<p>Finance, fourier series/boundary value problems, mathematical biology (I and II), chirality, statistical theory, stochastic processes, statistical data analysis, seminar in prob/stochastic processes, scientific computing, numerical analysis, complexity theory, algorithms, applied analysis, dynamical systems, PDE, intro to wavelets and applications, operations research, social choice and decision making</p>
<p>That's at least half the classes listed, and they'd all be classified as "applied math" before they'd be classified as anything I listed.</p>
<p>I go to Michigan. Advanced topics include things like combinatorial game theory (technically a lower level topics course, but still an interesting subject), analytic number theory, representations of finite and compact groups, special values of L-functions, coxeter groups, lie groups, and I guess you can count algebraic topology. And those are just the ones I was interested in and was able to fit into my schedule thus far, in addition to pretty much all the other standard topics (linear algebra, modern algebra, topology, differential geometry, complex/real analysis, number theory, combinatorics).</p>
<p>The courses you listed look good, and I didn't think there was much of a deficiency in pure math courses. They covered real and complex analysis, number theory, algebra, foundations, differential geometry, and point set topology. I could complain about the lack of algebraic topology and analytic number theory courses, but that's just splitting hairs. Mudd, unlike most LACs that I'm familiar with, is a great choice for students majoring in math, science, and engineering. I don't know how easy or difficult it is to take classes at other colleges in the Claremont consortium, which would be necessary for the OP to pursue math and art history simultaneously.</p>
<p>I think to major seriously in both Math and Art History, Mudd would probably be a horrible idea. It could be pulled off, but I doubt it would be possible to really enjoy the Art History major and take all of the interesting classes. I am not defending it because I think its a good suggestion for the OP, but rather because of the statements grouping ALL of LACs into the same "awkward for math majors category." .</p>
<p>"They covered real and complex analysis, number theory, algebra, foundations, differential geometry, and point set topology."</p>
<p>It's harder to find schools that don't offer at least that much than it is to find ones that do. Even staying in my home state, Michigan, Michigan State, Michigan Tech, Western Michigan, and Eastern Michigan offer all of those classes and more (though admittedly I have a feeling Harvey Mudd's classes might be a little more difficult than the directional schools). What they're lacking is more focused topics courses that are closer to active research to give students an idea of what they might want to pursue in graduate school. </p>
<p>Originally, I thought I wanted to do number theory. Had I only been able to take the basic introductory number theory class, I might still believe that and be planning on going to a graduate school that's good at number theory. Instead, I was able the intro to analytic number theory class and the following topics course, and I realized that I had zero aptitude or interest for the type of work done in that field. I had things planned out so I could take algebraic number theory next semester (still might if my independent study falls through), but I think I've managed to figure out that I don't like that either. Instead, I found out that I liked combinatorics after doing a summer research project. Not only was I able to take the basic introductory combinatorics class, but I also did a graduate level topics class on the area I had done research on, and should be able to take two more combinatorics topics classes before I graduate. So now I'm a lot more solid in knowing what I want to go in to, and won't be stuck at a place like Harvard/Princeton/Chicago/Wisconsin/etc. that's good at number theory, but barely does anything with combinatorics.</p>
<p>The editor of the Journal of Combinatronics is at UW and he wrote the major textbook on it. He may be the only guy--it's a bit out of my area--but they do have somebody major in the field, I believe.</p>
<p>Most of those places have <i>somebody</i> doing combinatorics, but my specific interests are algebraic and enumerative combinatorics, and he mainly does work in graph theory/matrix theory/coding theory. It can be difficult because so many things get classified under combinatorics. About half the schools listed in the top 10 for combinatorics pretty much exclusively have people doing various forms of combinatorics I have no interest in.</p>
<p>What they're lacking is more focused topics courses that are closer to active research to give students an idea of what they might want to pursue in graduate school.</p>
<p>Actually research is requirement for graduation ^^. I suppose one could do it in a field they arent interested in for lack of hard work, but most do it in something they are interested in. My suitemate from last year found out that he loved number theory enough from that to go to Wisconsin in it for grad school.
*
though admittedly I have a feeling Harvey Mudd's classes might be a little more difficult than the directional schools*</p>
<p>While I dont think we have a lack of subject matter to study in, those as mentioned are probably about 2/3 of the courses offered, if we do have a deficiency then our difficult is most likely the culprit. The goal of our college is to make sure our graduates our VERY VERY well trained in a broad number of topics, which includes notoriously difficult problem sets. I remember when I could take 9 classes per term + research at the university I transferred from, but I had a much more difficult time with just 5 at Claremont (if we are going to be anecdotal). However, it is my belief that such training is what graduate schools look for, a strong and rigorous basis to stand on rather than bunch of stacked up topics.</p>