Click here to go to the NEW College Discussion Forum

Instead of engaging in parallel conversations about high school math education and colleges for math/science oriented students in existing threads, I thought it would be useful to have one dedicated to the topic. Post away.
If anyone wants to continue offline, we can make arrangements to post our email addresses for a short period of time with the help of the moderators.

By Cangel (Cangel) on Friday, May 21, 2004 - 07:23 pm: Edit

Anyone want to rate/list LACs strong in science, especially molecular biology? We're looking for a balanced school with strong history and science.

Math at our school is weak, but I think it's a middle school problem, what is it like elsewhere?

By Nvadad (Nvadad) on Saturday, May 22, 2004 - 11:09 am: Edit

I am really interested in this thread and would like to be part of it here or offline via email.

I have a son who is a junior and a 3 time MOPer. He has a deep love of math (both competition and just of the joy of it). He also likes physics (semifinalist for Olympiad team). He wants to double major in engineering and math.

As far as college selection goes, all the traditonal themes come into play (i.e., cost vs return down the road, impact of name on future employers and/or grad schools, etc). We have one good income, but already have one son in college.....

By Marite (Marite) on Saturday, May 22, 2004 - 11:33 am: Edit

I'm going to have a stab at responding to Nvdad, but hope others will chime in.

My own S likes pure math and theoretical physics, so a more applied math and engineering college might be less of a good fit, though he certainly could find enough courses to take at such a college. With this caveat, though, here are some suggestions:

Princeton, Harvard, MIT, Chicago, Yale, Columbia (apply for the Rabi scholarship to get 4 years internships), Brown (more applied math and experimental physics) Carnegie-Mellon, Caltech, Cornell.
Among large state universities, UMich, Wisconsin, Berkeley, University of Illinois-Urbana Champaign.
Among LACs, Williams and Swarthmore have excellent math programs.
for undergraduate math/ physics/engineering programs, Rose-Hulman, Harvey-Mudd, Cooper Union.

I think all of these would make a good impression on grad schools. I know one Princeton student (physics) who is going to Cornell, one MIT math student who is going to UIUC, two Chicago graduates who are at Harvard (one math and one physics).

Hope this helps.

By Interesteddad (Interesteddad) on Saturday, May 22, 2004 - 12:08 pm: Edit

Nvadad:

Of the liberal arts colleges, Swarthmore is one of the few with a engineering department.

By Mini (Mini) on Saturday, May 22, 2004 - 12:27 pm: Edit

Among the better LACs, one good way of assessing math departments is to see how many math majors there actually are. Since it is relatively rare for LAC students to be math majors, chances are that those colleges which have a relatively large proportion of them have put energy into ensuring a quality department.

Williams is pretty well-known in that regard. Also, lots of student-faculty research there in molecular biology. Smith has all three: large numbers of math majors, an engineering school, and a huge number of biology majors - many with a molecular emphasis, but sons will have to transform their chromosomal arrangements.

But, again, among the LACs, doing your own research likely won't be hard. Check out the number of math majors, the catalog for molecular biology, and those with engineering programs (if that's the interest.)

(All the better LACs have good history departments - it really depends what you are looking for.)

By Emeraldkity4 (Emeraldkity4) on Saturday, May 22, 2004 - 12:34 pm: Edit

For what its worth, the schools with highest percentages of students going on to recieve ph.ds inhttp://web.reed.edu/ir/phd.html

By Interesteddad (Interesteddad) on Saturday, May 22, 2004 - 12:34 pm: Edit

This may be a useful link when considering the strength of sciences at schools. "Achat" first posted in in an individual college forum, but I think it would be of general interest. Here's the link:

http://www.collegenews.org/prebuilt/daedalus/cech_article.pdf

It's a long essay/research article on sciences at liberal arts colleges written by Thomas R. Cech, a Grinnel grad, Berkley PhD., and Chemistry Professor at the University of Colorado. Really interesting stats based on National Science Foundation data on the number of science and engineering PhD's awarded over a five year period in the 1990s and where each of the PhD's. did undergraduate study. The interesting part of his research is that he provides the number science/engineering PhD's for each undergrad school, corrected for the size of the undergrad student body.

The table on page 6 of the PDF file is the most fascinating. It ranks the top 25 schools based on number of science and engineering PhDs, PER 100 undergrad students. So, for example, CalTech was ranked #1 with 42 science and engineering PhDs per 100 undergrad enrollment -- a function of its science/engineering focus and small size. MIT is #2 with 22. The list is quite shocking after that, with 11 small liberal arts colleges in the top 25 including some that might not be generally regarded as science powerhouses. Here's the rank:

CalTech 42
M.I.T. 22
Harvey Mudd 19
*Swarthmore 18
*Carleton 15
*Reed 14
U. of Chicago 13
Rice U. 12
Princeton U. 12
Harvard U. 11
*Haverford 11
Johns Hopkins U. 10
*Oberlin 10
*Pomona 10
*Grinnell 10
Yale U. 10
*Kalamazoo 9
*Bryn Mawr 9
Rensselaer Polytech. Inst. 9
Cornell U. 9
Case Western Reserve U. 8
Stanford U. 8
Brown U. 8
*Williams 8
*Amherst 7

---

BTW, just a side note. There are some unbelievably interesting articles on this website. The article on college pricing strategies by economist Morty Shapiro (current Pres. of Williams) should be a must read for anyone inteested in colleges. He compares college pricing strategies to airlines, a game of filling the available seats with a myriad of price fares, with the mix based on strategic goals with serious implications on need-based versus merit-based aid.

By Texas137 (Texas137) on Saturday, May 22, 2004 - 12:44 pm: Edit

if this goes offline, please include me. My son is a junior, probably planning to major in math and some sort of theoretical CS.

Nvadad - Does your son attend TJ? If so, our kids already know each other. If you have any interest in contacting me, you can do it thru my son's email address.

