Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Replace Wellesley with Swarthmore and Move it up to first, 6th should be Vassar

+1 . Got a very talented kid doing advanced Math at Swat. It is outstanding.

I concur.
Tenure Track Faculty At Swat: 18
Tenure Track Faculty At 3Cs: 38
Tenure Track Faculty at Williams: 12
Swat has invested heavily into a premier math program.

No grad level courses, excessive prerequisites for real analysis (typically the first distinctive math course taken - the earlier the better). Not impressed.

Williams, Mudd, and Reed are better in my opinion.

Williams Real Analysis Pre-Reqs: Linear Algebra, Discrete Mathematics (or two semesters of Calc 3)
Swarthmore pre-reqs: Linear Algebra, Calc 3 (one semester)
Harvey Mudd: Linear Algebra, Discrete Mathematics
Reed: Calc 3, Introduction to Analysis, Linear Algebra
So...you just lied?

Reed just requires calc 3 and permission of the department, HM just requires discrete math as far as I can tell.

Just checked the websites. The prerequisite for Real Analysis is Math202 (Vector Calculus-which is not calc 3 btw) and has prerequisite math 201 (Linear Algebra) and Math 112 (Introduction to Analysis). The highest placement a student can have is into Math 201, but advanced students with calculus work are placed into Math 112.


Harvey Mudd’s Mathematics Analysis 1 required Math 55 (Discrete Mathematics) which requires Math 73 (Linear Algebra) which requires Math19(Single and Multivariable Calculus). You are able to place out if you can pass a mudd exam (which typically have high failure rates, so good luck with that).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They're all great options. Really can't go wrong with any of them. I'd recommend shifting your thinking from looking for the "best" to looking for the place where your kid is most likely to bring their best.

When you apply to graduate school, they will be demarcating who is from the "best" however. A Williams student will be looked upon much more favorably than a Harvey Mudd student than a Carleton student.

lol no, the only schools getting a boost are the likes of UChicago, MIT, Princeton, Caltech, Cambridge etc. In particular, students without a solid graduate level math background leaving undegrad are going to have a hard time handling the much harder PhD level courses and doing research. Most LACs, with a few exceptions, aren't going to be able to equip their students with such a background.

Undergrad is undergrad for a reason. If you’re taking a bunch of grad courses, what’s the point of the masters portion of your PhD?

That's where you take more advanced classes. At UChicago, for example, students in honors analysis take what would be considered grad school analysis at most schools as first or second year undergrads. The median master's student would not be able to take, say, algebraic topology as they would be focused on the basics of analysis algebra etc - the top PhD students on the other hand completed that in undergrad and are thus ready to explore more advanced topics

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They're all great options. Really can't go wrong with any of them. I'd recommend shifting your thinking from looking for the "best" to looking for the place where your kid is most likely to bring their best.

When you apply to graduate school, they will be demarcating who is from the "best" however. A Williams student will be looked upon much more favorably than a Harvey Mudd student than a Carleton student.

lol no, the only schools getting a boost are the likes of UChicago, MIT, Princeton, Caltech, Cambridge etc. In particular, students without a solid graduate level math background leaving undegrad are going to have a hard time handling the much harder PhD level courses and doing research. Most LACs, with a few exceptions, aren't going to be able to equip their students with such a background.

Undergrad is undergrad for a reason. If you’re taking a bunch of grad courses, what’s the point of the masters portion of your PhD?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Be careful in this thinking. I know that we overemphasize the importance of SAT results, but at least for math the SAT scores need to be looked at.

Most LAC's have very low SAT scores so the chances that your talented math kid will be sitting next to someone who couldn't break 720 on the math SAT is quite high! He might not enjoy that very much.

Are you serious? These colleges are producing top math talent every year. They may not be making the Princeton Math PhD, but that's reserved for a very small sliver of INTERNATIONAL mathematical talent that skews towards pure geniuses. You have a great chance getting into a good graduate program in mathematic from all of these institutions.

And for the last time, the SAT has nothing to do with real analysis.

That’s ridiculous. Princeton has many strong undergraduate math majors who are American and go on to top graduate programs as well as American math PhD students.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Be careful in this thinking. I know that we overemphasize the importance of SAT results, but at least for math the SAT scores need to be looked at.

Most LAC's have very low SAT scores so the chances that your talented math kid will be sitting next to someone who couldn't break 720 on the math SAT is quite high! He might not enjoy that very much.

Are you serious? These colleges are producing top math talent every year. They may not be making the Princeton Math PhD, but that's reserved for a very small sliver of INTERNATIONAL mathematical talent that skews towards pure geniuses. You have a great chance getting into a good graduate program in mathematic from all of these institutions.

And for the last time, the SAT has nothing to do with real analysis.

