Why pay Amherst tuition and take classes at UMass?
As student at any school move along in their interests ( any subject), they make connections with their professors who can help with internships as well as Masters/Phd programs. But much of that is lost following the Amherst/UMass route.
The connections to other students is at another university.
Not to mention, it’s not convenient.
I personally see a large value in LACs for many students. But I wouldn’t support this approach for my own kids.
There is value in collaboration and connections with students at one’s own college.
I couldn’t agree more. For us, Amherst was the sole LAC application, something substantively different from the honors program state public, target and reach T20 universities, and a more focused science/math experience like MIT/Caltech/Harvey Mudd.
School counselor identified Amherst as a target, so S21 - who is also interested in economics and possibly finance - thought it was worth the application.
Well, let’s not forget that imbedded in the subject line of this thread are the words “for the love of it”, which does suggest a certain affinity with LACs and their appeal to those who love “learning for the sake of learning.” Clearly, those are his peep. I think it’s just a matter of the OP creating a list that includes a spectrum of choices. Big-name RUs are obviously going to dominate. But, I wouldn’t overlook a place like Brown or Tufts or even Wesleyan as well.
Not necessarily. There’s a big difference between loving maths specifically and loving “learning” generally. Depth and breadth are opposite ends of the spectrum and different people have varying preferences. Personally I was thrilled never to have to read another Shakespeare play or study a foreign language (or write a single essay) after the age of 14.
"You asked a question seemingly without a sincere interest in a reply. UCLA and UCB (schools you offered as exemplars) enroll easily over 15 times the undergraduates of some liberal arts colleges. The Putnam Competition does not promote itself as being exclusive to math majors, so students with majors in other fields (e.g., engineering) may participate. I di
[/quote]
I mentioned UCLA and UCB for being affordable and having good math depts, along with OP son’s familiarity with UCB, which could be important.
Cal Tech(1K) is smaller than Hamilton(2K) and has placed in the top-5 Putnam 15 times to zero for Hamilton. What explains that?
“They should be encouraged in a similar way that proferssional researchers are encouraged to exchange ideas at conferences and collaborate on projects.”
Encouraged and forced are two different things though, can’t imagine Professors to force that, especially if p/s or homework are just graded for completeness.
“Clearly, those are his peep.”
Just because a kid likes and is really good at theoretical or abstract math does not mean a LAC is where he’d find his peeps. Most of these kids are not at LACs, they’re at MIT, Cal Tech, the only LAC they’d be at is Harvey Mudd. As twoin18 posted, how do you go from that to a kid wanting to take Literature or a foreign language for the sake of learning?
Not sure what “logic” you are using. Maybe all that Shakespearean logic I missed out on?
Breadth is in no way a pre-requisite for depth (or vice versa). I know a kid who never attended school at all after 8th grade, just self-studied maths and then went to Cambridge (based solely on STEP exam results) and is now doing a pure maths PhD at UCLA.
There are also some for whom love of learning is important AND they want depth in a single subject or two. Why is it presupposed according to some here that they are mutually exclusive.
There are many people who love both Shakespeare and STEM.
I think the incorrect supposition was that because students who attend LACs supposedly have a love of learning (implicitly across a breadth of subjects given that there’s usually a core requirement and less access to graduate classes than at an RU) and OP’s son has a love of math, he would “find his peeps” at a LAC. That’s where the breadth vs depth discussion started.
I do not understand how “love of learning” = LACs. I mean, sure, there are kids at LACs who love to learn, both in depth and in breadth, but no more so than at top universities.
I think a motivated student could find her peeps in any environment, but can the advanced math student find the courses at a LAC? That really seems to be the question here.
Woah. That’s a whole lotta “implicits” in one sentence. Chicago, Columbia and MIT have more stringent non-STEM requirements than Amherst, Williams or Wesleyan.
Even assuming for the sake of argument that undergraduates who love learning ancient Greek for the sake of learning ancient Greek are essentially different forms of life than someone who loves math for the sake of math (a highly debatable notion), I would argue they still have more in common with each other than either would have with a pre-med student, or an engineering student, both of whom you are more likely to share classes with at a RU.
It does not look like the OP’s student will be sharing that many courses with the classics majors, pre-meds, or engineering majors.
Also, choosing a major or academic path with obvious pre-professional directions does not preclude the student from having a love of learning in that or other subjects.
I forgot to mention business majors which are probably the most ubiquitous major to be found on any American RU campus. And while it’s true that the OP may be able to avoid many courses with some or all of them (pre-meds, engineering or business students) at an RU, he’s all but certain to avoid them at a NESCAC college.
We focused almost exclusively on what college could be a fit for OP’s son, but nearly nothing on which college would consider him a fit. They aren’t the same thing. With holistic admissions, his particular strengths in math aren’t going to be highly valued, if at all, at practically all top US privates (a few would value advanced standing in math competitions, but not in math acceleration). That leaves the UK schools to be his best bets.
I guess someone may have the bias that LACs somehow corner the love of learning. I certainly don’t. As I said above, love of learning is distinct from depth of learning. They can be shared or not.
I’ve known many who have depth of learning but not love for learning. And vice versa.
One sees on CC, that many see college as the means to an end ( a good job). Rather than education being the tool by which one learns to think and question the world.
Ideally, one is educated, and can use that education abstractly and to build a career.
Since it looks like OP is in-state in California, several of the UCs (including some beyond UCB and UCLA) would be fine options for the student. Although they have holistic admission practices, their criteria and methodology do differ from the highly selective private colleges*, and those other than UCB and UCLA would at least be more likely than not admits for an applicant with a 4.0 unweighted HS GPA in hard courses (math does not appear to be heavily oversubscribed except at UCSD where it seems to be a second choice for those who do not get into CS).
If affordable, there are also flagships in other states with good math departments that are not super selective for math majors.
*For example, no legacy or race/ethnicity consideration, recruited athletes are a much smaller percentage of the admit class, and “shaping” the class is done by admission by division or major, rather than more subjective searches for oboe players or whatever.
I didn’t realize that top US schools wouldn’t value math acceleration… although my son does other things besides math— piano, cubing, chess— he is not what you’d call “well-rounded”. Sigh. Someone here said a lovely thing— that schools try to create well-rounded classes, not admit only well-rounded students… but perhaps that doesn’t hold in the really elite colleges?
Indeed— very true. So I’d love to know— do you feel that the more elite schools which have come up (Princeton, Stanford, Harvard, Brown, etc) wouldn’t really be possibilities for my son?
