stansfield

bump. you guys find housing yet

I liked riemannian geometry, algebraic topology, ergodic flow, teichmuller dynamics. some parts of algebra was interesting like open problems in geometric group theory but it didn't do much for me overall. I also started number theory in high school without really a proper background so it was ruined for me and I didn't want to touch it anymore. Best math course all around was either that set theory course from philosophy or machine learning from cs with an eye towards geometry. those cores like analysis and algebra were pretty boring but I knew it was too early to judge, they are merely a temporary impasse one must overcome to delve into the good stuff. either way I concede my path is rather unusual so you probably represent the mindset of the majority of math students.

I'm referring to courses ofc, those fields are too broadly defined but the distinction is not important. and no I didn't find those fascinating and I definitely understood them but I never took the undergrad version of algebra analysis. there's absolutely no reason why you must be fascinated by these topics, they could be too elementary or too difficult or just plain dull depending on the person. or you could love them. some mathematicians never touch number theory. the most interesting math course I took as an undergrad was set theory from the philosophy department. the important thing to communicate is that lack of interest in these 2 subjects should in no way dissuade one of pursuing grad school in math and correlates very weakly to ability or penchant for research. as Thurston said, some people are very fast on the uptake and burn out early while others are slower to absorb but do fabulous work later on once they find their niche.

I don't think you have to love analysis and algebra, they are typically extremely dull but you have to do well in those courses for sure. I guess you might love algebra depends on the topics and the pace ie. some digression on quarternions and geometric group theory but there's nothing more tedious than real analysis.

campus is really really ugly

what do you want to study, choosing by reputation for a MS is not smart since they are cash cows. part III for cambridge really only looks good for their undergrads and is mostly preparation for the damtp. Unless there's something very specific at cambridge you want to work on I wouldn't do it. If costs are same, NYU is a no brainer assuming you're from the US.

it looks ok but aim higher

I don't think UCI is that hard to get into but their academic placement has been really good recently so maybe it's gotten very competitive again. Oregon has trouble attracting some really top candidates but it has world class faculty and organizes some superb conferences, it has some really talented undergrads who are mostly instate and know its reputation. The only problem with these is that a lesser reputed state flagship has to cover less material or same material in 2 semesters instead of 1 to accommodate the vast majority of the undergrads. That shouldn't really hold you back at the grad level. I think you have a really good shot at those 2 and some better ones too, ucla is very good in those areas as well so get an 80+ on the subject test and A's in your cores and who knows admissions is a crap shoot anyway.

I never meant to offend just stating some facts, but it's pointless to ask for help and refute with nonsense.

He means use rankings for your graduate program, not general prestige in the undergrad sense. You said it yourself georgetown is ranked much higher in statistics so that seems like the obvious choice.

Ok here is what it boils down to essentially. The math at stony brook in all geometry related is fantastic and they are geared towards computational geometry and fluids in the applied math but you like statistics. The applied math is not that good overall and the statistics is nonexistent. If you just check faculty and graduate requirements it's clear, their qualifying exams for PhD are basically calculus and linalg and I don't really know what's going on, I thought it was a joke at first. I doubt there's a single stanford PhD admit who can't pass all their exams walking through the door. Check stanford again and it's pretty clear why its a top program. I don't know how these rankings work since some depts are called statistics, some called applied math & stat and some called applied math, or computational math. Best is to go in math and search under the subfield applied math and SB is not ranked well, at least when compared to Stanford. The top 10 also does not apply to MS in the eyes of recruiters since MS are basically cash cows for the phds so this original argument is moot. Administratively speaking, SB fails across the board. Statistics is one of 4 tracks in their applied math and not a separate dept altogether but it is the smallest and they have like 3 people in it. I don't know Finch, but one guy alone in SB pales in comparison to possibly the best faculty in the world at Stanford. Feinberg doesn't do statistics so you're just pulling random names it seems, also they are both pretty old and that's always something to think about and a different discussion. Like Kash said SB has no reputation in statistics so you need to think things from employers perspective. He is also right that statistics is completely seperate from applied math, top stat programs like stanford, berkeley, umich, unc are all standalones and not a subset. If you want to learn statistics the answer is clear. If you want to go in finance, SB would probably do the trick but again it depends on what you want in finance. An MS at SB is not enough to land serious quantitative roles or it's very hard at least. You are surrounded by other brandnames trying to break into a profession that's already entrenched in choosing based on pedigree. Going into statistics to get in finance is perhaps not the greatest approach to begin with since there are tons of 1 yr mfe like baruch nyu columbia cuny all in NYC and many many more on the east coast but that's all useless now. Think ahead. One thing is for sure, purely in terms of opportunities for financial services, SB has an advantage due to proximity and they have a quantitative track in their applied math. Stanford has much much better placement overall for their statistics programs in all forms of employment however. You don't want to pay 60k nobody does but try to make an informed decision. Picking based on location and prestige alone is dumb but it's also dumb to always do the opposite. From your posts, it's obvious you don't really know what the hell you're talking about at all no offense. If you want to know specifics you can pm me. You might hate me now but that's better than hating yourself a year or two down the line.