By Dmd77 (Dmd77) on Saturday, May 22, 2004 - 08:22 pm: Edit

I have been incredibly impressed with Reed since my daughter went there. All freshlings take a course called humanities 110, which is a year-long study of the influence of Greece and Rome on western civilization. This sounds dull, but my D recently went to see Troy (the movie) and was extremely indignant about what they'd done with the plot of the Iliad. She also made the British Museum her first stop on her Christmas present trip to London, because she wanted to see the Partenon statues. The course is taught by professors from the Classics department, but the follow-on course, hum 220, is a history course. It's an unusual school in that students are required to get a broad-ased education through their required courses.

They also have good sciences, and are one of the few schools that offer undergrads a chance to do original research (they have the only nuclear reactor in the country run by undergraduate students). They require a thesis to graduate, which means science students do research.

Reed has a reputation as being something of a hippie/druggie school. I don't see it that way: they've figured out how to inspire students to intensive scholarship. Unfortunately, they also have a high failure-to-graduate rate, I think because of the thesis; it is a high pressure place.

By Momrath (Momrath) on Saturday, May 22, 2004 - 09:07 pm: Edit

Interesteddad, could you please give me the link to the Mory Shapiro article? I must have missed it along the way (she says as she prepares to fork over 38 grand for son to have the pleasure of his company!).

By Over30 (Over30) on Saturday, May 22, 2004 - 09:17 pm: Edit

I have a HS freshman who may end up being a math kid, so I'd be interested in any info. My throwaway email address is in profile if you want to go through me.

By Carolyn (Carolyn) on Saturday, May 22, 2004 - 09:23 pm: Edit

I've found two sites very useful for identifying colleges - especially liberal arts schools - with strong science programs:

The Howard Hughes Medical Institute - http://www.hhmi.org/news/042304.html
has an entire section devoted to undergrad biology programs and discusses many schools within this section. The link above is to a press release about what needs to change in undergrad science education and is a good jumping off point.

PKAL- www.pkal.org - is another site focused on identifying and rewarding undergrad science programs. Again, they have quite a few case studies on this site.

I have also found that many of the national trade organizations related to science - i.e., the American Chemical Society - have a wealth of information on their web sites about accredited programs, etc.

LAC's that have particularly impressed me because of their undergrad science and research programs include: Carleton, Hope College in Michigan (has probably the strongest undergrad research program of an LAC), Wheaton College (Mass - especially for folks interested in genetics, they have a wonderful bioinfomatics program mapping the human genom), St. Olaf (also has an extremely strong math department), Lawrence University (wonderful physics undergrad program), Trinity U in Texas, Reed in Oregon,
Whitman in Washington state.

By Carolyn (Carolyn) on Saturday, May 22, 2004 - 09:26 pm: Edit

And, if you do take this off-line, please include me. I'm working on a research project on just this topic.

By Avoidingwork (Avoidingwork) on Saturday, May 22, 2004 - 10:38 pm: Edit

Pretty much all of the UCs have strong science programs. My S is a science (and maybe math) guy, and he applied to Berkeley, LA, San Diego, Santa Barbara, Davis and Santa Cruz. He ruled out Irvine and Riverside, but I believe Irvine has a fairly strong science and CS program. He will be going to Berkeley next year.

The point Marite raised regarding theoretical vs applied math is a good one in assessing possible programs.

Another thing to look at is where is the $$. I graduated from UCSC with a double major in math and CS. This was 25+ years ago when UCSC was one of the top rated schools in California. At that time, it was most popular for social science, but the natural science programs got the lions share of the $$.

Hopefully some of you have daughters who are pursuing math and science. We are still under represented in these fields

By Interesteddad (Interesteddad) on Saturday, May 22, 2004 - 11:01 pm: Edit

http://www.collegenews.org/x492.xml

Momrath:

Go to the link above and scroll down the page for links to a number of articles about liberal arts colleges. There is some high-power stuff there.

Morty Shapiro's article is listed, written when he was an econ professor at USC. Really sheds a lot of light on the whole issue of financial aid (need and/or merit) rebate pricing.

Another article by Williams trustee Paul Neely is equally interesting in a similar vein.

The article by Eugene Lang is thought-provoking. He is Chairman of the Board Emeritus at Swarthmore. In his article he calls for liberal arts colleges to become much more proactive in teaching students to become lifelong community leaders by incorporating civic responsibility in the curriculum. BTW, he is being featured again on "60 Minutes" tomorrow night, for his "I Have a Dream" Foundation.

By Ohio_Mom (Ohio_Mom) on Saturday, May 22, 2004 - 11:20 pm: Edit

Please add me if this goes offline.

I've never heard of Philadelphia University of the Sciences - have to go peek at that one sometime.

By Massdad (Massdad) on Saturday, May 22, 2004 - 11:56 pm: Edit

Sorry to be a spoiler, but I think a singular focus on science strength may be a mistake, for a number of reasons:

- When speaking of the undergraduate level, the majority of decent colleges and universities will have good programs in the sciences, especially biological sciences, given the level of federal support to these fields over the past decade or two.

- Who is to say a kid will continue his/her emphasis on science all the way through college? Shouldn't a college foster broader learning anyway?

IMHO, one should focus on a school that fits, not strength in a particular program, especially a program where competency is widespread like the sciences. Please, for your kids' sake. They don't need to specialize to this extent as undergrads, and will thank you later if they don't.

By Interesteddad (Interesteddad) on Sunday, May 23, 2004 - 12:04 am: Edit

Massdad:

I concur. I really don't think it makes much sense to consider colleges because this department or that department is strong. I think that is very minor compared to finding an overall excellent fit.

Obviously, there could be some exceptions. If a student is focused on liberal arts colleges and loves art history and museum curatorship, then that would be a reason to pick Williams, which stands out with a particular strength in that area.

