What are you looking at? Theoretical?
Did you not look into this before having all of these considered comments on your behalf?
Well I assumed that math is the same everywhere. I didn’t know that a supposedly top university could have such a poor math department. I’ve heard that the teaching is horrific and looking at the courses offered, they are few in number and scope.
It sounds like the OP has moved on, but for anyone else interested here is the most recent placement data for Brown Math majors.
Indeed, don’t forget the applied-math department. Don’t have any personal experience but it’s supposed to be one of the best. It’s a separate department so none of it’s courses show up on this page: https://www.math.brown.edu/course_desc.html have to look at this one too: http://www.brown.edu/academics/applied-mathematics/course-catalogue
35 -- Oh my.
Please don’t think that the key to Brown acceptance are the words passion or joy in your essays. What Jim Miller has said numerous times is that he thinks it is an onerous burden on 17 year olds to demand that they have “passion” for something. He doesn’t want to scare away applicants who feel they lack a “passion” for something. So he uses the word “joy” – that he wants students who love doing something or love something enough that it brings them joy – that there is something they do that makes them happy.
I think the least of the OP’s obstacles is narrow vs. broad focus or wording nuances on the application. If he or she has competitive stats, I suggest also applying to some rack and stack universities with extensive math departments.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think many of the most selective universities have an uncanny EQ radar. I see it in the few Brown, Yale, MIT and Princeton graduates and students I know in real life.
MIT touches on it in their admissons blog
I’m guessing the same holds true for Brown and the others.
I’m not sure why you are suggesting I have low EQ, or what you mean by rack and stack university.
@arwarw: I want to say to you that I am unfamiliar with EQ as a term, though I realize after reading in context that I have seen it mentioned here at CC a few times. I cannot but fully agree with your statement about the admissions people at the top tier universities really sensing who the applicant is beyond the quantitative measures that almost all of their applicants surely have.
My kid is a walking, breathing heart with long legs, and was recognized in his high school for an unerring ability to know when his class might have stepped out of line, and for then stepping up to the plate to make things right, in as much as one kid can. Among all external measures for his being a strong candidate for MIT, I am sure, were the letters of recommendation that I have to believe spoke to the person he is.
@alwadiya I regret bringing up the subject of EQ in your thread. Please disregard. “Rack and Stack” refers to universities that accept applicants solely based on their test scores and transcripts. They do not review holistically like Brown does. Most universities in the US are non-holistic, and many have excellent and extensive math departments. Best of luck!
@alwadiya: Remember to reveal and highlight that you are multi-dimensional, and that where you excel in one or two areas, your work, efforts and accomplishments in other areas show the facets of your character and personality.
I will second arwarw: Best of luck to you.
@Waiting2exhale the OP has said “my activities and whole application point towards intense focus on math and physics.” - and that’s sort of what the debate here has been about - Does one need to be multi-dimensional to be accepted to Brown? It’s a moot point because the OP has presumably decided not to apply.
Is your son enjoying MIT? The folks I’ve met from there are surprisingly (at least to me) multidimensional.
I think it is fine to chit chat about whether MIT students are multidimensional, but I am wondering whether the MIT or Brown forum would be the optimal place for interested youngsters and parents to search for and respond to that.
In the meantime, a good point was raised about Applied Math at…ahem…Brown. It is a separate department from Mathematics and offers multiple concentrations such as APMA–AB and ScB, APMA-Bio–ScB, APMA-Computer Science–ScB, (normal and professional track), and APMA-Economics–AB and ScB (Advanced Econ and Mathematical Finance tracks)
It was the OP’s view that the math courses at Brown were few in number and scope. I believe this opinion should be reconsidered in light of the number and scope of APMA courses. OP also averred that the Math teaching at Brown is “horrific”. I can not express a comprehensive opinion about that, but I do know just one person in the middle of the APMA-Econ concentration who is fully satisfied with the level of instruction.
I believe the OP’s views about the Brown Math/APMA curriculum were not fully-informed and portray an incomplete and erroneous impression of the discipline at Brown.
@arwarw: I know what OP posted here, but also saw that OP slightly bristled at your mention of EQ, which had to be your way of pointing out that such intense focus can make one seem narrow and one-dimensional.
That response by OP indicates that while the OP came to this thread and presented in a rather bulldozer-through-earth way, he/she is sensitive and aware (perhaps) that such a presentation can engender inquiries and suspicion that there is not “more” to OP’s profile/personality/presentation/character.
My follow-up to your later, gentler comment was one which was intended to buttress OP, despite the turns this thread had taken, despite my first comment to OP, despite the EQ mention, and in light of all of it at the same time.
