Cognitive Science / Symbolic Systems at LACs

College Search & Selection
41

<p>bluebayou - I know. :frowning: But the revision (below), now that my LAC-loving mind is more clear, should come closer to passing?</p>

<p>tk - I put Carleton equal to Mac academically, for cogsci/ling/CS. In other factors, I prefer Carleton–I’ve visited both Northfield and Middlebury, and I love the rural setting.</p>

<p>cellardweller - I’m taking physics right now and I absolutely depise it. I’m also in Calc BC, and while I’m far from a mathematician, I’m OK at math. But it’s not that I hate everything quantitative–it’s that I hate everything lab-related, minus programming labs. Bio, chem, physics, math proofs; bleh. In comparison, English and French are consistently my favorite subjects. I slog through math and science only because it’s required. Thus, I might technically “survive” MIT, but I’m 99.9% sure that I’d be miserable doing it.</p>

<p>t1388 - Thanks for the CS assessment; recently I’ve been leaning more toward cogsci than CS, and definitely not engineering-style CS. Does that change the assessment at all? I’ve ruled out Wellesley, Smith, Mt. Holyoke, and Hampshire because I don’t want to commute for so many classes. Trinity’s cogsci is only available as a psych major track, which obviously implies far more psych than I’d prefer; they also lack linguistics.</p>

<p>Alas, F&M is weak in CS/ling (no major) and the “cogsci” program appears very psych/neuro-based.</p>

<p>Revised list below. I can’t quite bring myself to let go of Oberlin/Grinnell/Midd… Dropping Rice and Brandeis for non-academic rationales that I won’t get into here, unless anyone really cares about my uber-specific reasons. It’s probably not worth sacrificing the LAC element unless the school actually offers a structured cogsci program, so that I can leave the English double-major possibility open. I’m regretting now not applying for a paid visit to Reed while I had a chance; at the time, I was set on CS and didn’t know about cogsci.</p>

<p>Reaches
Yale, Stanford
Pomona, Swarthmore
Reed? (weak CS, no cogsci, strong ling–stringent GEs, nearly impossible to double-major)</p>

<p>Matches
Carleton, Macalester, Scripps
Grinnell? (no cogsci, decent CS, not-nonexistent ling–but v. flexible GEs, could maybe design something)
Oberlin? (strong CS, neuro-based cogsci, no ling)</p>

<p>Safeties
Rochester (cogsci is psych/neuro-heavy, but strong CS and ling)
UDel (state flagship; B.S. cogsci program is NOT a fit for me, but I could maybe design a compling major?)
Middlebury? (special circumstances, and if my judgment is wrong, it’s not the end of the world–PM if you really care to know)</p>

<p>tldr; I’m contemplating the various pros/cons of Reed, Grinnell, Oberlin, and Middlebury. I really should drop Midd, but for a weird confluence of special circumstances. Ideally I would get into Yale tomorrow and solve this whole problem (their cogsci major is application-only and VERY flexible, I could almost replicate symsys), but let’s assume that won’t happen.</p>

42

<p>Keil,</p>

<p>How did you feel about CMU? It’s probably more urban than you’d like, but is certainly removed from down town. I visited, and you might like it. It was very Harvey Mudd.</p>

43

<p>I’ve visited (was in town for Pitt this spring) and liked the campus a lot, though there’s more Asian self-segregation than I’d like. However, I’ve heard a lot of not-so-positive stories about attempts at cross-school interdisciplinary studies at CMU. Can anyone contradict/support?</p>

44

<p>MIT freshman year is NOT lab work, it’s theory, and probably a review for you.</p>

45

<p>CMU -check out the Humanities and Science Scholars program for a good cross school interdisciplinary curriculum.</p>

46

<p>^^Review? Ahaha no. While I go to a math/science school, I’ve also taken the minimum science requirements (9.5 units total, but that’s including basic intro courses). No science APs except AP CompSci.</p>

