How Good Is Cambridge Part III Mathematical Tripos?
Farhan Feroz
Cambridge to undertake the Part III of Mathematical Tripos at the
Department of Applied mathematics & Theoretical Physics from October
2004. Can anyone tell me as to how well is this course regarded, I
know that it's regarded as the toughest in Cambridge but have no idea
about its reputation in other countries like US especially for
consideration for admission in a PhD program at the US ivy leagues &
other good UK universities. I intend to take courses in particle
Physics in Part III & would be greatly thankful if someone could guide
me about the PhD admission possibilities after Part III.
Regards,
Farhan Feroz
Far...@Post.com
Aaron Bergman
In article <59599915.04060...@posting.google.com>,
far...@post.com (Farhan Feroz) wrote:
I know a number people at the best graduate schools who did Tripos
before attending graduate school. It has a good reputation. I would
think that it might also be a possibility to obtain letters of
recommendation if you have not already applied to graduate school.
Aaron
Charles Francis
Feroz <far...@post.com> writes
UK.
--
Charles Francis
baffledMatt
place down after hearing too many bad things about it from students who
had taken the course.
The gist of it is as follows: If you want to do the part 3 either
because you want to get a PhD in theoretical physics at Cambridge or
because you want to have the 'Cambridge experience' then by all means
take the course. However, if all you want to do is to learn some math
then there are much better ways to do this, like simply starting a PhD
in theoretical physics! Here you will be forced to learn it all anyway
and you even get paid to do it.
Also, unless you get a distinction at the Part 3 you will stand no
chance of getting a PhD in the more popular areas of theoretical
physics (string theory, high energy physics, that sort of thing). You
don't need the part 3 to go anywhere other than Cambridge - they seem
to be the only ones who have this strange superiority complex! (which
anyone will tell you is slightly overrated)
Matt
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This post submitted through the LaTeX-enabled physicsforums.com
To view this post with LaTeX images:
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=29512#post227834
Martin Hardcastle
Charles Francis <cha...@lluestfarmpoultry.co.uk> wrote:
[re Part III maths]
>It is generally regarded as a prerequisite to a meaningful PhD in the
>UK.
This isn't remotely true, in my experience. Many good theoretical
physics (and even maths) PhDs get done in the UK without reference to
part III. If by `meaningful' you mean `from Cambridge' -- for which it
*is* more or less a prerequisite -- then I suspect that that
definition, while one I can live with personally, is not widely
accepted...
Martin
--
Martin Hardcastle Department of Physics, University of Bristol
A little learning is a dangerous thing; / Drink deep, or taste not the
Pierian spring; / There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain ...
David
baffledMatt <baffl...@physicsforums.com> wrote in message news:<baffledMa...@physicsforums.com>...
> The gist of it is as follows: If you want to do the part 3 either
> because you want to get a PhD in theoretical physics at Cambridge or
> because you want to have the 'Cambridge experience' then by all means
> take the course.
Part III is only a pre-requisite for postgraduate work at DAMTP. If
you want to work at the Cavendish or at the IOA then there's no such
consideration.
> However, if all you want to do is to learn some math
> then there are much better ways to do this, like simply starting a PhD
> in theoretical physics! Here you will be forced to learn it all anyway
> and you even get paid to do it.
I can see what you mean. Part III covers a lot of stuff which isn't
typically taught at undergraduate level. Since PhDs in the UK don't
typically involve a large taught component, Part III (and the very
similar excellent course at Imperial which no-one has mentioned)
provides a good opportunity to learn the material in a lecture-based
fashion, and also to cover a lot of stuff you wouldn't otherwise learn
during postgraduate work. My experience was that most of the PhD
learning experience was on-topic. You get an off-topic opportunity
during what is, essentially, a taught Masters' course. For US
universities, the level is similar to what you would get taught during
the first couple of years of graduate school.
> Also, unless you get a distinction at the Part 3 you will stand no
> chance of getting a PhD in the more popular areas of theoretical
> physics (string theory, high energy physics, that sort of thing).
This is true, unless things have changed. However, this applies only
to DAMTP.
> You don't need the part 3 to go anywhere other than Cambridge - they seem
> to be the only ones who have this strange superiority complex! (which
> anyone will tell you is slightly overrated)
Of course one doesn't need Part III to go anywhere else. But no-one
ever claimed you did. The most accurate characterization of Part III
is to say that it is the fourth year of the undergraduate Maths
degree. Thus, it is similar to Part III Physics or Part III Chemistry
which are the corresponding fourth years, leading to the award of a
Master's degree in science. The circumstances are different because
Maths students graduate in the third year and the fourth year does not
officially count as a Master's course. (It's a "CASM".) It seems
that the reason for this arrangement is that it allows them to bring
in students from outside to help feed into their research programme.
>From this point of view it's not a superiority thing, it's a way to
get around the short UK 3-year PhD programme and add an extra US-style
taught first year. Of course, it has its faults. For one thing, the
funding situation for outside-Cambridge applicants simply sucks. But,
to my certain knowledge, DAMTP really does consider students who have
not taken Part III for PhD places. However, my understanding of their
attitude is that you are at a severe disadvantage unless you can show
that your undergraduate studies went to the same level as Part III.
Typically PhD places are offered after the Part III results are
announced. This does mean that acquiring a PhD place bears some
similarity to high stakes poker.
