Are big name schools really that different?

[mathwonk]

I think math can be appreciated by everyone, but one of my friends at Columbia has given up trying. He says explaining it to someone who doesn't know the subject, is like trying to explain music to the tone deaf.

 

[WannabeNewton]

afrieden, top schools means Harvard , Stanford, MIT, CalTEch, Michigan, Chicago,...

Since you mentioned it, Ann Arbor is a state school so there are certainly state schools of a very high caliber in the mathematics and physics departments (Berkeley included).

 

[Chemicist]

I find it hard to believe you would think UCB is nowhere near as good as the other schools you mentioned. I'm not sure you realize just how world class it is. Did you even look up UCB's history in math/physics/chemistry, course offerings in math/physics/chemistry etc. before making those statements? There's a difference between saying one university has a more rigorous curriculum than another in some field at the undergraduate level and a more competitive undergraduate enviorment and saying one university is unequivocally inferior to another.

No need to be rude...

Given that Caltech scored higher than Berkeley in three of the links I visited, I think it's fair to say that Caltech's physics courses are better than Berkeley's:

http://grad-schools.usnews.rankings...-schools/top-science-schools/physics-rankings

http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandr...ankings/engineering-doctorate-science-physics

http://grad-schools.usnews.rankings.../top-science-schools/nuclear-science-rankings

But quite frankly, you're just being pedantic. I mentioned in another post that you all get my point and you're welcome to replace Berkeley with the state school of your choice.

 

[WannabeNewton]

Lol you literally listed rankings from a single ranking institution (US News) and my point is that you are making grandiose claims with nothing substantial to back it up.

Regardless, Caltech is a brilliant, brilliant institution. Everyone I know would give an arm and a leg to go there. I can't say the same of Berkeley or Michigan or even many of the ivies (one of which I attend) so yeah, Caltech is quite a place, point being if you can get in and afford it then I don't see a reason not to pick it in a heartbeat over other institutes barring exceptional circumstances.

 

[dustbin]

@Chemicist: Did you not see my post on page #1 about UCB vs Caltech rankings? Also, what do those rankings have to do with physics courses? From the website you linked:

"Rankings of doctoral programs in the sciences are based solely on the results of surveys sent to academics in biological sciences, chemistry, computer science, Earth sciences, mathematics, physics, and statistics during fall 2009."

If you want to compare rigor of coursework, why not just compare syllabi and look at old tests/homework?

 

[lasymphonie]

Lol you literally listed rankings from a single ranking institution (US News) and my point is that you are making grandiose claims with nothing substantial to back it up.

Regardless, Caltech is a brilliant, brilliant institution. Everyone I know would give an arm and a leg to go there. I can't say the same of Berkeley or Michigan or even many of the ivies (one of which I attend) so yeah, Caltech is quite a place, point being if you can get in and afford it then I don't see a reason not to pick it in a heartbeat over other institutes barring exceptional circumstances.

I know many people who turned down Caltech for undergraduate because it was too small and didn't have a great social environment. One person I know has opted for full fee at Cambridge studying natural science rather than Caltech (where I presume he received financial aid).

As an answer to this topic in general, yes, I think big name schools really are different. When I say big name, I mean schools that are incredibly selective for undergraduate admissions and thus draw a very strong cohort, as I think one of the biggest effects is the cohort effect. You sit in physics classes with IPhO prizewinners, people who've topped their country in math and science, individuals who've written novels, people who published math papers in high school and at the beginning of college. These are your peers, and they challenge you. They challenge you a lot.

The reason I didn't apply to MIT or Caltech - and the reason why many of my classmates turned these schools down - was because I wanted to be challenged and enriched in a range of things, not just science. I wanted to take classes which had publication requirements and to workshop pieces with my peers. I wanted to hear from world leaders about their lives and policies and to discuss policy with my friends, including some who had advised US senators. There are many other things. But for me, the non science aspects have also been a big part about going to a big name school, because how I approach things and my skills in a lot of areas have been radically changed by my experience here.

 

[mathwonk]

There is always room for significant disagreement on rankings. In my opinion these are caused largely by different criteria for excellence, and less so by different perspectives or reliability of information. When ranking schools, each ranker chooses a set of criteria. We need to be aware of what those are consider whether they match our own. I have tried to hint at that. The previous post addresses this point clearly for CalTech and MIT.

