Any Mathematicians on the Board?
- Thread starter TrueEpic08
- Start date
Dark Horse
Rookie
Breh, I'mma let u in on a secret. Those places are always searching for mathematicians because they're pits stops, that look impressive on a resume, and may have the benefit of getting you a high level clearance. Once you get those things, what's your incentive to stay? Why go through the struggles of getting a technical degree, have the added benefit of being a minority, then stay at an organization where you're just a different face, with the same, or similar skills to thousands of other people?
Even aside from that, they got shytty pay. I got done with my undergrad, and was flirting with NSA until I saw that they start out at $48-$52K for entry levels with a BS.
That ain't shyt in the DC metro area. Their PhDs only start at something like $83K. Large government contractors aren't much better until you get to that journeyman level, provided you have a clearance. Bottomline is, because of the economy, you're competing against people like me that said "fukk it"...and went back and got a graduate degree to further distinguish ourselves. I can tell you from experience that math (whether applied or pure) is mostly always a supplementary skill that they want an applicant to have. You and I both know taking 1-2, even 3 or 4 classes of a discipline doesn't even put you on a competitive level with someone that did it as a major. They throw math out there with an acceptable list of other disciplines to show that they're looking for technical degrees. And unless you have exposure to much more than the average 'pure' math undergrad...you're probably not as competitive as you think you are.
Advisory positions will almost always want you to have a graduate degree. And to be quite honest, I got through all of those courses, but if someone plopped a linear algebra problem down right now I probably couldn't do it to an acceptable level. And once you graduate, and find employment where you're doing something routine, all of that shyt'll leave you.
That aside, if we're talking about an engineering firm they'll usually have a senior adviser that'll review your work, as well as a tech editor. Lemme tell you, being good at math doesn't prepare you for all of the physics an engineer does, regardless of whether it's applied or pure. I'm guessing I'd probably be considered more of an engineer now, and math didn't even introduce me to concepts of OR (which is a field dating back to WWII). The problem is that the curriculum is too antiquated and for some reason, no one wants to challenge the old way of thinking.
My point is that pure math's curriculum is outdated. You shouldn't be pushed into grad school in order to have a chance at actually doing jobs directly related to your field, and get compensated like you're a commodity.
The marketing spill is true of any major going into any job. For as much as STEM gets pushed to everyone, and trust me I understand the significance...certain disciplines don't give you a solid base to step into the job market and choose what you want to do, which is kind of the misconception that's there. To me, pure math is among those disciplines. And it's a damn shame, because I can relate to what you're going through to get that degree...the shyt ain't easy.
Instead of having to take Abstract Algebra, and Number Theory, in order to be exposed to cryptography in a sort of roundabout manner, that stuff should be emphasized and highlighted. At my school Number Theory wasn't a requisite, I just stumbled across it looking for an easy "A" while I took Real Analysis.
If there's hardly any jobs that'll hire you based upon getting through the more difficult courses in a discipline, maybe those courses' importance should be re-examined.
AquaCityBoy
Veteran
Again, I don't disagree with anything you're saying here. I'm certainly not saying that you shouldn't get a master's degree to make yourself more marketable--I plan to do that myself. I just feel the issues that a math BS graduate will face--jobs that are "pit stops," with not high pay--are not exclusive to math majors, but are more indicative of how the education in the job market has changed so drastically. Because so many young kids were sold on the idea that they MUST go to college lest they become a bum or a failure, this is happening in many fields. So while I agree there should be more options for a BS graduate, and that a BS graduate will have to compete with master's degrees that are more competitive, this is just a sad part of the game.
As far as the exposure to other concepts, I agree with that wholeheartedly, but that goes back to the point about knowing how to market yourself. If there is one positive I'll say about my school, it's that BS students are required to take 80 science and engineering credits. Whether that's sufficient to employers, I'll soon learn, but I do know that as I'm writing my resume, my "relevant coursework" section will include my classes in Fortran, C++, Matlab, Solidworks, and materials sciences, NOT my classes in topology and real analysis.
As far as the importance of the purer, more theoretical mathematics courses, at my school, number theory was originally required (along with topology), but that requirement was removed, so now the only two pure math courses we have to take to graduate are abstract algebra and real analysis. Abstract algebra is basically taught as a cryptography course at my school, so much so that I didn't even know it was pure math. I understand this is VERY different at other schools since abstract algebra is considered the hardest math class students take, but here it was a joke.
