Dr. Carr who teaches multivariable calculus at Emory College and received his BS and MS in Math from Emory College finished in the top 15 in the Putnam Math Competition in 2002. This is an interesting bit of trivia. The Putnam is usually dominated by individuals and teams from Harvard, Princeton, MIT, Caltech, and Stanford.
Dr. Carr also teaches Foundations of Math/Discrete Math.
@BiffBrown : You need to be encouraging current and future Emory students to participate in it. I think a lot more used to. In fact I was mentored by some people who did (these folks were pretty motivated and brilliant. They actually were math or physics majors but also took freshman ochem and stuff which is how I got to know them, as my TA). One of the Goldwater winners in math. I am thinking it was Noam) did the Budapest semesters which I heard is an awesome opportunity for those truly interested in and strong at math. I think the presence of Ken Ono has boosted the profile of the math program among undergraduates and prospective undergraduates (as he hosts one of the best REU programs for college and HS students). Now if only it would get more than just the very top student(s) active in what happens in that dept. Like I know some schools with very big math communities (which Emory does have if you count joint and double majors) have integration competitions and all types of things that are for or include undergraduates. It would be nice if they had a more visible social and intellectual community like chemistry and neuroscience for example.
Emory’s Math Department has this page:
http://www.mathcs.emory.edu/programs-undergrad/putnam-prize.php
The Putnam Prize
The Putnam Prizes are awarded to the Emory undergraduates with the best scores on the William Lowell Putnam Mathematical Competition. The competition is held at Emory on the first Saturday of December each year and the prizes are awarded the following spring.
Recipients of the Putnam Prize
2013: Jiaqi Guo and Rousen Zhou
2012: Andrew Gruet and Andrea Zeng
2011: Linzhi Wang and Joshua Keller
2010: Phillip Andreae and Joshua Keller
2009: Phillip Andreae and Jacob Geerlings
2008: Phillip Andreae and Allison Louie
2007: Sabrina Rainwater. Runner-up: Tristan Dennen
And this page on Dr. Grigni’s web page:
http://www.mathcs.emory.edu/~mic/math/
Each fall I register Emory undergraduates interested in the VTRMC (late October) and/or the Putnam (first Saturday in December). I offer practice sessions to those interested, and I lend books for self-study.
Recent VTRMC exams and solutions are at the link above, and recent Putnam exams and solutions are at Kedlaya’s archive. I also maintain a notebook of resources for undergraduates interested in these exams. For each meeting I’ll collect any documents in a subdirectory below (the directory name is a date: MMDD).
Good luck! — Mic Grigni
Don’t you think the students who have the math background to compete in the Putnam already know how to get ready?
@BiffBrown : I am aware of the page.
Prior knowledge: A few and some are naturally ready, though this is more common at very top privates (the usual, you know who they are) and elite publics (Ones with renowned STEM programs like Tech, but I am thinking mainly Berkeley and Michigan) that are more likely to attract more folks at the level of the 2 Goldwater Scholars recently generated by the math department (specifically people who at least made it to IMO or IPO camps). Some students come from privates and charter high schools (usually outside of the south) with renowned math or physics programs. Sobuggme schools naturally have a much bigger Putnam culture (they may be the schools that send a substantial amount of their physics and math undergraduates to doctoral programs in those areas).
Hopefully the Ken Ono Summer Math REU will persuade more IMO/IPO types to attend Emory.
I don’t understand the “outside of the south” comment or the term “Sobuggme”?
http://www.mathcs.emory.edu/~ono/REUs/
2018 Research Experiences for Undergraduates at Emory University
Number Theory
Dates: June 4 - July 13, 2018.
Math Building, Rooms E406 and E408
Instructors
John Duncan, Assistant Professor.
Ken Ono, Asa Griggs Candler Professor.
Basic Information
Ken Ono has been organizing REU programs since 2003 (formerly at U. Wisconsin (Madison) from 2003-2009). He has advised over 100 students including 6 Morgan Prize Winners and 5 Schafer Prize winners. The REU alums have won numerous other honors including Marshall Scholarships, NSF Graduate Fellowships (over 30), etc…
We are organizing a summer Research Experience in Mathematics for the summer of 2018 on the beautiful campus of Emory University (adjacent to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)). We seek to fill 10-14 openings in the REU. Most of the participants will be US citizens or permanent residents who are presently enrolled in a US undergraduate institution or high school. We have offered openings to high school students who are adequately prepared for the program. NSF supported participants will receive a $5000 stipend and also free accomodations.
2018 Project areas
Elliptic curves and Galois representations
Mock modular and quantum modular forms
Additive Number Theory
Distribution of Primes
Moonshine
2018 Participants
To be determined
Their results
Check back in July 2018
Application Materials (Deadline for Completed Applications: February 15, 2018)
Note. In accordance with the new REU consortium rule, applicants will not be required to accept or decline an offer before early March 2018.
