University of Colorado at Boulder - Applied Math

[frankdux]

[seinfeld] What's the deal with this? [/seinfeld]

i've called about 3 or 4 times and am always told "you should hear by the end of this week".

LIES!!!

[firecolon]

I just got a rejection from them, WHILE I WAS READING YOUR POSTING. You must have jinxed me, and it is a bit scary because I have been accepted (not rejected) to nearly every school I applied to. I was going to turn them down anyway because I got a better offer somewhere else. You should hear something very soon.

[frankdux]

I just got a rejection from them, WHILE I WAS READING YOUR POSTING. You must have jinxed me, and it is a bit scary because I have been accepted (not rejected) to nearly every school I applied to. I was going to turn them down anyway because I got a better offer somewhere else. You should hear something very soon.

I just checked my email and I too just got rejected. :cry: :cry: :cry:

[santana]

I just got a rejection from them, WHILE I WAS READING YOUR POSTING. You must have jinxed me, and it is a bit scary because I have been accepted (not rejected) to nearly every school I applied to. I was going to turn them down anyway because I got a better offer somewhere else. You should hear something very soon.

Perhaps it is a wake up call. Math is the worst of sciences to look for a career choice. Majority of math folks end up in education in bachelor-only granting institutions and salaries there are comparable to truck drivers wages or worse. Plus they have periods of horrible unemployment in mathematics on PhD level like in 70-ies and mid-90ies. Physics folks have 10-20K better starting salaries because they can often get jobs outside academia. Institutions above bachelor-only are loaded with politics and "publish or perish" type of situation - good luck. That is why it is so easy to get into math graduate program in most places - there is no career afterwards so the competition for midrange programs is weak. It is also easy to get assistantship, they always need cheap instructors of entry level courses. I am not sure whether applied math is any better, it could be though the stats are not exactly encouraging. I always suggest people with quantitative talent to avoid mathematics as a career choice unless they can get into Berkeley, Stanford, MIT etc. Try biochemistry or computer science and see how much more competetive that admission is. Or even Statistics (my own field), roughly 2+ times more applicants than for math in almost any school that has both, in particular BioStats.

There is only one abundant career choice for mathematicians - high school. But there no graduate degree is needed and it seems everybody is running away from it so there must be something very unattractive.

[firecolon]

Perhaps it is a wake up call. Math is the worst of sciences to look for a career choice.

I got way more acceptances than rejections. Colorado and Purdue are the only schools (out of the eleven that responded so far) which sent me a rejection. That is about an 81% success rate with my applications. That is a wake-up call - that your comments are bullshit. Most mathematicians find jobs very easily, usually beginning as post-docs and then later as professors or researchers. Some of them make less than six-figures, but they are certainly making more money than burger-flippers and other lowly jobs (by the way, truck drivers make a lot more money than most people think).

"Plus they have periods of horrible unemployment in mathematics on PhD level like in 70-ies and mid-90ies."

You're referring to when unemployment levels were at about 6% or 7%. Currently it is more like 3% or 4% and it is expected to get better during the next 20 years.

Institutions above bachelor-only are loaded with politics and "publish or perish" type of situation - good luck.

Sometimes the politics will work in our favor. Publishing more isn't a problem if you have a PhD, especially if you have a post-doc which will provide more time to do write papers.

That is why it is so easy to get into math graduate program in most places - there is no career afterwards so the competition for midrange programs is weak.

Most math programs have acceptance rates or about 10%-20% (top-tier schools) or 30% to 40% (middle-tier schools). Other programs in history, English, philosophy, and biology have lower acceptance rates because more students are interested, but there are often even less jobs available for them. Physics programs are harder to get into because more students are interested.

I always suggest people with quantitative talent to avoid mathematics as a career choice unless they can get into Berkeley, Stanford, MIT etc

Try asking people who have greatly successful careers without going to top-tier schools. I agree that you don't have as many opportunities with a degree from Austin Peay State University (no offense to Peay students), but there are mid-tier programs with outstanding programs.

I am not sure whether applied math is any better, it could be though the stats are not exactly encouraging.

Applied math has greater demand outside of academia, but both are encouraging fields.

-----

I looked around at your postings. There are a few things I would like to say about your postings and account, but I am not going to because I don't want to risk getting banned from TheGradCafe.com

[santana]

I suggest you read some of the surveys on ams.org web site. In mid-nineties there was 10-15% unemployment of new PhDs in math. Currently it is 4% but that does not include part-time jobs and adjunct faculty.

If you have quantitative skills it is much easier to get into math program than into CS program for example. In fact much easier, particularly into mid-range programs like Colorado (NRC ranking 61 out of 135). Of course it is tough to get into MIT or Berkeley which are in top 10.

