This Undergraduate Course Is Designed To Assist Students In All Majors In Advancing: Fill & Download for Free

I don’t think it’s exaggerated at all.I moved to UChicago as a full professor from the University of California system, arguably the largest/best public state university system. I spent 13 years as professor at UCSB, and 7 years as a PhD student at UC Berkeley, where I was teaching assistant for a couple of advanced undergraduate classes. Before that, I spent 4 years as a CS undergraduate at Yale.Some classes at Berkeley and UCSB were tough, but in general, there’s a sense that class difficulty has to be constrained by some metric, i.e. the university has a mission to serve the state of California, and classes are designed to teach to the majority of a diverse (albeit very selective) student population.After a year of teaching at UChicago, I don’t think there is any such limitations here. I hear numerous reminders in a regular basis that not only are UChicago students exceptionally bright, but that they are tough, and can withstand and even welcome significant intellectual challenges. I have heard details of assignments given out by my colleagues in the CS department as well as colleagues from other departments, assignments that I would find personally challenging. Some world-renowned faculty expect students to keep up with their own level of ability, and teach their courses accordingly. They embrace academic rigor not to be difficult for difficult’s sake, but with the full intent of giving their students the best academic preparation possible. Classes are designed to target the very brightest students, and meant to stretch the limits of your ability to learn deep, difficult concepts at an accelerated rate. I’ve heard of homework assignments that would challenge all but the brightest and most dedicated in time and effort and ability, and course projects that seriously challenge students emotionally as well as intellectually. And through it all, there is a sense that students accept it, and many embrace it, because this is the education they sought, a place that would challenge even the most academically gifted, without holding back.I think that compared to my years at Yale, the undergraduate experience at UChicago is undoubtedly more rigorous and challenging. Yale sought to offer you a broad, rich in content, liberal arts education, but one that went at your chosen pace. I rarely felt truly out of my depth at Yale, even though I sought out some of the most difficult classes. But even as a (senior) faculty member, I can put myself in the shoes of a UChicago undergrad, and imagine a very real sense of being challenged on a daily basis.And yeah, the grading is also rough… Thankfully, UChicago’s reputation for being ridiculously challenging is known far and wide, and graduates’ grades (e.g. for grad school) are calibrated accordingly.EDIT: It’s clear that I need to explain my answer a bit more. Some folks with an agenda are trying to spin my answer into some glaring example of what is wrong with college education, with cruel professors bent on punishing students so they can feel superior. I’ve blocked those trying to impose a clear agenda on my answer. Nothing can be further from the truth. The level of academic rigor at UChicago does not come from a goal of increasing the difficulty for difficulty’s sake, or from a need to torture students. The rigor comes from a strong respect for the intellectual ability and resilience of UChicago students, with a goal of giving the most intellectually stimulating education possible to each student on campus. And while I am emphasizing the level of academic rigor here, please do not interpret this to mean that UChicago is a cruel and heartless place. The faculty cares immensely for its students, and not only provides tremendous support for students (each undergrad student has a counselor who advises them on all things great and small, academic and personal), but it expends tremendous resources to study and develop new pedagogical methods to improve the way classes are structured, taught, and received.

There are two bills.The first bill changes the language of Women in science and engineering; support of activities by Foundation for promotion law. This extension allows the NSF to have promotions and support for women in scientific careers in industry. This seems fine, but I worry about the commercialization of science. There is a push to turn science away from basic research and into the drivers of industry. While this may seem like a great idea, commercialized research is already huge and supported by industry and the private sector very well. The public sector has been critical in incubating basic research which doesn’t have commercial purposes yet. This is the seed corn for future commericalized science. So by diverting funds from support in basic research to private sector research, we’re eating our seed corn and the effects won’t be felt for 20 or 30 years, but this will result in a deceleration of scientific research in the 2030s to 2050s. This is just a small drop in the bucket and this realignment has been happening since the 1990s under both Republican and Democratic adminsitrations and Congresses. I also worry, that this will give academic science a pass, allowing it funnel women into the private sector and allowing the NSF to declare victory. These are small changes so I don’t think it’s going to be a concern.The second bill seems like a pretty ticky-tack set of programs. Generally NASA already spends a ton of money on outreach and they’re creating a few more programs, some of which will be aimed at girls. This is good, though NASA’s importance to science will become even more overrepresented relative to its scientific profile because of this. Science is huge and NASA’s science is relatively small, but most people know NASA and think it’s a major driver of science. More power to NASA, that’s great; however, more generally, I’d like to see these public outreach programs extended across all federal agencies that fund science. Notably the Department of Energy’s Office of Science has limited outreach its mission and its ability to publicize its science is hurt by it.Texts of the LawsFirst Bill§1885a. Women in science and engineering; support of activities by Foundation for promotion, etc.The Foundation is authorized to-support activities designed to-a. increase the participation of women in courses of study at the undergraduate, graduate, and postgraduate levels leading to degrees in scientific and engineering fields;b. encourage women to consider and prepare for careers in science and engineering; orc. provide traineeship and fellowship opportunities for women in science and engineering;support programs in