<p>Is this possible? I love math, I love Chem. Would it be possible to do undergrad chem and then math for grad school? If so, how many math courses, about, would I have to take undergrad as pre-reqs? One of the programs I'm considering would allow me to do 2 summer classes every year for free, so I can do those then, if needed.</p>
<p>Thanks</p>
<p>Depends on the school but maybe quite a bit.</p>
<p>A typical chemistry undergrad doesn’t require anything past Cal III - though Differential Equations is recommended. </p>
<p>Someone correct me if I’m wrong.</p>
<p>Yep, only calc 3 is needed, DEs are useful. There’s really not alot of math in chemistry outside of physical chemistry, it’s just adding and subtracting mostly.</p>
<p>If you like both heavy math and chemistry, chemical engineering has alot more math than straight chemistry.</p>
<p>Or straight physics if you’re into computational chemistry.</p>
<p>
Then you should try Chemical Engineering!</p>
<p>ChemE and chemistry are quite different, though. A little more input from the OP would help.</p>
<p>I think it depends on your undergraduate school and required courses for Chem majors. At Cornell, not only did we have to take DE, but Advanced DE. I would look at the prereqs for course work at the school you want to matriculate for the Math phD and see if you have taken enough courses or need to take more. I think it can be done if your undergrad program required (or you took) a lot of Math. Good Luck.</p>
<p>I want to become either a doctor, dentist, scientist, or professor/teacher in chemistry or math… Or possibly a chemical engineer if it’s something I may like. So conflicted!</p>
<p>Still, even ODE is just the start of the advanced math courses. Typically, the programs require an undergrad in math.</p>
<p>You should probably be careful. Have you done proof-based math? Even in an Applied Math program, you’ll have to be comfortable with producing proofs.</p>
<p>Do you know of any sources/notes online that help build proof-based math skills?</p>
<p>Proofs skills aren’t something you build up by reading (albeit it does help you get started and perhaps inspired). There are several books for beginning proofs, ranging from books specifically-designed for this (How to Prove it: A structured approach), to books that are half-and-half between intro-to-proofs and an actual topic (Lay’s “Analysis with an introduction to proof”) and books that are just strictly on a topic, but present the material to build rigorous proof skills (Spivak’s “Calculus”).</p>
<p>The main question is not which you side pick, but rather whether you want to pick one. There’s no logical reason to pursue a Ph.D in math if one has never worked with proofs. I would very much recommend taking a class on the subject. Most colleges offer an intro to proofs class in some shape or form, but if not, maybe you can pick up one of the books I mentioned and see if you like it. If you are really fond of Calculus and consider yourself mathematically-ready, I would really recommend Spivak’s Calculus. It basically made me a math major.</p>
<p>Well, I recently swapped my major and minor. Now, I’m going to major in math and minor in physics. I’ve never really done proof-based math, and one of the required courses was described by vector analysis professor as a “baby analysis course” or “Calculus 3.5 with epsilon-delta.”</p>
<p>Intermediate Analysis</p>
<p>[MATH</a> Course Descriptions](<a href=“http://www.uh.edu/academics/catalog/colleges/nsm/courses/math/index.php]MATH”>MATH Course Descriptions)</p>
<p>Next semester, I’ll be taking Probability and Thermal Physics. In the fall, I’ll probably be taking that Intermediate Analysis course and Abstract Algebra.</p>
<p>It does seem like a baby analysis course, which is fantastic as a ground for learning proofs. You should probably take that. At the very least you’ll obtain some proof skills. You should probably try that class (and abstract algebra) and see if you like any of them. If you at least like one of them, you’re good. If you like them both, fantastic. If you don’t like one, it’s okay. Some are algebra people, others analysis. But if you don’t like them both, I’d reconsider graduate school. You can get by in certain departments without much proof-math as far as undergraduates go, but I don’t think the same applies for graduate programs.</p>
<p>Sorry to hijack the thread.</p>
<p>The Intermediate Analysis and Abstract Algebra courses are required in the Math BS, so is Survey of Undergraduate Math. I personally am not decided on a particular graduate program. I may end up really liking doing pure math - though I know proof-based is at least as hard as physics in my opinion. My vector analysis professor is the first math professor that really impressed me in his doing mathematics. He would derive virtually everything from first principles off the top of his head and was able to explain concepts in several different ways.</p>