Best US schools for physics? Advice?

[Zorodius]

I'm 17 right now. I'm trying to decide what to do with my life. I think I'd be happiest studying physics. The subject is so broad and important that it seems like I'll never lack interesting things to think about, nor will I wind up feeling like my time spent studying was wasted. I want to perceive the world around me in a more complete way, and to be able to understand why things are the way they are.

Right now, I have my Associate's degree as a computer programmer. I managed to get a perfect grade-point average at college. I'm looking at what schools I would like to go to, and the reason I'm posting this is to ask for advice on selecting a school. MIT is currently my first choice, since it sounds more like a meritocracy than an aristocracy.

What schools should I consider? Also, if you have any anecdotal advice, I'm all ears, or eyes, or whatever sensory organ suits the medium.

 

[pmb_phy]

Originally posted by Zorodius
I'm 17 right now. I'm trying to decide what to do with my life. I think I'd be happiest studying physics. The subject is so broad and important that it seems like I'll never lack interesting things to think about, nor will I wind up feeling like my time spent studying was wasted. I want to perceive the world around me in a more complete way, and to be able to understand why things are the way they are.

Right now, I have my Associate's degree as a computer programmer. I managed to get a perfect grade-point average at college. I'm looking at what schools I would like to go to, and the reason I'm posting this is to ask for advice on selecting a school. MIT is currently my first choice, since it sounds more like a meritocracy than an aristocracy.

What schools should I consider? Also, if you have any anecdotal advice, I'm all ears, or eyes, or whatever sensory organ suits the medium.

There is a fundamental fact that you need to keep in mind. The larger the school the less one on one help you get from the proffesors. Some classes in large universities can have hundreds of students in them and the prof is usually bogged down with his own research.

The best schools are

Harvard
MIT
Cal Tech
University of California at Berkley
Cornell
Princeton
etc.

Personally I find MIT students to be irritating people. They have this smug attitude about them. They're so competitive that it would seem like they'd rather see you fail then help you with class material. So if you go to MIT good luck.

I'm not sure other of the above are better. However I went to Northeastern University for grad school in Boston and enjoyed it.

 

[GRQC]

Originally posted by pmb_phy

The best schools are

Harvard
MIT
Cal Tech
University of California at Berkley
Cornell
Princeton
etc.

Something very important you mentioned was that these are all research schools, and as a result: (1) the professors are generally uninterested in teaching undergraduates, (2) the class sizes are huge and impersonal. Big research schools are good for graduate studies, but not undergraduate.

This is a time in ones life when one need to be learning about more than just your field of interest. A broad education from a liberal arts college would be much more beneficial than the narrow one you'd get at the schools listed about. These kinds of schools have excellent faculty who focus on the students and their success.

I went to a large research school for undergraduate, and now that I teach at a liberal arts college, I see what I probably missed out on while being too "overfocused" on my goal. Graduate school is the time to specialize full-time; let your undergraduate career be full of learning experiences beyond one field.

 

[Loren Booda]

You reminded me of when I took intensive freshman physics at Yale in 1977-78. I had a full professor as teacher over a class eventually whittled down to ~25 students, and access to graduate level lab equipment. (Just don't inveigle him with stupid questions!) Yale valued their undergraduates.

 

[Bonfield]

There's no real answer to your question. What might be the best school for one person could be a terrible school for another. A school with a great research reputation may not (or may) ignore undergraduates. A small school won't ignore you but may not have a lot of resources.

School can be pretty much what you make it in many cases. Do some research. Be guided by looking at schools you've heard of, location (if that matters) and a good measure of common sense.

Best of luck.

 

[Zorodius]

Originally posted by GRQC
This is a time in ones life when one need to be learning about more than just your field of interest. A broad education from a liberal arts college would be much more beneficial than the narrow one you'd get at the schools listed about.

Isn't that kinda covered with my two-year degree in a more-or-less unrelated field?

