<p>The backstory is that the Brown math department collapsed from top 3 to top 50-100 in a span of two years in the early 1980’s, and has been rebuilding over time. One consequence of this is that in order to “punch above their weight” when hiring (i.e., to add faculty that are noticeably above the department’s position in the research pecking order at the time of the job search, thus raising the perceived quality of the department) some compromises have to be made. Brown has, as far as I know, been unable or unwilling to make offers that are generous enough in economic and practical terms to overcome this. Thus, in order to attract a given amazing researcher Brown may, paradoxically, have to make more allowances for weak teaching than a more research focused but top ranked school such as Harvard or Princeton, which can hire a mixture of pure scholars and scholar-teachers, all of whom are near the top of their field in research. The effect of this is felt more strongly in smaller departments such as Brown, because there isn’t as much room to balance the academic superstar hirings with additional hirings of strong teachers. </p>
<p>As an indicator of this, two of the three professors named as great instructors are US natives near the end of their careers. The more recent hires include a higher share of foreign born, productive researchers not noted for their teaching (not necessarily bad teachers either, but from the student’s point of view it’s the luck of the draw rather than a more favorable mixture of mostly high-quality instructors as found at the higher ranked departments).</p>
<p>I had a look at Brown’s math department web page, and one of those two is 72 years old and the other a retiree (emeritus adjunct). It’s not uncommon for older professors to stick around teaching and advising, so these guys could be running classes for some time to come, I don’t know. But as renowned teachers and authors of well known textbooks, they fit a different profile than most of the younger hires.</p>
<p>The mathematics department was not top 3 in the early 80’s! It also did not collapse that much. It was certainly a very very good research department but Princeton, Harvard, Berkeley, Stanford, Chicago, MIT, Yale were all stronger (and there were more but not so clearly). </p>
<p>At that time there were some faculty such as Joe Harris and Benedict Gross (both now at Harvard) who Brown were lucky to have but they did not push Brown into the top three!</p>
<p>Well, I’ve only had direct experience with the Mathematics department so far, and it was just atrocious. I really know of no one who had even a mediocre professor or graduate student, and I was completely lost, since the textbook was not good enough for self-studying.</p>
<p>I’m going to try the Applied Mathematics department in the Fall, and I’m optimistic about it.</p>
<p>I took 54. I haven’t heard of anyone who’s enjoyed 35. 54 was relatively enjoyable (my view is somewhat biased, as the entirety of the course was a review from high school for me, however). The graduate student who taught my section was very funny, but I started to note a bit of a decline in my peers’ (and my own) understanding of the material he was covering by the end of the term.</p>
<p>I took MATH0180, which used Multivariable Calculus, 8th Edition, by Howard Anton, if I remember correctly. </p>
<p>The things I’ve heard about 35 may be slightly biased, but are unabashedly negative. Nevertheless, if you’re truly passionate about math, and weren’t incorrectly recommended to take the course by an advisor, I can imagine having success in it.</p>
<p>Sorry to throw you guys off track a bit, but on a fairly related note the rigor differences between Math 17 and Math 19 are not very clear. I know 19 is for Physics/Engineering concentrators, but as a potential Econ-AM I naturally prefer the practical application of math and its integration into an earlier calculus class would be a nice preview of the APMA offerings. Is it worth giving 19 a go even as a non-Phys/Engn?</p>
<p>Background:
AP Calculus BC with an expected 3 or 4.</p>
<p>I’m still not sure what the difference in rigor is between Math 20 and Math 18, and I took 20 and had a bunch of friends take 18. I honestly don’t feel like there’s that big a difference between 19 and 17, so you should be fine doing either. Just take whichever one has a better teacher, be it a grad student or professor.</p>
<p>Uroogla- sorry to hear that students do not enjoy math 35.
