I do theoretical physics. Take note, I am not saying that we do loads of mathematics (compared to mathematicians, but we do loads more than any other subject), however a proportion of the "extra" maths we do is more pure based. No it's not as pure to the extent of what you did but it is not purely applied as you seem to think. Maybe they did that with the Brummie physicists...Secondly, I am not arguing with you for the sake of it. You're now a graduate, which possibly means that you have had some exposure to your tutors (if you have any) and other staff. I ask you to ask them if they honestly needed to be taught the maths they know or if they could have learned from a book what they learnt at degree level. If their answers are contrary to my beliefs I may have to rethink my approach towards to mathematics (unlikely). I say this because by your own admission, lectures from research intensive universities tend to be sh*t... That leads me to believe that the mathematics that they learned wasn't taught (to a large extent). Hence why they find it difficult, because they just 'know' (or understand) the stuff.Aside: Out of interest what class was your degree?Thirdly, the main flaw in my argument is the fact I have no exposure about how maths is taught at other unis except for again what friends have said. At unis comparable to Imperial, the opinion is largely the same as those held by myself. I don't know what the educational climate is like at Birmingham, but it being joint 65th in the world according to some sources hosts, more than likely a lesser calibre of students than the top 10-20 universities.I mean, I may be wrong, but I am yet to hear compelling evidence to prove such a fallacy.One of my friends read physics at Oxford and he said it was basically for brilliant mathematicians who weren't good enough to do maths there lol...make of that what you will.