<p>I'm an accepted student, sent my deposit in and everything. Only with a twist: I'm taking a gap year to go abroad and work for a newspaper. It's pretty exciting at night, but during the days there's a lot of down time that I want to put to good use. </p>
<p>I'm currently thinking about being an Econ major, and I know Chicago's Econ majors are pretty math-intense. Currently I think I'd probably place into Math 10500 (the lowest level) since I just completed regular precalc with a B average. Since I'm taking an entire year off, I figured it'd pretty smart to use some of that free time to maybe advance myself a little.</p>
<p>I can get a tutor for relatively cheap where I'm going, but what would be most helpful for me is if you guys could reccomend some text books that I could use to help me learn calculus (a reccomendation for a stat book would be pretty nice too). Does anyone know what the University itself uses? </p>
<p>Calculus Classes: Math 13000 sequence uses Purcell, Math 15000 sequence uses Salas, Hille, and Etgen, and Math 16000 sequence uses Spivak.</p>
<p>Stat: No idea.</p>
<p>However, for the purpose of the placement test, it hardly matters what text you study from, as long as you learn how to do calculus (preferably rigorously).</p>
<p>I am homeschooled, so I know a very good math series that is designed for students to teach math to themselves: Saxon Math. Their calc book is excellent, and, despite the fact that people might think it is dumbed down because it is geared for self-teaching, it is not, and it covers AP Calc material. I used it two years ago (dumb move on my part), and currently I am reviewing for the placement tests. Bear in mind that this book does not sponn-feed - though it does facilitate the learning of things a bit. Still, it is necessary to read each chapter three times or so to fully grasp the material.</p>
<p>Thanks for the calc reccomendations everyone (if anyone has anymore I'd still like to hear them), but what about Stat? Anything else that might be useful to a prospective Econ major?</p>
<p>I'm heading there next year and plan to major in econ as well, and I know quite a few people are wanting to study for the placement test. I think that for econ purposes, the 150s sequence would be a very good fit between getting you the math you'll need and also not entirely stressing you out. Honors Calc sounds super awesome, but I looked at the Spivak book and realized that it would just take too much out of me to do well in that class... considering its the first year, AND the core classes, I think I'd pass on that... and nothing needs to be said about honors analysis lol...</p>
<p>I think a good idea is to maybe get a very thorough AP Calc BC reviewbook... from a few kids I've talked to the placement test involves quite a bit of algebra with some BC topics, and then some proofs to separate the H calc kids from the analysis kids... I think if you got the review book and just learned some basics of integration and differentiation, and were solid in ur algebra, you'd prob. place into the reg. calc class...</p>
<p>What exactly is the advantage of placing into 151 or 161? I don't see why someone would want to place higher just to bust their ass and end up in the same sequence the following year anyways.</p>
<p>Well, for one thing, there's intellectual satisfaction. A lot of people might be bored to death in the 150s, so they'd be much happier in the 160s. </p>
<p>Also, you don't necessarily end up in the same sequence next year. Students who do well in the 160s can take 207-8-9 the following year, while that option isn't available to those who take the 150s. </p>
<p>Of course, if you hate math, the 150s are probably a better fit than the 160s.</p>
<p>There is a new policy (Autumn 2006) that students who finish MATH 15300 (General Calculus III) must take a course MATH 19900 before they can take an analysis course. Depending on who you ask, the math department may or may not actually enforce this policy. The reason for this policy is that honors calculus gets considerably more experience in writing proofs than general calculus. All of this information can be found on the math department website.</p>
<p>So when would one take MATH 19900? Could one do this over next summer, for example, after one finishes the 150 calculus sequence during the 2006-07 schoolyear?</p>
<p>No, I'm pretty sure that you take it the next autumn, and then you start 203 in the winter. I'm not positive, though, since it's a brand new class, and they are still experimenting... starting next year.</p>
<p>You learn several orders of magnitude more mathematics in the 160s than the 150s. Though it might change, it used to be the case that there were multiple sections of introductory analysis -- one for people who took the 160s and one for everybody else.</p>
<p>Diocletian: I think that "several orders of magnitude" is a slight exagerration. However, the multiple sections of introductory analysis have been replaced with sections only appropriate for people who have finished 16000s.</p>
<p>Having taken the 160s my first year, and having been a TA for the 150s, I stand by my statement. The 150s are in the style of a BC calculus class, plus some elementary proofs. 160s is a piece-by-piece development of the calculus starting from the definition of the real numbers.</p>
<p>Diocletian, I respectfully stand by my statement that "several orders of magnitude" is a slight exageration, because an order of magnitude is a power of ten. For 160s to be several orders of magnitude more rigorous, it would need to be at least 100 times better than 150s, and that's such an extraordinary claim that it requires extraordinary evidence.</p>
<p>I'm sure that it depends somewhat on the individual classes. I know that my class defined the real numbers two different ways, though we waited until the end of the year. I think that the biggest difference, based on the exams/homeworks I saw from both classes is that 160s expects you to prove a lot more by yourself, especially on exams, whereas 150s focuses more on problem solving, while still making sure that all the theorems you use get proved (mostly in lecture, with a few per homework assignment, and rarely, if ever, on exams).</p>
<p>I do agree, though, that they are quite different courses, and to the student interested in mathematics, I would recommend 160s. When I talked to John Boller about the difference between the two classes, he told me that (1)160s spends more time on the definition of real numbers and far more importantly (2)160s gets a <em>lot</em> of experience in writing proofs.</p>
<p>Well, if we're going to be technical, orders of magnitude can refer to any power, not just powers of ten. But of course you know I wasn't speaking technically since it's impossible to quanitfy that sort of thing.</p>
<p>In any event, I did not say that the 160s is "orders of magnitude" more rigorous. In the sense that everything presented in 150s is proven rigorously, by the students or otherwise, they're equally rigorous. But, speaking as someone who has both taught and learned the material, a student who did well in the 160s will have a fundamentally better understanding of calculus specifically and, hopefully, mathematics more generally than someone who did well in the 150s. The key isn't in the rigor, but in the style of the class and the textbooks.</p>
<p>Not to mention the fact that Spivak simply has much better exercises than the 150s textbook.</p>
<p>What kind of classes does U Chicago offer for students who already took elementary (wrong word?;)) college courses like calc III, diff eq, and linear algebra while still in high school? I heard Harvard offers classes like Math 25 and Math 55 (not that I'd survive) and that Sally teaches some really difficult analysis courses for really good math students, but I was looking for more information.</p>