But, for the most part, I tend to favor looking at the big picture.

By Texas137 (Texas137) on Sunday, May 23, 2004 - 12:36 am: Edit

I agree with Massdad and Interesteddad in principle. But I also know that there are kids who are so strongly math/science-oriented at such a young age that it is very safe to assume that path for them. I'm talking about the kids who are at the top of various national competitions year after year from middle school thru high school. The calculus-in-middle-school kind of kids, who are taking graduate level math courses while in high school or ending up on the US Physics team. Those sorts of kids do NOT change direction in college. Hopefully they grow up and explore, but they remain specialized even when they end up at schools which offer a well-rounded education. And many fine colleges with well-regarded math and science departments are not appropriate for them because they will run out of courses to take or because they will not find a sufficient number of peers.

By Interesteddad (Interesteddad) on Sunday, May 23, 2004 - 12:41 am: Edit

Those kids should be going to Science and Engineering schools, not general purpose colleges and university undergrad programs. They are, however, the exception, not the rule.

By Jamimom (Jamimom) on Sunday, May 23, 2004 - 12:49 am: Edit

I want to add JHU to the list of schools with strong pure math departments. It is a small department but peruse the offerings and the names of the profs and you will see what I mean.

By Momrath (Momrath) on Sunday, May 23, 2004 - 12:54 am: Edit

Interesteddad, thanks for the link. I printed a bunch of the articles and I am now going to spend a hot Sunday afternoon reading about why my 38 grand is well spent!

By Interesteddad (Interesteddad) on Sunday, May 23, 2004 - 01:02 am: Edit

>> I am now going to spend a hot Sunday afternoon reading about why my 38 grand is well spent!

The key point that I took from Morty Shapiro's article is that the handful of extremely well-endowed colleges and universities have the luxury of operating in a unique way.

For example, it is quite apparent why the best endowed schools have the most "diversity". Less well-endowed schools can't afford diversity.

By Reidmc (Reidmc) on Sunday, May 23, 2004 - 02:06 am: Edit

That's a great site.

Co-author of the Schapiro article is Mike McPherson, past president of Macalester College.

By Mini (Mini) on Sunday, May 23, 2004 - 12:25 pm: Edit

It is easy to miss the subtleties in discussions of "colleges with strong science/math departments", or any departments for that matter. Mainly, the issue is "what" constitutes "strong", and "to whom"?

"Strong" could mean number of Nobel Prize winners on campus, or number of National Science Foundation grants. Or it could mean the number of such faculty who teach undergraduates. Or it could mean the number of such faculty who teach undergraduates in courses or sections small enough that there could be significant student/faculty interaction.

"Strong" could mean the number of courses in the catalogue -- reflecting either the breadth or the depth of the offerings.

"Strong" could mean the number of top-ranked students who would choose to attend such as school because of this specialty.

"Strong" could mean the number of undergraduate research opportunities, and the number of times undergraduates get their names on published papers.

I could go on, but you get the point.

But the question really is what does this have with the students themselves? Really top-flight science and math students who goes ANYWHERE should be able to latch on to the available opportunities wherever they go. They will be (or should be) sought after by the top faculty, and groomed for their future places on future faculties, etc.

But what about the "average" students? Does the fact that there are Nobel winners on the faculty, or that the very best students get research opportunities affect them in the least? In other words, where is the value added? (There is some, in fact, but you have to tease it out.)

In certain fields (math is certainly among them; it would certainly also be true in music and studio arts), what makes for the best education, I think most people would agree, are not large classes OR small classes, but mentoring -- one-on-one, or close to one-on-one, relationships enduring over time. The mentor is looking out not only for the quality of his-or-her class presentations but for the larger opportunities available to the student that exist OUTSIDE his/her own immediate purview. And, again, the question is whether such opportunities might exist for the "average" student, not the occasional superstar (unless your child is one of them). And the number of superstar students who actually go on to graduate school is close to irrelevant.

In my experience, such opportunities do exist at the best large universities, and at small LACs as well. The question, however, is the degree to which students -- specifically YOUR kids -- are able to access them?

You can find this out when you go about your searches -- the best way is by talking to the students.

By Massdad (Massdad) on Sunday, May 23, 2004 - 01:22 pm: Edit

I also think there is great risk in assuming that kids who win top science and math competitions are destined for careers in science or math. Some of them (many of them?) have never been exposed to any other discipline in which they can apply intellectual rigor. Certainly the level and nature of social science teaching has nothing in common with current research in those fields, which are becoming, in some cases, much more mathematical and biological in nature anyway.

This subtle tracking might be one reason why these top kids make radical career jumps, drop out etc.

College, IMHO, should be a time of intellectual exploration. If a kid can do that at Caltech or MIT, fine, but I have my doubts.

By Texas137 (Texas137) on Sunday, May 23, 2004 - 01:56 pm: Edit

>"This subtle tracking might be one reason why these top kids make radical career jumps, drop out etc."

But they don't, generally. That's my point. If you look at the kids who were math/science superstars in high school 5 or 10 years ago, they were math/science superstars in college, and are virtually all doing something math/science related now. Math uber-nerdiness in particular seems to be something intrinsic to their personalities, evident at a very early age, and permanent. Some of them had strong non-math interests when they were in high school, such as music or languages (the first girl to be on a US team to the Int'l Math Olympiad double majored in math and theater). I'm sure they all grow and explore in college. But they don't make radical career jumps that take them away from needing, first and formost, colleges which excel in mathematics.

I personally find math/science superstars to be a fascinating group of kids. People who are interested in this topic might enjoy the book "Countdown" by Steve Olson. It follows the 6 kids who were on the 2001 IMO team. It talks about the backgrounds and personalities of those particular kids, but also talks about highly gifted math kids generally, and about math education, attitudes towards giftedness, girls and mathematics, the history of the competition.