To me, the presence of outstanding authorities in a field, (and to me that field is mainly pure mathematics), is primary. To a student however, more important data may well include: student stipends, student workload, fees, presence of other motivated students, record of the department in graduating degree holders who then receive meaningful and decent paying jobs, willingness of famous professors to actually teach students, location in a place with social opportunities, possibility of useful networking,...

Oh yes, class size -at Harvard in 1965 when I took the class, graduate real analysis had 110 enrollees, whereas at UGA this year it might have from 5 to 15. Spivak style calculus had maybe 130, while at UGA again it has a handful. At Harvard the course has since been abandoned entirely.

And consider the reputation for treatment of students. A typical professor at one school might routinely tell students to go away and stop wasting his valuable time with questions, even good ones, while at another school the culture of the department may be to always welcome questions as a sign of interest, source of possible majors, or even just doing ones job well which the student is paying for,...

For this reason, rankings by different people, or different surveys, will give different results. I myself seldom look at rankings by US news, as they mean little to me. Such criteria as percentage of alumni support, e.g. do not tell me anything about the quality of the math department research.

Even rankings by the AMS, are based on results of a survey of people who actually know little about each department they are ranking, and hence are based mainly on perceived quality from a distance, or word of mouth reputation. All I have to do to have my opinion included in their survey is apparently to pay their annual dues, although that would not increase my knowledge of the quality of other departments. Professionals in a field of course do not need surveys to decide where the most highly regarded researchers are located.

A good reputation, even if undeserved, can help a school get better, in that it makes recruitment of students easier, since surveys are apparently consulted primarily by prospective students. This enhances graduation rates at a highly rated school, which are one factor in measuring quality. In this regard the survey results can be somewhat self fulfilling.

A good location can help as well, since excellent faculty at a rural or isolated school sometimes prefer to relocate in a city where they and their family have more opportunities. Thus schools further down the scale have more trouble improving even when they hire excellent faculty, as these faculty often jump to another school as soon as they obtain some recognition. The lucky student at a lower rated school may get such a young star as a teacher before he/she is lured away.

Salaries also play a role here, and in state schools these depend upon legislative largess. The schools in the big city often are better connected at the capitol, but not always. Large amounts of money, possibly donated, have apparently catapulted UT Austin, in Texas, to a deservedly high place in math dept polls. They have been able to hire famous and outstanding professors they would probably not otherwise have attracted, into special professorships with enormous salaries (4 or 5 times the salary of a highly paid full professor at an average state school, or more).

So I suggest one bear in mind, including me, that there is no absolute way to say which school is "best". It depends on the criteria, which each must choose for him/herself. I would suggest a visit to any school under consideration, and conversations with current students, or people in the situation, perhaps as a potential hire, that you aspire to yourself, rather than relying on surveys taken from afar. If you like it there, it won't matter what surveys say.

Always do your research however, and when applying for jobs ask about not just salaries, but sabbaticals, and health insurance, and retirement plans. A sabbatical program is very valuable to a researcher, and some people find out only later that their school does not have one.

By the way, one reason I logged in was to delete large amounts of the anecdotes I wrote above, as not useful. Unfortunately the restrictive policy on editing here effectively prevents any changes of ones remarks after sleeping on them.

 

[afreiden]

afrieden, top schools means Harvard , Stanford, MIT, CalTEch, Michigan, Chicago, the same schools that are usually considered the best on any top 10 or so list.

Ok I thought we were including only small private schools on that list. I'm no longer sure what posters in this thread (including yourself) mean by "state school" then. My other initial thought was that "state" school might then be referring to universities that have "state" in the name.. but UGA doesn't meet that requirement and you call it a state school!

I don't know what state school you are talking about, but I taught at one for over 30 years, and the number of motivated students and well prepared in an average calculus class of 35 was often as few as 1 or 2. After a scholarship program enticed more good students to stay in state, it went to about 5 per class. The most motivated and talented students at our school are encouraged to take the special honors class, taught from Spivak, which I never managed to snag. For these students our school may be a better place than Harvard, where they either might not get into this class, or might be overwhelmed by the competition. At our school they get good individual treatment.

I was talking about UCSD, where it is more difficult to obtain research positions in engineering, as an undergrad, compared to Princeton (faculty/student ratio..). When I stated that students were equally competent and motivated, on average, I had those two schools in mind, along with Stanford.