I agree wholeheartedly about your points about these pure math courses, especially real analysis, and that is a problem I have with the math curriculum as a whole (though I'm not sure how much of it is only my school). At my school, real analysis is one of the last math courses you take, and because so few students are truly exposed to theory at that point, many of them fail the first time they take it (including me
). A lot of people in my class that I study with have often complained about why we need this class, why this class is important. And the reason it's so important is that it's essentially the "core" of mathematical sciences. It's the class that, if you can understand this, you should have no problem understanding the rest of upper division mathematics, as well as any other related disciplines you want to go into. This is why so many master's programs in math, including those in applied mathematics, require 1-2 semesters of it. That said, there is still the fundamental problem of offering so late. Like I said, most students have not been exposed to that much theory, so the studying and rigor required for it are not necessarily something the average student picked up by then, so they have to adjust their studying methods to adapt, and most of them can't.
I'm rambling, but the point I'm trying to make is that pure math does have its place in the curriculum, it's simply not taught in the most conducive manner. So I agree with you--why am I struggling through a year of real analysis when that's not something applicable to a job, especially when it's my LAST year and I could be spending that time on something more relevant? I will say that in taking (and retaking) this class, I've learned a lot about myself, and I realize that the theory is important to the fundamental understanding of the material. It's just that a curriculum of ALL theory is not the best when looking for a job in industry. But theoretical sciences are still important, even if they're not important TODAY. Going back to number theory, that was considered the "purest" of the pure math fields until it was discovered that many encryption systems could be based upon it.
Also, I remember very little from linear algebra myself. I was just using those examples to state that, while I don't remember it NOW, I could probably review it and pick it up better than someone who struggled with it. Just like how an engineer may not remember much from their statics and dynamics classes.
As far as the exposure to other concepts, I agree with that wholeheartedly, but that goes back to the point about knowing how to market yourself. If there is one positive I'll say about my school, it's that BS students are required to take 80 science and engineering credits. Whether that's sufficient to employers, I'll soon learn, but I do know that as I'm writing my resume, my "relevant coursework" section will include my classes in Fortran, C++, Matlab, Solidworks, and materials sciences, NOT my classes in topology and real analysis.
As far as the importance of the purer, more theoretical mathematics courses, at my school, number theory was originally required (along with topology), but that requirement was removed, so now the only two pure math courses we have to take to graduate are abstract algebra and real analysis. Abstract algebra is basically taught as a cryptography course at my school, so much so that I didn't even know it was pure math. I understand this is VERY different at other schools since abstract algebra is considered the hardest math class students take, but here it was a joke.
I agree wholeheartedly about your points about these pure math courses, especially real analysis, and that is a problem I have with the math curriculum as a whole (though I'm not sure how much of it is only my school). At my school, real analysis is one of the last math courses you take, and because so few students are truly exposed to theory at that point, many of them fail the first time they take it (including me
). A lot of people in my class that I study with have often complained about why we need this class, why this class is important. And the reason it's so important is that it's essentially the "core" of mathematical sciences. It's the class that, if you can understand this, you should have no problem understanding the rest of upper division mathematics, as well as any other related disciplines you want to go into. This is why so many master's programs in math, including those in applied mathematics, require 1-2 semesters of it. That said, there is still the fundamental problem of offering so late. Like I said, most students have not been exposed to that much theory, so the studying and rigor required for it are not necessarily something the average student picked up by then, so they have to adjust their studying methods to adapt, and most of them can't.I'm rambling, but the point I'm trying to make is that pure math does have its place in the curriculum, it's simply not taught in the most conducive manner. So I agree with you--why am I struggling through a year of real analysis when that's not something applicable to a job, especially when it's my LAST year and I could be spending that time on something more relevant? I will say that in taking (and retaking) this class, I've learned a lot about myself, and I realize that the theory is important to the fundamental understanding of the material. It's just that a curriculum of ALL theory is not the best when looking for a job in industry. But theoretical sciences are still important, even if they're not important TODAY. Going back to number theory, that was considered the "purest" of the pure math fields until it was discovered that many encryption systems could be based upon it.
