Background
I'm a current student at a Grammar School in the UK, studying Mathematics, Further Mathematics, Computer Science and Physics.
I'm applying for the Joint Honours Mathematics and Computer Science course at Oxford in 2026.
My UCAS predicted grades are 4 A*s.
I have sat only one MAT practice paper (2007) in exam conditions so far, getting 80/100. Keep in mind earlier papers are generally considered to be slightly easier.
Market only resolves yes if I get in next year, not if I reapply for the following year.
Ask any questions and I will answer.
I will not bet on this market
This is an AI-generated summary of things mentioned in my personal statement so far (removed the full version as I was told it's not recommended to post online):
Used mathematics and computer science to explore interdisciplinary interests.
Watched a video on Grover’s algorithm, learned Qiskit, and implemented Grover’s search, quantum teleportation, and other quantum circuit models in code.
Deepened understanding of matrix unitarity, inner products, abstract vector spaces, state spaces, tensor products, and measurement operators through quantum computing projects.
Visited the Diamond Light Source Synchrotron and saw AI algorithms determining protein structure.
Studied 3Blue1Brown’s Deep Learning series and an article on building neural networks from scratch; derived and implemented backpropagation from first principles using chain and product rules and partial differentiation, then coded it in Python.
Gave a five‑minute talk on AI risks (reward hacking, instrumental convergence, corrigibility) for Oxford’s Big Think competition.
Explored encryption in depth: learned RSA key production, investigated modular arithmetic, and programmed the RSA algorithm in Python.
Researched Shor’s algorithm and implemented the Quantum Fourier Transform in Qiskit.
Studied 3Blue1Brown’s linear algebra series; applied geometric insights to code a reflective‑sphere shader in GLSL using raymarching and 3D vector geometry.
Explored complex analysis and rendered the Mandelbrot set in GLSL.
Developed an automated stock‑trading bot for your computing NEA: analysed large datasets with pandas, designed a GUI, and integrated a trading API.
Achieved distinction (top 5% and best in school) in the 2023 Perse Coding Challenge Round 1, merit in the final, and top 25% in the 2023 British Informatics Olympiad.
Coded a pitch‑recognition training program to sharpen music skills.
Built an automatic solver for a Rubik’s Pyramid using brute‑force search.
Completed Kevin Buzzard’s Natural Numbers Game in Lean, using Peano’s axioms to prove statements and learning about type‑theory‑based theorem provers.
1,000in terms of your ps, you should show rather than tell - personally i don't like the tone that, e.g., "This deepened my understanding of matrix unitarity, inner products, and abstract vector spaces" conveys -- you say that it "deepened my understanding of..." but when would you have encountered this before, or had to deeply engage with it before? these are things you only really study and understand seriously in first/second year at university, so i would have expected you to say that you've learned about them there (granted you'd have probably known inner products from A levels though)
more generally, i think your personal statement would benefit from reflecting more on the things you mention (rather than the bulk volume of things that are mentioned) -- this lets you directly demonstrate that you have an understanding of these things. the current instances of doing this are vague to the point of vacuosity, e.g. "...Mandelbrot set, consolidating my Further Maths knowledge of complex numbers." ok? consolidated how? what did it clarify? what new insights did it give? i can say that looking at the mona lisa clarified my knowledge of painting beautifully -- but i'd need to say something more substantive if i want that to have weight
in spite of my harshness i do think that the underlying content is very good, there's quite a breadth of different things that you've talked about and they're all quite fun and interesting corners of maths, and demonstrate the characteristic oxbridge enthusiasm/excitement for the subject - so long as you are sharp in the interview, able to hold your ground during the actual MAT, you should have pretty good odds (and if not then you'll probably end up going to warwick, ranking top 5, and doing part iii instead...)
@Waffloid Thank you for the feedback! You're right about how I said "deepened my understanding," I'll change it to say how I was introduced to those concepts instead, and try to focus more on what I did.
It's a shame there's not more space to let me go into depth about everything I've done, but I'll definitely see what I can do with the phrasing of the evaluative bits to make them less vague. I feel like the breadth is what I'm trying to impress them with but there are a few points that I think are less strong so if needs be I can remove things like the AI ethics talk to give me more free characters. I'll try to qualify the statements about what I've learned more specifically as well.
The MAT is the probably the biggest factor left that's gonna determine whether or not I get in so that's where I'll be focusing my efforts. Thanks for your vote of confidence!
@BastiaanVorster Yep, the character constraint is a devilish one. I understand the motivation behind trying to dazzle with breadth, but the converse point is that anyone can name-drop interesting topics. I can say that Fourier series excite me, and that I was intrigued by projective varieties in Algebraic Geometry, which deepened my understanding of inversion, say. But I could have said this from looking at random wiki pages for 5 minutes and in fact have no clue about these things beyond the fact they're cool math things. My gut feeling when I see these things without context is an equal mix of suspicion together with warmth towards the comments.
On the other hand, if I were to say that Fourier series are exciting because their existence is unintuitive, in that they let us approximate all sorts of complicated functions through a linear combination of well-behaved, periodic functions (sine waves), and then proceeded to talk about some physics stuff, then I'd have really demonstrated some reflection which shows off the fact I've actually thought about this stuff meaningfully (and shown it in a way that's more immediately convincing than pawning off this demonstration to a claim of having done or created something which requires this knowledge)
So I do really think that aiming to dazzle with breadth is a mistake. A topic mentioned without a good justification doesn't add much, because it can't be taken very seriously. On the other hand, I think it's possible for you to have your cake and eat it too. You can be a lot more economical with your language and that'd allow you to include most, if not all of those points. Conversely if you find that you're struggling to justify/meditate convincingly on one of the points, then maybe it was best not included after all. It's sort of a win-win.
@Waffloid That is true - though I have tried to include something concrete I've done to back up all the things I've said I find interesting. The examples you gave definitely do give a good idea of the style/tone of writing that is needed so thank you.
@traders Just got 77/100 on the 2009 paper (not in timed conditions and probably spent a bit too long on it)
Brit gang 💪