 

[holly]

I'm throwing my two-cents in...gave someone else this advice, too, here on the boards a few weeks ago...

Go to a school you like! Can you visit some of them personally? Do some look like they'd be a nice place to attend in terms of geography? Going away to college can be a really fun way to see parts of the country you'd like to experience in terms of weather and nature and culture.

These folks telling you that you can pretty much make your college days what you will are right...don't have to go to MIT to get really good schooling...if your eyes are on grad school, you want to go into it with good grades & good GRE scores...

I know many, many scientists who got their schooling from the big-name schools, and can they ever wax bitter about it...about exclusionary behavior, about jealousy, about how they were treated like dirt, about how they were worked to death unnecessarily, about how the foreign students weren't treated right just because they were foreign and not because they were inferior thinkers (they weren't, they were BETTER at physics)...anyway...17 is awfully young although isn't that when Galileo looked at that lantern swinging and started thinking his lofty thoughts? But try to get to a place you'll ENJOY...you're already ahead of the game with your existing degree...btw, I know approx. 12 physicists (PhD kind) who dumped physics after they got sick of it...and had nothing to replace it, they had centered everything on the study of physics and defined themselves by it...so, keep your eyes open for OTHER things you like to do and think about...

 

[KingNothing]

I feel kind of dumb asking this, but what's the difference between graduate and undergraduate, research shcool and non-research school?

 

[pmb_phy]

Originally posted by Decker
I feel kind of dumb asking this, but what's the difference between graduate and undergraduate, research shcool and non-research school?

The first 4 years of your college education will get you a bachelor's degree. In those years you're referred to as an "undergraduate." After that you may choose to go on to obtain a masters (MS) or a PhD wherein you to school for another two years (MS) to 4 or more (PhD).

Another thing - some companies are snobbish and only look for students from fancy shamcy schools, MIT, Harvard, Etc.

However those environments can be a pain in the ass to work in. Tons of arrogant snobs. Not all but most. But they can be difficult to work with. I had a friend who I used to work with. I was testing her stuff. I found an error and had to have her fix her error. It a very long time to get done because she couldn't accept the fact that she made an error. Really irritating!

 

[GRQC]

Originally posted by Zorodius
Isn't that kinda covered with my two-year degree in a more-or-less unrelated field?

Well, no it isn't. An associate degree from a community college isn't anything near the same as a bachelor's degree from a liberal arts college.

Additionally, you're 17? So you went to community college at 15? Was that while you were in high school, or after? And if you graduated high school two (or three) years ahead of your peers, why did you just attend a community college instead of a college?

 

[Zorodius]

Originally posted by GRQC
Well, no it isn't. An associate degree from a community college isn't anything near the same as a bachelor's degree from a liberal arts college.

What kinds of non-major-specific subjects would be covered while getting a bachelor's from a liberal arts college that would not be covered while getting an associate's from a community college?

Additionally, you're 17? So you went to community college at 15?

Yes.

Was that while you were in high school, or after?

It was while I was in high school. I was going to college full time, so in a sense, it was in lieu of high school.

And if you graduated high school two (or three) years ahead of your peers, why did you just attend a community college instead of a college?

Geographical convenience. Also, I'm not sure if the program I did this in would have covered it if I had gone to a different college.

To be specific, I didn't graduate high school ahead of my peers. I didn't graduate high school at all. I'm not sure there would be a point.

 

[pmb_phy]

Originally posted by Zorodius
What kinds of non-major-specific subjects would be covered while getting a bachelor's from a liberal arts college that would not be covered while getting an associate's from a community college?

I don't see that there is any. What proof is there of such a claim?

Try going to the web sites of the universities listed and see what the curriculum consists of.

 

[Haelfix]

Undergrad doesn't really matter in my experience, but the quality of the research professor for grad school does.

