Does not taking Math 55 preclude someone from studying pure maths at top grad school?

[ManyAGoose]

<p>I have seen the description, and it bothers me that this is the only alternative to people who aren’t Math 55 level or beyond. </p>

<p>

You should take this class if one or more of these describes you:
– You completed BC calculus, are very interested in math, and want a class that will allow you, with a lot of hard work, to catch up to the most advanced math students in your class.

</p>

<p>I would like that to be possible, but I don’t believe that class covering Axler’s linear algebra text and Rudin’s Principles of Mathematical Analysis can catch you up with people who cover several times the quantity and do work on a higher level. How can you catch up to people ahead of you by going slower than them? </p>

<p>

– You have completed multivariable calculus and linear algebra and want a thorough, proof-based review of the topics before moving on to other mathematics.

</p>

<p>I have done these courses at a university and supplemented them with proof-based texts on my own. I don’t want to be walked through this again.</p>

<p>

– You have completed bits and pieces of advanced mathematics and want to take a class that will patch up the holes in your knowledge.

</p>

<p>Isn’t that what Math 55 is for? Real analysis, basic topology and linear algebra are not going to “patch up knowledge.” The material is limited in breadth, and Math 25 does not go into the depth that Math 55 does. Math 25 seems like a gentle way of letting people have fun for a year before letting them know that they have no future in mathematics at a major university. I could see how it could be perfect for physics and computer science students, but not pure math students.</p>

<p>Maybe this just means that Harvard and selective schools in general are just a fit for me.</p>