<p>Hey all I'm planning on doing a double major in Philosophy and Mathematics. I have good grades in all my Phil classes so far, but I've only done Calc for math (got A's). I was wondering if it was possible...er probable to maintain a high GPA in higher math courses.</p>
<p>I’m a math and economics double major who is doing rather well GPA-wise. You can do well in upper division math. Though I have noticed that natural ability is more important in math than any other subject I have seen. I have seen people who work ridiculously hard get trounced by comparative slackers who intuitively grasped the subject.</p>
<p>Though realize that there is a big difference between the math you have taken and upper division math. It becomes proof based, which requires a strong intuitive grasp and lots of creative thinking. I suggest that you take Math 55 soon. It’ll give you an introduction to proof writing and will give you a taste of the style of upper division math. If you like the material and understand it easily, then move on to try some upper division classes.</p>
<p>Chris, thanks for the reply. I’ve taken Philosophy 12A Logic, which is a class based entirely on proofs - the same types, I believe, are used in Math 55 (propositional logic, quantifiers, etc.). So I thought the class was a breeze, and the areas of philosophy that interest me most are logic and mathematical in nature. </p>
<p>Is this what upper div math is like - abstract concepts and their proofs? If so, :D</p>
<p>I haven’t taken Philosophy 12A, though I just looked through some of the materials on the course website. It looks like the class teaches a good amount of logic, but it lacks the mathematical application. The benefit of Math 55 is that it lets you apply those tools to problems in combinatorics, graph theory, etc.</p>
<p>And yes, upper division math is about abstract concepts and their proofs. If you like that, then you’ll love upper division math. Try taking a look at this:</p>
<p><a href=“http://ramanujan.math.trinity.edu/wtrench/texts/TRENCH_REAL_ANALYSIS.PDF[/url]”>http://ramanujan.math.trinity.edu/wtrench/texts/TRENCH_REAL_ANALYSIS.PDF</a></p>
<p>It’s an online text on real analysis that I found, the same material covered in Math 104. Read through it and see if the material intrigues you. Try some of the proof based problems.</p>
<p>Is Applied Math an easier major compared to Pure Math? Math makes my head hurt. Uggg… I thought I was good at math before coming to Berkeley. I’m gonna die in 1b.</p>
<p>^i’m in the same position.</p>
<p>I doubt 1A/1B is a good indicator; heard it’s ridiculously and pointlessly difficult.</p>
<p>Applied math isn’t really different than normal. The difference is 3 classes, assuming you take 128A as normal: geometry or logic +2 math electives, or 3 electives in some other dept. like stats, econ, physics, cs, certain engineering (industrial or mechanical, at least).</p>
<p>So math 1a and b is actually harder relatively than upper division math? Because so far i’ve heard otherwise…</p>
<p>Certainly it is possible to do well in math classes, especially if one avoids some notorious GPA-crushers. Nevertheless, I do agree there is just something that tells one who the really intense math students are, and this mainly correlates with their drive to work at it. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>1B is a very poor indicator of how you will like pure mathematics, and frankly the applied math major here is plenty pure itself. The only difference is in that you have to take numerical analysis, plus your electives can be in applied fields. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, here’s my take. Mathematics itself is about asking natural questions about natural objects, and seeing how generally one can formulate the answers. While many fields may concern themselves with calculating specific things about specific objects, math tends to try to solve as sweeping a problem as possible. This is more true of some fields than others. </p>
<p>Upper division classes give the foundations of several important means of tackling these sweeping problems. Algebra, calculus, geometry – all these are means of studying things, and studying them in sufficient generality rather than being caught up in examples yields a treasure of useful discoveries. Also, upper division classes present very well-refined theories, meaning ones where a lot of nice results have been arrived at, perhaps a long time ago, and have become standard to the way of thinking about the subject. </p>
<p>Note: not everyone will do well in math classes. It really depends how good a fit the manner of thinking in them is for you. I know engineers can fare quite poorly in them for instance, and only a subset of them who really have a mathematician side to them fare well.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Might I remark that these “slackers” may (though not always) have been trained more thoroughly in math earlier. </p>
<p>Like I said, mathematicians try to rapidly change/evolve how they think about something, and those who’re most successful with this tend to be the stronger students.</p>