I think that living with my son, we could often see many of those same traits as things he would use as buffers against the world, and in furtherance of his self-identification. Sometimes we wondered if he knew that when he was strident on a point that he was a little too strident. Don’t think he did/does. However, he found just the right mixture of things that helped him to become less linear, and to really stretch in ways that were (and still are) wonderful to see.
Yes, he is quite enjoying MIT. He is growing, and growing up and growing less conscious of his “differentness” because he is in a land of people who get him, who respond to him, who push him. (He has younger sisters and it is their job to make him know that he is a big, gangly, stupid, boring, brother.)
I am no longer surprised at the multidimensional aspect of kids who intensely focus, particularly. I am moreso amazed by young people in general.
Not really. I was thinking of EQ as the ability to read social context well and behave accordingly, which the folks from the universities I mentioned seem to do very well, despite some having intense focus. Again, I regret mentioning it. I don’t know the OP and know even less about psychology.
Happy to hear your son is doing well!
I don’t know that there’s any more to say, but if people do have more to say generally, I wouldn’t stop just because the OP is no longer interested in hearing it. A small minority of people who read these posts ever post anything themselves (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1%25_rule_(Internet_culture) sorry, can’t seem to get this link to fully work) so there’s still a lot of people who would stand to benefit from a discussion that an OP is no longer interested in.
In my experience, this was true of lower level math courses that non concentrators were taking, but was not representative of the higher level courses that concentrators would take.
Granted, on an anon forum, we can all say pretty much what we want. But, in general, CC is sensitive to some extremes- and fonder of hs kids who show understanding and some ability to evolve their thinking.
And the top colleges like the same. MIT’s reps say it more publicly but all the top schools tell that they look for some variety of interests and skills and a willingness to climb out of their own boxes. (You show it in the app, what you chose, experienced, committed to, and in what you write.) Harvard, eg, includes characteristics beyond academics and self-interests in their “what we look for.” That doesn’t preclude having a main interest area and wanting to get as much of that as you can. But it’s got a lot to do with attitude.
Whether or not some unilateral kids get an admit is beside the point, in this respect: given a chance to either present yourself as having narrow interests and disdaining other areas (academic or outside class,) versus showing an open mind, the latter is the safer bet. OP came on pretty strong, from the first post. And, sorry, but the last minute fret that Brown’s math dept isn’t as strong strikes some here as late and roughly put.
He has choices to make- and will. And sure, we wish him the best. But know your college targets, put the right effort into matching them to you and you to them. Do it early. For the tippy tops, it’s a high stakes game.
This is the issue stated by the OP, and which I have tried to respond to:
I took this to be a sincere question about Brown that had more than an individualized scope of applicability, so I chose to participate. The OP did not talk about EQ, or being unilateral, or not having an open mind. Those are things that readers tagged him or her with. Somewhere along the line, the issue got changed from the OP’s question to the OP, personally.
The OP is probably about 17 years old. Maybe seeing all these adults start to judge him/her affected the tone of some of his/her responses. I don’t know. I really do not understand microaggressions and trigger warnings and all that stuff.
Anyway, lots of people have expressed views on the issue. I am in the camp that one of the purposes of the Open Curriculum is to allow a high degree of focus in a particular area. I also advised the OP to be honest, and assess the risk involved in paying for and completing the Brown application. Others have expressed different or nuanced views.
I have joined another poster in pointing out the opportunities in Applied Math. I have not expressed views about the OP’s personality because I didn’t think that was relevant…and I wouldn’t have a clue anyway without a whole lot more information. If this thread has any more legs before it is finally spent, I hope it can address itself to issues other than the OP’s perceived personality.
Yes, but OP also started with “…ignore boring classes.” His choice of words. “I have 0 interest in humanities courses…” “I know exactly what I want to do in life.” Those don’t strike me as humble confusion. Nor openness looking for expression.
And then on 12/28, days before the deadline, this capper: “Brown’s math department sucks”
In a thread about Penn: “there is no particular reason why I would like to go to UPenn, other than the fact that it has a top math program.” “Am I really supposed to be an a$$ licker and tell the admissions comittee why their school is so great…” “Basically I can’t think of anything that UPenn college of arts and sciences math program offers that any other top university does not.” These statements ust doesn’t strike me as a kid who knows the schools well or his small part in the bigger world.
Imo, something is amiss. You can also look at the much earlier similar thread about a Caltech question.
…or we can avoid the OP’s issue–to the extent there is anything else to say about it which might provide illuminating information for Brown applicants and their parents-- and continue to judge the OP, instead.
Fenway:
You do realize that it is merely tone that can be picked up on through writing, and tone suggests and conveys the only cues about approach, attitude and earnest effort to reach a stated goal that a reader (i.e., CCers, adcoms, readers of letter to the editor,etc.) has, beyond the words used which are yet another component of revealing effort and intent.