Will the title of my major have any effect on graduate school?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on whether the title of a math major, specifically concentrations in theoretical, applied, or modeling mathematics, impacts graduate school admissions. Participants suggest that graduate committees prioritize specific coursework over the concentration title itself, with some concentrations being more relevant depending on the intended field of study, such as physics or mathematics. The original poster is a double major in math and physics and is uncertain about their graduate school focus, leaning towards astrophysics. They express enjoyment in differential equations and combinatorics, while others advise considering the relevance of each concentration to their future studies. Ultimately, the consensus is that the choice of concentration should align with the student's graduate school goals and interests.
elarson89
Messages
19
Reaction score
0
I'm a math major, and will be taking enough math courses to qualify for 3 different mathematics options, theoretical, applied, and modeling. Does anyone think that the title of my math major will have any effect on my entrance to graduate school? Secondly, in your opinion which one sounds the best?

I initially picked theoretical. By the way, I am a math and physics double major (and double degree) if that impacts anything.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
What "titles" are you talking about? I presume you mean "concentrations" in the math major. Concentrations in "Analysis" or "Algebra" probably would not bother any faculty. "Applied Math" is vague enough that it might raise some eyebrows. If you are going to graduate school a concentration in "secondary teaching" probably wouldn't make much sense! In any case, I think that graduate school admissions committees will pay more attention to the specific courses you take rather than a "title".
 
Hi,
Welcome to PF!

To halls: I think the school he is in defines the concentrations for undergrad to be what he has stated: Theoretical, applied, and modeling.

I think you need to answer a few questions:

1) What are you going to study in Grad school? Math or Physics?
2) Do know have any idea what type of math or physics you will study in grad school?
3) What have been some of your favorite math courses so far?
4) What are the differences in required courses for the 3 options?
 
I'm not quite sure on what I'll go to grad school for, but probably in physics and may pursue a higher degree in astrophysics.

So far I've taken diffy q, intro to linear algebra, and a combinatorics class. I'm not sure what my favorite is but i really enjoyed both diffy q and combinatorics, linear algebra not so much. But that could have very well been because I hate the textbook. As far as the requirements for the different options, its a matter of 4 classes, with most of them cross-listed in the other options. So in reality, there isn't much of a difference besides the name.
 
Well, before you jump into theoretical you probably should take a course like topology or Abstract Algebra. Something that deals with Groups, Fields, Rings etc. Also Theoretical may not be the most complementary to physics.

Modeling sounds like it might be more numerical analysis and statistics, that may not be right for physics either.

Since you are considering Physics in grad school, and since you enjoyed diffy qs, and since the other two options don't seem to fit, I would lean toward the applied.
 
Suppose ,instead of the usual x,y coordinate system with an I basis vector along the x -axis and a corresponding j basis vector along the y-axis we instead have a different pair of basis vectors ,call them e and f along their respective axes. I have seen that this is an important subject in maths My question is what physical applications does such a model apply to? I am asking here because I have devoted quite a lot of time in the past to understanding convectors and the dual...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
13
Views
3K
Replies
30
Views
3K
Back
Top