Median salary for Assistant Professor in Math in bachelor-only institutions is roughly ~50K. That is majority of math jobs available. In fact in many places in the US (South for example) it is more like $40-45K. Check American Association of College Professors. With tier-2 program like Colorado it is hard to get into anything better. Salaries over $100K are only in top research universities and you need to be full professor to get that. To get there you will need to work real hard, picture room without windows because math isn't about travel. And that would be less than what accountant in a a mid-range company earns.

In fact school teachers earn about as much as college math professors. Good luck.

[engguy]

@firecolon:

Amen. I've been waiting for somebody else to challenge this joker, and you did a damn fine job. santana is a master of the incendiary remark, fear-mongering "bottom line" thinking, and faux-insider authority. For some reason -- perhaps because so many of the participants in the grad cafe are young and impressionable and willing to listen to anyone who seems to know what they're talking about -- his posts have gone largely unquestioned, let alone criticized. Even when I have (rarely) agreed with something he's written, the presentation of his advice is so grating that I can't stomach it. And I can't imagine how anyone who's truly that cynical about higher education is actually pursuing it.

[santana]

You both read my post and check the facts, stats are readily available.

[engguy]

You both read my post and check the facts, stats are readily available.

That's just it -- I don't give a damn about stats. If I paid attention to stats, I wouldn't be going back to school at age 35+. I'm doing it because of a love for my subject, and because the straight world -- in which I grinded out a living for 10+ years doing a variety of work, from the marginally rewarding to the downright humiliating -- has nothing better to offer me. Education isn't about age and statistics and angling for the best possible position from which to extract the most money and security from the academy. Sure, I think about the future and finding a decent job, but I've never navigated my life that way and don't plan on starting now. The people I've met who are like that are exactly what's wrong with higher education. Still, as I say, it's preferable to life in a cubicle. And just for the record -- it's not your stats I object to, it's the defeatist attitude that comes with them.

[santana]

Your profession is much easier and probably more interesting than math, I am sure.

The kick is that most small universities and colleges in the US are full of people like that, working for peanut salaries, doing no notable research of any kind. In math these people were crushed and are in service of printing diplomas for undergraduates - that is what most of 2,500+ 4-year institutions in the US are doing - printing diplomas.

It is particularly hard to see that in science. In math you need to have an IQ of 140-150+ to hope for a research job and it is a waste of talent. Corporate accountant starting salaries are better than most full professors will ever earn. And there you probably need an IQ of 115-120.

It is appalling but it is nevertheless the reality. There is no easy answer why is that but these guys better be aware of that.

I'd say if you cannot get into top 20-30 schools in math (Purdue is just on the edge) then it is not worth at all. After all if you are in love with the science, you do not really need a graduate degree since math needs no labs, one can work like Ramanujan.

[firecolon]

Amen. I've been waiting for somebody else to challenge this joker, and you did a damn fine job. santana is a master of the incendiary remark, fear-mongering "bottom line" thinking, and faux-insider authority.

You found this forum and spoke up. As such, I would not be surprised if another 200 persons on here agree with you. Good luck in Buffalo buddy - you'll be going to a good school.

I'd say if you cannot get into top 20-30 schools in math (Purdue is just on the edge) then it is not worth at all.

Yeah, if you want to be a professor at MIT. I'm not in this for the money, or to live in the shit-hole of Cambridge Massachusetts just to work with a Nobel Laureate or two. Any alumni at a top 100 school has a shot to work at a research-intensive institution at a top 100 school if they secure a good enough post-doc. The problem is that a lot of people new PhD's don't get post-docs and regret it later. You make a ton of wild assumptions, especially for a statistics student.

[santana]

Engguy knows little about math jobs. You need to inform yourself. Trust me, to have a degree from top 20-30 schools will only help you to get a job in a mid-range to smaller university.

To work in MIT you need to have a lot more than a degree. :-)

More than 50% of faculty in the US are on non-tenure-track positions and without tenure. This has to be eye opener. And the situation is getting worse.

Math will likely sentence you for academic job (roughly ~80% non-stats mathematicians end up in academia, only statisticians have better options) and these jobs are pitiful by the most part - low salaries, political environment, overall misery. You will work in service business not science. Only in a research university you can expect notable research and that is like ~150 schools. WIth LSU degree you will unlikely get a job in a research university and unlikely be ready for any research (LSU is not much in math). If a job of $50K where you have to fight for tenure excites you then go ahead. Every year there is 5% more PhDs in this country meaning the competition will only get worse. Math used to be rather stagnant in terms of new PhDs but the problem is there is more and more people from Asia which are better prepared (in mathematics) than Americans and will work for lower wages.