By Dmd77 (Dmd77) on Sunday, May 23, 2004 - 02:19 pm: Edit

"Math uber-nerdiness in particular seems to be something intrinsic to their personalities, evident at a very early age, and permanent."

I have to agree. I have tried to interest my son in other things, like girls ;-) No luck. (In all seriousness, he built his first robot at age 6, and he hasn't stopped yet. He does have female friends.)

By 1moremom (1moremom) on Sunday, May 23, 2004 - 03:04 pm: Edit

I also have one of these math kids. I first got a clue when he was about 2.5. He was riding in the back of the car and, I don't know how we came to it, adding three digit numbers in his head. I asked him how he did it and he said "I know six and two are eight, one and three are four, and (unable to explaining "carrying") I did it like a puzzle in my head." I took him to art class, dance lessons, nature camp... none of it interested him. But, don't worry Dmd; he went to the prom this year. (I feel compelled to add that his girlfriend will be off to MIT in the fall.)

By Marite (Marite) on Sunday, May 23, 2004 - 07:59 pm: Edit

Another parent with a kid who showed quite early on that he thrived on math, the more the better.
I take Massdad's caution. I've known quite a few people--including prospective math majors-- who changed their minds drastically once in college. I know people who were physics majors in college and went on to be historians or anthropologists.
For parents who have children obsessed with math/science from an early age and unlikely to change, the issue is different. When we toured Yale, a sophomore in biology enthused about the residential college which put her together with a roommate majoring in government. She and the roommate got on like a house on fire and had great discussions. The night before, they'd stayed up late discussing philosophy. This, she suggested, was the great strength of liberal arts colleges. Places like MIT or Caltech have fabulous profs in the humanities and social sciences and students are required to take classes outside their majors; but the students are so overwhelmingly in math/science/engineering that the student community is bound to be very different from those to be found at Harvard or Yale or Princeton or Chicago.
For me, the issue is not so much whether my S will change his mind (rather unlikely); it is whether he should mix with people who hold totally different intellectual interests from his. And on this count, I would much prefer he go to a liberal arts college than one totally dedicated to math/science/engineering. But that is his choice to make.
Regarding LACs vs. research universities. More and more students are taking Calculus in freshman or sophomore year in high school and arrive in college having done Multivariable Calculus and Linear Algebra, and perhaps even more advanced courses. My S has asked the opinion of some graduate students in math/physics and they have strongly encouraged him to go to universities that have good graduate departments.

By Dmd77 (Dmd77) on Sunday, May 23, 2004 - 08:09 pm: Edit

For myself (class of '76 at MIT) and also, it turns out, for my son (class of '07), the fact that we met people who thought the same way we do was the wonderful thing about going to MIT.

I tried to discourage my son from going to MIT, in fact, because I think it's a pressure cooker of major proportions, with little care for the individual student. I was obviously unsuccesful (in persuadinghim not to go), but he's managed to find mentors--which I never did.

And for 1moremom, I'll say that my son went to the prom, but it was "just friends, mom, sheesh!"

By Texas137 (Texas137) on Sunday, May 23, 2004 - 08:40 pm: Edit

>"the fact that we met people who thought the same way we do was the wonderful thing about going to MIT."

I think that's probably the case for many ultra mathy kids. Most of them spend their entire pre-college lives surrounded by people with diverse interests who may or may not find pleasure in the same things they do. Many of them feel isolated to some degree. They've *had* exposure to people with different interests. What they frequently lack is the companionship of other mathy kids who are smart in the same way they are, who speak the same language, and laugh at the same jokes. I know that a community of like-minded peers is one of the prime things that my own mathy kid is looking for in a college.

By Marite (Marite) on Sunday, May 23, 2004 - 08:55 pm: Edit

>>What they frequently lack is the companionship of other mathy kids who are smart in the same way they are, who speak the same language, and laugh at the same jokes.>>

This is what my S has found so wonderful about math camp; I am not sure, however, that it is what he should be looking for in college. There is a difference between six weeks in summer and four months of undiluted focus on one's interests. As well, in college, he will be with his intellectual peers in a way that he cannot be in a comprehensive high school, so the need for the summer camp-style companionship will be lessened.

By 1moremom (1moremom) on Sunday, May 23, 2004 - 09:15 pm: Edit

I must add that my husband is also an MIT alum (undergrad). His suite- and room-mates had many interests and the majority went on to non-technical careers. Their Saturday nights were not spent discussing Fortran, more likely John Anderson's candidacy or where to hear some good music.

By Texas137 (Texas137) on Sunday, May 23, 2004 - 09:24 pm: Edit

>"This is what my S has found so wonderful about math camp; I am not sure, however, that it is what he should be looking for in college."

What we, as parents, believe about the value of a well-rounded education, or what our mathy kids "should" be looking for in college may be irrelevant. Those kids seem to gravitate to a pretty small group of schools.

By Marite (Marite) on Sunday, May 23, 2004 - 09:27 pm: Edit

Parents who want to discuss colleges for math kids offline can check my email in my profile. It will remain until tomorrow. I will then send a global email to all interested so we can chat.

By Thoughtfulmom (Thoughtfulmom) on Sunday, May 23, 2004 - 09:38 pm: Edit

It's also the case that a number of those math/science kids may grow up to be professors who will serve on university committees along with colleagues from a wide variety of disciplines. Living and learning alongside other students with a wide variety of academic passions and interests may be good preparation for this experience. A number of distinguished math professors have mentioned that they benefited from attending an undergraduate institution with a broad range of students because they valued the perspectives that came with learning in an environment filled with students who were passionate and brilliant in very different ways.

