However please note that these are their personal views and are in no way endorsed by the host.

• Points for applying after BSTAT by Mr. Apoorva Khare
• Points against the former by Mr. Sourav Chatterjee

The following is an article by one Mr. Apoorva Khare, who had applied applied for graduate study right after his BSTAT in 2000 A.D.
These are his arguments why applying in Mathematics after BSTAT is an option to consider:

I am pursuing a Ph.D. degree (MS + Ph.D., to be precise) in Mathematics, after having completed my B.Stat. from ISI, Calcutta.
At that time, of course, I saw only pros in coming here. But though my perspective may not have changed much, and may in no way be either complete or accurate, let me lay down a couple of points here.

• First of all, if someone wants to go into statistics or probability, then I really don't think leaving ISI after B.Stat. is very advantageous. ISI offers some of the best training in the world, apart from exposing students to actual research being carried out in the Institute. But then, that's out of my league.

• As for maths, first of all, ISI is not THAT active a place for mathematical research. For instance, TIFR, HCRI, or even CMI or ISI Bangalore would be at least as good, if not better (though to be sure, I have only been to TIFR).

  More importantly, there are not that many math courses offered that undergrads can take. What I did was to take as many "basic" courses that I could, then take as many courses with my seniors that I could, in the three years I spent there. And then I came to Chicago with that background, plus a few summers spent in TIFR.

  Similarly, there was too much of Stat. (as far as I felt :) !!) that I was taking, that I did not have an interest in. Some of the courses were simply delightful (even though I would not be using them ever again), but some were not, and in any case, I was, by that time - meaning B3 - wanting more math and less Stat. So that's one more reason why I chose to come to Chicago after only my Bachelor's.

• Next, as I said above, exposure to research is important in deciding on what one wants to do in his or her mathematical career. Thus doing one's masters in an American university gives one more exposure to research.

  On the other hand, there is a flip side to this : once you are in an American university, coursework gets much more hectic, and there is less time to read up on things, and more pressure to publish, or to graduate as soon as possible. People may feel, after coming here, that they should have stayed back and read mathematics for an year or two more.

  That's the advantage of M.Stat. - you can decide on your specialization, go to Delhi or Bangalore if you want, and then after solid grounding, pursue higher education abroad.

  (*) And of course, the younger you start doing math, the more chance you have to win a Fields medal ;) !

Now we have an article by Mr. Sourav Chatterjee who was in the same batch as the previous author but chose not to leave after BSTAT. He completed his MSTAT (MSP) in 2002 and applied for a PhD.

I would like to point out some ... um ... points, mostly in favour of ISI, since you have presented all the possible arguments for the other side :)

• The B.Stat. curriculum underwent a thorough change after we graduated. I heard nowadays it has a little more math, and some of the abhorrent courses are out. But we need to verify the details from juniors.
• One can get a pretty good deal of math in M.Stat., including courses in topology, logic, axiomatic set theory, game theory, functional and advanced functional analysis, advanced algebra (two courses), discrete math (intorduced recently), and of course, measure theory. And they are pretty solid courses, too. Soumik, Pipe, and I took all these courses (with the exception of set theory and discrete math), and in fact, we took more math courses than stat courses in M.Stat.
  Yes, I was also frustrated about the lack of math in B.Stat., but I have absolutely no complaints about M.Stat. And if someone opts for AP, then he is going to get even more, like Dani took --- courses in differential and algebraic geometry, etc. Students who are frustrated with the B.Stat. curriculum should note this.
• This is not relevant to the discussion, but I think one should take heart in the fact that undergrad curricla are horrible everywhere around the world for bright students, (mainly because it has to adjust for the not-so-bright ones) --- and I think one can learn more rigorous math in a proper way being a B.Stat. (or now, B.Math.) than being an undergrad math major in an American school. I know math majors from Princeton who know less math than I did after B.Stat. Not ONE of these schools teach analysis from Rudin to undergrads --- they don't dare to --- they have all these fancy playful books that are horrible to even look at.
• It is a fact that it is difficult to get into big math departments with only ISI recos, --- I think one really needs TIFR recos.
• The number of American universities which take students (in math) directly after B.Stat. is rather limited, isn't it?
• As you noted in your mail, life in ISI is rather easy-going, specially now that they have done away with monthly exams and have the mid-sem system. YOU could cope with the American system and a life without India at that age (two years is a rather long time in that period of life: just consider how much you have changed/matured in the past two years) --- but that doesn't mean everybody will be able to. Students who are too eager should first make a serious judgement of their tenacity and nerve. I think this is an issue, but I'm not sure.