but I'm fairly sure that they graduate with a BA after the first
> three years, and that get another qualification on top...
>
> Likewise, the 4-year Engineering graduate with both a BA and an MA, etc
>
> Paul Bolchover
>
Ray Pang
"James Mackay" <james....@kcl.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:8ohd0c$6b2$1...@willow.cc.kcl.ac.uk...
> I am fairly confident in saying MMath is a
> University of London thing only,
I would like to shatter your confidence by telling you that that is
definitely not true. I know that Warwick and Bristol offer MMath degrees.
Mark Thakkar
>> I am fairly confident in saying MMath is a University of London thing
>> only,
>
> I would like to shatter your confidence by telling you that that is
> definitely not true. I know that Warwick and Bristol offer MMath
> degrees.
As does Oxford, and I expect many others do too.
Mark.
Joe
As I recall, MMath degrees were introduced first at Warwick and
another institution (I can't remember which) in 1997, with Oxford and
others bringing them in the following year, and still more the next
year.
--
Joe (MMath, Warwick, 1997) :-)
Robin Chapman
ma...@mimosa.csv.warwick.ac.uk (Joe) wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Aug 2000 00:22:31 +0100, Mark Thakkar wrote:
> another institution (I can't remember which) in 1997, with Oxford and
> others bringing them in the following year, and still more the next
> year.
The University of Exeter awarded its first MMaths in 1997.
--
Robin Chapman, http://www.maths.ex.ac.uk/~rjc/rjc.html
"`The twenty-first century didn't begin until a minute
past midnight January first 2001.'"
John Brunner, _Stand on Zanzibar_ (1968)
Matthew M. Huntbach
> The answer here as I am sure you are now aware, is It is the same it is
> dependant upon the institution. I am fairly confident in saying MMath is a
> University of London thing only, as for Cambridge you graduate with a BA
> and then a year or so later are given an MA. A similar thing applies with
> Oxford as well. But these courses at Oxbridge are only 3yr courses where
> MMath and MSci are 4yr and will have a project involved, which I believe
> according to colleagues can be fun.
I'm not aware of *any* University of London college which awards an
"MMath". The title "MSci" seems universal across the University of
London for four-year degrees in maths. This distinguishes it from
a one-year degree taken after you already have your first degree,
which is entitled "MSc".
I note a number of other universities award an "MMath" for a four-year
degree in maths. Hull, Nottingham and Warwick are three I noticed in
a quick flick through the UCAS handbook. However, you are right in
assuming it's dependent on the institution. Whether an institution chooses
to term its four-year degree in maths an "MMath" or an "MSci" is up to it.
It doesn't mean very much. Only Oxford and Cambridge award Masters
degrees for only three years of study rather than either four or one year
following a Bachelor's degree (with, of course, the nominal requirement
of having led a good life for a few years after the award of the
Oxbriudge Bachelor's degree).
Matthew Huntbach
Garry Sheppard
"Matthew M. Huntbach" <m...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:8oiqgc$j5o$1...@beta.qmw.ac.uk...
The Open University also offers an MMath.
Dr A. N. Walker
i_lurker <i_lu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>being quite candid and politically incorrect, some universities (such as
>Nottingham for example) are using the M. Math as a means of distinguishing
>the more able students from the run of the mill
This is *ABSOLUTELY NOT*, repeat *NOT*, the case at
Nottingham. Whether it is the case elsewhere is not for me
to say.
Students here themselves choose whether to do the MMath
or the BSc. The only distinction we make is that weak students
are not allowed to proceed to the third and fourth years of the
MMath; not that any of them want to. "Run of the mill" students
are perfectly welcome to take the MMath, though those below the
median are usually [not always], in practice, seduced by the high
salaries that maths graduates can command [as long as they don't
go into education ...].
> because they have noticed a
>decline in the standards of students on entry to degree courses and the BSc
>standard degree has had to be lowered to accommodate that
We have noticed no such thing. There has been a decline
in the background mathematical knowledge of students, caused by
syllabus and other changes in the schools. So we have to teach
some maths that we used to be able to assume. But there are other
things -- including use of IT, project work, literacy -- that
modern students are better at than their predecessors, and it
would be amazingly hard to disentangle the various effects so as
to be able to proclaim that standards have fallen. This doesn't
stop anecdotes propagating, of course.
At the other end, similarly, it's grossly misleading to
say that the BSc has been lowered. The mathematical content is
less [here -- I again can't speak for anywhere else], but our
students are better equipped to do project work, group work,
write reports, etc than in the past, and most of them have taken
occasional modules in [eg] languages, management, computing.