Apply here.
A complete application consists of:
Cover sheet (automatically generated by MathPrograms.org)
CV (clearly indicate citizenship)
Two letters of recommendation
Undergraduate Transcripts (unofficial ok)
Personal/Research Statement: Please explain your interest in arithmetic geometry/number theory and describe your previous research experience (if any).
@BiffBrown : I slipped and meant to put “some” there. Don’t know how that got there. I am alluding to the fact that the schools I refer to (I knew some folks from them) were like in the upper midwest or those schools in the mid-Atlantic and Northeast. Let us keep it real and recognize that the amount of elite private, boarding, and charter schools is not the highest in the south. There are many great schools, but I rarely hear of them having the same structure or caliber as some of the most elite schools outside of the south. Like one student from Ohio referred to how his high school had a very top physics “program”. How many schools are intensive enough to essentially function like a college such that students refer to the STEM instruction by program. He came in already knowing a lot of advanced math and physics. It was actually kind of embarrassing that only the physics 15X or modern physics was offered to a student like that. Emory needs an honors section of calculus-based/higher level math based physics for advanced freshmen. Also, Ono’s REU program is not enough.
The students who go through that REU (look up the track record in some of the news releases featuring Ono REU students) go straight to places like Harvard or at least places with an ultra rigorous math or physics undergraduate program (not just average for an elite school, but we’re talking more like the STEM schools, Chicago, and the other very top public and privates). This is for a reason, such students actually are more akin to “academic admits”, so they look at the academic offerings more seriously. They will have affinity towards places that offer serious honors sequences (perhaps more than one) to cater to students with their background. Emory only got Honors Linear Algebra like maybe a year ago. And even then, the course is more comparable to the equivalent at near peers like Vanderbilt than it is the “equivalent” at places like HYPSMCh, etc.
Those schools and elite publics have much more stratification of freshman level courses and the very top 2-3 courses at schools with super strong UG math and physics programs appears to reach a bit higher than other elites that have weaker programs. Schools like Emory would need to either a) dramatically strengthen and intensify the UG math training (tough when full of joint and double majors pursuing pre-professions) or b) design a laid out honors track (not just two courses) for very advanced freshmen and market it to the students who it wants to recruit. I think the latter is technically more feasible though the growth in enrollment of ECAS could be problematic for these prospects (I actually reached out to the president’s office about potentially returning honors courses across all STEM curriculum when it came to the undergraduate education component of strategic planning. Emory had lower scores when it had honors courses, but it seems it attracted more naturally gifted or extremely ambitious students then as well. Basically the top talent may have been different).
However, I see that physics is now offering a second semester (117) of the introductory astronomy course (116, which does NOT count for majors in astronomy) that will apparently emphasize “advanced topics”. It would honestly make more sense to have a physics 16X series for those with at least one Physics C credit or a Math BC credit, and then phase 14X out and make 15X the default course for ALL STEM majors. Not many non-STEM majors looking for a science credit take the 14X (which should not be the default or even be an option for STEM majors at an elite private university whose lowest level of intro math is calculus 1. Again, I believe Emory is on of the only if not the only elite private that allows STEM B.S. students to take a non-calculus based sequence and it is BS lol. Even if it wasn’t. It is certainly one of the only elites with more students enrolled in non-calc. based than calc. based in any semester. I brought that issue up in my letter as well. It just makes Emory STEM majors look weaker on paper and ensures that they receive weaker training because of course most students will aim low when they have the option to. Notice how Bing teaching 15X didn’t change any minds) series and the incentives of taking 117 are basically non-existent as majors would not get a credit and non-majors will likely be done with the SNT requirement or would like to seek another entry basic level STEM course as opposed to continuing on to “advanced” topics what they started with. Most are only looking for easy STEM classes that meet the SNT requirements anyway.
Either way, when it comes to those folks, if you don’t possess an ultra strong math or physics undergraduate program, you either accidentally recruit one via the scholarship system, or you have a special curricular pathway for them. If the curriculum cannot immediately support them, it won’t be a top choice, and even the scholarship winner, if serious about their training may try to transfer out. Currently, the unspoken pathway for truly talented math folks at Emory is to “take grad classes ASAP”. That doesn’t happen at the best math schools. They probably have enough challenging math courses at the undergrad level to entertain top talent for up to 2 years. There are always exceptions at places like H, but grad. classes are not the immediate go to for top incoming talent. Either way, it takes more than hosting an REU. Currently, Emory and WUSTL have an unusual amount of success with Seimen’s finalists and semi-finalists (or even participants) for schools in our bracket of elite privates, but IPO and IMO, don’t know if I have even met anyone who made the training camp for either. Makes sense because both are known better for undergraduate education in life sciences and Seimens competition draws lots of folks interested in that.