By Texas137 (Texas137) on Sunday, May 23, 2004 - 09:45 pm: Edit

This discussion (What becomes of mathy youngsters in college?) reminded me of something I read several years ago in a Mathcounts newsletter, so I went back and found it. In 2000, the Mathcounts people surveyed over 900 kids who, when they were middle schoolers, competed at the state or national level in Mathcounts btwn 1984 and 1993, to see what happened to them afterwards in college. The link is http://www.mathcounts.org/New/Newsw00.pdf (scroll down to page 4). There are certainly some surprises towards the bottom of the college list, but I think that's only because the vast majority of kids ended up at one of the first few colleges, and the rest only had a few kids each. Similarly, I'm guessing that the vast majority of kids ended up in the first 2-3 majors. (the article doesn't spell that out). Here's the relevant part:

Top Ten Universities
1. Harvard University
2. Princeton University
3. Stanford University
4. Duke University
5. Rice University
6. Yale University
7. Iowa State University
8. Cornell University
9. Carnegie Mellon University
10. University of Illinois at Urbana

Top Ten Majors
1. Mathematics
2. Computer Science
3. Electrical Engineering
4. Biology
5. Liberal Arts
6. Mechanical Engineering
7. Chemistry
8. Chemical Engineering
9. Physics
10. Business Administration

By Marite (Marite) on Sunday, May 23, 2004 - 10:01 pm: Edit

Thanks for posting the article and the link, Texas. I am struck by the absence from the list of MIT and Caltech, despite the high ranking of computer science and electrical engineering (as well as other kinds of engineering) and of Harvey Mudd, Rose-Hulman or Copper Union or LACs that are known to have very strong math and science departments such as Williams.

By Dmd77 (Dmd77) on Sunday, May 23, 2004 - 10:11 pm: Edit

Mathcounts is for middle school kids. My son was competing on the high school team starting in 7th grade--that may be true of other "mathy" kids--which might explain why the schools that are really strong in math didn't appear.

By Nvadad (Nvadad) on Sunday, May 23, 2004 - 10:57 pm: Edit

A great thread; thanks all.

Right not, my son's college list is Virginia Tech, CMU, Duke and MIT.

Marite: I just sent you an email.

Texas137: Yes, my son goes to TJ. Your son is homeschooled, right?

The AMC web site has a MOP Alumnus listing. This link is dead right now, but when it was up, a very large % (maybe 80 %) of the email addresses listed on it ended in .edu .

I have googled the names of a number of US IMO team members of years past. Almost all of them seem to be math professors now.


I have come to know a few PEs through Mathcounts. I have asked them (repeatedly) about college selection - naming the names above. They only had good things to say about all them.

By Texas137 (Texas137) on Sunday, May 23, 2004 - 11:13 pm: Edit

Dmd - yes, a lot of math whiz kids compete (very successfully!) in high school competitions when they are still in middle school. But if you look at the MOP/IMO kids, most of them also did Mathcounts.

Nvadad - yes on the homeschooling. Unless I've misread the clues, our kids are actually spending most of the summer together. Three programs for sure, and the possibility of a trip in Sept! I've also sent my email address to Marite, so maybe we'll get a little yahoogroup going or something.

By Marite (Marite) on Monday, May 24, 2004 - 08:22 am: Edit

"Really top-flight science and math students who goes ANYWHERE should be able to latch on to the available opportunities wherever they go. They will be (or should be) sought after by the top faculty, and groomed for their future places on future faculties, etc."

I looked up the math offerings at a selective university that was reputed to have a good math department and was disconcerted to find that many of the classes my S would want to take would be offered only in alternate years. Strong math and science students cannot be accommodated just anywhere.

"Those kids should be going to Science and Engineering schools, not general purpose colleges and university undergrad programs. They are, however, the exception, not the rule."

Not necessarily true for my S who likes pure math and theoretical physics and is not interested in engineering. As well, many math/science kids have interests beyond math and science that might not be adequately addressed at a university specializing in math and science only.

By Marite (Marite) on Monday, May 24, 2004 - 08:22 am: Edit

1moremom:

I sent you an email.

By Jamimom (Jamimom) on Monday, May 24, 2004 - 09:38 am: Edit

Marite, you and your son will have to examine the offerings and contents of those offerings if he is interested in the math theory and physics to ensure that his interests would be adequately addressed. You may find some true gems in this search in that your son's interests are unusual. Many of the very top schools do have such departments and are looking for students that have a demonstrated interest in the pure maths and science. Ironically, his best opportunities may be in schools that are not well known for this field in that they would be trying to build or maintain the high standards of such a department. Wesleyan and Hopkins are two schools that fall into that category that come to mind along with the other "big boys". Also many of the large state universities would have such resources.

As a math undergraduate, I was always surprised at grad students who came from other schools who were no where nearly as prepared as the 2nd and 3rd year undergraduates at my school. Many of them had to take our undergraduate courses before beginning on graduate studies as they did not have the background necessary to study pure math. Even back then, preparation in those fields was not intensive in most schools.

By Marite (Marite) on Monday, May 24, 2004 - 09:45 am: Edit

Jamimom:

Thanks for the tip. we just returned from Wesleyan yesterday! I noticed that two mathematicians were elevated to full professorships and a number of students got advanced degrees in math and physics. Yes, it is worth checking out. I'll check out JHU as well.

By Marite (Marite) on Monday, May 24, 2004 - 09:49 am: Edit

cangel:

I don't think any of us addressed your query about molecular biology. A lot of LACs have great programs in that field, I believe. Williams, Swarthmore, Reed come to mind. Any LAC that is known to be strong in the sciences should have a great molecular biology program.

A hot field nowadays is bioinformatics/biostatistics. I know one statistician who has gone into biostatistics and one Biology Ph.D. now working in genomics which, according to him, is more math than biology.

By Blossom (Blossom) on Monday, May 24, 2004 - 10:33 am: Edit

Marite, don't assume that the MIT kids lack passion in the non-Science courses. We are struck by how many of our son's friends are double majoring (or majoring and minoring) in a Math/Humanities combo, or a Science/Art combo to accomodate these passions.