Also, I remember very little from linear algebra myself. I was just using those examples to state that, while I don't remember it NOW, I could probably review it and pick it up better than someone who struggled with it. Just like how an engineer may not remember much from their statics and dynamics classes.
Dark Horse
Rookie
Then pure math shouldn't necessarily be marketed as a hot field to go into, IMO...I don't think the relevancy of courses such as Real Analysis and Number Theory have decreased, just that they funnel you to an even higher degree, which shouldn't be the point of choosing a discipline as an undergrad major. You should at least have enough skills to go out be competitive with people from other disciplines, at the same education level that are applying for the same jobs where your educational backgrounds intersect. While the Master's vs. Bachelors shouldn't be equitable, Bachelors in Math vs. Bachelors in Physics, Biology, Chemistry, Computer Science, Finance, Economics isn't on the same level either...and to me that falls squarely upon the curriculum provided for an undergrad degree in Math. It isn't even something a university is responsible for, it's the accreditation boards.
What are you looking at for your Master's?
I'm almost positive the 80 credits is standard across the board. You can't do but so much to market yourself until you get the interview...and I'm not saying I came out summa cum laude, with a bunch of accolades, but I soon found out that like any other undergrad degree, it just tells employers you're capable of learning. In all of the majors I recently referenced, you get classes that prepare you for relevant work in the field...not math though. You get bullshyt like Real Analysis, which is more mental gymnastics than anything else. When we have to reference the fact that it's useful for a path that probably less than 10% of math majors take (law school) post graduation, you really have to question is there something else that could've been taught in its place, that's more useful.
As far as the importance of the purer, more theoretical mathematics courses, at my school, number theory was originally required (along with topology), but that requirement was removed, so now the only two pure math courses we have to take to graduate are abstract algebra and real analysis. Abstract algebra is basically taught as a cryptography course at my school, so much so that I didn't even know it was pure math. I understand this is VERY different at other schools since abstract algebra is considered the hardest math class students take, but here it was a joke.
I agree wholeheartedly about your points about these pure math courses, especially real analysis, and that is a problem I have with the math curriculum as a whole (though I'm not sure how much of it is only my school). At my school, real analysis is one of the last math courses you take, and because so few students are truly exposed to theory at that point, many of them fail the first time they take it (including me
I'd argue that it's therefore useless. Had it been something that was taken earlier, there'd be even less pure math majors. Imagine failing that class when you still had time to change your major without losing out on many credits. That doesn't even factor in that you don't want a terrible professor responsible for a class that difficult (the bad professors are often relegated to lower level courses).
When you're told that "this allows you to do...something else", and that gap is never bridged, it's a failure on the part of the curriculum.
I'll be honest...To me it seems like pure math is a dying discipline. There haven't been nearly the strides made as other fields, and part of that's due to the failure to attract people to math as a viable undergraduate major, another part's due to the fact that we're still deciphering proofs like scientific advancements in their applications haven't been made in the past several hundred years. Another piece of that is the fact that in order to be taken seriously in math, you need a PhD, and most of them are teaching at universities...or working in an advisory role in the private sector making far more money than they would advancing the field through research.
By the same token, someone that did CS could probably review and pick up C++ quicker than you, even if it wasn't the primary programming language they were taught. A company's looking for someone, that most of the time's going to be useless (training) for the least amount of time, and contribute the quickest. None of what I'm saying should discourage you, that's not my intent...but realize that unless you plan to be in academia, do signal processing, cryptography, go to law school, or pick up another discipline altogether in grad school to work in that particular field, pure math is truly a degree of diminishing returns. Most employers don't understand what you can do, and the one's that do, don't retain people because they benefit from it being this way.
I was wondering why this Asian cat who I used to work with graduated from UCLA with a degree in math, yet had a sh*tty job in retail.Dude was rather lazy though. He once mentioned how he almost flunked out from being lethargic...
I kept pressuring dude about going back to school to break into engineering or at least join a tutoring service where he'd make like 25+ an hour.
AquaCityBoy
Veteran
This I agree with wholeheartedly, and this is the fundamental problem with the mathematics curriculum. I had the same belief you did--why do I care about this theory when I could be doing something more relevant? But the theory is what separates the theoretical scientist (in this case the pure mathematician) and the engineer. Where the engineer sees math as a tool and says, "I'm interested in the practical applications of it and I'm not necessarily interested in the theory," the pure mathematician sees math as a subject and says, "I'm interested in the theory, but I'm not necessarily interested in the practical applications of it."
