A place to study pure math— for the love of it

[Twoin18]

@theloniusmonk

Agree it’s a generalization but typically the kids who love learning for the sake of learning like to take a broader, cross-disciplinary approach, maybe to see how diverse topics fit together. Depth would be the more pre-professional track.

That’s a very US-centric view. In the UK the attitude is that depth is the measure of academic success, whether in maths, history, literature etc. Many courses at top universities are taught with more of a focus on preparing you for a PhD (and potentially an academic career) than for a job.

And job interviews often focus more on general intelligence (usually including long tail numerical reasoning tests) and academic achievement (specifically degree class - you’ll still note that you got a first on your CV 30 years later) than on specific skills.

[ucbalumnus]

@Twoin18

That’s a very US-centric view. In the UK the attitude is that depth is the measure of academic success, whether in maths, history, literature etc. Many courses at top universities are taught with more of a focus on preparing you for a PhD (and potentially an academic career) than for a job.

In the US, many liberal arts majors (including pure math) are commonly taught as preparation for PhD study more than for BA/BS-level jobs, although that may be more the case at some schools or departments than others (probably with some correlation to whether the school or department gets at least some strong students likely to be able to go on to PhD study).

[Happytimes2001]

Sorry but I said the opposite. One can love both learning and have depth of learning.
Also, I don’t agree that the CS kid who takes a lot of courses in his/her field doesn’t also love Humanities.

[circuitrider]

@theloniusmonk

Agree it’s a generalization but typically the kids who love learning for the sake of learning like to take a broader, cross-disciplinary approach, maybe to see how diverse topics fit together. Depth would be the more pre-professional track.

Yeah, you can’t double-down on the same trope in the expectation that it will be any truer on the second or third iteration. You cannot posit that only people who dabble in lots of different subjects love learning for the sake of learning while simultaneously implying that only people who specialize in one subject truly love what they are learning. Both statements cannot be true.

[Tigerle]

@Twoin18

@theloniusmonk

Agree it’s a generalization but typically the kids who love learning for the sake of learning like to take a broader, cross-disciplinary approach, maybe to see how diverse topics fit together. Depth would be the more pre-professional track.

That’s a very US-centric view. In the UK the attitude is that depth is the measure of academic success, whether in maths, history, literature etc. Many courses at top universities are taught with more of a focus on preparing you for a PhD (and potentially an academic career) than for a job.

Agree. In fact, one of the most preprofessional degrees, PPE, is one that combines three subjects. To be a lawyer, you don’t have to have a law degree at all- just another deep specialisation.

Though I also agree that the phrase “love of learning”, without adding a subject of focus, implies breadth. That’s semantics, not a question of educational systems. And as such, is not the same thing as “love of learning high level math”. I’m sure both types of kid can be found both at LACs and research Us. The question is whether the OP’s kid, as advanced as he is, can find the math.

[1NJParent]

Whether a person loves learning everything s/he comes into contact with, or loves learning only one subject in great depth, s/he loves learning.

[circuitrider]

Although I agree with you, I have to add that the person who supposedly loves “everything s/he comes into contact with” is an ad hoc construct created largely within the confines of this thread as a caricature of liberal arts students. The reality is that contrary to what has been stated upstream, people who are studying subjects like neuroscience, biochemistry, biophysics, astrophysics, econometrics, data science, cultural anthropology, environmental science - I could go on - those people are in fact studying specialties that began as cross-disciplinary academic explorations. The fact that this type of exploration and cooperation is easier to accomplish at a highly endowed LAC than at a typical RU is why LACs are of continued importance as an educational system.

[Tigerle]

@1NJParent

Whether a person loves learning everything s/he comes into contact with, or loves learning only one subject in great depth, s/he loves learning.

Maybe so, but they will be very different personalities with very different priorities as a student, and at a very different level at the subject in question, and may need very different institutions.
Which is the point of this (sub)thread.

[circuitrider]

Can you describe this difference without teetering on the brink of caricature? I hope so.

[Tigerle]

I don’t have to. The OP has described her own son, who has very very different needs from the 99 percent of kids who apply to college with senior year pre Calc or calc AP. Whether those 99 percent of kids love learning maths, econ, Shakespeare, neuroscience and art history or not or only some of the above is really neither here nor there if OPs kid can’t find classes in junior and senior year because the college simply doesn’t have enough kids at his level to offer classes for.

