I studied through first-year calculus in high school, and did very well on everything but the calculus. As math gets more theoretical, I start to feel stupid. I took one theory-based math course in college, and barely got a B-. So that was enough math for me, at the time.
And then I went off and studied psychology for years, which included a minimal amount of data analysis and statistics (very little theory), which I was very good at. When I was in the psych PhD program, one of the stats profs actually tried to get me to change tracks entirely, and transfer to UCLA's masters-level biostat program. *He* thought I was "good at math."
A long time later, after falling off the tenure-track in psychology, I went back to biostat. I took a lot of undergrad math in 2000-2001, did reasonably well, came to Harvard's biostat program, and promptly fell flat on my a**, because my brain just did not wrap around the theory **at all**. So I took a lot of applied biostat courses, got my master's, and now am quite happy using that level of math as an applied biostatistician.
And I am one of those kids who was "good at math." But I hit a wall, and could go no further. I think that's why a lot of people quit math; each of us has a limit, beyond which it just gets too difficult. And not a lot of people get a second chance like I do.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2006-03-22 03:05 pm (UTC)not sure what the point is, but...
Date: 2006-03-22 03:22 pm (UTC)I studied through first-year calculus in high school, and did very well on everything but the calculus. As math gets more theoretical, I start to feel stupid. I took one theory-based math course in college, and barely got a B-. So that was enough math for me, at the time.
And then I went off and studied psychology for years, which included a minimal amount of data analysis and statistics (very little theory), which I was very good at. When I was in the psych PhD program, one of the stats profs actually tried to get me to change tracks entirely, and transfer to UCLA's masters-level biostat program. *He* thought I was "good at math."
A long time later, after falling off the tenure-track in psychology, I went back to biostat. I took a lot of undergrad math in 2000-2001, did reasonably well, came to Harvard's biostat program, and promptly fell flat on my a**, because my brain just did not wrap around the theory **at all**. So I took a lot of applied biostat courses, got my master's, and now am quite happy using that level of math as an applied biostatistician.
And I am one of those kids who was "good at math." But I hit a wall, and could go no further. I think that's why a lot of people quit math; each of us has a limit, beyond which it just gets too difficult. And not a lot of people get a second chance like I do.