Let me add a few schools for experimentalists (btw some of the schools listed above are way overated for physics)

University of Michigan
Cornell
UVA
University of Arizona
UCLA

 

[Stingray]

What type of undergrad you want depends on your personality and what you want to get out of it. I would only recommend Caltech or MIT if you are absolutely sure that you love physics, and can focus on it completely. That applies a little less to MIT. Those schools are very very good, and you can get a much better education there than anywhere else. The students are also much more bright in general, which can be nice.

I'm very serious about you being committed though. Caltech at least (I assume MIT is similar) leaves many brilliant students mentally broken. I don't want to get into the psychology of it, but its generally a love it or hate it relationship. You will have no social life, you won't sleep much, you'll work a lot, and you probably won't be at the top anymore. That last bit may sound petty, but most people at these schools never opened a book all through high school, and still came out at the top. Its usually a shock to put that sort of person in an environment where they're only average (and working hard).

Although I have less experience with them, I think that the other schools on the "best in physics" list really aren't going to get you much more than a state school for undergrad (grad is different). The students will be a little better, and the classes a little harder, but not too much.

 

[Haelfix]

In general physics programs are pretty serious, the class difficulty is usually pretty standard.

The difference for undergrads is the quality of the student next to you. Often it will take several years at a state school or a B institute to get the corresponding quality of classmates.

That can be important for some people, who thrive on competition

 

[GRQC]

Originally posted by Zorodius
Isn't that kinda covered with my two-year degree in a more-or-less unrelated field?

I can't answer this question unless I knew exctly what you took to get your AA. However, generally speaking a 2-year community college education is absolutely no comparison to a 4-year liberal arts education. The curriculum is different, the courses are different, the students are different, and the teachers are different. They are entirely different kinds of institutions with entirely different emphases on educational goals and standards.

I agree with others here who say that unless you are absolutely certain you want to major in physics, you should be less strict on your goals for an undergraduate education. Graduate school is the time to specialize. Undergraduate experiences are to expand your horizons.

 

[Dagenais]

They're so competitive that it would seem like they'd rather see you fail then help you with class material. So if you go to MIT good luck.

I met a guy from MIT once. He worked for Microsoft.

He was really nice.

Kind of effeminate, but nice.

He was a skinny, short, loud ,Chinese guy with a shrill voice.

Nice though. Really nice guy with a good sense of humour. I hear MIT and UC-Berkeley are full of Asians. Being of Asian decent, I meet and hear of a lot of fellow Asians that head to these schools. That might be something to think about socially. If that kind of stuff matters to you.

It might help to look at reliable rankings such as:

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/college/rankings/rankindex_brief.php

 

[recon]

Originally posted by kenikov
I met a guy from MIT once. He worked for Microsoft.

He was really nice.

Kind of effeminate, but nice.

He was a skinny, short, loud ,Chinese guy with a shrill voice.

Nice though. Really nice guy with a good sense of humour. I hear MIT and UC-Berkeley are full of Asians. Being of Asian decent, I meet and hear of a lot of fellow Asians that head to these schools. That might be something to think about socially. If that kind of stuff matters to you.

It might help to look at reliable rankings such as:

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/college/rankings/rankindex_brief.php

I am also of Asian descend. I hear that the schools discriminate you when you're Asian because of the large proportion of competitive Asians who apply. Is that true?

 

[nbo10]

Originally posted by recon
I am also of Asian descend. I hear that the schools discriminate you when you're Asian because of the large proportion of competitive Asians who apply. Is that true?

If you consider discrimination only accpeting those who are well qualified, then yes they do discriminate.

JMD

 

[holly]

I don't want to open a can of worms, but YES INDEED, THEY DO DISCRIMINATE...and not by "only accepting those who are qualified." My ex got a prized NASA postdoc...why?...was it because he was the best qualified? The nicest? The cleverest at interviewing...Noooooo, it was, as they said right out to him (after meeting with me to make sure I was white, too), "Hey, you're a blue-eyed blond-haired American! You aren't Chinese!" [They lumped everyone Asian as either "Oriental" or "Chinese"]. And furthermore, there are many, many cases of people not even getting into grad school or only into "lesser" schools because of their country of origin. And that makes a further chain of weakening the study of science, because whether you get published or not often depends MORE on who your major professor was than on what you are saying...and where you went to grad school plays a big role in publishing, too.

