4 ms·

I don't know much pure math. If I pretend I had never heard of Tao, then I would have completely believed these notes if they had ended with "And that's how I f

by 7402 7y ago

I don't know much pure math. If I pretend I had never heard of Tao, then I would have completely believed these notes if they had ended with "And that's how I failed my comprehensive exam," instead of, "After this, they decided to pass me." It's funny to me that just going by the tone (without having any domain knowledge), it's hard to tell how well he was doing.

kkylin 7y ago
These exams often work by having the examiners ask questions until one reaches the boundary of the student's boundary, partly to see where that boundary is and partly to see how they handle things they do not know. Ideally, anyway. The oral examination format can be very intimidating, and committees often don't care to (or don't know how) to put students at ease. So how well performance correlates with actual ability really varies.
peteretep 7y ago
It feels like a common idea that the worse you felt you did in Oxbridge entrance interviews, the better you probably did because the interviewers were trying to stretch you.
ska 7y ago
For what it's worth, I'm nowhere near as bright as Terence (which puts me in copious company, of course) but notes of my comprehensive exams would have looked kind of similar in tone if not content. Having given oral exams as well - often you are trying to find the boundary where certainty breaks down to "on the fly" thinking for the candidate. You can get a pretty accurate view of how well someone knows the material quite quickly this way, but you certainly have to account for "nerves" also. I remember being asked a question and just having no idea how to answer it - another examiner jumped in with a `different' question which I answered, then the 1st came back with "can you show how that is equivalent to what I asked" and it took me two seconds to realize they were basically the same question. That stuff can really throw you off.

by 7402 7y ago

kkylin 7y ago

These exams often work by having the examiners ask questions until one reaches the boundary of the student's boundary, partly to see where that boundary is and partly to see how they handle things they do not know. Ideally, anyway. The oral examination format can be very intimidating, and committees often don't care to (or don't know how) to put students at ease. So how well performance correlates with actual ability really varies.

peteretep 7y ago

It feels like a common idea that the worse you felt you did in Oxbridge entrance interviews, the better you probably did because the interviewers were trying to stretch you.

ska 7y ago

For what it's worth, I'm nowhere near as bright as Terence (which puts me in copious company, of course) but notes of my comprehensive exams would have looked kind of similar in tone if not content. Having given oral exams as well - often you are trying to find the boundary where certainty breaks down to "on the fly" thinking for the candidate. You can get a pretty accurate view of how well someone knows the material quite quickly this way, but you certainly have to account for "nerves" also. I remember being asked a question and just having no idea how to answer it - another examiner jumped in with a `different' question which I answered, then the 1st came back with "can you show how that is equivalent to what I asked" and it took me two seconds to realize they were basically the same question. That stuff can really throw you off.