I’m choosing the direction for my graduate study. I like Maths, but have limited exposure to different areas of it. As I’ve only just finished my Bachelor, I can’t say for sure what my strengths are, or what my direction would be after graduate school. However, I don’t think I want to do research in the long terms, at least not in an Universities. A technical role in the industry is more appealing to me at the moment.

I’m planning to do my Master in Europe, most likely Germany.

Also by “Pure Maths” I mean areas like Topology, Algebra, Geometry, Combinatorics, etc.

I’m aware that all areas have their own difficult unsolved problems and are comprised of both theory and practical applications. I’m just asking about this issue as strictly applied to graduate-level taught programs.

I am working on the latter half of my PhD in mathematics at a mid-ranked university, and I am beginning to think about what kind of career I would like to have after I graduate. I am leaning towards a tenure track job at a more teaching oriented liberal arts college. I am more into the teaching aspect of the job rather than the research aspect of the job. I prefer living the quiet life in a smaller size town, and having fewer students that I can interact with rather than larger classes where I don’t get much interaction with students.

However, salary is important to me and when I search online “liberal arts college assistant professor salary” I get conflicting, and some downright scary search results.

Examples:

  1. Salary genius says:

    The average yearly salary for Liberal Arts College Professor is $36,550. If you are just beginning to work a new job as a Liberal Arts College Professor, you could expect a starting pay rate of $30,100 annually.

  2. Salary.com says:

    How much does a Asst. Professor – Liberal Arts make? The median annual Asst. Professor – Liberal Arts salary is $56,978, as of January 30, 2018, with a range usually between $44,890-$69,846, however this can vary widely depending on a variety of factors.

  3. Wikipedia says:

    Assistant Professor:
    $45,927 (Lowest Median By Field)

    $81,005 (Highest Median By Field)

    $58,662 (Overall Median)

I am okay with Salary.com’s numbers and Wikipedia’s. I know that these numbers go up as you get promoted to associate professor and full professor, and I think that somewhere in the neighborhood of $50,000+ is a pretty decent starting 9 month salary. But Salary Genius’ cited numbers, to me, are an absolute joke for the qualifications required for the job and the amount of time we have put into getting those qualifications.

Question: I am hoping for some responses about what kind of salary I will likely be getting if I get a tenure track job at a smaller liberal arts college in, say, a rural town. What are the actual numbers?

Hopefully I can hear from someone who actually has experience working at these type of institutions.

I’m doing a PhD in mathematics at one of the world-leading universities. I spend a lot of time engaging in science communication: both speaking (talks for general audience, some of them quite successful) and writing (popular science blog, I started to publish also in some magazines). Even though I enjoy maths a lot, I prefer communicating it to non-mathematicians much more.
Would getting a job in science communication as opposed to continuing research or working in industry be a “waste” of PhD? Also, would I need a degree in journalism or science communication to be considered a serious candidate for jobs in popular science or media? I’ve done some research online but it seems that there aren’t many scientists (not to mention mathematicians) with a PhD who would focus their career on communicating science.

And by established, I mean something that of course already exists be it in a textbook or another research text. I ask because I am developing/researching a what could be said to be quite original concept on my personal time but I feel that it is too idiosyncratic to be even given a thought, and the fact is perhaps offer no value most major journals will not accept it due to its concepts not being attached much to something already existing. Of course, there are other papers I am referencing and citing in the paper but the concept overall is not something I think is of much interest. If it helps, the concept is developing vector spaces over the field of surreal numbers to provide a basis for studying algebro-geometric concepts in a surreal analytic framework. The journals I considered are Compositio Mathematica and AMS.

Based on the papers I’ve read submitted to the aforesaid journals, they seem to prove fairly substantial results dealing with well established existing concepts. This doesn’t seem to come near what I am doing since my concept is infant.

Also, I am still in high school and am afraid of publishing. Will being a high schooler be put against me? Since I always hear if you are a high schooler your concepts be it whatever have no relevance. I am not trying to prove a major result or anything; just get my concepts out there. I’ve considered arXiv as an initial step to getting whatever research I have noticed but it requires sponsorship which I don’t think will make its way to me.

On a math (let’s say, calculus) exam recently, the students were asked to use the definition of a limit of a sequence to prove that the sequence given by 3n/(3n+5) converges to 1. Given a positive number Ɛ, the definition requires proving the existence of some number N such that if n>N then |3n/(3n+5) – 1|<Ɛ.