It goes both ways, too. We knew a student who got picked up by MIT. Why? He was black. That was why they wanted him. He was struggling, but they still wanted him. It made him angry, but he was no fool and so he went and made the best of it. Ditto for an optical sciences major we knew. A certain good school wanted to be able to point at her and say, "See, we let them in!" There weren't even women's bathrooms in the building when she went! They put one in on the ground floor...she wasn't really welcomed, but again, she tried to turn it to her advantage. But any shenanigans like that are no good for science or any discipline.

It's real, it's unpleasant, but pretending it doesn't exist does NOT further science...we saw this occur at some very famous agencies too...and hopefully things have gotten better in the past 10 years...

But don't let the fact that it happens stop you! There are also departments devoted to fairness.

 

[Dagenais]

I am also of Asian descend. I hear that the schools discriminate you when you're Asian because of the large proportion of competitive Asians who apply. Is that true?

Unfortunately, it is .

When it comes to admittance into famous Universities, they favor African-Americans over any race. Especially Asians.

I remember reading about a case at MIT, in which a group of African-American rights group protested against them. That their aren't enough African Americans in the University - and they claimed discrimination.

Frankly, there weren't any in there, because they didn't meet the qualifications.

After the incident, MIT had to admit more African-American students.

Yes - over more qualified students.

It was probably the same dumbass group that called in ABC complaining that there weren't enough blacks on "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire." In which Regis replied: "We can't have African-Americans on the show, if none of you actually apply."

Nothing irritates me more than when people do this.

It goes both ways, too. We knew a student who got picked up by MIT. Why? He was black.

^ Perfect example.

I guess you can't have a campus with 40% Asians, the rest white without being called "racists" anymore.

I'm sorry if I'm not politically correct but neither is the topic brought-up.

 

[holly]

CAREFUL!

*****I don't want my remarks skewed to represent or sharpen anyone's particular axe they are wanting to grind.*****

The point of discrimination is that it's always wrong. For every case where someone is let in because they are black, or Asian, or Fijian, or from Arkansas (a definite handicap, ha ha. Go Razorbacks!) or whatever, I can cite you a case where they were excluded because they were black, or Asian, or Fijian, or from Arkansas (Go Razorbacks!) or whatever.

Sometimes the best-qualified person does not make it into the bigj-name school. Why? Sometimes the motivation is to attempt to correct for a long chain of wrongs. Sometimes the motivation is not a benign attempt to correct a wrong, but an attempt to do a wrong.

Don't forget that there are subjective reasons for letting people in, too. As there ought to be, I think. Maybe when you see someone struggling against odds, that tells you they're a fighter, a person who tries hard. That is a desirable trait in a scientist.

People should strive to be fair, compassionate, and kind, I think. Then we wouldn't be having so many troubles on this old world.

My Two Cents.

 

[Stingray]

I've never noticed any discrimination towards or against asians. I have however seen many ivy league schools make a point of letting in unqualified blacks and women.

A friend of mine is attending grad school in math at one of the top schools in the US. His entering class was 60% female. Again, that's in math. He says maybe one or two of them should be there (he thinks most of the men are qualified). It really annoys me when schools do that.

 

[Dagenais]

You never notice it because Asians don't have a habit of complaining about discrimination.

When have you seen an Asian on TV or newspaper claiming some guy to be racist? Truthfully, you see more of this for African-Americans.

The reason they "discriminate" is simple. There are too many Asians meeting or exceeding the qualifications for ivy league school, pushing out other races like blacks. Just look at the SAT statistics.


And it doesn't make your school look good these days when you don't have African-Americans. It doesn't look good on anything, if you don't have African-Americans whether it be a golf club, store or a restaurant.