Can't argue with your 30+ years of experience in teaching math, assuming that you taught (or at least TA'ed/graded) at a "top" school so that you have a basis for comparison.

In the year I personally know about, the Stanford students did as poorly as the Harvard students did in the honors class I myself took, i.e. they dropped like flies. In both cases after the second semester only a handful were still in math, as I recall.

...

I am talking about elite honors classes here, not just regular honors classes. and yes, math 55 is that hard. The first day I was there, the professor came in rubbing his hands together, and said "this is math 55, it's hard, hard, hard; it makes strong men weep and women cry", and a guy in the front row got straight up and walked out for good, breaking the tension with laughter. I do not think he was a plant, as the professor looked so surprised.

...

When you speak about grade inflation it reminds I went there in 1960, and you probably went to an ivy much later. So indeed my information may be obsolete to some extent, as possibly it's a different world there now.

There was very little if any grade inflation visible to me in 1960. The average grade was a C of some stripe...

Sounds like grading (and perhaps the courses themselves) have gotten easier at these schools. You did mention that Harvard no longer offers all of their grad courses that they used to..

A C-average is very rare for courses in engineering these days. It's also possible that the grading scale in math is significantly different than engineering, but I have math friends from various schools (relatively recent graduates) and I've never heard them talk about low class averages. Only time I've heard of C-averages is for pre-med courses at UC's.

Going to a top school offers the possibility of encounters with the best people in the world in any field.

No doubt, so long as "top" school now simply means top 25 in your field. These are the schools with the money to acquire such profs.

I'm not convinced, however, that having a renowned professor is particularly beneficial for undergraduate education, which is what this thread was originally about from what I can tell. Most undergrads in my experience (engineering) aren't interested/aware of their professor's research anyhow.

Always do your research however, and when applying for jobs ask about not just salaries, but sabbaticals, and health insurance, and retirement plans. A sabbatical program is very valuable to a researcher, and some people find out only later that their school does not have one.

Who was that directed to?
No one in this thread asked about advice regarding faculty positions. In fact, the OP stated they're comparing universities to decide where they want to go for undergrad (I think in physics).

Anyway, my main reason for posting in this thread was to give my perspective about undergrad course material in engineering. In my experience, undergrad course material is about the same everywhere. Mathwonk's experience is that undergrad course material differs widely, in math, depending on where you go.

Faculty research opportunities for undergrads is another factor that also varies too much to make any generalizations, apparently.

As far as sizing up your competition, in my experience, your peers will be similar at any top 25 school. In my experience, what students at public institutions lack in college preparation they make up for in motivation/curiosity/competitiveness, making it a wash.

The teaching ability/motivation of your professors is an important issue that hasn't been mentioned really. Some of the best "teachers" are faculty at schools that do not offer a PhD (and therefore have no research to speak of, since PhD students do most of the research!), since faculty at those schools are hired and assessed based on their teaching ability rather than their research. The downside of a school like that from the point-of-view of an undergrad, is that the school probably isn't as prestigious as the research universities, and research opportunities for undergrads might be non-existent.

Hope that helps

 

[jtbell]

I'm no longer sure what posters in this thread (including yourself) mean by "state school" then. My other initial thought was that "state" school might then be referring to universities that have "state" in the name.. but UGA doesn't meet that requirement and you call it a state school!

"State schools" in the US are ones that are funded (at least partially) by state governments and managed (at least in some way) as state agencies. They don't necessarily have "State" in their names. The University of Georgia and Georgia State University are both "state schools."

 

[TMFKAN64]

So do these top schools really have the best TEACHERS? Or do they just have staff who know a lot?

I apologize for going back a page, but I thought this deserved an answer.

In most cases, teaching a secondary concern, at best. The important thing is usually research.

Where I went to graduate school, they gave an annual award for teaching that was widely considered the kiss of death, because the winner was *never* given tenure.

The advantage of top schools is that the environment is generally more challenging and stimulating than a merely good school. Your professors will be closer to the cutting edge of research and more of your fellow students will go on to do notable things than at a lesser university.

