Just as I don’t want to be told that I am wrong, I do not want to be told that I am correct. Instead, I want to be told what I did wrong and how I can work better. Nothing frustrates me more than a smiley face on a solution or an “ideas lacking” on a paper. I thrive in an environment of constant, coarse constructive criticism; I want to be debated and challenged. My calculus class had some elements of this challenge: each day I presented a solution for an exercise to the class, the class questioned my method and logic, and I defended my work. In the process, I became a more confident, refined mathematician, and I consider that part of my education the most constructive. UChicago offers a similar structure in its Inquiry Based Learning math courses, except Moore stripped of fluff. Similarly, when I read a history of mathematics it confirmed my interest in axiom-based class. When I read how concepts and approaches developed naturally, I learned how to effectively solve problems with logic and creativity rather than a checklist. Axiomatic courses like IBL mimic that natural discovery and develop skills for mathematical research, my ultimate objective. If theoretical mathematics is proof-based, and a proof is a purely logical argument, then arguing mathematics is the ideal way to learn it. …show more content…
Sure, most universities will allow a student to participate in undergraduate research, but the REU through VIGRE is a fantastic way to introduce students to a broad series of topics and then to mentor them in the process of research and writing a paper. Working during the summer gives time to focus entirely on the research, the option to work with a motivated group means we can cover more ground in the time we have, and ample access to mentors gives the unexperienced researchers (cough, me) the same opportunity to participate and learn as someone with ample