<p>Does anyone here have experience with the Math 171-174 honors sequence.
What background do you need?</p>
<p>Is it a good sequence for those interested in studying economics at the PhD
level. Thanks.</p>
<p>Most econ majors take the Calculus 160 series. (I’d say about 99.9% of them do.)</p>
<p>The Quest calculus classes are designed for those interested in theoretical mathematics and perhaps theoretical (abstract) physics. It is a proof-based approach to learning calculus and requires the student to produce original, independent calculus proofs on a weekly basis.</p>
<p>What is your math background? Are you comfortable doing abstract math proofs?</p>
<p>If you are interested in a doctoral level studies in economics, then the 170 series won’t give any magical advantage or better preparation than the 160 classes will. Both series cover the same topics, but have significantly different pedagogical approaches and problem sets.</p>
<p>I understand that most econ majors would take the calculus 160 series but mathematics
needed for undergrad studies is quite different than that for a PhD.
My understanding is that top programs in PhD economics would want a very strong
background in mathematics and would also want students to be able to think mathematically.
For that I was guessing that Math 171-174 might be a good place to start before
taking more advanced courses.</p>
<p>Ok, I looked at the recommended math courses for potential econ grad students. </p>
<p>(I know what’s needed for grad school in the physical sciences, math and engineering. We have a physics PhD, and two math majors–one who has been accepted as a grad student in nanoscience. She’ll be the math theorist for the research group-- in the house.)</p>
<p>You only need the full 4 semester sequence of calculus plus 2 additional courses at most. (Mth 235 or Mth 265)</p>
<p>If you do well, either the 160 or 170 math series will more than adequately prepare you for those upper level classes. There is no special advantage/disadvanage to either sequence. Different pedagogies; same material. </p>
<p>Seriously, if want to learn to “think mathematically,” take as much upper level math as you can stand. D TAed MTH 165 (4th in the 160 calculus sequence) last semester and there was only 1 econ major in all 8 workshop sections. And there was not a single econ major in her MTH 235 class.</p>
<p>So, I’ll repeat my earlier questions: How strong is your math preparation? Are you comfortable with doing original math proofs?</p>
<p>If you were a strong math student and you like the ideas of doing proofs, take the Quest series. If not, take the regular
sequence.</p>
<p>This was a question that someone asked me and I thought that I would ask here.</p>
<p>Perhaps someone who has taken the 170 sequence can describe the course a little more?
Don’t worry too much about the econ question. I am more interested in the background needed. </p>
<p>WayOutWestMom- I am surprised to hear that they cover the same material. From what I read the 170 series seems more like an introduction to analysis rather than a regular intro calculus course. Perhaps I am mistaken.</p>
<p>Can someone comment on Rochester’s math program in general? I did a search and cannot find any good information. How strong is it overall and is there a decent math community? Do people tend to overload in math classes because of Rochester’s liberal education requirements?</p>
<p>I would be very interested to hear from any math majors or other majors who have taken
many mathematics courses. My impression from looking at the course catalogue is
that the department appears to have a well thought out program. </p>
<p>A few years ago the Rochester math PhD program was under threat. Fortunately it was not
closed but I think that the department thought long and hard about its place within the university. My impression is that this has resulted in a strong program for undergrads but it is only an impression. I would certainly like to hear from people who have had a direct
experience.</p>
<p>twocolleges-</p>
<p>I’m visiting ROC right now where my D is doing summer research and I spoke with her and couple of her friends who are also math majors about the 170 sequence vs. 160 sequence. A couple of these friends have taken the 170 sequence. The main difference other than pedagogy is in the coverage. </p>
<p>MTH 174 covers all the material that in covered in MTH 235. </p>
<p>However, the 170 sequence does NOT include differential equations. (Which is covered in the 160 sequence.)</p>
<p>171-172 does all of the foundational proofs of calculus. Students re-derive these proofs from first principles. 173 moves into linear analysis. </p>
<p>They said the main difference between 160 vs 170 (aside from the fact that the 170 series is mad hard) is there are fewer techniques, tricks and methods taught for arriving at solutions to real world problems in the 170 series.</p>
<p>RE: math undergraduate program.</p>
<p>The math dept is smaller than some of the other depts at UR. Because there are only about 50 math majors per class year, the dept takes great pride in really taking care of its majors. D’s math advising has been better than the advising in her other major (which has been pretty rote). The math advisors actually take the time to talk with their advisees and get to know their goals and interests. Her math advisor has suggested several courses which he though she might find useful/interesting. </p>
<p>The quality of teaching within the math dept, like all departments everywhere, varies depending upon the individual professor. Some profs are better teachers than others. Also because the dept is smaller and the number of math students is smaller, not all courses are offered every year. Some electives are only offered every second or third year. You will also find grad students teaching (NOT TAing, but actually teaching) some of the lower level classes (like Calc I or II).</p>
<p>WayOutWestMom- Thanks for the info. It sounds like the 170 sequence might be good
for students who have seen calculus before but have mainly concentrated on computations
and not on the underlying theory.
