<p>Congratulations to you all! Cookieson decided on Stanford. He’s planning on living on campus and is hoping to get in to the brand new graduate apartments.</p>
<p>Oh wow, (to dilksy) – they’re very good at stuff like combinatorics, right? </p>
<p>Very nice, very nice. I also heard they admitted a rather small class this year. </p>
<p>Congrats to Cookieson as well.</p>
<p>And SBUMathGrad, last but far from least! I hope I’m as successful as you guys in a few years.</p>
<p>Yeah, algebraic combinatorics is one of the things they specialize in. The vain part of me wishes I were going to a bigger-name school like MIT, but pretty much everybody I talked to made it seem like Minnesota was just as good, if not a better option than MIT. It also helps that I really like the Midwest, really like college hockey, will be moving near my brother, and will be well off financially (as far as grad students go). Apparently the incoming class is only going to be about 5 or 6 which will be…interesting. In my mind, this should translate to me getting more office space, but inevitably that won’t happen.</p>
<p>Cookiemom - What area is cookieson thinking about going in to?</p>
<p>Yeah I mean, for what it’s worth I know someone postdocing at my own school from Minnesota graduate school who’s quite a young algebraic combinatorialist, and is going over to MIT soon. Judging by how things are working out for him, I imagine you’ll be very well off, especially given how extra selective Minnesota seems to have been.</p>
<p>Yes, what is cookieson going into, I am curious too. I don’t know what people going to Stanford for graduate school tend to study. Which I probably should figure out, given it’s very close to where I live.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>algebraic geometry or algebraic topology</p>
<p>He doesn’t have a particular advisor in mind at this point, but there a a number of professors there he would be interested in working with. He was advised that the math department is uniformly strong.</p>
<p>Ahhhh. That’s nice. Both fields I like, though the former even more.</p>
<p>Stanford is excellent for geometry and topology, both algebraic and differential. I can personally speak for the differential geometry, it is one of the best in the world. Richard Schoen, Simon Brendle, Brian White, Mazzeo and Leon Simon. I mean that’s 5 top notch faculty members. </p>
<p>What’s surprising to me is Berkeley not being so strong in differential geometry anymore. Mathboy you are there, but from my outsider’s perspective this shocks me. Berkeley used to be the king in differential geometry. SS Chern advised ST Yau, do Carmo, Alan Weinstein, Peter Li, Michael Anderson, etc. Berkeley was probably one of the top geometry schools in the 60s and 70s. </p>
<p>Mathboy could you tell me what the differential geometry program is like at Berkeley now that John Lott is there? I’m curious to see the impact his arrival has.</p>
<p>SBUMathgrad:</p>
<p>I studied math at Berkeley and am curious as to why you don’t think the department is strong in geometry anymore. Are you being very specific so as to separate topology and geometry? I know that Berkeley is certainly strong in low-dimensional topology and symplectic geometry/topology.</p>
<p>In topology/geometry Berkeley has Alexander Givental, Rob Kirby, Alan Weinstein, Michael Hutchings, Vaughan Jones, Nicolai Reshetikhin, Peter Teichner, Constantin Teleman, and Ian Agol. As you noted, they recently added John Lott, and Robert Bryant also joined the department as head of MSRI.</p>
<p>Perhaps the department isn’t quite as strong in topology/geometry as it was 10-20 years ago when they had Bill Thurston, Andrew Casson, John Stallings Curtis McMullen and Maxim Kontsevich, among others. But it is still one of the best in the world. I do know that the department has been trying to recruit new people in the area very much in the last few years. Peter Ozsvath joined the department a few years ago but for some reason went back to Columbia after a semester. Still, Agol, Teleman, Teichner, Lott, and Bryant are all fairly new.</p>
<p>Yeah I meant more specifically the field of Differential Geometry, not geometry or topology in general. Lott and Bryant are some of the only real differential geometers at Berkeley. But I guess they are transitioning more towards algebraic topology, geometric topology, algebraic geometry, where they are dominant.</p>
<p>I just received a fellowship offer from Stony Brook. I backed out of my commit to Austin and I promised both schools I’d have a final decision by Friday morning, my own self imposed deadline. I am absolutely agonizing over this.</p>
<p>I think Stony Brook is one of the best schools for differential geometry and has a few professors who work in general relativity. However I’m wondering if I can take another 5+ years living around there. It’s a really drab area, very dead locale. Austin on the other hand is really active, fresh and new. </p>
<p>Austin does not have my exact interests, but I think the program is more well rounded.</p>
<p>Ugh, I am having a difficult time deciding.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yeah unfortunately, I don’t know very much about Differential Geometry at all – the fields I tend to be in tune with are mildly algebraic number theory, algebraic geometry (lots!), algebraic topology a bit, and I just happen to know there are amazing logicians here – a young one being Thomas Scanlon.</p>
<p>The list of Rob Kirby, Peter Teichner, Ian Agol definitely captures quite a few of our topologists. Kirby is very famous. </p>
<p>Another little tidbit for those considering Berkeley is that we don’t have very <em>many</em> number theorists. I was somewhat surprised, along with my friend, to discover this, given how accomplished and numerous our algebraic geometry faculty is. Sure we have Ken Ribet, Paul Vojta (Diophantine Geometry) who are absolute leaders of their fields, but Ribet is on the old side and is less active, for instance, and there aren’t that many other number theorists, even taking a step down from the giants. </p>
<p>Alexander Givental! Another crazy geometer. My knowledge is that he does Symplectic Geometry – does that not count?</p>
<p>EDIT: Maybe the issue is Berkeley people all go after AG 
I certainly see that as a trend among graduate students.</p>
<p>SBUMathgrad, because of my ignorance, and because I can’t seem to find a concise list distinguishing these: what’s the difference among topology/geometry, geometric topology, geometry, topology? What do these things commonly refer to?</p>
<p>Guys, I have a quick question for you all…
I am going to graduate school for math phd starting next semester. The school I am going to is a big state university but ranks in group iii. Later I want to get a teaching job in small (liberal arts) college where i wouldnt have much research obligations. So, do you people think the name and the current ranking of the school matters when I will be looking for the type of job i mentioned after like 5 or 6 years?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I visited Berkeley about a month ago and was also surprised to find how dead number theory is there. That was one of the main reasons I decided not to go there. However, I must say that your campus is really awesome. There are few things better than a math lounge with a balcony overlooking the bay.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, that’s because AG at Berkeley is quite strong. Eisenbud and Olsson, for example, are two major draws for the department.</p>
<p>linear, i am not completely sure but i would guess that you’d be able to find a job at a small liberal arts school. have you tried seeing if the math department you’re going to has a webpage of where their alumni go? many do so if they don’t you might want to look if a similar school does. i have a friend in a math program in a big state school whose math department is ranked in the 90s or something and it seems like a good amount of their graduates get the type of jobs you want.</p>