At many universities honors courses for freshman are given
extra attention. They are not only demanding but they usually assigned
excellent teacher/scholars. I believe that this is for example the case at Chicago which
not only has an excellent graduate school but also has a well thought out intro sequence for talented mathematics students. It is possible, perhaps likely, that Chicago attracts more
mathematical talent than Brown at the undergrad level but there should also be many students at Brown who would take advantage of the sequence that Chicago offers.</p>
<p>I have heard that the honors sequence at Chicago is both demanding and most often
well taught and it is a pity that the same does not seem to be on offer at Brown, at least at this time.</p>
<p>17 can be significantly harder than 19. 19 is more like 10. So I’d shop those 3 (If you get the 4 on the AP exam, don’t shop 10 because you get credit for it). Depending on the professor, 17 can be horrid (as an unofficial tutor for it, I was challenged to a crazy extent by it two years ago, even though I had known all of the material and had significant proof experience. On the other hand, last year it was reasonable). I don’t think it would matter too much which you choose so long as you can handle the work; 19 shouldn’t be harder than the others with the exception of the problem section that covered physics/engineering related applications, assuming I understand correctly.</p>
<p>I think the only difference between 18 and 20 is the section with engineering related problems? Otherwise it should be pretty much the same.</p>
<p>Typically, the top math students at Brown skip the honors sequence entirely. I skipped 35 in part for its reputation (and would have skipped 54 if the CS department had been willing to let me); of the top students in the honors sequence, in my experience, they tend to skip the classes, which might say something about the teachers. I know a decent number of students who take 35 drop out of the honors sequence for linear. Not all stop math at that point, though (and it can be argued that the honors linear algebra course is easier than the regular one, as counterintuitive as that may be).</p>
<p>Uroogla- if they skip entirely would they take the analysis course math 101?</p>
<p>It seems a great pity that there is not a good choice for mathematically talented students who have only had the chance to take BC calculus. For these students it is so important that they are challenged appropriately. Many of these students, perhaps most, have not really seen many proofs in calculus and the step up to an honest treatment of multivariate calculus can be quite large.</p>
<p>Generally these people start in abstract (153). 101 is apparently a very easy course as well. The analysis sequence for those considering grad school is 113-114.</p>
<p>Another part of the problem is students coming in and trying to do too much too soon (CS19, Physics 7, and math 35 in the same semester is killer).</p>
<p>uroogla, your comments are very interesting. </p>
<p>Do you know approximately how many students would just skip 35 and 54?
Have most of these students competed in the international math olympiad? In the past very few of these students would attend Brown. </p>
<p>I am just wondering how Brown is managing to attract students who already have
studied multivariate calculus at the level of Apostol and linear algebra at the level of
Hoffman and Kunze. </p>
<p>Had you already studied multivariate calculus and linear algebra in high school?</p>
<p>I personally know 3 in my year, I believe the totals are closer to a half dozen or so per year, but I’m not 100% positive on this. As far as I know, these students did reasonably well on the USAMO but not well enough to make the IMO team (though I understand there is an international student who was on his country’s IMO team and is in my year). These are the sorts of people who would attend various math camps over the summer.</p>
<p>Brown’s pull is not its math department itself, but what one can do while studying math (and the upper level/graduate courses are generally challenging enough for advanced undergraduates). A couple of these people I know are also computer science concentrators, while the other has done quite a bit with languages and linguistics here. That freedom likely is what attracts the top math students whose interests aren’t limited entirely to math. I’m not one of the top math students, but the ability to pursue both computer science and languages in addition to whatever math I desired was ultimately my reason for choosing Brown.</p>
<p>I had taken both in high school, in addition to a differential equations course. The multivariable course was equivalent to 18, and the linear algebra course was a step below 54 - less proof intensive, but sufficient to render all but the final 2 weeks of 54 extremely easy for me. I took 111 (differential equations) in the fall, in spite of not formally having the prerequisites, and had little trouble, although this course was definitely not comparable to the one I took in high school, which was much more like an applied math version.</p>
<p>This year I know at least 5 freshman who skipped 35 (at least a couple of whom also skipped 54), and another 3 or 4 who took 35, and then took either just 153 or also 54 in the spring. And for students who want to push themselves, it’s attractive to be able to take upper division courses your freshman year. I have friends/my friends have friends at other schools who are stuck in classes they would rather skip, but can’t because it’s a “prerequisite,” despite them having learned the material on their own. Here, skipping classes isn’t a big deal, and it’s a common occurrence that a few freshman take upper division classes. Even for people with no background coming in (like me with CS), I’ll have the background to take upper division CS courses starting next semester, something my friends back home won’t be able to do until junior year. And I’ll be done with my required CS classes next spring, whereas people who took CS19 could be done with the requirements next fall. After that it’s just fun concentration electives.</p>