Do you know if the students enjoyed the sequence and whether they are glad that they took
the sequence?</p>
<p>My son’s primary interest was computer science, but because of UR’s curriculum he ended up double majoring in Math. He took the 170 series and enjoyed it immensely (although it was a challenge). He mentioned that it was so different from the applied Math classes that he had in high school classes and was a really unique opportunity to get deep into the theory. Another plus to consider, it seemed to me that the group of students who took the sequence formed close, supportive friendships. If no one else responds to this thread, and you are interested, I can ask him for more details.</p>
<p>Among her friends who did the 170 series–mixed feelings. Two dropped out before the end of the sequence; one stayed. The one who finished the series enjoyed it.</p>
<p>Thanks for all the info. It sounds like the 170 sequence is somewhat similar to the math
16100-16200-16300 sequence at Chicago.</p>
<p>twocollege: 171-174 does seem like the Honors Calculus sequence at Chicago. Chicago has IBL and Rochester has quest. It seems like you have similar interests as me. What other colleges are you looking at if I may ask?</p>
<p>zhangxy- I was actually asking this information for someone else. I have already
finished college.</p>
<p>oh wow, my bad, sorry about that!</p>
<p>what textbook does this sequence use? Is it up to the level of Spivak?</p>
<p>Hi Thrill3rnit3</p>
<p>I copied the following from the web for 172. It seems that 171-172 uses the Spivak
calculus book.</p>
<p>Math 172Q - Honors Calculus, Spring, 2010.</p>
<p>Textbook:
Calculus, 4th ed. by Michael Spivak </p>
<p>Course Description:
We will start off where 171Q left off with Chapter 13 of the text; we will cover, roughly, the next 10 to 12 sections, omitting some of the starred sections. Topics covered include: integration, trigonometric functions, and series.</p>
<p>The Honors Calculus sequence at the University of Rochester, Math 171Q-174Q, was introduced in 1961 to serve our most talented and motivated undergraduates. It is one of our most successful courses and a great source of pride to the Mathematics Department. Generations of undergraduates have benefitted from this rigorous and uncompromising course, which exposes them to Mathematics as it is practiced by mathematicians.</p>
<p>The rationale for this course has not changed during the forty two years of its existence; it introduces our brightest students to Mathematics as a discipline in its own right, rather than as a tool for science or engineering. It is quite impossible to meet this goal in the standard caculus sequence, Math 161-164, both because of the vast differences in preparation and interests of the students, and because with the demanding syllabus in the 161-164 sequence, there is simply no time to discuss the theory behind the techniques. We strongly encourage aspiring mathematics majors to take the Math 171Q-174Q sequence if they are ready for it, and we find that this sequence attracts excellent students from other disciplines as well.</p>
<p>Students are told on the first day that Math 171Q will be the start of an unusually demanding and theoretical program. The exceptional nature of the course is partly reflected in the fact that each semester carries 5 credits. In terms of the material covered, the sequence is roughly equivalent to Math 161-164 and Math 235 (Linear Algebra).</p>
<p>There is no better indication of the success of our honors calculus sequence than the distinctions achieved by those who have taken it. Our best mathematics majors tend to come from this group and often go on to pursue graduate studies at some of the most prstigious institutions in the country. In addition, some of our university’s most distinguished science alumni come from among those students who have taken this sequence, and we welcome interested humanities students as well.</p>
<p>that is really awesome. I am looking for schools to offer such programs (honors calculus) for incoming freshmen. </p>
<p>Anyone here that actually took the course sequence?</p>
<p>Unless you want to major in math, I’d recommend going for the 160s. The 160s are standard computational calculus classes. In 162, for example, you’d be given a power series and be asked to find its radius/interval of convergence, whereas in 172, you might be asked to prove the ratio test. The 170s also teach you the basics of proofwriting that majors who take the 160s might learn later in MTH200 and/or 235. For example, one typical HW problem in 172 is to show that pi is irrational.</p>
<p>Anyway, I don’t entirely agree with WayOutWestMom; if you are interested in problems of theoretical interest, such as how the real numbers are constructed or the irrationality of pi or existence of transcendental numbers, etc., take the 170s. It’s not like you need to be an expert in proofwriting from high school math… you learn that stuff in the 170s, but if you think learning rules like (a + b) + c = a + (b + c) is stupid and meaningless in calculus or learning how to prove something by induction is a waste of time, then just take the 160s.</p>
<p>Also, 173 is the equivalent of 235, not 174. 173 is linear algebra, 171-172 is the quest version of 161-162, 174 is the quest version of 164.</p>
<p>As far as the department itself… there are many fantastic professors, a few bad ones… if you want specific names, let me know. They now hire not just for research, but also for teaching ability. The department is especially fantastic if you’re interested in algebraic topology. Grad students teach summer classes, and there are a few grad students who teach real classes, but nothing outside of the 140s or 160s (all the calculus classes are so standardized anyway, it doesn’t make a huge difference anyway, IMO). Also, as an undergrad, it’s not too hard to become a TA for Calculus classes, which is a great opportunity.</p>
<p>171-172 use Spivak, 173 uses Friedberg, not sure what 174 uses.</p>