That’s ridiculous. Princeton has many strong undergraduate math majors who are American and go on to top graduate programs as well as American math PhD students.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Be careful in this thinking. I know that we overemphasize the importance of SAT results, but at least for math the SAT scores need to be looked at.

Most LAC's have very low SAT scores so the chances that your talented math kid will be sitting next to someone who couldn't break 720 on the math SAT is quite high! He might not enjoy that very much.

Are you serious? These colleges are producing top math talent every year. They may not be making the Princeton Math PhD, but that's reserved for a very small sliver of INTERNATIONAL mathematical talent that skews towards pure geniuses. You have a great chance getting into a good graduate program in mathematic from all of these institutions.

And for the last time, the SAT has nothing to do with real analysis.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They're all great options. Really can't go wrong with any of them. I'd recommend shifting your thinking from looking for the "best" to looking for the place where your kid is most likely to bring their best.

When you apply to graduate school, they will be demarcating who is from the "best" however. A Williams student will be looked upon much more favorably than a Harvey Mudd student than a Carleton student.

Harvey Mudd and Carleton each send a higher percentage of their students to get Math PhDs (and overall PhDs) than Williams, but ok.

FWIW I think they are all excellent options, but acting like one considered "much more favorably" than the others by graduate schools is just not true.

Pomona does as well….agree all schools are great but surprised this thread is unaware that Pomona is a math hotspot.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They're all great options. Really can't go wrong with any of them. I'd recommend shifting your thinking from looking for the "best" to looking for the place where your kid is most likely to bring their best.

When you apply to graduate school, they will be demarcating who is from the "best" however. A Williams student will be looked upon much more favorably than a Harvey Mudd student than a Carleton student.

Harvey Mudd and Carleton each send a higher percentage of their students to get Math PhDs (and overall PhDs) than Williams, but ok.

FWIW I think they are all excellent options, but acting like one considered "much more favorably" than the others by graduate schools is just not true.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They're all great options. Really can't go wrong with any of them. I'd recommend shifting your thinking from looking for the "best" to looking for the place where your kid is most likely to bring their best.

When you apply to graduate school, they will be demarcating who is from the "best" however. A Williams student will be looked upon much more favorably than a Harvey Mudd student than a Carleton student.

Harvey Mudd and Carleton each send a higher percentage of their students to get Math PhDs (and overall PhDs) than Williams, but ok.

FWIW I think they are all excellent options, but acting like one considered "much more favorably" than the others by graduate schools is just not true.

Those types of graduates go on to get PhDs at Ohio State or Oklahoma. Williams grads are off to Princeton, Harvard, MIT…

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They're all great options. Really can't go wrong with any of them. I'd recommend shifting your thinking from looking for the "best" to looking for the place where your kid is most likely to bring their best.

When you apply to graduate school, they will be demarcating who is from the "best" however. A Williams student will be looked upon much more favorably than a Harvey Mudd student than a Carleton student.

Harvey Mudd and Carleton each send a higher percentage of their students to get Math PhDs (and overall PhDs) than Williams, but ok.

FWIW I think they are all excellent options, but acting like one considered "much more favorably" than the others by graduate schools is just not true.

Those types of graduates go on to get PhDs at Ohio State or Oklahoma. Williams grads are off to Princeton, Harvard, MIT…

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They're all great options. Really can't go wrong with any of them. I'd recommend shifting your thinking from looking for the "best" to looking for the place where your kid is most likely to bring their best.

When you apply to graduate school, they will be demarcating who is from the "best" however. A Williams student will be looked upon much more favorably than a Harvey Mudd student than a Carleton student.

Harvey Mudd and Carleton each send a higher percentage of their students to get Math PhDs (and overall PhDs) than Williams, but ok.

FWIW I think they are all excellent options, but acting like one considered "much more favorably" than the others by graduate schools is just not true.

Those types of graduates go on to get PhDs at Ohio State or Oklahoma. Williams grads are off to Princeton, Harvard, MIT…

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They're all great options. Really can't go wrong with any of them. I'd recommend shifting your thinking from looking for the "best" to looking for the place where your kid is most likely to bring their best.

When you apply to graduate school, they will be demarcating who is from the "best" however. A Williams student will be looked upon much more favorably than a Harvey Mudd student than a Carleton student.

Harvey Mudd and Carleton each send a higher percentage of their students to get Math PhDs (and overall PhDs) than Williams, but ok.

FWIW I think they are all excellent options, but acting like one considered "much more favorably" than the others by graduate schools is just not true.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They're all great options. Really can't go wrong with any of them. I'd recommend shifting your thinking from looking for the "best" to looking for the place where your kid is most likely to bring their best.

When you apply to graduate school, they will be demarcating who is from the "best" however. A Williams student will be looked upon much more favorably than a Harvey Mudd student than a Carleton student.