 

[TMFKAN64]

Ok I thought we were including only small private schools on that list. I'm no longer sure what posters in this thread (including yourself) mean by "state school" then. My other initial thought was that "state" school might then be referring to universities that have "state" in the name.. but UGA doesn't meet that requirement and you call it a state school!

jtbell answered this, but I thought I'd add that you can't really go by the name at all. For example, while the University of Georgia is a state school, the University of Pennsylvania is not.

 

[deluks917]

It is debateable whether they are better or worse for an individual student. But they are certainly very different.

 

[Mépris]

The main selling point is the "experience". The "wonderful" people you will meet there. Connections you will make for life. Yada yada yada.

A lot of it IS true. What is also true is that you WILL probably have more opportunities at say, Princeton, than at say, SUNY Stony Brook, simply because there are probably more opportunities relative to the number of undergraduates. At Princeton, they have a program where they can find you internships (research, volunteering, etc) abroad and get you paid for them. At Stony Brook, you'll have to figure out how to get those on your own.

If you go to MIT, you can take string theory as an undergraduate. You can also work at the Poverty Action Lab. Twofish used to bring up his own experience a lot. In 1991, he left MIT having figured out how to program HTML (or something, I forgot) and make a website, when people were then still hearing about "that thing called the internet". In 2018, I wonder what new thing those kids will have found out.

I don't buy into the "interesting people" point. Sure, I may find some people there amazing, but who's to say that I will get along with those that I find amazing or if their presence will at all enrich me? Also, it's just 1500 kids on a campus. Sure, most of the 1500 are smart kids. But if you don't get into MIT or Princeton or Harvard (whatever), then crying about it is stupid. What's helpful though, is going to school in a big city or in an area where you can meet people and learn and thrive in a particular interest of yours.

A good example of this is Donald Glover, who went to NYU. Far from an elite school. But he was in NYC. What did Donald Glover do that was so special? He wrote for 30 Rock, does his own stand up, is a rapper (Childish Gambino), and stars in Community as Troy.

My advice is visit the schools. Learn as much as you can about them. Decide which of those you would like to attend. Craft a good application. Then hit apply. If you get in, HOORAY! If you don't...

...HOORAY! Make things work for you.

Do you really think you should let a school define what you accomplish? It'll be harder, but you it can be done. For e.g, while they are few in number, there are people from no-name schools who end up working for big investment banks (there are some stories on Wall Street Oasis and Mergers and Inquisitions). Another e.g: research opportunities? What's that? You go to school at UW-Switch Point (no sea there, haha) and you have a great GPA in physics but you want to do research in oceanography? Woods Hole has a program for students from other schools and I think there's another one for minorities.

So yes, those schools do provide a valuable experience and amazing opportunities, but I think young people tend to assign more value than they are worth to them.

 

[hsetennis]

good example of this is Donald Glover, who went to NYU. Far from an elite school.

Just want to note that NYU's Tisch School of the Arts is very respected for performer, musicians, artists, etc. There's more to NYU than just Courant and homeless people on campus.

 

[Mépris]

Just want to note that NYU's Tisch School of the Arts is very respected for performer, musicians, artists, etc. There's more to NYU than just Courant and homeless people on campus.

I didn't realize he went to Tisch (just checked; he did), but it was just an example off the top of my head. My point still stands: the big name schools really are different. But you can make it work if you don't make it in. Most people do. And some of them do brilliantly.

It's just very sad to see people getting to the point of obsession with those particular colleges. Some parts of College Confidential are just sad to look at.

 

[hsetennis]

I didn't realize he went to Tisch (just checked; he did), but it was just an example off the top of my head. My point still stands: the big name schools really are different. But you can make it work if you don't make it in. Most people do. And some of them do brilliantly.

It's just very sad to see people getting to the point of obsession with those particular colleges. Some parts of College Confidential are just sad to look at.

I agree. I was watching an Sal Khan interview the other day that sheds light on this:

Khan: College is a confusing, muddled concept. There’s a learning part, a socialization part, and a credentialing part. The students and parents appreciate the experiential, the socialization parts, but they are paying that significant amount, if you really ask them, for the credential. If you went to students graduating at Harvard and said: “Look, I’ll refund all your tuition—you get all the experiences, all the friendships, all the learning—but you can never tell anyone that you went to Harvard University.” Would they do it? I suspect most will not do it. Which tells you that they were paying for the credential. The experience was kind of gravy on top of that. The universities think that the credential is nice but the main thing they’re giving is this experience. So that’s a huge transaction—a huge part of someone’s total lifetime income—where the person buying is buying something different from what the person selling [thinks he is selling].