A really good applied math (or any other applied science) curriculum should be about bridging the gap between the two. "I'm concerned with the practical applications of this math/physics/chemistry/CS, but I also understand and respect the theory behind it as it makes me stronger in the applied subjects." Going back to your earlier point about learning cryptography from number theory and abstract algebra, I think the reason they do this is that it's easier to go from learning the theory to learning the applications than the other way around, which goes back to my earlier point about engineering students not necessarily understanding the advanced science topics because even the most applicable ones (like PDEs, E&M, or complex analysis) are still "too theoretical" for them.
The problem I have with the math curriculum is that the gap between the theory and the applications is not bridged extremely well, so when you get to those theory classes you don't know how to handle them. The earliest "theory" class we have to take is discrete mathematics, but with all the set theory and truth table stuff you could theoretically get through that course without doing a single mathematical proof, even though that's supposed to be your introduction to them. Then, when you get to the higher-level courses, like linear algebra, Diff. Eq., and complex analysis, and they ask you to prove the theorems, you're like
, even though those proofs are instrumental in your understanding of the material.As far as real analysis being taken earlier, while I definitely agree that many more students would be weeded out that way, the ones that won't will be much stronger mathematicians/engineers/scientists, and that's a useful asset to instill in these students earlier in their degree program, instead of making the "weed out" class the last one you need to graduate.
On the subject of pure math being a dying degree, I agree because of the reasons I've stated--the gap between pure and applied math is not bridged well, possibly due to academic snobbery and pure mathematicians looking down on anything applied, so you have a lot of students looking at this material like, "Why do I care about this beyond the fact that I need it for my degree?" But if it were taught in a more conducive manner, perhaps more students would look at the material like, "This is interesting, and even though it may not be useful NOW, I'd like to learn more about it to advance the field and hopefully it would be applied later."
As far as graduate school, I'm looking into either software engineering or applied and computational mathematics. The ACMS programs I've looked into have a good dose of both the advanced mathematics courses (ODEs, PDEs, numerical methods, combinatorics, modeling), the CS core (algorithms, data structures, operating systems, computer graphics), and some engineering courses as well (thermo and fluid dynamics). My ultimate goal is to work in tech/software/new media, but when I go to NAB show (a tech/new media conference in Las Vegas), I'm going to talk to these companies and see what kind of degrees they look for, so my graduate plans my change.
Can I ask, what job opportunities opened up for you with your degree in operations research?
Dude was rather lazy though. He once mentioned how he almost flunked out from being lethargic...
I kept pressuring dude about going back to school to break into engineering or at least join a tutoring service where he'd make like 25+ an hour.
No offense to your friend, but this sounds like this is his own fault. A lot of math majors go into their program with no real career plans besides teaching or academia, so they're not extremely knowledgeable or proactive about job options. In addition, a lot of them think, "if I'm not doing math problems all day, my career is a waste." Not saying your friend is doing any of this, but I've notice the people who graduated with math degrees and complain that they are "worthless" either didn't get an advanced degree or were upset because their jobs weren't 100% math.
Marci-Senpai
Prosperity, longevity and a sound mind.
I respect any niga that has the nerve to be a math major....me?..i cudnt do that shyt brehs shyt is too complicated for my brain to handle i wud have cracked before i reached the advanced classes
Takes dedication for that shyt.. i
you future mathematicians
Takes dedication for that shyt.. i
you future mathematicians
The problem I have with the math curriculum is that the gap between the theory and the applications is not bridged extremely well, so when you get to those theory classes you don't know how to handle them. The earliest "theory" class we have to take is discrete mathematics, but with all the set theory and truth table stuff you could theoretically get through that course without doing a single mathematical proof, even though that's supposed to be your introduction to them. Then, when you get to the higher-level courses, like linear algebra, Diff. Eq., and complex analysis, and they ask you to prove the theorems, you're like
great post. This part applies to me. I found the applications and problems interesting in discrete math. We did some graph theory and I thought is was really cool how it could be applied and decided to take the class as an elective. Taking the class now and all we do is fukking proofs and Im so lost cause I can't do a proof to save my life. I don't even know how to approach them. 
Im fukked for this final.