We are finding that the key difference between the kids at an LAC (our preference for him... as if it mattered!) and MIT is the presence of the math interest, and not the absence of the other interests. Especially for the non-engineers, the theoretical bent of the math, physics stuff seems much more compatible with a love of philosophy or linguistics, for example, than with the real practical orientation of computer science or robotics.

By Soozievt (Soozievt) on Monday, May 24, 2004 - 10:45 am: Edit

While I do not have kids who are going to pursue math/science majors (though are excellent math students), I am posting more to do with some points brought up in this discussion. While in principle, I agree with InterestedDad and MassDad about college being a time to explore a wide range of academic pursuits and that choosing a college that is the best fit overall is paramount, I also think there are different types of kids out there and there are different routes that are appropriate to fit their needs.

For many students, they will enter college "undecided" when it comes to a major. That is fine and to be expected of many students. Then there are some like my senior daughter who have some "direction" or "intent" as far as a major, in her case, architectural studies. So, when looking at colleges, they had to have this major in the first place of course. As it turns out, she is not going to a college where it has the "best" department in that area. However, she has chosen schools with what is considered basically a Pre-Architecture major, like any college major, that would entail graduate school in order to pursue this profession. She could have opted for a five year BArch program in Architecture but she was not ready at age 17 to committ to a field/profession, as well as not being interested in having the majority of her coursework outlined for her in undergraduate school, since she prefers to explore many subjects she likes in college. But that was simply HER chosen route.

Then, I have a child that kind of reminds me of this discussion of kids who have been deeply immersed and passionate and skilled/talented in math since they were little tots, who seem to "know" the direction they wish to go and have never wavered. While math is not that area for my younger child, musical theater is. She has been into this field since preschool and it has grown very deep in her life....involving a great deal of training and experience. There is NO question in her mind that she wishes to pursue this field in college and beyond, much like some of the math prodigies I am reading on this thread. To go into that field, it does require choosing a college that has that specialty in a BFA program. So, that is the biggest factor in choosing her schools, whereas my first child may have weighed things like size, location, etc., this child has to go where the programs are. I can see this for some of the highly gifted math kids that I am reading about here. PART of their college search must include looking at the department of math at each school and whether it can meet their needs. They are confident that they will be going on in this field, so that is a big consideration in their college criteria in the college search process.

I agree with Marite, that even if a kid is going to pursue a particular field with great certainty and is looking for a department that excels in that field or meets the child's needs best, it does not mean the student must attend a specialty university (as someone else suggested). Again, this is a decision based on individual desires. As a corollary, for my kid, she could attend a school such as Boston Conservatory for her BFA degree in musical theater, and just be among other students who share this passion. Or she could attend a conservatory style program within a university where she is among students of many interests, and also takes some of her program in liberal arts, along with her BFA degree program...as is the case with NYU or UMichigan. Right now, she is leaning toward the latter idea.

I do not think there is one right route for all. As I said, I have one kid who has an intended major where looking into the department offerings in that major played one part in her college selection, but not the only aspect by far. She will be exploring many things in college. But I also have a kid with a very definite plan in mind who needs a specialty department/program, which can be in a larger university setting with students of other interests, but the program itself is much more paramount in her college selection than for my first child who likely will go onto graduate school. The second child's college list and search process is very different than my first child's. The list is almost made before we even searched cause she must go where the best programs are in this field. I totally understand these uber math types I am reading about here and it is a similar path in a way.

I think we cannot really use a one size fits all thing when it comes to college selection and assume that it is simply about college fit and not a specific program, as it is some of each. Plus for some, their field of interest is very set and they need to go where the programs are that meet their needs. For some, like my oldest, they have specific interests but it is not set in stone and a lot of college involves that academic exploration. I don't think one path is better than the other but just different. Most teens do not know for sure what they want to do with their life. But there are some with deep seated passions and talents who really know they want to pursue that specialty in college and for their life's work. Could it change down the line? Sure. But still it is a different kind of kid than the one who just thinks they want to major in something. You almost have to have a kid like this to know what it is like. I totally understand the kind of math whiz kids that some of you have.

Susan

By Marite (Marite) on Monday, May 24, 2004 - 10:47 am: Edit

Blossom:

Point taken. S has talked to some MIT students--and has friends either there or headed there. But he will go visit MIT and Harvard later for a more comprehensive look. I do know that some MIT students who become serious about the humanities end up taking courses at Harvard, just as Harvard students who become serious about engineering end up cross-registering at MIT. That is one of the nice things about these two schools.

By Sac (Sac) on Monday, May 24, 2004 - 03:45 pm: Edit

I think math and science should be thought about differently, and that there are probably many more schools that would be just fine in science while many fewer for the kind of theoretical math kids described here. This is the kid for whom math is recreation, avocation, vocation. They tend to congregate, as people have noted, at Harvard, MIT, and to some extent Princeton, Stanford, and Chicago.

But then there is the question of the kid who just finds math easy and might or might not end up as a math major, depending on the college experience. Would this student thrive in the same department as the one that caters to those who will be competing for the Putnam Prize? (A math professor we know has joked that Harvard gets a lot of great math kids, but most of them seem to come out as investment bankers.)

We decided there is no one right answer but that there is a bottom line: a school must offer graduate courses in math and encourage undergrads to take them at least by senior year. There must be at least some faculty members who are still actively engaged in research and an opportunity to work with them.

Beyond that, I think it is a matter of trying to find the school at which a student feels he or she will be happiest overall. While there are some kids who have reached the point most reach at graduate school -- of knowing which professors they would like to work with -- I think the majority basically make a decision based on the student body that different schools attract.