If force-feeding mathematics to students is your idea of a BSc,
then standards have fallen. If the aim is to educate students,
then the BSc has changed, in the direction of "preparation for
life", including employment. For the students, that's probably
an improvement. For the small minority who want to do much more
maths and go on to do research, it's made things worse; and
that is why such students are encouraged to do the MMath. But
it's not black-and-white, and we have "run of the mill" students
doing MMath for pleasure, as a sort-of gap year before their "run
of the mill" career in accountancy or whatever, and potential
research students doing the BSc [followed, if necessary, by an
MRes or MSc before embarking on a PhD].
>Its something a number of the "better" uni's are worrying about
Keeping under review rather than worrying. There are,
for sure, problems in secondary education, esp in maths, and
there are yet more changes to A-levels. "Better" univs that
fail to track and understand these problems and changes will
inexorably become "worse" univs.
--
Andy Walker, School of MathSci., Univ. of Nott'm, UK.
a...@maths.nott.ac.uk
i_lurker
Dr A. N. Walker wrote in message <8p323r$qmo$1...@oyez.ccc.nottingham.ac.uk>...
>In article <8ot6pc$bhk3v$1...@ID-33576.news.cis.dfn.de>,
>i_lurker <i_lu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>being quite candid and politically incorrect, some universities (such as
>>Nottingham for example) are using the M. Math as a means of distinguishing
>>the more able students from the run of the mill
>
> This is *ABSOLUTELY NOT*, repeat *NOT*, the case at
>Nottingham. Whether it is the case elsewhere is not for me
>to say.
I apologise if I have made an error, but someone in Nottingham maths
department ( a colleague of yours presumably?) told me precisely what I
said only last week. But since you are so certain and you are carrying an
official position , I will stand corrected.
>
The only distinction we make is that weak students
>are not allowed to proceed to the third and fourth years of the
>MMath; not that any of them want to.
So would you explain how this differs from selecting "able" students ,
except in phrasing. If you deny the opportunity for those who are "weak" to
progress , then surely, that is a selective process and M. Math by
definition becomes a selective option which indicates a level of
mathematical ability in the students.
This sounds a bit like the policy we have in my own college . The department
agrees that our main problem now is with "weak" students in our courses. So
this year we have designed the course such that we are allowing ourselves
six weeks to assess students and the weak students will not be allowed to
progress ( not as they are likely to want to stay with us<g>), instead they
will be re directed from the course by counselling them into other
directions.
( I dont think all your staff agree with you about decline in standards
either<G> )
Dr A. N. Walker
i_lurker <i_lu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I apologise if I have made an error, but someone in Nottingham maths
>department ( a colleague of yours presumably?)
Presumably!
> told me precisely what I
>said only last week. But since you are so certain and you are carrying an
>official position , I will stand corrected.
Thank you. As you will appreciate, applicants for our courses
can be influenced [for good or ill] by articles like these, so it's
important that the information be correct.
>The only distinction we make is that weak students
>>are not allowed to proceed to the third and fourth years of the
>>MMath; not that any of them want to.
>So would you explain how this differs from selecting "able" students ,
>except in phrasing.
You referred to "run of the mill" students being chosen for
the BSc, which I took to mean the average students, clustering around
the lower 2.1s and the upper 2.2s. Those students, as well as the
"able" students [firsts and good 2.1s], have a free choice.
> If you deny the opportunity for those who are "weak" to
>progress , then surely, that is a selective process and M. Math by
>definition becomes a selective option which indicates a level of
>mathematical ability in the students.
All of our students have a level of mathematical ability!
Yes, there is a selective process. But preventing weak students
[the bottom 2.2s and thirds] from proceeding to the 3rd/4th years
of the MMath is a different matter from describing us as using the
MMath to distinguish able from run-of-the-mill. If you had said
that we use the BSc as a fall-back position for weak MMath students,
then I would have had much less objection.
You also managed to imply that our BSc was now dumbed down,
compared with the MMath, which is not the case. The BSc and MMath
students take mostly the same modules and are assessed to the same
standards during their first three years. Had we had the choice,
we would have run the MMath as a 3+1 scheme, effectively a better-
integrated MSc. But government policy at the time dictated a
2+(1|2) structure, so we were forced to make the MMath and BSc
third-year courses distinct, and some modules are available only
to one group or the other. But the standards are the same, and
those students who get firsts in the BSc can continue to be very
proud of their achievement.
>This sounds a bit like the policy we have in my own college . The department
>agrees that our main problem now is with "weak" students in our courses. So
>this year we have designed the course such that we are allowing ourselves
>six weeks to assess students and the weak students will not be allowed to
>progress ( not as they are likely to want to stay with us<g>), instead they
>will be re directed from the course by counselling them into other
>directions.