He's just inherently lazy and lacks motivation. Breh was perfectly content with working part time. Only thing he really cared about was his g/f. He finished school just to appease his parents.
Honestly with a degree in math from an academically renown institution, there's no reason to be making anything less than 45-50k a year...
Rusty Ryan
Rookie
Dark Horse
Rookie
I think a mathematician should somewhat know both, with the ability to be versatile enough to step into almost any situation and not feel that they weren't exposed to something. For jobs that require heavy statistical analysis, a stats major would probably be the best option...pure mathematicians aren't even necessarily exposed to stats classes unless they seek them out, other than Probability. We get so deep into calculus, topology, abstract algebra, etc, that the real-world skills that we should be exposed to are overlooked. And let's be real for a second, an engineer may do some calculus sometimes, but for the most part, everything's automated nowadays. So unless it's to check your work, all you have to understand is how to use a program, and be able to interpret what the results tell you.
I don't agree there. I wouldn't have done math if I had to take a lot of applied classes. ODE was the first (and definitely not the last) time I questioned whether this math shyt was for me. I liked pure math, enjoyed learning the concepts, but in retrospect I feel that much more could've been done in order to prepare us for the kind of work people with our degrees pursue. Also, after going back to school and experiencing the contrast with systems engineering/OR, I was kind of miffed about it.
The problem I have with the math curriculum is that the gap between the theory and the applications is not bridged extremely well, so when you get to those theory classes you don't know how to handle them. The earliest "theory" class we have to take is discrete mathematics, but with all the set theory and truth table stuff you could theoretically get through that course without doing a single mathematical proof, even though that's supposed to be your introduction to them. Then, when you get to the higher-level courses, like linear algebra, Diff. Eq., and complex analysis, and they ask you to prove the theorems, you're like
I'm not even sure how that gap can be bridged. Maybe more theory should've been incorporated into prior calculus classes...but then again, that would've been detrimental to the majority of people taking the classes that never go on to take real analysis.
But there's still a problem of needing prereqs in order to get to it. You need Discrete, Set Theory, Calc I, II, III, Linear Algebra, DE, and I'm probably missing more. That takes you to at least your junior year, if you load up. There's no way to learn that material without the majority of those courses as base knowledge. My issue isn't with the difficulty of the real analysis (now that I'm done with it
), it's that it really doesn't serve a functional purpose for an undergraduate. You spend all that time deciphering proofs, then unless you make a concerted effort, you forget it within a year. I'll be honest with you, from one mathematician to another. Your undergrad degree will tell employers that you're able to do math (and most won't discern applied from pure). After your first job, you have the official right to laugh in damn near anyone's face that asks you for your transcript.
I understand you have in mind what you want to do, and that's great, but would you be better served developing one of the other skills for what you want to do, or doing applied math? Your resume under education to employers is gonna look like: MS - "Blah, Blah, Blah" Math, BS - Math. The vast majority aren't going to understand the difference between what you did in undergrad and grad. So you're kind of painting yourself into the role of being a mathematician wherever you go. As I mentioned earlier, taking a few CS courses, taking a few physics courses, doesn't make you competitive with someone that has degrees in math & CS, or math & physics. And let me be clear, robust degrees like Econ, Finance, CS are understood to have many more applications, so it isn't the same as a CS undergrad staying on the same path for grad school.
And if you get the opportunity, definitely find out what those companies want. More importantly, find out what those companies have in the people currently employed. Also take into account the outlook for the job market you want to enter, and the outlook for yourself. What's your backup plan to do if you don't land the job of your dreams? What's the career trajectory you're aspiring to achieve? Does the path you want to take maximize your potential while minimizing risks? If you're looking at getting another math degree for one particular purpose, it could very well be the case that simply having an undergrad math degree could be sufficient to get your foot in the door there.
It's honestly been night and day between math. And how much of that is due to the effect of just having a Master's, I dunno. I'm mixing position titles with skills, but here's what I could think of off the top of my head:
Operations Research Systems Analyst, Systems Engineer, Business Analyst, Data Analyst, Statistician (
), Data Mining, Market Research Analyst, Actuary, Production Engineering, Logistics, Transport Economics, Modeling & Simulation, Optimization, Investment Analysis, Test & Evaluation.Some of the skills acquired are: Optimization, Resource Allocation, Linear Programming, Critical Path Analysis, Deterministic & Stochastic Modeling, Discrete Event Simulation, Statistical Decision Theory, Queueing Theory, Inventory Control Theory, Metheuristics, Dynamic Programming, Design of Experiment.