 

[atyy]

I agree. I was watching an Sal Khan interview the other day that sheds light on this:

Khan: College is a confusing, muddled concept. There’s a learning part, a socialization part, and a credentialing part. The students and parents appreciate the experiential, the socialization parts, but they are paying that significant amount, if you really ask them, for the credential. If you went to students graduating at Harvard and said: “Look, I’ll refund all your tuition—you get all the experiences, all the friendships, all the learning—but you can never tell anyone that you went to Harvard University.” Would they do it? I suspect most will not do it. Which tells you that they were paying for the credential. The experience was kind of gravy on top of that. The universities think that the credential is nice but the main thing they’re giving is this experience. So that’s a huge transaction—a huge part of someone’s total lifetime income—where the person buying is buying something different from what the person selling [thinks he is selling].

That makes no sense. An organization you joined that is top secret?

 

[Theorem.]

That makes no sense. An organization you joined that is top secret?

It is a thought experiment. Its like how taking Mit open courseware courses doesn't land you the mit credentials.

 

[hsetennis]

That makes no sense. An organization you joined that is top secret?

Context: Sal Khan is an American educator who makes video lectures on YouTube. My post refers to an interview he did with Reason TV.

 

[atyy]

Context: Sal Khan is an American educator who makes video lectures on YouTube. My post refers to an interview he did with Reason TV.

It is a thought experiment. Its like how taking Mit open courseware courses doesn't land you the mit credentials.

Yes, I know. If Sal Khan gave that argument, it is a poor one. Why would one pay to get one's education at a secret organization? For that matter, would one use Khan Academy materials if the use of them had to be top secret? I would just think that there was something deeply wrong with Khan Academy if it imposed such a condition.

Also, MIT does give exams, while OCW does not. MIT obviously believes it is selling a credential if it gives exams. And MIT awards degrees too. That the credential involves an experience is not an argument against MIT holding that view. So I find neither the argument, nor the conclusion convincing.

hsetennis, I notice you posted that remark in support of the view that the big name schools are not necessarily better than less famous schools. I do agree with that point, but not the argument attributed to Khan.

 

[Theorem.]

I think you are missing the point... Which is basically the question of what motivates students to study: a genuine desire to learn, just to get the credentials, or somewhere along the spectrum in between. No one is buildings 'secret organization's here and that most definitely isn't the point

 

[hsetennis]

Atyy, I think you're misinterpreting Khan. He actually means to consider Harvard as a nameless institution, not a secret institution. For example, if just the name "Harvard University" was erased from the diploma, but the graduate would still keep the diploma.

A similar kind of thing happens in my home state (and I'm sure elsewhere also). Our top state schools IU and Purdue have a joint campus downtown, which is, by some, considered less prestigious. However, when a student graduates from there, her degree will say only IU or Purdue, and not the specific campus. Hence, many undergraduates and professional degree students choose to attend there due to the costs being significantly lower than the main campuses. These students often get less of the "college experience" (it's an urban campus), but get an amazing deal on the credentials.

Oddly, this reminds me of "The Great Gatsby", in which Jay calls himself an Oxford man.

 

[Mépris]

^
I recall the Fort Wayne campus offering a full tuition scholarship to anyone having scored at least 2100 on the SAT. An option worth considering.

As much as I dislike college confidential, they do have some useful posts amidst all the noise! Such as http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/16145676-post285.html one, listing automatic full ride scholarships.

Back on topic: It would not be surprising if a large number of students went to the top schools for the brand name. After all, a good portion of those schools seem to operate under the premise of "we are exclusive, and exclusive is better".

One thing I dislike about their apparent marketing strategy is that it is too effective. In a film I saw some time back (Roger Dodger), Roger's nephew visits him at work and asks him what he's doing. He says he's "figuring out how to make people more miserable". "But I thought you were worked in marketing," the nephew says. "Exactly. If I can make people feel miserable for not having the product I am advertising, then I am doing my job well, for they will believe that they need this product to fill the void and be happy."

And this is what they do with the Harvard experience.

I don't know how much truth there is to this, but an MIT alum who took some classes at Harvard posted this on Quora:

Harvard was set up as a school for teaching priests and as a result likes elitism and tradition. The priests that Harvard trained were Calvinists that believed that God would save only a few and that God knew from the beginning who they were (and so building a clubhouse for them is not a bad thing).