By Cangel (Cangel) on Monday, May 24, 2004 - 03:52 pm: Edit

Marite, I would add Haverford and Davidson to that list. Davidson has just started a concentraion/interdisciplinary major in genomics, and Haverford has something simiar in molecular biology. This is important stuff! All you potential pre-meds out there, some hands on lab experience in molecular biology could mean a job for you if you need to do a gap year between college and med school - it's hard to get techs with that experience.
You're right about the genomics, too, the program at Davidson involves physics and bioinformatics (stats and computers) as well as molecular biology, and a student can lean toward the "wet lab" stuff or the computer "stuff". I'm a pathologist, this will revolutionize my job over the next 10 years, so this is an exciting field to me.

By Marite (Marite) on Monday, May 24, 2004 - 03:59 pm: Edit

SAC:

Yes, I suspect that a lot of students strong in students do end up as investment bankers. For all its size compared with other colleges', the Harvard math department has about 1/10 the number of concentrators as the economics department.

Any student who is not sure about his or her potential major or career, and any student who enjoys a variety of interests ought not to make a decision based on the strength of a single department. Luckily, it seems to me, most universities and colleges with very strong math departments also have great strengths across the board. So it comes down to the student body, the location, access to non math/science interests and other factors.

By Monydad (Monydad) on Monday, May 24, 2004 - 04:32 pm: Edit

"(A math professor we know has joked that Harvard gets a lot of great math kids, but most of them seem to come out as investment bankers.) "


This may not be such a bad thing.

Forgive me for poking my nose in here, since our kid's battle is done (for now), and was not in this direction. But as a former physical sciences major myself, I was sort of interested.

A few years ago the financial engineering group I was a member of was joined by two retrained PhD physicists. They had switched over because they could not get any work in physics. Later they hired another fellow who willingly bailed out from a top graduate physics program.

This was unheard of years ago, and I think it's a tragic state of affairs, personally. But if this is indeed what opportunities are like these days for scientists, then please all of you suggest to your kids that they don't ignore the seemingly "softer" fields in the course of their general education. Many of these fields have branches that are quite quantitative, and where your kids by virtue of their math skills may stand out relatively more.

Economics and finance are two areas that have branches that are highly quantitative, and may be financially remunerative as well. Financial engineering is highly complex and challenges the finest analytical minds, believe me.

Just something to think about..

By Sac (Sac) on Monday, May 24, 2004 - 06:50 pm: Edit

Moneydad,
Pardon my ignorance, but what is financial engineering?

Marite,
My facetious repetition of the math prof's comments about Harvard was not meant to imply that's necessarily a bad thing. I really meant it to raise the question of what happens to turn some students on or off to theoretical math, depending on their undergraduate experiences. It's been interesting to read the Harvard thread where Almostdead commented that Math 25 convinced her she's terrible at math. Yet, this is a student who did RSI. It does make me wonder whether, if she had been in a different course or elsewhere, she might have gone on in math or at least not lost so much confidence. She is still talking about possibly majoring in physics. But when you see the statistics on the number of science PhDs who did their undergraduate work at the top research institutions as opposed to those who come out of some more nurturing places, it does make you wonder about students who are getting lost to math and science based on something about their undergrad educations. Your son has already done so many college-level math classes that I wouldn't think this issue would be a concern in his case.
Anyway, our up-to-this-point math and science oriented son has just read an article about the French Laundry in Napa and, this week, has decided that he wants to be a chef.

By Marite (Marite) on Monday, May 24, 2004 - 07:04 pm: Edit

Sac:

I did not take your post amiss! Sometimes, I must say, I wish my S had a more practical perspective on life.
I feel for the poster on RSI, though; she probably should have been steered in the direction of Math 23; sometimes, students are too proud to move down a notch, and then they leave a field completely, not because they have discovered something better, but because they get discouraged. That really is too bad.

Tell your S that there are some students who cook their way through college, earning rather good money. I knew a young man who went through a very expensive college, then became a sous-chef at Bouley. I understand that the cooking bug has worked itself out. Last I heard, he was going to B school. Another one wanted to become a car mechanic. He eventually went to grad school in international relations, much to the relief of his parents ("My son, the car mechanic" does not sound as grand as ""my son the Harvard grad," even if the latter is unemployed). And then, of course, there's Click and Clack....

By Cangel (Cangel) on Monday, May 24, 2004 - 07:15 pm: Edit

Sac, if your son can come out as good a cook as Thomas Keller, he won't need MIT or Harvard, but he will need math!

By Sac (Sac) on Monday, May 24, 2004 - 07:16 pm: Edit

Marite,
I've already suggested he get a part-time job with campus catering. Of course, when I also suggested he start cleaning up the kitchen, since as a chef he will have to clean up after himself, I noticed he stopped talking about it.

By Jamimom (Jamimom) on Monday, May 24, 2004 - 07:32 pm: Edit

My neighbor's daughter, (one of 4) is the only one of her kids who did not finish college but went on to culinary school. She is also the only one gainfully employed these days. You will not catch me critisizing anyone who wants t be a chef! And my auto mechanic who has been keeping the old van alive for the last 4 years is a true genius at his work with a son at Amherst and another who has graduated from Swarthmore. With the work he has (and the $$ he has gotten out me alone), he seems to be having no problem paying the tuitions--not a word of complaint have I heard from him and he whistles as he works!

By Marite (Marite) on Monday, May 24, 2004 - 07:58 pm: Edit

Jamimom:

When we lived in England, we could not afford a car, but our plumber drove a Jaguar.

By Sac (Sac) on Monday, May 24, 2004 - 08:20 pm: Edit

We live in a town where the biggest celebrities are the chefs, starting with Alice Waters. I could live with him being either a chef or an auto mechanic (especially since we can't find a really good one). I'd just like him to be college-educated first.

By Jamimom (Jamimom) on Monday, May 24, 2004 - 08:24 pm: Edit

Neighbor's daughter was just not academically wired. Had a difficult time getting through high school. Went to community college for a year and did well enough to get into a good local school where she went for 3 semesters before deciding to go to the culinar institute. She found that she was truly in her element there. She is currently a sous chef at a very nice restaraunt.