We don't have any weak students! [Not until we've bashed
maths into them for a couple of years ....] We have some ignorant
students [who nevertheless have their AAA at A-level] and some
idle students; the former group can catch up, the latter group
become weak after a while. I think I'd find it hard to tell very
much after six weeks, which is really just a settling-in period.
Some bright students take a while to come to terms with university
life, esp the shy and the overseas.
>( I dont think all your staff agree with you about decline in standards
>either<G> )
That's true. We have some dinosaurs ["In my day, we did
this at O-level"]. We have quite a few who would prefer to give the
same lectures this year as last year and the year before and the
year before and ..., and who view all change as decline. We have
some who misunderstood the rationale documents when we started the
MMath. And we have the research eagles who regard all modules as
useless unless they relate to the cutting edge, and who have to be
forcibly reminded from time to time that their 4th-year audiences
include some 2.2 students. But I also have colleagues who do
understand what has been happening in the schools, and who have
convinced me that it's not *all* bad news.
Linus Thand
James Mackay wrote:
> The answer here as I am sure you are now aware, is It is the same it is
> dependant upon the institution. I am fairly confident in saying MMath is a
> University of London thing only,
You can find it at the University of York as well.
Kind regards,
Linus Thand
Char Bell
"Linus Thand" <wha...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:39B67733...@hotmail.com...
Matthew M. Huntbach
> We don't have any weak students! [Not until we've bashed
> maths into them for a couple of years ....] We have some ignorant
> students [who nevertheless have their AAA at A-level] and some
> idle students; the former group can catch up, the latter group
> become weak after a while.
If all your students are around AAA level, you're not really qualified
to cast judgement on A-levels as a whole. You only see a very selective
proportion of those with A-levels.
Matthew Huntbach
Dr A. N. Walker
Matthew M. Huntbach <m...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> wrote:
>If all your students are around AAA level, you're not really qualified
>to cast judgement on A-levels as a whole.
I wouldn't dream of doing so. All I would claim is that the
anecdotal and statistical evidence of decline is deeply flawed, and
there is no compelling reason to believe that standards have fallen.
*Certainly* our intake, despite their AAAs, *know* less maths than
their BCC predecessors of a decade or two back, but they have
compensating qualities, and maths is a very special case, for a
variety of reasons [which I have explained in earlier articles].
> You only see a very selective
>proportion of those with A-levels.
Of course. As do those whose intake are CDD. As does any
one selector/lecturer/department, even any one university. But I'm
not the one making any sweeping claims.
Alan Camina
I was on the committee which wrote the report which led to the creation
of M.Mth/M.Sci degrees. The labelling is irrelevant has has been pointed
out.
The committee had a number of reasons for the proposal which have been
lost in this debate. In the last thirty years the number of people going
to university has changed from a very elite system, about 6% of the
relevant age group attending university to about 35%. There had also
been a significant change in the syllabus at GCSE level which had a
consequence for A' levels and therefore the knowledge base of students
entering university. There was also the comparison with Europe. England
has the shortest degree courses and when we compared the standards of
students from Europe it was clear that they had learned more, not
entirely surprising given the longer degree courses.
The conclusion seemed to be that for those who saw their careers as
mathematicians should be encouraged to do a four year degree but those
who decided that they would be accountants say, would do a three year
degree. This was proposed to the government who then supported the
creation of four year undergraduate degrees.
My advice to any prospective student would be to register for a four
year degree and reconsider the situation at the end of the second year
when you will be in a much better position to see where your future
might lie and whether you are still mad about sums.
Alan Camina
ps the report was entitled "The Future for Honours Degree Courses in
Mathematics and Statistics" 1992 and was published joints by LMS, IMA
and RSS
School of Mathematics
University of East Anglia
Norwich
UK NR4 7TJ
Office Telephone +44 (0)1603 592587
Nicholas Jackson
>Difficult? It's impossible!
It is now, yes, although I believe that until comparatively recently
(the middle of the 20th century or so) they did award a BSc. This was
a postgraduate degree, and was at some point renamed `MSc' to bring it
into line with common practice at other UK universities. Similarly
with the BLitt and BPhil, which are now MLitt (which would be called an
MA elsewhere) and MPhil (except in philosophy, where it's still called
a BPhil).
nicholas (why do I know all this obscure nonsense?)
--
Our universe is a fragile house of atoms, held together by the weak
mortar of cause-and-effect. One magician would be two too many.