MIT was found by someone who left Virginia because slave owners weren't interested in labor saving machines, so there is a deep mistrust for any sort of social hierarchy or tradition.

If this is true, it is in line with my hypothesis that they operate with the "we are exclusive, therefore we are better" mindset. Of course, being smaller has its advantages, and of course, heavily marketing their school means they will have access to a bigger talent pool. And lots more people (as compared to 50 years ago) are going to college. But is it just a coincidence that they now receive something like 30k applications per cycle?

Also worth noting that the bigger their yield, and the lower their selectivity, the higher their rankings on some rankings tables. USNews is one, I believe.

 

[IGU]

I've been working hard academically to meet the requirements to go to Caltech for a while now, though I was recently thinking, other than the benefit, albeit a major one, of having a big name school on your résumé, are there any benefits to going to universities like Caltech, Stanford, Harvard, etc.? My instinct is telling me that in things like physics, it's not a particularly differentiating science, so I'd assume that any university is going to teach the same physics as the next. Is this assumption correct?

My experience, albeit in the mid-'70s, was as an undergrad at Caltech. It's not a school I recommend to any but rather unusual people. To be successful there you should be very smart, hard working, serious, and narrowly focused on science or something very similar. You should also be sure that your interests are not going to change. The atmosphere is quite collaborative, as the students know they're doomed if they don't work together. It's a humbling experience: no matter how good you are in something, there's somebody else way better than you in something else.

Yes, it's much harder than most other top undergraduate schools, at least from what I hear from other people. When problem sets in similar classes elsewhere ask the student to calculate something, the ones at Caltech asks you to prove the relevant theorem. Graduates of Caltech will often tell you it's the hardest thing they've ever done. Graduate students who were undergraduates at Caltech will often tell you that grad school was easy compared to their Caltech undergraduate years, and they came into it better prepared than their peers.

So some of that is good. But if you are widely engaged in the world of the mind; if you love things other than science, math, engineering and such; if you wish to engage in intellectual challenges outside of the curriculum; then I would suggest someplace else. Caltech is too small for much variety (about 1000 undergrads, see http://admissions.caltech.edu/about/stats#student for stats). If you devote significant amounts of time to sports, music, etc. you will likely get into trouble keeping up. Consider carefully whether that is what you want, keeping in mind that many people change their minds about what they want as they go through college.

(Note: I flunked out of Caltech several times and never graduated. But I sure learned a lot.)

 

[IGU]

top schools means Harvard , Stanford, MIT, CalTEch, Michigan, Chicago, the same schools that are usually considered the best on any top 10 or so list.

Any thoughts on Cambridge, specifically Trinity College? I'm thinking it might be the right place for my kid (now 17 and home schooled) who cares for little other than math. I don't think he could even get into any top school in the US because he would be unwilling to meet their breadth requirements, never mind jump through the various hoops to graduate.

 

[Mépris]

^
I'm no expert, but the gist of it is it doesn't really matter whether you're doing maths at Trinity or elsewhere. If I'm not wrong, you will have different people in the tutorials depending on which college you are in, but every student will take classes together.

Make sure your son achieves as many A*s as he can, and that he takes further maths (at least AS-Level - many colleges will require A2 though, there's a list on the website, including what subjects they'd rather see; for e.g, physics or history v/s media or business), and that he does brilliantly on the STEP papers he has to take. There's a different set for those taking further maths.

I also recommend watching the *mock interviews* that Emmanuel College, Cambridge has on their website. Google.

I recall seeing some threads on The Student Room where they help with STEP. Make sure you don't get sucked in. Among the useful posts, there are many that come from anxious and/or insecure kids.

An old poster here, who I think teaches computer science at Bristol now, went to Cambridge for maths - his username is matt_grime I believe. He posted in mathwonk's "who wants to be a mathematician?" thread, in the earlier pages.

I don't think American colleges are worth the money for most UK/EU students. It depends on what his priorities are, and in this case, it's mathematics. He doesn't need to apply to any of the top colleges. If you're not poor (financial aid), you will end up spending ridiculous amounts of money for a regular bachelor's degree. That said, if he wants to attend a certain school, he should apply by all means. But when you have the excellent UK student loans, why bother go through the tedious process of applying to school in the US when you can just go to UCL, King's, Endinburgh, Oxbridge, etc? All you need is a short written statement, a couple of As-A*s and sometimes, an interview, which is entirely academic. It is as straightforward as it gets.