By Dmd77 (Dmd77) on Monday, May 24, 2004 - 08:31 pm: Edit

"Anyway, our up-to-this-point math and science oriented son has just read an article about the French Laundry in Napa and, this week, has decided that he wants to be a chef."

Funny, my math-and-science-oriented son read the same article, and decided he wanted to be rich enough to eat at the French Laundry any time he wanted to.... As well as spend weekends in Paris eating. I have trouble remembering that this kid was such a picky eater that I had to offer him a dollar to try chocolate.

There is a French Laundry cookbook, and it's delightful reading (I own it), but if he's serious about cooking, I would recommend Jerry Traunfeld's Herb Farm Cookbook (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0684839768/qid=1085445058/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-5046270-6070248?v=glance&s=books) which I use almost every day.

By Nvadad (Nvadad) on Monday, May 24, 2004 - 09:25 pm: Edit

Texas137: Close...

Not three programs, just one. I'm the parent of the other one.

By Nvadad (Nvadad) on Monday, May 24, 2004 - 09:31 pm: Edit

I remember reading an article a few years ago in the Chronicle of Higher Education. The author wrote that a bachelor degree in math would lead to a good job, a masters would lead to a better one, but a PhD in math would make you unemployable.

By Monydad (Monydad) on Monday, May 24, 2004 - 11:11 pm: Edit

"Moneydad,
Pardon my ignorance, but what is financial engineering? "


I googled to find a decent description. This one works:

http://web.umr.edu/~enke/main_financialeng.html

By Cangel (Cangel) on Monday, May 24, 2004 - 11:24 pm: Edit

Moneydad, I still don't know what financial engineering is, but it sounds as if one did it well, one would not have to work for long! {haha}

By Thoughtfulmom (Thoughtfulmom) on Tuesday, May 25, 2004 - 12:23 am: Edit

Sometimes financial engineering is referred to as financial "rocket science" because after the space program funding was drastically cut, many former rocket scientists found lucrative work on Wall Street doing the very elaborate mathematics involved in valuing complex financial assets like derivatives and futures.

The math involved is by no means trivial computation. The economists involved in developing the Black-Scholes model of option valuation won the Nobel Prize for that work, and it takes a lot of mathematical sophistication to apply it properly.

http://www.wolfram.com/solutions/finance/casestudies/blackscholes.html

By Texas137 (Texas137) on Tuesday, May 25, 2004 - 12:52 am: Edit

People who are interested in financial engineering might enjoy the fascinating Nova special "Trillion Dollar Bet" about a small group of investors who applied mathematical modeling to the stock market (using borrowed money), and required a huge government bail-out to avoid a stock-market crash.

By Marite (Marite) on Tuesday, May 25, 2004 - 11:17 am: Edit

A lot of disciplines have become more math-dependent. I was told by a director of graduate studies that the best preparation for biophysics is either math, physics or chemistry. I think
Operations research is a branch of applied math. I believe some of the investors in Trillion Dollar Bet were in operations research.

By Sac (Sac) on Tuesday, May 25, 2004 - 05:26 pm: Edit

Thanks. I remember seeing the "Trillion Dollar Bet" and wondering why those guys didn't just take their system to Las Vegas and save the rest of us from having to bail them out.

I did notice that Columbia has a one-year graduate program in mathematics and finance. I suspect that must funnel the math majors into Wall Street. Does anyone know whether there are applications for financial engineering other than on Wall Street?

By Marite (Marite) on Tuesday, May 25, 2004 - 05:36 pm: Edit

There are a lot of students who double major in economics and math. Chicago has an Msc. Degree in Financial Mathematics (thanks, Thoughtfulmom, for providing the info on the Chicago math dept.). Princeton has a Calculus course for economists.
One of the famous mathematicians of the Renaissance, Cardano, was an inveterate gambler. He wrote a book about it(Ars Magna) but still did not manage to beat the odds. He did not quite lose a trillion lire, however, though he impoverished his family (thanks to my S for the info!)

By Monydad (Monydad) on Wednesday, May 26, 2004 - 11:52 am: Edit

"Does anyone know whether there are applications for financial engineering other than on Wall Street? "


Energy Companies for sure. Banks. Probably insurance.Commodities trading firms. Many other large companies/ industries probably have groups doing similar activities, in the context of their own business as opposed to focusing on financial instruments.

By Originaloog (Originaloog) on Thursday, May 27, 2004 - 11:57 am: Edit

I suspect that one of a frustrating things for most parents and students looking for advice on boards such as this is the endless repetition of the obvious when asking about what college might provide a quality education for their students. The rational for selecting the colleges posted is rarely cited and I suspect that posters rarely have any criteria beyond the anechdotal or mere recitation of a conventional wisdom garnered over time.

Because less than 1% of HS students are even remotely qualified for admission to the bulk of colleges cited let me offer a few alternative choices available to the top quartile HS students desiring an education in the math or physical sciences for which I offer a rational, albeit not the only, criteria, ie. the number of graduated who go on to earn a PhD in their undergrad major.

Drum roll please!!

Oberlin, Carleton, Swarthmore, Reed, Wesleyan, St Olaf, Pomona, Bucknell, Williams, Vassar, Colgate, Kalamazoo, Amherst, Franklin and Marshall, Haverford, Union, Hope, Occidental, Wooster, Macalester, Allegheny, Bates, Colorado C., St Lawrence

Harvey Mudd, Rose Hulman, Cooper Union

Rochester, Rensselaer, Washington U, Case, Notre Dame

As noted, I did not list the obvious-Cornell, Duke, CMU, JHU etc. I also did not list all men's or women's colleges. Also public colleges and universities were not included either. Sorry, that was my source's choice.

Because my son is quirky and boycotted the SAT II's, his six applications came from this list and he was accepted to all except Carleton where he was waitlisted.