Some of those jobs you can obviously get without a grad degree. However, you either need experience to mitigate the education gap, knock the interviewer's socks off (not likely), or be so much cheaper than someone with a grad degree, that they'll take a chance on you.
you wouldn't find much mathematicians on here muchless pure ones, but i'm an applied "mathematician", (i feel uncorfortable calling anyone including myself without a phd a mathematician) studying numerical computing (it's basically about constructing math models, data analysis, etc with computers). it a good mix of math and computer science since we cover alot of applied math like optimization, stochastic methods, numerical analysis, data mining, A.I, numerical linear algebra, etc and C.S topics such as algorithm design, distributed computing, programming languages, and even operating systems. proving theorems aren't emphasized as much as in pure math but we are required to know how to prove certain things such as algorithm correctness, numerical methods, etc.
AquaCityBoy
Veteran
It definitely seems to be the case that pure mathematics students are not exposed to anything other than pure math. I'll talk more about that below, but at my school, since we don't differentiate between "pure" and "applied" (all we have are BA, BS, and Actuarial Sciences), I'd argue that the BA is more "pure" and the BS is more "applied" since the BS student has to take more science and engineering credits that the BA does not.
And I'm curious to know what that means for students getting either BA's or BS's in math. I was reading another forum where someone noted that at their school, "pure math" or "mathematical sciences" was a liberal arts degree, but "applied math" was actually an engineering degree. I've noticed that job listings looking for math majors or listings considering mathematics to be a sufficient degree, they are usually looking for a BS, but do they look at BA students as well provided they have some type of coursework in science/CS/engineering or finance/business/accounting? I would love to know the distinctions.
Can I ask, was your undergrad degree a BA or a BS?
This puts our previous discussion in somewhat of a different light. I have to ask (if you're still reading this, I know I'm several days late with this response), what were your expectations going in to pure math and where you aware at the that it was more tailored toward academia, and that applied math and other subfields were (at least somewhat) more tailored toward industry? It seems like from your previous point that your point of contention is that you were not aware of this, is that fair to say? And what do you think should have been done to make you more aware of these points as a young mathematics student?
And I feel like that speaks to a larger problem that people get into when deciding to become a math major. I was reading an article a few days ago about how math majors don't have a "survey" course about what college mathematics is and what they can do with it (and if they are required to take one, it's usually under the generic science course that's probably more tailored toward biology students since they make up the majority of STEM majors). I'll talk more about that below.
It's "detrimental" in the sense that those students may not need it directly, and it might come at the expense of teaching more practical material (as far as time limitations are concerned), but considering how many students in other majors complain about upper division mathematics courses being "too theoretical," I can't see how an incorporation of theory would be a problem beyond that.
Even the math courses I've taken that were specifically for engineering majors (PDEs, ODEs, and computational linear algebra) still had a good dose of theory in them, especially linear algebra, and that's why a lot of the CS majors in that course failed. Though that may be a different case entirely since many of them had either already taken discrete or were taking it concurrently, so they should have already been exposed to it.
At my school, discrete and set theory are the same class (though there is a more advanced set theory course that only CS majors are required to take). So all we need is discrete (since it's the introductory proofs course) and all three semesters of calculus (since real analysis is essentially learning calculus the hard way). Linear algebra is also a prereq, but I don't think we've ever done anything that required it. Diff Eq. and any other upper division math course can be taken concurrently, but there are issues with that that I'll discuss below.
I feel the ideal mathematics courseload (assuming you didn't switch majors/have to take any remedial courses like precalc/your school is set up on the semester system with similar prerequisites as mine) would be something like this:
Freshman Year:
Semester 1:
Calculus I
A MATH 100 "survey" course where students learn basics about the history of mathematics, the different types of subfields of math (pure, applied, computational, stats, OR, actuary), what kinds of jobs are available for people in those subfields and what degrees they'd need for them, and how to make themselves the most marketable to get those types of jobs (what to minor/dual major in, which electives to take, etc.). And also give them a basic intro to proofs, but nothing more rigorous than anything learned in high school.