I have spent a little bit of time there so it's 1st hand experience but it's not my undergrad. I know SB in my field very well, it's top 10 in geometry in both differential and algebraic and john milnor just won the abel prize recently. They are no doubt very good but that is the prevailing perception, I don't make the rules. Plus he got the ms in applied math not phd in math, and the applied math is not good. They are nonexistent in statistics not to mention you're comparing to stanford... Also your questioning of the basis for my opinion is highly ironic considering you are international and haven't even been to stony brook. You're in material sci so I don't think you would know this, I'm referring to math and applied math. I think you wandered into the wrong section to be honest. Math is their best subject by FAR but there are many employers in NYC who don't know them, since they are huge international firms and nyc is packed with ivies in math and physics. How many cities I've been to is irrelavent, just from talking to people most people haven't heard of it and that includes serious math students. How many nobel prizes is also irrelevant, in finance grad school is a losers game and stanford has better faculty I'm sure but that's not my point. How you came to the conclusion that I thought stanford is in LA is beyond me, but it's consistent with the rest of your post. Finally it's STANFORD vs stony brook in statistics. In other regards, SB is terrible administratively speaking and the ugliest campus I have ever seen, stanford is probably 2nd most beautiful I have laid eyes on. For specifics he can pm me. I didn't apply or get waitlisted but it seems you don't want people to learn some facts about your precious school. I'm neither attacking SB or praising Stanford but get a little perspective please. Btw I give you the same advice as I do to all who are considering SB especially since you're paying, visit it and see if you like it first. Your enthusiasm may be premature. I'm just trying to help him make an informed decision, here's a comparison. http://www.ams.sunys.../STATHome.shtml http://www-stat.stanford.edu/

http://mathoverflow.net/questions/11113/how-important-are-publications-for-undergrads the opinions of a few esteemed dgs in some R1 schools. It's nice to have to some research but it's secondary to your gpa/scores. some active discussion and participation in seminars and talks will give your advisor an idea of your penchant for doing research both in terms of skills and motivation. If you can get a preprint or something then go for it by all means as long as you can do it on top of grad CORES but I've met 2 people that had journal publications, one went to stanford and one to princeton, and they are not serious journals like annals or jams.

Yea SB is not top 10 in applied math and has no statistics whatsoever, I mean none. I'm not sure how these applied math rankings work but check their faculty page course page and it's pretty clear. Since you're paying anyway you might as well pay for a brandname over an unknown. no one outside of long island has even heard of SB, and you'll meet similar employers in NYC even. If you just want to get into finance then do SB. If you're actually interested in statistics go stanford and you can still land a fantastic job. Hedge funds are blooming in LA.

I got into Umich and others...I only mentioned the one I've decided on. 5 people out of my undergrad went to top 20 schools only one had 2 preprints. journals are almost unheard of. check mathoverflow query undergrad publications, all the DGS say it's not expected and probably not worth it

you don't need super high gre but you need 80+ for those schools he mentioned, really really good scores can help you a bit someone told me. There are two problems with undergrad thesis, 1) they are nothing spectacular, 2) the admission committee is left wondering what percent of the work is done by your advisor. Also college thesis are far from publication ready, they are trivial and heavily padded, most of them are the "a survey of " type. I got in a top 10 without research and most of the people I know didn't have a thesis. You want to pass their quals and for those schools he mentioned lot of international applicants can pass them walking through the door, schools are looking for similar domestic candidates so you want exposure to grad courses. For uchicago, you need at least 7-8 for ex. Your propensity for research is something that your advisor should mention but it won't kill you if it hasn't taken shape yet. Bad grades will kill you however.

you don't need thesis really adcoms don't really put any weight on them. It's mostly courses and test scores which you're doing well in. Since you're only a junior I say you have a decent shot at a top 15 but FE would kill it almost immediately unless you appeal to specific faculty members very well.

You probably can take 1-2 I bet those programs have their cores if it's thesis based. Given what you said alone, you have basically no chance. Those 4 schools are exactly #2,3,4,5 in pure math. Typically you need about at least a few sequences of grad courses at least need to hit algebra, analysis, and preferably topology, some reu or other form of research, usamo/putnam, stellar letters that vouch for your ability as well as your creativity, 800 quant score and 85%+ gre math subject, and that's still no guarantee into those 4. You can comfortably get into some other top 10 like umich columbia and maybe uchiago given these stats. Also you have to be careful about your approach because pure math views financial mathematics with some suspicion. Stochastic calculus is anything but pure and more applied than high school algebra or euclidean geometry although there are a few top 30 schools with a flavor for probability/stochastics like nyu, cornell, ucsd, uwashington, rutgers, ucla. berkeley as well but the cores are strict. You need to really tailor each application to its specific program. Aim for a top 50 research 1 and you would not be limited in any way other than by your own potential.

what do you mean worthy?

I don't understand the point of these questions of course anything is possible.

I think stanford is the only one that require the gre math, uchicago recommends it but it's not required. you need maybe 65+ on gre math for stanford stat since they recommend 85+ for math phd. You should start contacting some professors from stanford now and establish a fit, that could go a long way in offsetting standardized test scores.

at this point its very unlikely chicago is aiming for 7-8 and I know 2 who got them early feb.

he asked about applied math uw applied math is almost as good and it's a masters. there's no real difference really they are both top notch. however nyu is like 60k, i doubt uw is even half that. not to mention he doesn't even know what he wants to do other than applied math.

nyu does not reject so the phd with no funding is a cash cow for them. UW is much cheaper I imagine and looks just as good as nyu.

looking for a roommate, pm me if interested