science, engineering, and mathematics in elementary and secondary schools so as to stimulate the acquisition of knowledge, skills, and information by female students and to increase female student awareness of career opportunities requiring scientific and engineering skills;support activities in continuing education in science and engineering which provide opportunities for women who-a. are in the work force, orb. who are not in the work force because their careers have been interrupted,to acquire new knowledge, techniques, and skills in scientific and engineering fields;undertake a comprehensive research program designed to increase public understanding ofa. the potential contribution of women in science and engineering andb. the means to facilitate the participation and advancement of women in scientific and engineering careers;establish a visiting women scientists and engineers program;support activities designed to improve the availability and quality of public information concerning the importance of the participation of women in careers in science and engineering;support activities of museums and science centers which demonstrate potential to interest and involve women in science and engineering;make grants, to be known as the National Research Opportunity Grants, to women scientists and engineers who (A) have received their doctorates within five years prior to the date of the award or (B) have received their doctorates, have had their careers interrupted, and are re-entering the work force within five years after such interruption;make grants to women eligible under paragraph (8) to assist such women in planning and developing a research project eligible for support under such paragraph;provide support to individuals or academic institutions for full-time or part-time visiting professorships for women in science and engineering; andsupport demonstration project activities of individuals, public agencies, and private entities designed to encourage the employment and advancement of women in science and engineering.to include12. encourage its entrepreneurial programs to recruit and support women to extend their focus beyond the laboratory and into the commercial world.Second BillTo inspire women to enter the aerospace field, including science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, through mentorship and outreach.The Congress finds that—NASA GIRLS and NASA BOYS are virtual mentoring programs using commercially available video chat programs to pair National Aeronautics and Space Administration mentors with young students anywhere in the country. NASA GIRLS and NASA BOYS give young students the opportunity to interact and learn from real engineers, scientists, and technologists.The Aspire to Inspire (A2I) program engages young girls to present science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) career opportunities through the real lives and jobs of early career women at NASA.The Summer Institute in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Research (SISTER) program at the Goddard Space Flight Center is designed to increase awareness of, and provide an opportunity for, female middle school students to be exposed to and explore nontraditional career fields with Goddard Space Flight Center women engineers, mathematicians, scientists, technicians, and researchers.The Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration shall encourage women and girls to study science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, pursue careers in aerospace, and further advance the Nation’s space science and exploration efforts through support of the following initiatives:NASA GIRLS and NASA BOYS.Aspire to Inspire.Summer Institute in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Research.Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall submit to the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate a plan for how NASA can best facilitate and support both current and retired astronauts, scientists, engineers, and innovators, including early career female astronauts, scientists, engineers, and innovators, to engage with K–12 female STEM students and inspire the next generation of women to consider participating in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics and to pursue careers in aerospace. This plan shall—report on existing activities with current and retired NASA astronauts, scientists, engineers, and innovators;identify how NASA could best leverage existing authorities to facilitate and support current and retired astronaut, scientist, engineer, and innovator participation in NASA outreach efforts;propose and describe a program specific to retired astronauts, scientists, engineers, and innovators; andidentify any additional authorities necessary to institute such a program.

I can only compare the undergraduate math here to a few private universities since those are the only ones I know anything about, and my response is more aimed towards people who have dabbled in a bit of math in high school, but here goes (if you're looking for non-course-selection stuff, go to the bottom):What is it like to study math here? The best way to put it is probably: "It is whatever you make it." The reason being we have fairly few options for undergraduates just starting out, and the advising people literally all just tell you to sign up for the easiest classes possible (pretty unhelpful), but there is a good spectrum of classes available.At Stanford for instance they have the usual math 41, 51 etc. And then, there's 51-53H, which are about at the level of hard upper level undergraduate courses or so. If you are really into math, this is a good place to dive in and really get started. At Harvard they have even more "tracks", I don't recall all the numbers but I know there's a 23, a 25, and a 55 (a/b). 