Math Camp/PhD Math

[mackeycold]

Hey everyone. So I just started my math camp for my PhD program in American and it has not gone well for me. It's going utterly fast and the course seems disorganized (people have suggested to me online to look at the readings--there aren't any) and I stopped at trig in high school and a GE stats course in undergrad so the intense pace of going from basic algebraic concepts that i've long forgotten and have to pause to come up with to pre calc that i've not taken to calculus has overwhelmed me, and even, felt like sitting through a Swahili course. The grad students teaching it have seemed kind of icy and cursory when I ask for help and I feel like a math-deficient idiot, because I'm just not good at it and feel years behind. I'm sure things can change but I'm having tremendous doubts about why I got in and if my record and lack of math (my GRE score did very much reflect it) was seriously looked at, looking at a sink hole of time and money to even keep a C or D in my stats course next term, or possibly future courses I'll have to take. Working hard at this on my own can resort to me staring at a sheet getting lost, and I am almost scared to ask the department for help and feel embarrassed and like i'll be looked down upon. We have a quiz at the end of the week to see how we're doing and if we need more help. I just want some honest perspectives and if there's anything I can do or a good gameplan. Khan Academy and a few office hours doesn't seem sufficient right now.

[PolPhil]

A 'C' or 'D' is a fail for most (or at least many) graduate programs (as in, you will not receive credit), but it's way too early to resign yourself to those grades. At the same time, American is very quant-heavy, so you will need to be competent. Keep working at it on Khan Academy, with profs in office hours, constantly drilling yourself, and if it sinks in, it sinks in. If it doesn't, you can reflect upon your first year and re-evaluate your plans. Until that point, the added stress of wondering whether you're good enough is not worth it.

[GradGuy1]

I wouldn't be so worried. If your algebra foundations are reasonable, you'll probably be fine with a bit of extra work alongside your required quant courses. This probably means working with your cohort on shared problem sets, attending TA office hours, taking advantage of university-provided tutoring (usually free), and maybe attending a math summer school (like ICPSR) one or two summers (for 3 or so weeks), which you should do anyway. Math camps at most schools are designed as a right of passage. They are ridiculous in scale, scope, and duration, and many students have no idea what is going on throughout. Does the rest of your cohort seem to know the stuff? I bet most are 1/2 lost, whether they admit it or not. Also, those who come in having recently (or really ever) taken Calc, Linear Algebra, etc. are naturally going to find math camp easier, but it doesn't necessarily mean they will find stats or game theory, etc., easier. Of course, maybe they will find these easier, but if they do it will mostly be because they are comfortable with symbols and you are not. Work on getting comfortable "reading" math/stats symbols, and it will come together much more quickly for you. It's like learning a new alphabet, for the most part. If you have to learn a new alphabet alongside learning content, you're at a huge disadvantage. Get or make yourself a symbols cheat sheet (and maybe some flash cards) for math and stats, and take 5 minutes each day to try to learn/remember what the symbols mean. Something to note: in my experience, students who come in with a relatively higher level of math often assume they have an advantage when it comes to generating good research questions, and this is simply not the case. In fact, students who come in "well prepared" for quant subjects often seem to have an inappropriately high level of confidence in their abilities in general, and in my experience (as a grad student then professor) they tend to be less receptive to criticism of their research ideas, which is a huge shortcoming when it comes to succeeding in grad school (or at least in a polisci PhD program). If the program let you in, they expect you will be able to succeed. Find a faculty member to confide in, whether it's an assigned advisor or not. And/or, try to find a more advanced grad student who you can talk with about this. Additionally, your dean of students (or graduate student support services ) office can help, if you don't feel comfortable talking about it within your department. That said, you really should find someone internal to the department. The department administrator will have seen many cases like yours. If you are comfortable with him/her, you could also initiate a conversation with this person. Don't try to hide or gloss over your deficiency. You can make up for it, and it won't serve you to put off doing so. In political science, even those with the very highest level of math training usually don't know much math at all, haha, so you'll be able to catch up. I can pretty much promise you that. Don't be intimidated by those arrogant weirdos who flaunt their "Bayesian," "Maximum Likelihood," etc. vocab. That stuff is, in general, not at all sophisticated. An average middle schooler could learn it, given some incentive (like candy, for example). Much harder than learning that is learning good intuition in terms of research questions, and my bet is that your application reflected that you were already on the right track in this area. Good luck!

[Theory007]

how did it all go?