David
Chris Oakley
I did part 3 in 1980 just because it gave me an extra year of funded
research. See here: http://www.cgoakley.demon.co.uk/cv.html
Maybe it has got better, but at the time it was a rotten course. I spent a
lot of time grappling with the many interesting issues raised by the subject
matter only to discover that all they wanted was for you to remember your
lecture notes word for word, equation for equation and then copy them down
in the exam. This was in sharp contrast to the Oxford physics exam I took
the year before where they would throw things at you that you had never seen
before and see how you coped. Much more interesting and a genuine test of
understanding. I am amazed that the same university that fostered Newton,
Rutherford and Dirac should try so hard to stamp out originality and
innovation at such an early stage. Cambridge may be a world leader in pure
mathematics, but in theoretical physics it has been left a long way behind
by the top U.S. institutions, and that course is part of the problem.
Franz Heymann
"Charles Francis" <cha...@lluestfarmpoultry.co.uk> wrote in message
news:q7V511Iq...@clef.demon.co.uk...
That is quite untrue.
Franz
Charles Francis
<baffl...@physicsforums.com> writes
>I was in exactly this position last year, but eventually turned the
>place down after hearing too many bad things about it from students who
>had taken the course.
I too can say bad things about Cambridge, the standard of teaching was
appalling, and the volume of material is such that it is doubtful
whether you can remain human and have a balanced life while at the same
time keeping up.
>
>The gist of it is as follows: If you want to do the part 3 either
>because you want to get a PhD in theoretical physics at Cambridge or
>because you want to have the 'Cambridge experience' then by all means
>take the course. However, if all you want to do is to learn some math
>then there are much better ways to do this, like simply starting a PhD
>in theoretical physics! Here you will be forced to learn it all anyway
>and you even get paid to do it.
>
>Also, unless you get a distinction at the Part 3 you will stand no
>chance of getting a PhD in the more popular areas of theoretical
>physics (string theory, high energy physics, that sort of thing). You
>don't need the part 3 to go anywhere other than Cambridge - they seem
>to be the only ones who have this strange superiority complex! (which
>anyone will tell you is slightly overrated)
>
One may wish to think that a Cambridge degree is overrated, and not
really much better than other universities, but it is strangely at odds
with the evidence. Admittedly my personal experience is of the maths
degree, but I don't think it is much different in physics. For a start
all the top candidates aim to go to Cambridge, and being top candidates
they are capable of a greater workload when they get there. Remember the
shape of the Gaussian distribution. Top levels of ability are much
higher than even the very bright.
One mathematician I knew at Cambridge was a rower and spent all his time
on the river, and failed his first year. He was given the choice give up
rowing or give up Cambridge. He went to another top university and
continued rowing, but he got a first. The moral being that the standard
of a first at another university might just get you a fail at Cambridge.
I have also seen the exam papers for London. At Cambridge you cover
almost as much ground in one year as in three years of a maths degree. A
fact which was born out when I went to do my PhD at London after
Cambridge Pt III and it was suggested I attend graduate courses
containing material I had studied in Pt IB.
So yes, if you just want the letters after your name, go anywhere but
Cambridge and get them a lot more easily. But don't think that they
carry the same weight, or that you will have had to learn much as if you
had the same letters from Cambridge.
--
Charles Francis
Robert C. Helling
> I can see what you mean. Part III covers a lot of stuff which isn't
> typically taught at undergraduate level. Since PhDs in the UK don't
> typically involve a large taught component, Part III (and the very
> similar excellent course at Imperial which no-one has mentioned)
> provides a good opportunity to learn the material in a lecture-based
> fashion, and also to cover a lot of stuff you wouldn't otherwise learn
> during postgraduate work. My experience was that most of the PhD
> learning experience was on-topic. You get an off-topic opportunity
> during what is, essentially, a taught Masters' course. For US
> universities, the level is similar to what you would get taught during
> the first couple of years of graduate school.
>
>> Also, unless you get a distinction at the Part 3 you will stand no
>> chance of getting a PhD in the more popular areas of theoretical
>> physics (string theory, high energy physics, that sort of thing).
>
> This is true, unless things have changed. However, this applies only
> to DAMTP.
Currently, I am a postdoc at damtp. I am not directly involved with
part iii, but of course I get an idea of what is going on. From what I
see, this is a very compact course (only 8+8+4 weeks effectively plus
exams) and the students have a lot of great stuff thrown at them, most
of it by excellent lecturers. I don't think you can take a string
theory course for example in too many other places. However, time is
very short and therefore, not everything is covered in all possible
depth. Plus many students (and maybe the system) are very much
focussed on the exams rather than learning interesting stuff for later
work as a research student. But it's true that effectively part iii
(with a distinction) is a prerequisite for a PhD here. The number of
places for PhD students is limited and when the supervisors have to
decide, in the end they will take the students they know rather than
take a gamble with a student from somewhere else.
The fact that it is so short is also mirrored in the composition of
research students here: Many of them (the ones that excelled in the
exams) have studied somewhere else than Cambridge before doing part
iii and therefore had the advantage to know some of the material
before. All I am saying here, ist that a student in her sixth year
(for example having done a Master's course somewhere else) might have
an advantage over a student in her fourth year.
But nevertheless, part iii offers some great courses and it's partly
up to the students what they make of it.
Robert
--
.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oO
Robert C. Helling Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics
University of Cambridge
print "Just another Phone: +44/1223/766870
stupid .sig\n"; http://www.aei-potsdam.mpg.de/~helling