25ab seems to be a solid upper-level intro, and 55 is a bit more substantial (I won't go into details as many people are aware of this).At Berkeley we don't have any of this track differentiation going on. On top of that, there are no "popular" classes for more advanced freshmen going in, in contrast to say MIT, where a lot (well, comparatively speaking) of people take 18.701 or something first semester. So in a sense Berkeley's undergraduate curriculum is best suited for people with minimal background, because taking the major requirements in order (well, it's more of a partial order so strictly speaking that doesn't make sense but you get the idea hopefully haha) will build everything up from the bottom.The type of person for which this is perhaps not good is the person who say, has dabbled in contest math a bit at higher levels, but doesn't have much in the way of "real math". These types of people have mathematical maturity developed beyond the point where the lower division math classes would be helpful or really worthwhile, but maybe haven't seen enough "higher math"/"real math" to feel very comfortable jumping straight into the more abstract setting provided in upper division math classes. In my experience at least, the very first time seeing something completely non-concrete is a little scary and takes a bit of time just feeling comfortable working with (not because it's hard or unintuitive, but because it's weird at first to not work only through examples and discover properties of the example at hand rather than going from the top down, deriving facts about said examples as a specific case of something more general).At the same time, one could argue that it is perhaps better to be exposed to abstraction straight up, after a pretty much purely computational introduction to say linear algebra. For example, in Stanford's 51H, one learns about many facts about general vector spaces but by working only in R^n it makes it easier to visualize, but also muddies whether these properties are of finite dimensional, real, etc. or general vector spaces, aka how general the results are. In math 110 (at Berkeley, the upper division linear algebra class, which I'd expect Stanford to have a similar equivalent), they put emphasis on the distinction between matrices and linear operators, picking a basis, having different base fields, different inner products, etc. With the more abstract approach, you certainly waste less time multiplying lots of matrices in confusion trying to prove a fact that works on a higher level.That said, there are honors courses here, and while I haven't taken any of them, I am pretty sure the difference between non-honors and honors here is quite different from honors/non-honors designated courses at some of the aforementioned private universities.Now for upper level courses, I think Berkeley has one more "deficiency", which I think Stanford shares to some extent, and maybe MIT (I'm not really sure on these 2). Berkeley splits courses into lower division (course number < 100), upper division (1xx) and graduate (2xx), and so does Stanford. The problem is that there is not much of a bridge between upper division and graduate courses. At Princeton for example graduate courses I believe are numbered 5xx, and 4xx courses are advanced undergraduate courses that are easily on par with "intro" graduate courses. Harvard doesn't number differently from Berkeley/Stanford, but they have 1xx numbered math courses that are quite advanced.In my experience and from what I've heard, graduate courses are much much harder than upper division courses. Now it's not always the case, because different instructors do things differently, but I think generally that's the case. For example, math 250A (the first graduate course in algebra) covers all of math 113/114 (undergraduate algebra and field theory) and has half the semester to spare for more interesting stuff. Upper division courses seem to devote a huge amount of time to "getting used to the ideas" (sorry if this is really vague), and tend to not cover much actual material, and this doesn't only go for the core (104- real analysis, 185-complex analysis, 110-linear algebra, 113-abstract algebra) courses either. As an exception I've heard that math 140 is quite hard, but I haven't looked at the syllabus or anything.I think that the problem with this is that it might be better to sit in a more advanced undergraduate class and understand everything rather than feel extremely lost in a graduate class, though since I've never done that, I don't know if it would actually be better!Anyways, I don't have data to back it up but I feel like there is an alarming number of undergraduates in graduate courses, and I know that there is some good proportion of people in the intro graduate classes that aren't doing so well. I think that is probably evidence supporting the idea that having some courses at a slightly lower level is a good idea.The point of all that was sort of to describe the situation with classes. When one does get to graduate classes though, there is a simply massive selection, thanks to us having an enormous math department, and it is really awesome. (I had to underline that)Okay so aside from course selection how are things?Excuse me for the list format.1. I think that there isn't much of a coherent math undergraduate community, unlike at some of the previously mentioned private universities. Probably just because there's way too many people. Slightly related to this is perhaps the observation that there doesn't seem to be much of the mass-collaborate-on-pset thing that exists at MIT and maybe elsewhere.2. Professors here are of course world class, and in the math department I feel like they have a very positive attitude towards undergraduates. By contrast, I heard some postdoc or assistant professor or something from Haas say "I'm teaching this semester yea...undergrads [rolls eyes]". There are surprisingly few people who show up to office hours despite some of the rather large classes, and most professors I've talked to have been really friendly and helpful.3. Graduate students here are also some of the best, and if I'll be honest, can be a bit intimidating, since they are so damn accomplished.4. I think that for math in particular undergrads shouldn't be trying to look towards doing research just because the professors here do top level research. Don't think that you have a solid foundation from taking the core requirements, because you don't. So really, the fact that Berkeley is a major research institution is pretty useless for undergrads.5. Math classes can be pleasantly small (not math 1a/1b/53/54/55/110 though), and there is pretty much never any trouble with enrollment, unlike some other departments. It's great to be able to phase 2/3 all your math classes, and reserve those precious phase 1 units for breadth requirements and such.6. Grades! Are they as bad as people say? I think as long as you don't sign up for one of Professor Givental's undergraduate classes, you won't be complaining too much (I don't think he's that bad though, only for your GPA :P). Admittedly, I get jealous of how Stanford math classes give 50% solid A or higher (so I hear at least), but I think it's fair to say that if you got a C or low B, you definitely didn't know what was going on and deserved a bad grade.7. Workload? As I said before, it is what you make it. Some people take it slow and just finish their requirements up as they're graduating, some people take almost all math classes, different classes have different workload, different professors teaching the same class have different workload. YMMV.That's all I can think of for now.