I suspect most elite colleges do NOT require biology majors to take calculus-based physics. Exceptions would be places like MIT and Caltech.
Consider Physics 101 at Princeton
https://registrar.princeton.edu/course-offerings/course_details.xml?courseid=005122&term=1182
v.
Physics 103 at Princeton
https://registrar.princeton.edu/course-offerings/course_details.xml?courseid=005128&term=1182
v.
Physics 105 at Princeton
https://registrar.princeton.edu/course-offerings/course_details.xml?courseid=005130&term=1182
One can deduce that:
Physics 101 = premed or biology major physics (largely or entirely non-calculus based)
Physics 103 = physics for engineers
Physics 105 = physics for physics and math majors
You’re giving too much credit to other schools who face their own pressure to ensure that their premeds aren’t destroyed in calculus based classes that have no direct relevance to most medical school curriculum.
@BiffBrown : They may not require it, but I think the enrollment numbers are largely in favor of calculus based (they seem to allot less seats to calc. based) even at places where it isn’t required. I believe, for those places that allow access to the course enrollment numbers, this is the case. It may be typical at elite publics that the enrollment is more even. Considering the fact that most of the STEM majors outside of engineering at most schools (engineering usually has a separate calc. based sequence at most places) are in the life sciences, when the enrollment is lop-sided in favor of the calc. based version outside of engineering physics, that has to be the pre-meds and life sciences folks for the most part as most schools do not have big chemistry populations and certainly do not have large physics populations. I’ll go look at VU’s numbers quickly to see, but I am pretty sure it is mostly calc. based as well as WUSTL. Emory is maybe 2.5-3:1 in favor of trig based which is not good. Even chemistry majors (B.S) are taking it, missing out on the opportunity to apply calculus and learn to write lab reports. 14X has no lab reports.
Also, regardless, it is senseless for biology or neuroscience majors to be that way because they still, ya know, require calculus. If you don’t want to apply the calculus you learned, get a BA. A significant chunk will not get into medical school and folks need better quantitative skills in the life sciences now-a-days, so I am more favor of the schools (seemingly most) which allot less seats to trig based.
VU dropped the trig based class it appears. The life sciences physics class targeting pre-meds and bio/neuro majors is the lowest for STEM majors and has: 130 this semester and is calculus based.
They have 3 tiers of calculus based
https://as.vanderbilt.edu/physics/undergraduate/introductory-cources.php
https://physics.wustl.edu/courses/undergraduate-courses#117
Goes no lower than calc. based
These are NEAR peers. Do you think the schools that rank far higher have ultra high enrollment of STEM majors (even life sciences) in non-calc. based? I doubt it.
Time for Emory to get with it on that one especially considering the number of students coming in with at minimum a calculus AB credit.
128 were enrolled in 101 at P’ton and like 200+ were enrolled in 103…think about that. P’ton isn’t that big and as good as its physics program is, it doesn’t have tons of majors. A majority of people taking the lower 2 courses are likely life sciences and the advantaged is in favor of calc. based for enrollment.
Emory: 14X: 340ish , 15X: 140. That is a sad ratio my friend. They should phase that downward so that overqualified students do not enroll. Trust me, tons of overqualified and others who should take calc. based take 14X. P’ton allocates upwards to 160 seats to 101 and 500 (between 2 lectures) of 103…go figure. 103 is the equivalent of 15X based upon the book (however, I would rather stay in an ignorant bliss about the difference in the level that the course is pitched at each institution. I’ll optimistically pretend they are similar though I know usually some duds teach 15X and they do not remotely challenge the class. I pray Bing is doing it differently).
I am less concerned about actual requirements so much as enrollment patterns. Enrollment patterns at Emory and some schools at its level concern me. When VU had the trig based, its numbers were skewed in favor of the trig based course as well. I use the enrollment trends to gauge the attitude and ambition of each class. As P’ton, VU, and WUSTL demonstrate, you can “forcefully” push the STEM students by either not making a certain type of course available or restricting the enrollment of the less rigorous and allocating more seats to the more ideal option.
I would also like to investigate how many elite schools allow chemistry BS majors to take a 14X equivalent. Probably not many if I had to guess
Princeton has a full blown engineering school. Undoubtedly, engineering majors have to take calculus-based physics (ie Physics 103 or if they’re especially adept at math Physics 105).
I doubt any physics majors at Princeton take Physics 103. Physics 105 is the version designed for those deemed especially high performing in Physics 103 and enrollment is by invitation only.
A significant part of the enrollment in Physics 103 will be Princeton engineers.