I think in terms of science math is definitely the worst profession and the poorest career choice unless you are a genius. Are you?

Of course humanities are even worse but people in math have talent (IQ) that is sorely wasted.

[engguy]

@santana

Ah, leave the guy alone. He's trying to make decisions on the biggest freakout day of all.

And your thinly veiled -- or not at all veiled -- jibes at the intelligence of Humanities majors / relative "ease" of Humanities is junior high level stuff.

I could break out the old saw about lies, damn lies, and statistics, but that would be sinking to your level .

Best of luck -- I'm sure you'll be a shot of sunshine to the others in your cohort.

[za232]

I really think there is a point that is being missed here.

I can only speak for myself, but I suspect that I am not alone when I say that I am not working on a PhD for the money. There are plenty of careers that take less of a time investment (I am not necessarily saying easier) that make a lot more money. I am working on a PhD in math because I am absolutely, passionately in love with the subject. Of course, I would like to go to the best school possible for me because if I can get paid well to do what I love that is an obvious bonus, but the bottom line is that I am in this for intellectual curiosity.

In a world where many people have to spend the bulk of their lives working jobs that they absolutely hate for 40+ hours a week just to get by, I think it would be a dream come true to do something I love and get paid $40K to do it...

Just my opinion.

[firecolon]

Congratulations za232 on you're enrollment at Colorado. I was only rejected from 3 out of 15 schools (that is the final verdict), and Colorado was one of them.

I am going to Texas A&M University in College Station and I am absolutely thrilled about it. I am also doing this because I love applied math. This moron santana is pissing everyone off in here but everyone on here is trying to be nice and patient for him, and someone (us) needed to step up and draw the line.

I am glad this whole process is over. But I'll still hang around on TheGradCafe.com since this place has been so good to me.

[engguy]

hey--

I am going to Texas A&M University in College Station and I am absolutely thrilled about it.

I suppose I can troll on this thread one more time to say -- congrats! I'm glad it worked out for you. Sounds like it really came through at the last minute.

And congrats to both of you for saying you're doing it 'cause you love it. That's the only thing that will make you "rich" (cue sappy music...). Sometimes it doesn't make the decisions any easier, but I think it makes coming to peace with them afterwards a bit easier.

Best of luck!

[za232]

This moron santana is pissing everyone off in here but everyone on here is trying to be nice and patient for him, and someone (us) needed to step up and draw the line.

I definitely did not mean that anyone besides santana was missing the point...

I was only rejected from 3 out of 15 schools (that is the final verdict), and Colorado was one of them.

CU was the only school that I definitely received funding at out of 6. It goes to show how unpredictable this process is.

Congrats and good luck!

[Tritonetelephone]

I really think there is a point that is being missed here. I suspect that I am not alone when I say that I am not working on a PhD for the money...I am working on a PhD in math because I am absolutely, passionately in love with the subject.

Well said, I couldn't agree more. If everybody only worked for the maximum possible income, we'd all be lawyers or EEs. I'm sure there's more people out there that would support your attitude, too, but these threads have died down a little as everyone has made their decisions. Congrats to both of you

[santana]

Love for subject needs no PhD. You can study it without PhD. Like Ramanjuan did.

People study for status, for money, for respect ... and whatever else turns them on. That is why you need degree not because you have "love."

[engguy]

Love for subject needs no PhD. You can study it without PhD. Like Ramanjuan did.

Sorry -- you're not gonna get me on that one. I did study for 10 years with teachers and fellow students in private classes before coming back to school. Those classes gave me absolutely no "credit" in the eyes of the academy or my field, yet were invaluable for my personal knowledge and growth. Paid for it by working a series of crap jobs.

People study for status, for money, for respect ... and whatever else turns them on. That is why you need degree not because you have "love."

In my case I came back to school because I realized there was money available to continue my studies / avoid working crappy jobs while doing it. In that sense, you're right. But if I didn't have "love" I never would have gotten to this point. Don't make assumptions about people you know nothing about.

It's this kind of zero-sum thinking that ends up making many good, smart people skip out on grad school, or feel guilty about it once they do go. Just because you enter a PhD program doesn't automatically mean you're a sellout. It's a deal you make with the world -- and if you go in with your eyes open and find the right situation for yourself, you will be fine.

[santana]

It is sort of weird when people cannot get into a decent math program and claim they love math. How so?

If you really love math then it should have been long time you have been doing it and if so then you should have learned enough to compete with talented Asian or Eastern European applicants and to get into a good school. If not then you do not really know much and your "love" is a misnomer, there is something else.

