Math at Harvard

<p>Well..I was struggling to choose between Harvard, Princeton, and MIT for math, too. I visited all of them, heard opinions from this website, and saw ranks for math in USnews grad and gourman report. Also I saw Putnam competition results.
What I'm thinking is..Princeton is best. At least for undergraduate. Bunch of geniuses graduated Princeton and produced most of Fields medal winners.
Harvard is great college, too. Though I think Harvard will fit for grad than undergrad. I'm planning to go Harvard for grad school(Actually, first choice to become Rhodes Scholar).
MIT is great college, too. Though I think they are concentrating more on applications than HP or Caltech. If you want to do the applied math, perhaps MIT will be the best.</p>

<p>A funny statement I saw online once is that the best way to study math is to undergrad at Harvard and then go to MIT for graduate school. That's what a person who had done exactly that had posted on his Web site. But he removed that statement from his Web site after becoming an instructor at Stanford. :p</p>

<p>Howabout applied math in the DEAS at Harvard? Is it very good? How does it compare to Stanford (does Stanford have an applied math dept? I can't find it)?</p>

<p>Harvard Alumni received Fields Medals more than any other school in USA</p>

<p>mdx49:</p>

<p>That's because they were unquestionably at the top of the food chain in undergraduate math 20-120 years ago. This is no longer the case. You have to look at its current status, not the sum of dominance that occured decades ago.</p>

<p>Edit:</p>

<p>mlee:</p>

<p>Yes, Stanford has an applied math department. It's very good, as I can tell you from personal experience. Probably better than their pure mathematics department, even. </p>

<p>I don't know much about Harvard's, though. Sorry.</p>

<p>Of course, MIT is MUCH MUCH MUCH stronger than Harvard. You have to consider the overall quality, not just the top few students! MIT definitely won Harvardy by a large margin!</p>

<p>Well Comp Sci is better at Stanford, but I'm not sure about Math. Still all of them are similer, depending on which college's forum you visit, you are going to get different answers. Just pick it on other factors.</p>

<p>MIT math is not actually at the same level as Harvard Math.
MIT math is a very big program admitting about 30 PhDs per year and Harvard Math is admitting only 7 per year. Even though Harvard Math is extremely small, Harvard Alumni received Fields Medal more than any other school in US. Most recent two Fields Medal winners a also Harvard Alumni. NO ONE from MIT ever won Fields medal..ZERO...</p>

<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fields_Medal%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fields_Medal&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Harvard undergrad Math department is also very small, about 20 people getting BA in math, whereas about 120 are getting BS in math from MIT. Even though Harvard is one of the smallest math department in US, Harvard team ranked 1st in Putnam math competition most of the time. Harvard ranked 1st 26 times... MIT ranked 1st only 4 times so far....The most recent winning team in Putnam math competition is also from Harvard.. </p>

<p>Harvard alumni also received Nobel Price more than any other school in US</p>

<p>i'd be interested in seeing citations for your fields medal and nobel prize claims, if indeed you have them.</p>

<p>fields medal winners can be found ::</p>

<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fields_Medal%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fields_Medal&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Nobel Prize winner ca be found at ::</p>

<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_prize_laureates_by_university_affiliation%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_prize_laureates_by_university_affiliation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Three additional Harvrad Alumni got nobel prize last year, which are not included in the list link above..</p>

<p>I give up. Some people will bash their heads into a concrete wall again and again, regardless of what anyone says. </p>

<p>What part of "historical superiority 20-120 years ago doesn't imply superiority today" do you have a hard time understanding, mdx49? Is that such a tough concept to comprehend?</p>

<p>And who are you, anyways? A lot of people posting in this thread are either math majors and/or future/current students at Harvard, MIT, or comparable institutions. </p>

<p>What's your qualification to discuss any of this? Are you another high school junior that gets a power trip from seeing his posts on the Internet?</p>

<p>hmmm, i've noticed something, Gracie. you seem to have very strong opinions (which is completely fine), but then you get upset when people don't agree with you or surrender their position... this has happened in numerous threads.</p>

<p>hotpiece- </p>

<p>I avoid discussions where I don't have first-hand experience or knowledge, and try to give information in an honest, straightforward manner. </p>

<p>If I'm wrong, and I'm given a compeling, logical reason to abandon my initial assumption, I'll happily admit my ignorance. (There have been numerous examples of this)</p>

<p>If I'm given a lame, brainless argument against something I wrote, I'll simply laugh, and respond accordingly.</p>

<p>See "Tucker Max's Guide to Writing over the Internet 101". </p>

<p>By the way, love your username.</p>

<p>
[quote]
If I'm given a lame, brainless argument against something I wrote, I'll simply laugh, and respond accordingly.

[/quote]
that is perfectly fine, however, this comes off as slightly offensive, as if you are attacking the people, not simply their ideas. in the Opal Mehta thread, you called the people who didn't agree with you "close-minded." then you just called mdx49 a person on a power trip...</p>

<p>yeah, but my username is pretty cool.</p>

<p>Too bad virtually no one understands mine.</p>

<p>what is the origin of your username?</p>

<p><a href="http://rickson.com/history.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://rickson.com/history.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p><a href="http://rickson.com/history/helio.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://rickson.com/history/helio.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p><a href="http://rickson.com/history/rickson.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://rickson.com/history/rickson.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royce_Gracie%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royce_Gracie&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>It's really funny when I think about it; I adopted the username of a legendary fighting family whose mere mention struck fear into the hearts of professional fighters worldwide for over half a century, and instead people assume I'm a girl.</p>

<p>Loseeeeerly discussion, I agree with Gracie. The Putnam is a one-day exam.</p>

<p>Harvard and MIT both have superb math departments. MIT has more breadth and opportunities to branch out/do research/etc. Harvard has a more "elite" air about it, with a tiny and extraordinarily selective (and historically successful) program.</p>

<p>If you ask any actual professional mathematician a stupid question like "Isn't MIT much better for math than Harvard?" or the stupid reverse question, they'll laugh and tell you to go ask that on CollegeConfidential, where such questions belong.</p>

<p>Oh wait...</p>

<p>MIT undergrad math department is 6 times bigger than Harvard Math. and MIT math PhD program is 4-5 times bigger than Harvard Math.</p>

<p>But NO ONE from MIT ever got Fields Medal even though there are 5 times more MIT math alumnus are out there than Harvard.</p>

<p>I know that MIT math is not that bad but it is somewhat embarrasing to see that MIT math is doing a lot worse than Harvard math which is 5 smaller... </p>

<p>I guess the top MIT math student is worse than the worst Harvard math student ? I know most (or all of ) MIT math PhD students have very painful experience of being rejected from Harvard..</p>

<p>And the rest of us have the very painful experience of hearing you speak. As I said, nobody moderately serious about mathematics would be within ten miles of this debate. Why make yourself look silly when you don't have to?</p>