A lot of people in other majors (like ME or EE) complain about the 100-level survey course because they feel it covers stuff they already know, but I feel it's important for math majors since a lot of them have no idea what they're getting into or what they plan to do with that degree. So it's important to tell them that, no, they don't have to be teachers, but they also need transferable skills if they want to find a job in industry.
Also, a brief intro to the history of mathematics might be interesting as well. I was listening to a podcast yesterday where they were discussing how a lot of times people don't get into math because they discoveries made in it are not put into any historical context (I know I had a newfound appreciation and respect for proofs just by learning about how long it took to prove Fermat's Last Theorem), so this class would be a good introduction without having to take a full course in it (though one would still be offered).
Semester 2:
Calculus II
Sophomore Year:
Semester 1:
Calculus III
Discrete Mathematics
Semester 2:
Linear Algebra
A "pre-analysis" course where students are introduced to more rigorous proofs than what they learned in discrete, but less rigor than what they will learn in real.
Junior Year:
Semester 1:
Real Analysis
Ordinary Differential Equations
Abstract Algebra (though this can be put off until the following semester/year if the student feels that courseload is too heavy)
Semester 2 through both semesters of Senior Year:
Any upper division mathematics courses the student needs
Any any electives/general eds/prereqs needed within these requirements.
My issue isn't with the difficulty of the real analysis (now that I'm done with it
The bold part isn't true, and I think that's a misconception that people make because 1) no one told them what it was used for, and 2) it's not a prerequisite for anything in most schools (other than the second semester of the sequence), so people think of it as just another upper division math course that they're required to take for some reason. But just because the material in real analysis isn't necessarily directly applicable in real life (though it does have uses in finance and physics), it doesn't mean it has no functional purpose. PDEs, complex analysis, and numerical methods, all of which are essential for an "applied" mathematics student or engineer, use a good amount of real analysis, which is why, as I said before, many schools want you to take a whole year in it. Don't get me wrong, I and many of my classmates think/thought that it had no purpose as well, but I've realized that I probably would have done a lot better in PDE had I actually done better in real analysis the first time.
The bold part is essentially what a "good" computational mathematics program is. It allows you to take the core of both applied math and computer science while trimming the fat of both (if very few jobs care about a math major's knowledge of real analysis or number theory, imagine how few care about a CS major's knowledge of automata theory or compiler design). The reason I wanted to go into it is because there are a lot of jobs that require more math than what the average "specialized" major would take, but still need a solid knowledge of computing. In fact, I looked at some of the course requirements for operations research at various schools, and they're not much different.
I definitely hear you on the part about being branded as a mathematician though. I'm curious to know, however, how much of that is simply the HR department only looking "buzzwords," though. That's my biggest concern getting that degree. I agree that very few jobs are going to have any idea what that degree is or what it entails, and apparently, if you're going into a tech-based field and your degree doesn't have "engineering" and/or "computer" in the title (like physics, math, etc.), you're basically looked at as a "second-rate engineer" and you'll have a harder time getting an interview.
Though the degree is called something different depending on what schools you go it. Generally it's called "Applied and Computational Mathematics," but at other schools it may be called "Computational Sciences" or even "Computational Engineering." Do you think that getting a degree from a school that calls it one of the latter two would minimize the "risk" of being branded as a mathematician?
And with that I have to ask this: you mention the increased job opportunities that your master's in operations research has afforded you, but you didn't know how much of that is simply because of having a master's degree at all. Do most employers know that, by most academic standards, that that's considered a "math" degree? Have you had trouble with people branding you as a mathematician because of that? Or has it not been a problem because the degree doesn't specifically have the words "mathematics" in it?
This is what I was thinking, but I feel like my math degree is a bit too general for one specific thing (which could be good or bad, depending), which is why I felt a more specialized graduate degree would give me a more competitive edge. I talked about how numerical methods are so essential, and now I'm regretting "wasting" a semester in number theory when I could have been taking that. I hear you on all the other stuff too, though. I guess I'm just uneasy about leaving my future in any type of uncertainty.
Dark Horse
Rookie
I did the BS. BS at my university requires a full year of real analysis, abstract algebra, requires a CS course, two years of intermediate level science courses...I think those are the only differences.
