What percentage of students have taken real analysis undergrad?

[henge]

Last year, in one of the sticky threads on math and real analysis, thesus said:

"For what it's worth, I believe that 16 of 17 people at this year's class at Rochester have at least one course in analysis"

Does anyone have similar data for other programs, including non-top 30 programs?

[pevdoki1]

Last year at Minnesota most people did not have analysis. With the exception of about 1/4 of us, real analysis was the 3rd class of choice.

No one took econometrics.

This year's class seems to like econometrics more, so perhaps more people have had analysis.

[Gecko]

MIT had some who didn't have real analysis~

[Gerter]

Originally Posted by pevdoki1

Last year at Minnesota most people did not have analysis. With the exception of about 1/4 of us, real analysis was the 3rd class of choice.

No one took econometrics.

This year's class seems to like econometrics more, so perhaps more people have had analysis.

Since I'm not that familiar with the Minnesota curriculum, what does this mean? You take micro and macro in the first year and can choose your 3rd class? And no one chose to take metrics?

[pevdoki1]

That's right - you get to choose a third class at Minnesota.

[walt526]

I think Jeeves has said that about half of his MIT cohort did not take Real Analysis prior to admission and I believe someone at Caltech (windupbird or something like that?) said that there were a few in her cohort who hadn't.

5-10 years ago, I believe that a smaller portion of the applicant pool had taken it, so having RA on your transcript was a great way to make your application standout and really demonstrated a proficiency and love of math. Nowadays, because so many solid, but not-spectacular applicants take it, adcoms are not as impressed by it. Truly spectacular applicants are defined by the strength of their LORs, not necessarily coursework.

Which is not to say that RA doesn't send a signal or isn't helpful in PhD-level theory. It is. But it's not the "must have" that some on this forum seem to think it is.

[henge]

Thanks all. I found Jeeves' estimate for his MIT class:

"As for the relevance [of advanced math] as an admissions signal, I'd say most of our class [at MIT] has taken calc I-III, math stat, prob theory, and real analysis, but most haven't taken a lot beyond that (and there are some who have not had Real Analysis)."

[Ludwig]

Why doesn't someone parse the data from the TM past applicants thread? Then we'd have more hard data and less anecdotal evidence.

(Yeah, easier said than done - I can't do it off the cuff - but it sounds rudimentary enough for someone with programming experience to do it.)

[oldprogrammer]

One thing to keep in mind regarding Analysis is the perceived quality gap between your current program and the ones you're applying to. It seems like, though I have no real evidence for this assumption, that Analysis can alleviate concerns over the quality and rigor of a program that the AdCom may not be too familiar with.

I should add that this assumption comes from reading this forum and isn't something I came up with on my own.

[wind up bird]

There's only one in my cohort who has no previous familiarity with real analysis. Those who haven't taken an official course have seen some of the material embedded in other courses. The student with no math background is finding it hard to pick up the math along with the rest of our coursework...