<p>I will look into the CMU program, although I wonder if it extends to SCS.
EDIT: It is only H&SS-MCS, and includes an science core–if I wanted to take “real” science, as opposed to the minimum required science for non-majors, I’d be applying to Chicago.</p>

47

<p>At MIT, If you get a 5 on AP Calc BC you would be able to skip one semester of math. Your only math requirement would then be multivariable Calc taken P/F first semester. You would still have two semesters of physics and one semester each of intro chem and bio, no labs. Physics is now taught under a highly innovative multi-media format in small groups. Intro chem and bio are generally taught by the top institute professors and the classes are often very interesting as they are designed to provide an overview of where these disciplines are heading. The MIT intro math/science courses are among the most popular educational videos on youtube. It is very different from how science is taught in high school. You are not expected to memorize anything rather you get trained at problem solving. My D enjoyed the science core a lot more than she thought. It was intense but also provided her with a very strong analytical framework for any field of research. </p>

<p>I believe it would be unfortunate for you to entirely ditch any science courses in college on the assumption they are going to be boring. CogSci has changed dramatically over the past decade as it has merged with neuroscience. It is very hard to conduct any advanced work in cognitive science without some grounding in the neurobiology of the brain. Some of the most exciting areas involves mapping specific neurological disorders such as autism and dyslexia to brain function using fMRI. Many of the old assumptions about brain function such as left/right brain specificity have been shown to be incorrect. </p>

<p>Don’t base your choice of college on cliches, many of which are outdated. If you have the ability, apply to a number of reach schools where most of the advanced work on cognitive science is conducted and make your final choice in the Spring.</p>

<p>As far as other disciplines at MIT, linguistics is not just a good department, it is the very best in the country. More surprising, the English lit. and French departments are also outstanding.</p>

48

<p>Give it up, cellardwellar.
She’s going to be admitted to Yale SCEA tomorrow, and then her soul will be lost forever.</p>

49

<p>^^ Thanks for the persuasive essay; really, I appreciate it. No go, though. :wink: Calc isn’t the problem; four college-level science classes is not an experience I will ever willingly put myself through. And I am interested in the theoretical side of cogsci (think Stanford symsys with the natural languages track), not experimental; eventually I want to go into some sort of interdisciplinary tech-related field that is not engineering.</p>

50

<p>Keil, good point about CMU. You have to apply between colleges and get into both. I think that’s bull. The fact of the matter is that if I apply to a university and get in, I wouldn’t want to be shunted out of a potential major just because I didn’t make a SECOND application pool. CMU wasn’t for me… but the student center was pretty awesome.</p>

51

<p>

</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Achieving the first objective without the second would require more skills than Houdini!</p>

<p>I guess in a world where award winning chefs have never taken a cooking class, or popular singers any music lessons why should leaders in technology need any science training? Today everybody has strong opinions about evolution, global warming or stem cell research without the slightest understanding of the underlying science. </p>

<p>Cogsci disconnected from neuroscience is pseudoscience. It is what alchemy is to chemistry or astrology to physics.</p>

52

<p>Note that I don’t consider CS or math to be “science” in the second line that you quoted. By “science,” I mean bio, chem, physics, and derivatives thereof (including neuro).</p>

<p>

Well, really I want to study Symbolic Systems. Cogsci is just a substitute for that at all schools that are not Stanford.</p>

<p>[Symbolic</a> Systems Program](<a href=“http://symsys.stanford.edu/ssp_static?page=Core_2009.html]Symbolic”>http://symsys.stanford.edu/ssp_static?page=Core_2009.html)</p>

<p>No neuro at all, and only one psych course (Introduction to Cognition and the Brain) in the required core. If it makes you feel any better, don’t call it science; I don’t consider myself a science person but an interdisciplinary humanities person. I’m more interested in studying information, and how human thought represents information, than the process of cognition itself. Does that distinction make any sense at all? A useful analogy would be theology; one can choose, in the study of theology and religion, to ponder where God comes from and whether he exists, or one can choose to start with the assumption that God does exist and go on from there.</p>

