3 ms·
It’s difficult to support undergrad without good researchers and an accompanying grad school. Or rather, it is superficially possible, but in a couple generatio
by mananaysiempre 5y ago
It’s difficult to support undergrad without good researchers and an accompanying grad school. Or rather, it is superficially possible, but in a couple generations (academic ones, i.e. in a decade or two), as graduates of the school assume teaching positions, a kind of vicious circle of degeneration sets in where the curriculum discards connections to the actual state of the field and successive iterations of courses fossilize while working out more and more minuscule kinks of an ultimately flawed pedagogical approach, usually that of the “founders” who last had contact with actual science. (Nothing against those founders—most pedagogical approaches are flawed in one way or another—the wrong part is doubling down on those flaws.)
It’s a not uncommon (if also not universal) thing to happen to applied maths departments, especially those where mathematicians aren’t allowed or encouraged to do their own thing. Bad high school maths is essentially the ultimate endpoint of this process, see e.g. Quinn on the “revolution in mathematics” in the Notices of the AMS[1]. A more high-brow example is perhaps how no undergraduate physics major in a Russian university includes group theory(!)—because Landau thought it useless and annoying (he was not the only one among the greats to think so, though perhaps the last,—look up “Gruppenpest” for more), and that was when official university physics programs in Russia detached from actual research.
Unfortunately, the amount of places in the world doing fundamental maths, places diverse enough that you can stand in the hallway and find someone who can explain to you a subject far removed from your own (that’s essentially what counts as “world-class”), is perhaps a couple dozen, certainly not in the hundreds. As long as they exist at all, there’s hope that with enough cross-pollination the whole thing will not die out, but losing even a single one is literally, through these kinds of knock-on effects only visible over a period of a couple of decades, a blow to the collective knowledge of humanity.
(As a late-Soviet—early-Russian apocryphal story goes:
“Why are you not emigrating?”
“I have people to talk to here.”
[Ten years later]
“Why have you emigrated?”
“There was nobody left to talk to there.”)
[1]: http://www.ams.org/notices/201201/rtx120100031p.pdf http://www.ams.org/notices/201201/rtx120100031p.pdf
- spekcular 5y ago"It’s difficult to support undergrad without good researchers and an accompanying grad school. Or rather, it is superficially possible, but in a couple generations (academic ones, i.e. in a decade or two), as graduates of the school assume teaching positions, a kind of vicious circle of degeneration sets in [...]" I don't agree with this. First, because there are a bunch of elite liberal arts colleges in the US that serve as direct counterexamples. Second, because the teachers at these schools are not typically drawn from graduates of the school, but from PhD graduates of mid- to high-ranking research programs. To give one example, Francis Su (who writes a lot about math education) teaches at Harvey Mudd – an excellent institution with no graduate program – and earned a PhD from Harvard. Also: "Unfortunately, the amount of places in the world doing fundamental maths, places diverse enough that you can stand in the hallway and find someone who can explain to you a subject far removed from your own (that’s essentially what counts as “world-class”), is perhaps a couple dozen, certainly not in the hundreds." This is just wrong. Diversity is not really essential to the ranking or quality of a department. Plenty of top places eschew certain subjects (logic, combinatorics) or have relatively narrow tastes (NYU Courant, Princeton ORFE). Building strong groups in a few focus areas is much more important for research productivity. It sucks to be the only person doing Subject X at a certain place.
- tzs 5y ago> Harvey Mudd – an excellent institution with no graduate program It is one of the Claremont Colleges though, a consortium of 5 undergraduate schools and 2 graduate schools in Claremont that share many facilities and programs. 6 of the 7 have adjacent campuses. Students in the Claremont undergraduate schools can take classes at the graduate schools (an at the other undergraduate schools). I'd expect that this gives Harvey Mudd students most of any advantages that going to an undergraduate school that has a graduate school does.