If your son doesn't get into Oxbridge or his desired school in the UK, and wants to study in XYZ European city that he loves for whatever reason, he can just learn the language and apply there. Munich? Vienna? Zurich? Paris? With 3 A-Levels and 1 AS or 4 A-Levels, it's as straightforward as it gets there too. That said, the French are weird, and it would appear that the grandes ecoles are where it's at. That is not to say that people who go to regular universities can't make it. Grothendieck did it. Others have.

Note that I'm only about to start university myself, so take that into account while reading my post.

 

[cdux]

Sometimes simply the "harshness" of marking is a big difference. e.g. now I'm dealing with a module that accepts nothing but strict rigorous mathematics. This is exceptionally difficult to get comfortable with especially in a course that is mainly about Engineering (and those mainly deal with methodologies and their application, rather than strict math). But.. due to this I guess I have to learn mathematical rigour or else.

 

[RabbitWho]

Well I sure hope it's not important because I'm studying with UNED.

 

[IGU]

Make sure your son achieves as many A*s as he can, and that he takes further maths ..., and that he does brilliantly on the STEP papers he has to take.

Sorry, I didn't make it clear. I'm in the US. My son is home schooled. No further maths or official classes at all (although he's audited some math classes at local universities). He mostly just learns math on his own. He hasn't taken STEP. Will that be a problem?

I'm most curious whether Cambridge is the right place to be for a total math kid who's quite good. Is it a "top school" for undergraduates in mathwonk's sense, and particularly suited to students who just want to do mathematics? Perhaps it's better than Harvard because at Harvard he could take Math 55 but he'd also have to take a bunch of things he isn't interested in and won't do.

 

[AlephZero]

My son is home schooled. No further maths or official classes at all (although he's audited some math classes at local universities). He mostly just learns math on his own. He hasn't taken STEP. Will that be a problem?

He will certainly have to produce some hard evidence of what he knows...

I'm most curious whether Cambridge is the right place to be for a total math kid who's quite good.

... and if he's only "quite good", he probably won't stand a chance anyway. In terms of UK qualifications, he woulld probably need straight A (or better, A*) grades to be a serious candidate.

Get in touch with the Admissions Office at Cambridge for advice on how to proceed: http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/offices/admissions/

 

[hsetennis]

Sorry, I didn't make it clear. I'm in the US. My son is home schooled. No further maths or official classes at all (although he's audited some math classes at local universities). He mostly just learns math on his own. He hasn't taken STEP. Will that be a problem?

I'm most curious whether Cambridge is the right place to be for a total math kid who's quite good. Is it a "top school" for undergraduates in mathwonk's sense, and particularly suited to students who just want to do mathematics? Perhaps it's better than Harvard because at Harvard he could take Math 55 but he'd also have to take a bunch of things he isn't interested in and won't do.

I don't know if homeschooled students can do it, but international high school credentials (such as IB or something similar) will help when applying to Cambridge.

 

[RabbitWho]

I know in Ireland it wouldn't matter what school you went to as long as you have the same qualification as everyone else (some kind of school leaving exam).

But I was surprised when I applied for university in Spain that I had to had all my grades from high school.. They don't do that in Ireland and I had never made any effort whatsoever in school tests, which weren't taken seriously at all. The focus was very much on the Leaving Certificate, which anyone can sit even if they haven't been through high school (assuming they have studied for it, of course).

So it must be different in every country. In Spain I imagine it's very difficult for a home schooled kid to get into university.
There has to be a way though, there are home schooled kids in every country and you can't just leave some of the potentially best educated kids you have out in the cold because of paperwork.

 

[Mépris]

Sorry, I didn't make it clear. I'm in the US. My son is home schooled. No further maths or official classes at all (although he's audited some math classes at local universities). He mostly just learns math on his own. He hasn't taken STEP. Will that be a problem?

I'm most curious whether Cambridge is the right place to be for a total math kid who's quite good. Is it a "top school" for undergraduates in mathwonk's sense, and particularly suited to students who just want to do mathematics? Perhaps it's better than Harvard because at Harvard he could take Math 55 but he'd also have to take a bunch of things he isn't interested in and won't do.