53

<p>“Oberlin? (strong CS, neuro-based cogsci, no ling)”</p>

<p>So does this mean that, after detailed review, you had some problems with the couple of linguistics offerings they do have, which I cut & pasted for you last time you posted “no linguistcs”, compared to the depth of offerings at other places where you aren’t making that comment?</p>

54

<p>

</p>

<p>Keil: with all due respect, I would not recommend Stanford’s program – which is heavy into math and comp sci – to a humanities person. It doesn’t appear to be a good fit. Multi-variate calc and advanced comp sci can seem like heaven for engineers, but a humanities-type? hmmmmmm</p>

55

<p>monydad - Yes, it does. Oberlin offers no courses in linguistic theory (syntax, phonology, etc.); IIRC, there are only a few courses in Hispanic Linguistics or something like that?</p>

<p>bluebayou - I’m a humanities person who is decent at math. Statistics is pretty interesting; I don’t particularly like calc but am doing well in BC (high A and 5 in AB, which is a mandatory 2-year sequence at my school). I am considering a liberal arts CS major/minor (doubled with English or somesuch), so I’d be taking MV calc and intermediate CS theory in any case; it’s also pretty important background for computational linguistics.</p>

<p>tldr; Advanced CS is fine; math is fine as long as you don’t get into high-level proofs and such. Lab science–bio, chem, physics–is not fine.</p>

56

<p>I agree with cellardwellar that taking 4 college level science classes is not an unreasonable expectation of any liberally educated person. Whether one is considering a career in information technology, or not.</p>

<p>However, what K seems to be describing can be defined around a bloodless frictionless point where mathematics, logic, linguistics and computer science intersect. A computational linguist ought to know something about discrete mathematics and statistics; phonetics, morphology, syntax and semantics; language typology and description; computer science (programming languages, data structures and algorithm design, computability). One can become a solid contributer to this field (and get a very decent job) without knowing much about biology or chemistry. At least a little physics would be helpful though.</p>

<p>I’m assuming Keilexandra might be interested in studying natural languages as symbolic systems more or less in the Noam Chomsky tradition; or, corpus linguistics and statistical modeling in a more empirical vein (perhaps even applying these approaches to literary studies.)</p>

<br>

<br>

<p>You might be interested in this guy, who revolutionized the study of epic poetry (and how its structure supported human memory and information-sharing ) decades before digital computers hit the scene:</p>

<p>[Milman</a> Parry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milman_Parry]Milman”>Milman Parry - Wikipedia)
[Thought</a> Clusters in Early Greek Poetry](<a href=“http://www.minervaclassics.com/clumps.htm]Thought”>Thought Clusters in Early Greek Poetry)</p>

57

<p>It’s not an unreasonable expectation, but nor is it an expectation that I need to conform to at all but a few schools. Therefore, I choose to avoid those schools that will require it of me (MIT/other tech schools, Chicago, Columbia?).</p>

<p>Noam Chomsky is awesome, as is this Milman Parry guy. I was rejected from Y today, and planning EDII to Swat. I think I still prefer Carleton/Scripps over Reed, though, so may not change the actual content of my list.</p>

58

<p>Keilexandra, I’m so sorry about Y. Rejection really hurts (though in your case it’s their loss.)</p>

<p>If it’s any consolation (probably not) I had a hard time picturing the person who comes across in your posts as a Yalie. You seem so drawn to the LAC concept.</p>

59

<p>I will be a lot more devastated by Swat’s expected rejection in February than Yale’s today. You’re right–in several important ways, I’m not really a Yalie. But the FA was too good to pass up, at least as a chance.</p>

60

<br>

<br>

<p>As much as I like Swat, it’s really not unique. In your case the one thing about it that is a little rare is the top LAC + Linguistics combination. But you’ve managed to find some good alternatives.</p>