[1NJParent]

I agree there isn’t a particular type of education that’s best for everyone. Each student needs to find what’s best for him/her. However, even in today’s world where almost every subject can be learned virtually, the single best way to learn for most students in a subject is through a personal mentor in the subject, however unrealistic it may be these days.

[circuitrider]

@Tigerle

I don’t have to. The OP has described her own son, who has very very different needs from the 99 percent of kids who apply to college with senior year pre Calc or calc AP. Whether those 99 percent of kids love learning maths, econ, Shakespeare, neuroscience and art history or not or only some of the above is really neither here nor there if OPs kid can’t find classes in junior and senior year because the college simply doesn’t have enough kids at his level to offer classes for.

So, you agree that it would be nice if the OP could find both his peeps and his courses at the same college?

[Andrew_2000]

Hi OP

If interested in Oxbridge it would be worth looking at a UK website - ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ for example. There is one parent who is a regular poster living in California (Roger_Oxon) who went to Oxford and whose son studies (I think maths) at Imperial - I’m sure he could give some guidance as to application processes. There are also current mathmos who may be able to give some direction.

If apply in the UK it doesnt cost any more to apply to more than one university. Warwick and Imperial would be the obvious alternatives to look at for maths degrees. As noted above STEP papers will be important and there are some online (free) resources to give some guidance.

[Twoin18]

@1NJParent

However, even in today’s world where almost every subject can be learned virtually, the single best way to learn for most students in a subject is through a personal mentor in the subject, however unrealistic it may be these days.

Sounds like Oxbridge supervisions/tutorials to me.

[1NJParent]

I often wish the Oxbridge model could be made available here in the US as an option for more students.

[circuitrider]

Definitely Oxbridge, if it would help him to find his peep.

[theloniusmonk]

"That’s a very US-centric view. In the UK the attitude is that depth is the measure of academic success, whether in maths, history, literature etc. "

In the US, of course, depth as in a PHd is the measure of academic success. However in the US, kids go to college for different reasons, one being to prepare for a career.

“Also, I don’t agree that the CS kid who takes a lot of courses in his/her field doesn’t also love Humanities.”

Do you have any evidence for this, and what do you mean by love humanities, that’s a strong statement. I went to undergrad and grad schools that had many engineers and computer scientists, most common minors were math, econ, mgmt, CS, EE.

There’s a reason why most stem programs require you to take these humanities or social science electives, the students wouldn’t take them on their own, definitely not one a semester, which is the typical requirement.

“The fact that this type of exploration and cooperation is easier to accomplish at a highly endowed LAC than at a typical RU is why LACs are of continued importance as an educational system.”

Are you saying that any LAC is better than Stanford, Berkeley, MIT, Cal Tech, CMU, Michigan etc. for data science? And students can’t cross-disciplinary work at a place like that as well as a LAC? You must also think that the components of data science - math, stats, algorithms, business, are also overrated at a place like Stanford.

[SuperfrogFan]

FWIW I just finished my math minor at TCU, but know people who are/were very happy with pure math at Princeton, Brown, and Cal. Many of the best faculty I’ve had did grad school at UCB and enjoyed their time there. However, if he wants to experience life outside of the Bay (I’m from there as well) it would be worth it to look into those Ivies. It seems as if math majors there have great friends from the same departments with similar interests. And thank you for supporting him and his interests, it does not go unnoticed!

[circuitrider]

@theloniusmonk

Are you saying that any LAC is better than Stanford, Berkeley, MIT, Cal Tech, CMU, Michigan etc. for data science? And students can’t cross-disciplinary work at a place like that as well as a LAC? You must also think that the components of data science - math, stats, algorithms, business, are also overrated at a place like Stanford.

On the contrary, everyone knows of at least one Little Three prof who gets picked off by a Stanford or Berkeley after eight or nine years laboring in the vineyard of a specialty developed in conjunction with colleagues from totally different disciplines. You see it more often in the humanities and sometimes the social sciences, but it’s no accident that a place like Amherst was the first to offer an undergraduate major in neuroscience.

[ucbalumnus]

@theloniusmonk

There’s a reason why most stem programs require you to take these humanities or social science electives, the students wouldn’t take them on their own, definitely not one a semester, which is the typical requirement.

Most colleges in the US have general education requirements because they believe that some of their students (of any major) would not otherwise take courses outside of their majors, and the colleges would like to see them get (the college’s definition of) a well rounded (enough) education. This does not mean that there are no students who would take more out-of-major courses than required.

Indeed, in the workplace, I have encountered people working in computing who have outside interests like doing performing arts.