As a consequence of the definition, once a sufficiently large N is found, any larger value of N will also suffice. Many students set |3n/(3n+5) – 1|=5/(3n+5)<Ɛ to find N, however, the professor decided to include an extra step: 5/(3n+5) < 5/n <Ɛ, which leads to another sufficient value of N.

Although most students gave a correct proof (consistent with the definition in their book), he took off points because they didn’t find the “best” value of N. The lecturer claims that the author would have used some (unnecessary) inequalities to find the “better” N, which is probably true.

When students complain about losing points, I tell them that their answer is correct and that they should seek full credit for their work. The lecturer suggests that I am “putting the students between him and I” and that he’s ultimately in charge.

Who’s wrong here?

A professor casually mentioned that when submitting abstracts to a conference in some fields in Applied Math (such as numerical PDEs), it is highly likely that they will be accepted (unless the work is garbage) – unlike some “other fields” (like computational neuroscience).

By this I understand that those “other fields” are more competitive, but I am not sure if I am interpreting this correctly. In general, how does this affect career prospects on the long run? Will it be likewise a lot harder to get an academic job in such “other fields”?

P.S. I am in a U.S. college.

On a math (let’s say, calculus) exam recently, the students were asked to use the definition of a limit of a sequence to prove that the sequence given by 3n/(3n+5) converges to 1. Given a positive number Ɛ, the definition requires proving the existence of some number N such that if n>N then |3n/(3n+5) – 1|<Ɛ.

As a consequence of the definition, once a sufficiently large N is found, any larger value of N will also suffice. Many students set |3n/(3n+5) – 1|=5/(3n+5)<Ɛ to find N, however, the professor decided to include an extra step: 5/(3n+5) < 5/n <Ɛ, which leads to another sufficient value of N.

Although most students gave a correct proof (consistent with the definition in their book), he took off points because they didn’t find the “best” value of N. The lecturer claims that the author would have used some (unnecessary) inequalities to find the “better” N, which is probably true.

When students complain about losing points, I tell them that their answer is correct and that they should seek full credit for their work. The lecturer suggests that I am “putting the students between him and I” and that he’s ultimately in charge.

Who’s wrong here?

I will soon finish my undergraduate degree in math, and I want to study mathematics as a hobby after I graduate.

Online, I see a general trend of people saying

You can’t learn real math without collaboration and feedback. Go to graduate school!

But I don’t want to go to graduate school, and I have found that I learn better through self-study than by taking notes in class. That being said, it always does help to get my questions answered by professors, and collaboration with other students is sometimes helpful as well.

Question: Is it possible to have this kind of mathematical community without actually being in academia?

What I fear is studying for years by myself obsessively on a subject only to find that I had a horrible misconception the whole time that could have been avoided if only a professor had looked at my work.

I’m math undergraduate student and doing final project for undergraduate theses. I was trying with something “design constructed from group”, but I failed because i’m not sure with my ability to finish it and my advisor not realy understand about it. Now, i’m confused to choose the topic, i’d ask you to give me advise for my undergraduate theses. My interest is abstract algebra, you can give something related to it, group, ring, semigroup, semiring or etc, and I hope there is no programming in it, even a bit, like I did in design which is I failed.

please help me, I’m fear now, because I may be graduate not on time, and my mental a little down, since my advisor not give me much advise, but still i’m not blaming anyone, exexcept me, I feel so so so stupid, and I feel my dream to make graduate school after undergraduate school end, because I feel not smart enough to cope with graduate school, and I feel I wont get any scholarship to graduate.

This really destroy my mental, my everything.

Thank you so much.

I’m about to apply for a short “visiting and orientation program” at a large prestigious university where I may be interested in applying for graduate school. This program lasts a couple of weeks and consists of

  • several courses that present the research done by every research group in the math department;
  • meetings with the faculty members and current students.

For the admission, I’m required to submit a statement of purpose.

Now, the scope of statements of purpose written for graduate admission is quite clear: they need to show research potential and experience in an area of interest.

However, I’m confused about what makes a good candidate for a PhD “visiting and orientation program”.

That is, what kind of information, qualification, and motivations may admission committees be looking for in a candidate for such a program?