- Joined
- Apr 20, 2018
- Messages
- 10,257
- Reaction score
- 4,161
- Location
- Washington, D.C.
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Well, I wasn't going to go there, but that thought crossed my mind.
The so-called advanced math is really not all that advanced; more often than not, it's statistics (theory and practice) that one uses heavily at the graduate level, though depending on the assignment/task, one may need calculus (standard and/or as applied to statistics). The OP-er is interested in sociology, so stats mastery (basic) is going to be essential. Whether she'll need more than that is hard to say.
These days, one doesn't much need to be adept at the computational aspects of math/statistics, but one does need to be strong on the theory, that is, understanding what functions/techniques to apply and what the results of those functions mean, don't mean, imply, don't imply, etc. Unlike in my day, there're software programs, most notably Excel and add-ons to it, that will do the computational math; moreover, nobody really cares these days about one's computational acuity. That said, the tools that'll do the computations are useless if one doesn't know what one is doing (the theory) when one submits data to them or doesn't adequately enough comprehend the theory so as to accurately interpret the output.
On the upside, there's always someone around who'll help one understand the math provided one knows what one is trying to do with the math. Professors aren't keen on seeing grad students receive poor grades in a non-math discipline because they are not so good at math. That's not quite as true in econ and psych, but in sociology, it's more so, except in the sociology equivalent course to what us b-school types call "quantitative methods" (applied statistical and other math theories).
Note to OP-er:
If you think you might get a graduate degree of any sort, take college statistics before grad school if you aren't strong in math, and especially math theory. You can fairly well assess your strength with math theory and applications of it by thinking back to how you felt about doing proofs and "word problems." Even if you just take it pass/fail or as an audited class, take it and go to class. That approach will allow you to focus more on the theory when you take it again as a grad student.
Also, FWIW, the "trick" to being good at math theory is, strangely, being very good at reading comprehension. Math texts are all written with strict adherence to the conventions of standard grammar. Accordingly, every word, every verb tense and mood, every punctuation mark, the denotation and connotation of every word, etc. contributes to the meaning the author(s) are communicating. For as much as folks talk about succinct writing, the fact of the matter is that when presented with succinct writing, most folks don't comprehend it. Math text authors generally write as succinctly as possible, but that means too that their word choices and sentence structures are what I call "power packed." (Example: Discussion of a very simple concept, limits, when discussed succinctly, completely and precisely is something poor readers don't get it.) Why is that? I think it's because math is a language.
- it's not what you say, it's how you say it. He didn't have to be a dick about it. He chose to. I don't normally open up to much that is personal on here, for just such reasons. You'll always have somebody use it against you. 