Repeat, low ranked program in math will not get you a job in a research institution. It will get you into a small college where primary business is service of printing diplomas for mediocre students. You will work service job like any other service job is. Teaching 24 or more credits and pursuing academic political agendas - that will leave no time for any serious research. Of course, finishing a low ranked program won't prepare you for a serious reserach anyway. You could wind up doing the so called "undergraduate research" which is a BS (and I don't mean degree) oxymoron name for tutoring mediocre math. The word "research" is abundantly used in US undergraduate context where there is none going on.

There is only 150-200 math research programs in the US and only the best and brightest get jobs there, upper third or a quarter of new PhDs. The rest are lost sheep, defeated, small town mathematicians. I've seen it and it is a terrible waste of talent since nearly every mathematician is of IQ 130 or higher. With that brain power you can do something better than small college math.

[rising_star]

It is sort of weird when people cannot get into a decent math program and claim they love math. How so?

If you really love math then it should have been long time you have been doing it and if so then you should have learned enough to compete with talented Asian or Eastern European applicants and to get into a good school. If not then you do not really know much and your "love" is a misnomer, there is something else.

Repeat, low ranked program in math will not get you a job in a research institution. It will get you into a small college where primary business is service of printing diplomas for mediocre students. You will work service job like any other service job is. Teaching 24 or more credits and pursuing academic political agendas - that will leave no time for any serious research. Of course, finishing a low ranked program won't prepare you for a serious reserach anyway. You could wind up doing the so called "undergraduate research" which is a BS (and I don't mean degree) oxymoron name for tutoring mediocre math. The word "research" is abundantly used in US undergraduate context where there is none going on.

I have to disagree with both paragraphs of this. First of all, loving something does not make you the best at it. I love gymnastics but I'm terrible at it. One can love something that one hasn't done for very long. I love geography, a discipline I only found 3 years ago. It's difficult then to have learned everything that those who majored in geography as undergrads learned but that doesn't mean that you don't deserve admission or that the love is a misnomer. Abilities vary but that doesn't mean someone doesn't love what they study.

Second, your statement about small colleges is absolutely ludicrous. The majority of the accredited institutions in the US are small colleges not major research institutions. These schools aren't diploma mills, which is what you seem to be asserting. And there are many that have teaching loads similar to those of research institutions (by which I mean 2-2 or 3-3) so you have time to work with undergrads, mentor them, help them write senior theses, etc. While you may consider all of this to be BS, a lot of us who have had those experiences with mentors look back on them fondly. There are academic political agendas at institutions of all levels, this is not limited to the smaller schools. In fact, that form of BS can be worse at larger institutions where the pressure is on you to secure external funding and kiss the behinds of senior faculty to keep your job (ie, get tenure and then get promoted to full professor).

Furthermore, I think you grossly underestimate the education that can be a obtained at a lower-ranked program. Do you even take the time to question rankings? We in the social sciences ALWAYS question rankings because they are inherently flawed. For instance, the rankings in my field are more than 10 years old and EVERYONE thinks there will be a significant reshuffling of the top 10 when new rankings come out. When were the last rankings published? What's the methodology? Are there subfield considerations that the rankings don't consider? Is there a superstar advisor at a lower-ranked school? These are all factors that can completely trump whatever BS rankings are out there. (Full disclosure: I got into programs with a range of rankings and picked a lower-ranked program with a powerhouse/superstar advisor.) Perhaps the lower ranked program has THE perfect person to work with. Why go to a higher ranked school, in that case, and have a less capable/knowledgeable advisor? Seems silly to me.

As a moderator, I will say this: You don't seem to have a realistic picture of the US education system so I'd appreciate it if you stopped making such ridiculously false assertions on this board. You do a disservice to everyone, particularly since it does not seem at all like you know what you are talking about. Your next post filled with outright lies like this one will result in a warning.

[canuck]

I think theres really no question that there are very good students and very good professors at smaller schools; perhaps not world class, nobel laureate material, but very good nonetheless. However I think some of what santana is saying is very true, no matter how indelicately put his comments are. In my own experience applying to engineering programs, looking through the entire faculty directory at all the schools I applied to I could probably count the number of professors who did their PhD's out of the top 30 on one hand, maybe two. Out of hundreds of professors thats a pretty terrifying thing to realize. Even more horrifying is that probably around 50% did their PhD's in the top 10. It's a bit sad really. There are no doubt a myriad of reasons not the least of which is that a department may receive 80 applications for a single tenure-track opening. It's hard to stand out, we've all learned this from the grad school application process and it seems like it gets worse... but at least you get to do what you love.