Make a Google search for "Cambridge university home school". Refer to Aleph's post.

I can't speak for how well suited it would be for anyone, as I haven't been there myself. All I can say is that I've looked at their syllabus for the maths program a while back, and it is certainly intense.

I cannot say much about math 51 either, other than it being a bulky course. Much has been said about the course here on the forums. Mathwonk has written about it in his thread and elsewhere, I believe.

I recall that they require 4-5 AP courses (of course, he should do calculus!) with grades of 4 or 5. I don't know how they will use those grades, as A2 mathematics and further mathematics cover more material than AP calculus (complex numbers, differential equations, mechanics and/or statistics, some linear algebra too I think), but I have a feeling that he will need to do brilliantly at the interview. It would be much more straightforward to get into other great UK schools like Warwick, UCL, Imperial or King's, as they do not usually have an interview process. That said, I think that the AP exams are required in addition to an American high school diploma and the SAT reasoning test.

If your son wants to do maths and just maths, European universities are a good bet. Germany, Belgium, Switzerland, UK, Netherlands...3 year bachelor's too. General, the academic level is high, and entry is quite straightforward. i.e, proficiency in language and so and so grades achieved. I am not sure how AP exams are treated in other European countries. You will need to look that up. And outside the UK, European universities *tend* to be of a similar quality. So, apparently, it won't matter too much if one's bachelor's is from Munich, Zurich, Leuven, or Dresden.

Whereas in the US, studying at a flagship state U like Michigan is probably a better idea than studying at even a top liberal arts college like Williams, simply because the latter has a limited course offering. That said, at a smaller school, it may be easier to get research opportunities (but limited research areas, because of smaller faculty) than at a bigger school. But if you want more maths and less everything else, Europe (or a school with loose requirements like Brown) is a better option.

If your son wants to attend a top US university, he will need some kind of distinguishing trait (for e.g: writing a best selling book in a niche subject or co-author of some papers). Look up Cal Newport's "How to be a High School Superstar". I gather that the more impressive the applicant sounds, the higher the odds of him getting in *somewhere* in the top schools. But again, if one is going to try to be impressive just to get into a school, odds are one won't be too happy trying to be impressive, and odds are one won't end up doing something that is all that impressive anyway!

At least, this just my opinion. I will stop here, as I think others have tackled this very question far too many times already, and many of them are better qualified than me (former students, admissions officers, counselors, professors, etc) to write about this. Some have written books on the subject, i.e, Cal Newport.

Anyway, I think you should make another thread if you have further questions.

 

[serllus reuel]

This isn't related to what has just been posted, more of a general question.

So there are the "state schools" and the ivy league/stanford/mit, etc. But what about schools that have an average undergrad program but are top notch in a particular subject?

Exampe: UC Santa Barbara, 50% acceptance rate, okay ranking, physics department top 10 in the world. Considering I live in California, I'd be very happy there if I can't get into anywhere else.

 

[rdrewd]

"Where any person can pursue the study of any subject..."

There are lots of reasons for picking one school over another school. It'd be a shame to just look at big name schools and ignore other selection criteria. My undergraduate degree is from Cornell U. in Ithaca, NY. It's an interesting mix of a school - partially an Ivy League school, partially a NY State school. The University's motto is attributed to its founder, Ezra Cornell. "I would found a University where any person can pursue the study of any subject". The punchline that goes with the joke version of that is "But Ezra. Everybody will want to go there." "Uh-uh. I haven't told you yet where I'm going to put it.". It is in a decidedly rural area, 30 miles from the nearest Interstate highway. If you hunger for bright lights in a big city, Ithaca isn't the place to look. If you aren't quite sure exactly what field you want to pursue, the diversity of the offerings at Cornell may well make it worth considering. Top quality libraries, notable levels of financial aid, talented students, remarkably rich thick course catalogs, with professors that do indeed know their stuff. Dress for the weather and take advantage of the place, but be prepared to work hard.

On the flip side, my daughter wanted to go to school in a place where she could pursue internships in the financial industry. She opted for Columbia U. in NYC, worked hard to take advantage of the metropolitan location and did fine, despite the misfortune of graduating at a low ebb time for the financial industry. Clearly for her, Ithaca wasn't a good match to what she was seeking.