Princeton’s Physics 101 will include only non-engineers such as premeds and probably biology majors. It’s unclear whether
I happen to think that it’s self-defeating for natural science majors to take trig-based physics but what about non-science major premeds.
For students serious about science, one has to choose physics courses at Emory based on the quality of instructor. And that favors calculus-based physics.
At Oxford College, the best physics instructor is Dr. Seitaridou and she teaches only calculus-based (Physics 151/52). At Emory College, the best physics instructor is Dr. Bing and he began teaching calculus-based this year. Logically, he’ll continue in that capacity for at least a few more years. So the choice is easy.
@BiffBrown : And…a significant amount will be biosciences because it is Princeton which has for a long time, had strength in quantitative life sciences and has gotten its undergraduates involved in such a movement. Emory appears to be trying to do that now, but that is going to be hard when you can hardly convince some of the best bio and physics majors to try a calculus based physics class or upper division math courses even when they have the preparation. I imagine if more took it, it would enhance enrollment in the currently struggling quantitative oriented biology electives because if they do fine in a physics 15X, they may more open to trying them. The only other choice is to outright recruit students who already know they have an interest in computational neuro or life sciences, but this is hard given how established some other places are in it.
Most of even non-STEM majoring pre-meds at Emory will take calculus though (even though many med. schools do not have it as a requirement). I don’t see why not take an actual class to reinforce. In addition, I am comfortable with any non-STEM major taking basic physics, but STEM majors, especially Bachelors of Science majors should not.
Physics 15X usually does not usually have quality or rigorous instruction (I knew people who did Tech 3-2 and those who went into mechanical engineering for example, initially had a hard time adjusting because the physics 15X preparation was relatively underwhelming compared to the physics background required by Tech courses. Chemical Engineering majors had no such problems adjusting) and only has a single section (so no instructor choice) because it is so under-subscribed. Again, most schools have several tiers of CALCULUS (talking like 3 tiers…Emory doesn’t have engineering so can have 2) based physics including Chicago which does not have engineering. Emory should introduce a smaller higher tiered calculus based physics course with a low enrollment cap that could function as an honors course meanwhile lowering the seats in 14X and reallocating them. Emory is shooting itself in the foot by allowing so many students take the 14X route which should as you suggest, be reserved for a small group not majoring (or getting a B.Sc.) in STEM. I am very concerned that the amount of chemistry B.Sc. majors doing it is unusually high and that is unacceptable. The curriculum should be structured in a way that encourages or borderline forces students to make the better decision based upon their abilities. This will help the student and the institution in the long-run because Emory STEM majors (pre-health or non) will come out with more similar profiles to those at other elites as opposed to producing a solid amount of good but also a bunch of mess. It is also just better from an intellectual and character development point of view. I know in some ways universities behave like businesses, but that I believe still matters whether it is the first thing that comes to the "customers’ " (students’) minds or not.
*For Emory to get better (or to even be viewed as truly comparable to its near peers by outsiders), it needs start at least acting as if it has really good and ambitious students like most other places and stop acting like it must make curricular structures that suggest otherwise(or that suggests Emory overly caters to pre-healths in a manner that implies its pre-healths are not as tough or ambitious as counterparts at other schools. They are really only as tough as you push them to be like everywhere else). Students at Emory will usually rise to the level that is demanded of them with little complaint in comparison to other places. You are there now. Do you see freshmen falling to the ground and kicking and screaming because of the new chemistry classes? I could be wrong, but I have my doubts. Emory can raise the bar in certain areas of STEM for all while also catering to extremely prepared incoming students like many other places do.
This is especially the case with something like biology. They could either raise the level of that lecture sequence more or there are so many AP 4/5 that they can bring back biol 151/152 (was the honors sequence that focused on using research articles and project based learning to teach the material in 141/142 at a more advanced level. Apparently it suffered from pre-med syndrome early on because the MCAT problems and passages were not heavily based upon research scenarios back then so now would be a super ripe time to bring such an option back. Furthermore, it would be fairly novel as even among elites, especially those ranked lower than 10, an honors biology option has become ultra rare) by conversion of 1-2 sections of 141/142 to that. There is really no need for 6+ sections of questionable level bio 141/142 lecturers. Just make 2 of them honors for the AP/IB/research experienced folks and let them take the lab (maybe even a special lab section for the cohorts who select the honors lectures. They can do projects that are more independent than in regular 141/142 lab and also write lab reports, a component that apparently has been removed a couple of years ago).
If Emory wants to be recognized as elite, it should provide and produce elite products. It likes to have unique solutions, and that is cool, but there is nothing wrong at looking at some of the good things at peers and aiming to one up them especially since such “upgrades” actually existed in the not so distant (less than a decade ago) past.
Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer/Putnam Competition