Hide table of contents

(MORSE is a course at Warwick focused on the applications of maths, involving Maths, Operational Research, Statistics (quite a lot), and Economics

Edit after some more research: They are very similar courses and you can cover essentially all of the same topics with either by choosing optional modules, except at Oxford you cannot do the economics stuff because the department is separate. The other difference is compulsory modules. MORSE has a lot of stats, whereas in Oxford Maths+Stats there’s stuff like Geometry, Dynamics, and Complex Analysis.

I would be capable at and interested in either one, so it comes down to which sets me up better to do good (I'm interested in a wide range of things so keeping options open is important for me)

It seems to me that its greater and broader focus on application, with less pure maths, gives you more skills for impactful paths without much trade-off, but I'm not very confident that I'm accurate in this judgement since I have very little understanding of the world of employment.

If it is better, I'm also wondering how the benefits would trade off with the higher prestige of doing Maths+Stats at Oxford, but I don't have any idea how big/small the benefits of either side are. What do you think?

Thanks so much for your help!

3

0
0

Reactions

0
0
New Answer
New Comment


1 Answers sorted by

My sense is that:

  • You are right that more practical object-level skills would probably be more valuable
  • And yet, the prestige at Oxford would be more important, because it would allow you to acquire more influence more easily. 

Not very sure here, though. Best of luck in your studies.

Comments6
Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

Depending on how social you are, peer group might matter a lot here, so it might be worthwhile chatting with students/recent alumni in both programs to see which ones you'd get along more with and/or would learn more from.

Oh I had assumed that was more of a secondary consideration because of being hard to predict well. I’ll make sure to talk to some more people.

Are there particular modules you think are really useful you'd only be able to take on MORSE that you wouldn't if you were doing maths&stats at oxford?

The only modules you can’t do at Oxford are the Economics ones. I hear it’s relatively easy to switch into Economics from Maths, but maybe it would be good to be able to try it out earlier?

I took economics courses during my degree and I don't think they were particularly helpful for pursuing impactful paths (not that they were unhelpful, it's just that if I really needed to know the content for some reason, I could have picked it up elsewhere). This is true for all my courses in general. 

Unless I am missing something, the main reason to insist on taking more econ classes would be if you want to pursue a further degree such as a master's degree in something econ related. Or if you know you are going to learn econ anyway and doing a course in it instead of something else less directly relevant and learning econ on the side would save time. If you don't feel pretty motivated to learn econ anyway, I don't think the econ thing should be a strong consideration in favour of MORSE.

Well I’m currently taking Economics A-level and I do find it really interesting so I can see myself pursuing economics in the future, but I don’t plan on it specifically. That’s why I thought it might be good to be able to do a bit of it to know whether to do it at masters? Maybe the A-level is enough though

Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 20m read
 · 
Advanced AI could unlock an era of enlightened and competent government action. But without smart, active investment, we’ll squander that opportunity and barrel blindly into danger. Executive summary See also a summary on Twitter / X. The US federal government is falling behind the private sector on AI adoption. As AI improves, a growing gap would leave the government unable to effectively respond to AI-driven existential challenges and threaten the legitimacy of its democratic institutions. A dual imperative → Government adoption of AI can’t wait. Making steady progress is critical to: * Boost the government’s capacity to effectively respond to AI-driven existential challenges * Help democratic oversight keep up with the technological power of other groups * Defuse the risk of rushed AI adoption in a crisis → But hasty AI adoption could backfire. Without care, integration of AI could: * Be exploited, subverting independent government action * Lead to unsafe deployment of AI systems * Accelerate arms races or compress safety research timelines Summary of the recommendations 1. Work with the US federal government to help it effectively adopt AI Simplistic “pro-security” or “pro-speed” attitudes miss the point. Both are important — and many interventions would help with both. We should: * Invest in win-win measures that both facilitate adoption and reduce the risks involved, e.g.: * Build technical expertise within government (invest in AI and technical talent, ensure NIST is well resourced) * Streamline procurement processes for AI products and related tech (like cloud services) * Modernize the government’s digital infrastructure and data management practices * Prioritize high-leverage interventions that have strong adoption-boosting benefits with minor security costs or vice versa, e.g.: * On the security side: investing in cyber security, pre-deployment testing of AI in high-stakes areas, and advancing research on mitigating the ris
 ·  · 15m read
 · 
In our recent strategy retreat, the GWWC Leadership Team recognised that by spreading our limited resources across too many projects, we are unable to deliver the level of excellence and impact that our mission demands. True to our value of being mission accountable, we've therefore made the difficult but necessary decision to discontinue a total of 10 initiatives. By focusing our energy on fewer, more strategically aligned initiatives, we think we’ll be more likely to ultimately achieve our Big Hairy Audacious Goal of 1 million pledgers donating $3B USD to high-impact charities annually. (See our 2025 strategy.) We’d like to be transparent about the choices we made, both to hold ourselves accountable and so other organisations can take the gaps we leave into account when planning their work. As such, this post aims to: * Inform the broader EA community about changes to projects & highlight opportunities to carry these projects forward * Provide timelines for project transitions * Explain our rationale for discontinuing certain initiatives What’s changing  We've identified 10 initiatives[1] to wind down or transition. These are: * GWWC Canada * Effective Altruism Australia funding partnership * GWWC Groups * Giving Games * Charity Elections * Effective Giving Meta evaluation and grantmaking * The Donor Lottery * Translations * Hosted Funds * New licensing of the GWWC brand  Each of these is detailed in the sections below, with timelines and transition plans where applicable. How this is relevant to you  We still believe in the impact potential of many of these projects. Our decision doesn’t necessarily reflect their lack of value, but rather our need to focus at this juncture of GWWC's development.  Thus, we are actively looking for organisations and individuals interested in taking on some of these projects. If that’s you, please do reach out: see each project's section for specific contact details. Thank you for your continued support as we
 ·  · 11m read
 · 
Our Mission: To build a multidisciplinary field around using technology—especially AI—to improve the lives of nonhumans now and in the future.  Overview Background This hybrid conference had nearly 550 participants and took place March 1-2, 2025 at UC Berkeley. It was organized by AI for Animals for $74k by volunteer core organizers Constance Li, Sankalpa Ghose, and Santeri Tani.  This conference has evolved since 2023: * The 1st conference mainly consisted of philosophers and was a single track lecture/panel. * The 2nd conference put all lectures on one day and followed it with 2 days of interactive unconference sessions happening in parallel and a week of in-person co-working. * This 3rd conference had a week of related satellite events, free shared accommodations for 50+ attendees, 2 days of parallel lectures/panels/unconferences, 80 unique sessions, of which 32 are available on Youtube, Swapcard to enable 1:1 connections, and a Slack community to continue conversations year round. We have been quickly expanding this conference in order to prepare those that are working toward the reduction of nonhuman suffering to adapt to the drastic and rapid changes that AI will bring.  Luckily, it seems like it has been working!  This year, many animal advocacy organizations attended (mostly smaller and younger ones) as well as newly formed groups focused on digital minds and funders who spanned both of these spaces. We also had more diversity of speakers and attendees which included economists, AI researchers, investors, tech companies, journalists, animal welfare researchers, and more. This was done through strategic targeted outreach and a bigger team of volunteers.  Outcomes On our feedback survey, which had 85 total responses (mainly from in-person attendees), people reported an average of 7 new connections (defined as someone they would feel comfortable reaching out to for a favor like reviewing a blog post) and of those new connections, an average of 3
Recent opportunities in Career choice
14
Ryan Kidd
·
54