How IKEA got me into Oxbridge
I have stared into the abyss.
The abyss has a name.
It is SKÅRNVIK.
It arrived in a toe-breakingly heavy IKEA-branded cardboard sarcophagus which seemed far too small to contain anything more ambitious than a sandwich.
Yet, it promised a sleek, white monolith of drawers, quiet despair and my all-night plans.
That’s when I learned the universal truth: flatpack furniture isn’t just a rite of passage, it’s a maths problem dressed in Allen keys and regret.
Forget parabolas and π.
This is logistics, combinatorics, and Euclidean geometry, masquerading as home décor.
And a conversation packed with Oxbridge interview gold dust if you make it to the end of this post.
Tetris for Grown-Ups: The Packing Problem
Let’s take a moment to admire the mathematical sorcery of IKEA packaging.
Somehow, an entire wardrobe, ten drawers and 148 screws fit into a box no wider than a yoga mat.
IKEA clearly employ spatial wizards, or rogue origami masters, who fold dimensional space just so your FLISBERGET can arrive in a single, unnervingly flat package.
But it’s not magic. It’s bin packing algorithms at work — the same kind behind computing, warehouse logistics, and presumably TARDIS design.
The goal?
Fit irregular, three-dimensional pieces into the smallest possible volume.
Mathematicians like David S. Johnson explored this in the 1970s (Fast Algorithms for Bin Packing Problems, 1974), likely not imagining their work would someday be repurposed to jam a flatpack kitchen into a Prius.
A Lesson in Pseudocode
You open the box, and there it is: the instruction manual.
No words.
Just an ageless little man, either smiling encouragingly with a spanner or looking quietly alarmed.
He does not live in this realm.
He does not understand mortal anguish. Or the scream that follows one wrong screw and a midnight glass of Merlot.
But he knows.
He knows this is a delightful journey akin to algorithmic design in computer science: breaking big problems into smaller, solvable instructions.
Each step is a discrete function.
You, tragically, are the compiler.
Align panel. Insert dowel. Panic. Retry.
Geometry and Combinatorics Chaos
You think you’re just building a cupboard.
Ha.
No.
You’re solving a 3D spatial reasoning puzzle with incomplete data, low lighting, and a clock that reads 3am.
It’s Euclidean geometry, but with sharp corners and emotional consequences.
How many wrong ways to assemble a three-part bracket?
Answer: all of them. All of the ways. Every single way except the right one.
You might think, but it’s just a cupboard.
Oh, sweet summer child. That cupboard is a crash course in combinatorics: the mathematics of permutations, combinations, and counting how many ways everything can go very, very wrong.
With n parts and m orientations, your mistakes grow exponentially.
Some are correct.
Many are “structurally interesting.”
This chaos? It’s been modeled.
Soloveichik & Winfree (2007) in their paper "Algorithmic Assembly and Reconfiguration of Self-Assembling Structures" explored how components self-assemble. Yes, it’s nanotech, but the logic holds when you flip a left panel and create a modernist cubist sculpture by mistake.
The Schrödinger's Screw Paradox
Mathematicians love determinism: know all the inputs, predict the result. Simple, right?
This is not true in IKEA.
IKEA runs on probabilistic chaos theory. You start with 96 screws. You use 92. Four remain. They match nothing in your house.
Somewhere, a dimension has collapsed.
Elsewhere, a mathematician sighs.
And yet, you must not throw them out!
The moment you do, Part X breaks free from Part Z and falls on your foot. Violating physics. And your dignity.
Divide and Conquer (a.k.a Maths, But Angry)
According to IKEA, (and possibly the Geneva Convention), furniture should be assembled with a friend.
This seems mathematically sound.
Two brains = better outcomes.
Wrong.
You enter a recursive argument loop.
One insists the diagram is “obvious,” the other bends space-time trying to attach a drawer rail.
Eventually, you divide. You conquer.
You don’t speak for a while.
But the furniture stands.
Sort of.
Why It Matters (Even If You Never Want to Build a Cabinet Again)
Flatpack furniture is where maths meets real life.
Optimisation theory disguised as Scandinavian minimalism.
And whether you dream of engineering, architecture, computer science or pure maths, this is a reminder that elegant systems hide in everyday chaos.
Flatpack isn’t just furniture.
Building it?
You’re participating in applied mathematics.
Where theory meets thumb blisters.
And your bedroom storage — slightly wonky, gloriously upright — is proof.
And Then…
You step back. You admire the fruits of your labor.
There are leftover parts, radiating quiet menace on the floor.
It has a weird drawer that only opens on Tuesdays.
But it stands. You built this. With maths. With chaos. With caffeine, a blunt pencil, and the ghost of Smörg whispering, turn it clockwise.
You sit. It creaks.
Triumph.
And then you think: Maybe I’ll get the matching BRÄNNBOLL.
You fool. 😄
Nici
P.S.
🎓 Bonus: Interview Gold
If building a wonky bookcase sparks a strange fascination with combinatorics, complexity theory, or why things that should fit absolutely don’t — this is your secret weapon.
When someone inevitably asks during that Oxbridge interview, “Tell me about a time maths surprised you”, these papers will give you fascinating talking points and depth:
1. Garey, M. R. & Johnson, D. S. (1979) Computers and Intractability: A Guide to the Theory of NP-Completeness
Discover why flatpack assembly flirts with NP-complete problems — that maddening search for the perfect screw sequence under pressure and poor lighting.
2. Soloveichik, D. & Winfree, E. (2007) Algorithmic Self-Assembly of DNA Sierpinski Triangles
Nanotech meets flatpack: how self-assembly rules surprisingly mirror IKEA instruction logic.
3. Coffman, E. G., Garey, M. R., & Johnson, D. S. (1984) Approximation Algorithms for Bin Packing: A Survey
Strategies for “good enough” packing solutions — aka your mindset trying to fit a wardrobe into a hatchback.
4. Tversky, B. et al. (2002) Animation: Can It Facilitate? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies
Explore how visual instructions shape understanding — the cognitive science behind your midnight struggle with IKEA manuals.
5. Grünbaum, B. & Shephard, G. C. (1987) Tilings and Patterns
Dive into geometry, tessellations, and why that oddly shaped panel refuses to slot in.
6. Epstein, L. & van Stee, R. (2005) Online Bin Packing with Resource Augmentation
How to manage packing when parts appear unpredictably — just like those mystery screws hiding in your shoe.