I'm not sure I agree with the idea that any math should funnel you to grad school either. In the context of having experienced the integration of industry into the classroom from getting another degree, I feel that math could do a better job. And that isn't just speaking from my personal experience...it's from other math majors, from other colleges/universities also. Getting a math degree should show that you're capable of solving difficult problems, using a variety of different tools. If you have to get a PhD to actually do that, there's something wrong with what's actually being taught. It's pretty ironic that oftentimes the graduate level classes in math are where you are exposed to "modern techniques in..." & "latest developments in...", which is pretty backwards. I actually found an optimization course at my alma mater, which is probably as close to an introduction to OR as you can get.
In the context of minorities being pushed towards STEM degrees, you'd think that there'd be some kind of tangible benefit of getting any kind of math degree. There wasn't any caveat I was aware of saying "well take applied math, if you actually want to be considered competent enough to use it after a BS." I'd say just as many applied BS recipients percentage wise go to get an advanced degree as well, because unless it's relatively routine problems that you're solving, most companies prefer those higher degrees, when you don't have massive experience to substitute.
I suspect that Calc I, II, & III are structured the way there are currently to allow students to crawl before they walk. You really can't expect there to be much understanding on proving a concept before a full understanding of its application is achieved. And like I said, maybe 5% of students starting out at Calc I will ever see Real Analysis. So even though it'd benefit that small population of students, it probably isn't even worth an instructor's time to delve deep into it. That is probably something that'd still be at the discretion of an instructor, as there are proofs in even the most elementary calculus books.
Really? So do you mean this is like a 120 level course, or a 300 level? For my school, Discrete is an intro into Probability, and simple set theory concepts. Then Set Theory is the traditional bridge to higher mathematics courses found in the 300's level.
It's useful for Econ grad students, physicists, and for mathematicians at levels higher than undergrad. I'm not implying the field itself is useless, just that the sequencing of it is wrong. I know many applied math undergrad programs that don't even require real analysis. In pure math, it's my argument that it really has no place in undergrad series courses, since it's often a precursor to grad level math, such as complex real analysis & linear analysis. And to be frank, if ever there was a job that's duties revolved around an application of real analysis, it'd be searching for applicants at the PhD level.
Say you did a technical field (not math) for your undergrad. You decide that you'd like to get an MS in math. In order to take some of the requisite courses, you'd have to take undergrad real analysis to understand what's going on (or even if you do, it may be a prereq anyways). That's some silly shyt to me.
That depends on who you're interviewing with. Don't expect the HR person to know...they're probably looking for keywords and relevant experience. Sometimes you'll a direct supervisor, potential teammember, or even higher management for interviews, and those are always advantageous because when it's your turn to ask questions, you can get the information out of them concerning what they are seeking, and their credentials.
I guess what I was saying by that comment the "math & math" thing, is that if you're lucky, you'll be able to have two degrees that aren't redundant, and compliment each other. For me, because I have what's in essence two math degrees, my undergraduate degree is unfortunately a damn footnote/conversation piece on my resume.
Nah, once you get the graduate degree, any company that would interview you without a full understanding of what your degree entails is probably wasting both of yours time. The HR people probably don't know much about it (depending on the company), but anyone interviewing you should understand the interchangeability of the terms.
They understand it's in essence a math degree, but I think they also know that it's engineering oriented. The things I learned were geared towards problem solving, and application. Most of those employers know that I wouldn't have been exposed to half of those skills with a math degree of any type (alone). I will say that doing math helped me breeze through anything computation based in OR.
I haven't really had to even so much as explain what I can do, because it's apparently in high demand, and a lot of companies see value in it.
I'm sure companies do with Computational Mathematics as well...I was just asking whether in that field actually pursuing a degree in it is necessary (when many people have done some permutation of CS & Math in the past).
First step's definitely talking to someone a few levels above you, in the industry and seeing what constructive advice they can give you. Specifically get advice on the gaps you need to fill to get serious consideration for an entry level position.
I kind of lucked up, and went back after I couldn't find a job the summer after graduating...and just sort of picked OR to get a Master's in. There's going to always be uncertainty...embrace it, otherwise you'll never be satisfied. Just pick what you want to do, and stick to it.
AquaCityBoy
Veteran
They say mathematics is a language in its own right.
Does that mean I can say that I'm bilingual on my resume?
Does that mean I can say that I'm bilingual on my resume?