 

[motai]

Originally posted by kenikov
There are too many Asians meeting or exceeding the qualifications for ivy league school, pushing out other races like blacks. Just look at the SAT statistics.

Maybe it is because there are so many Asians on Earth compared to other groups (like African-Americans) that there is bound to be an inherent advantage because of the population ratio (i.e. A large country would have greater amounts of qualified students just because it is a larger country)

 

[brum]

I, too, am looking at colleges right now (with the intent of going into physics).

My top 5 right now are (in order):
1) Stanford
2) MIT
3) Harvard
4) Princeton
5) UW - Madison (cuz it's close & a fall back school)

I've managed to keep a 4.0 throughout high school thus far (middle of junior year at the moment) with plenty of AP classes and extracurriculars and all that jazz (though my GPA is higher when you consider the weights of the AP classes)

How well I do on my upcoming standardized tests (SAT, ACT, and SAT II's) will probably make or break my chances at the above places. So let's just hope I can do well on those tests.

 

[franznietzsche]

Originally posted by brum
I, too, am looking at colleges right now (with the intent of going into physics).

My top 5 right now are (in order):
1) Stanford
2) MIT
3) Harvard
4) Princeton
5) UW - Madison (cuz it's close & a fall back school)

I've managed to keep a 4.0 throughout high school thus far (middle of junior year at the moment) with plenty of AP classes and extracurriculars and all that jazz (though my GPA is higher when you consider the weights of the AP classes)

How well I do on my upcoming standardized tests (SAT, ACT, and SAT II's) will probably make or break my chances at the above places. So let's just hope I can do well on those tests.

By 4.0 do you mean all A's or your GPA is actually 4.0 after weighted classes? Cause if its 4.0 after weighted classes then you prolly won't get in except on affirmative action, those schools (the ivy league ones) are just that competitive. I actually didn't apply to any ivy leagues simply because being white, middle class, i won't get any money, even if i get in, so i couldn't go anyway. Pisses me off. So go UCSB! tenth physics university in the nation! or so certain ranking organizations claim...its all good though.

 

[cookiemonster]

brum, I would be more concerned with demonstrating interest in and passion for your proposed major as well as strong letters of recommendation. The standardized tests, while important, are not make-or-break material. Pretty much everybody who applies to schools of that caliber have very high scores on standardized tests. Even so, the SAT tests are not suited to gauging the abilities of talented, intelligent, high-level students, and the colleges don't expect it to do so. I would contend that as long as your SAT scores are encompassed by or greater than the range published by the colleges, then the tests have zero bearing on the college's decision. Even if your scores aren't within that range, it's certainly not the end of the world. And if your scores are well above the range, you're not guaranteed admittance.

Similarly, most of the students that apply have similar acdemic records: lots of AP classes, a high GPA, and a very low class rank. Just remember that GPA and class rank are also not accurate reflections on interest and passion for science.

Just a little tangent that I find amusing: at my high school, there are 4 levels of honors pottery, so one can enroll in pottery and receive weighted credit for 4 years. In fact, the most difficult (in the sense of getting an A) class in our school (AP US History) is worth just as many rank points as honors pottery. There are also other classes that don't deserve weighted status but still have it (parenting and a class on how to use MS Word, anyone?). Essentially, at our school, you do not need to be an academic to have a low class rank.

Back on topic, GPA and class rank and AP classes are not necessarily related to one's major. There's an obsession with these kinds of things because it's thought that they're the key to getting into college. I've spoken with the admissions directors of Stanford, Harvey Mudd, and Caltech (quite extensively with Caltech's) and none of them have said that those were the kinds of things they're looking for. Their purpose is to demonstrate that the student can handle any work that will come their way--how much time you're willing to spend studying--not who would make a contribution to the field you're entering or who would represent the university well, which is the kind of student they're looking for. A more powerful demonstration of this is the order and quantity and quality of your science and math classes. If you're expected to take 4 science courses, 1 a year, but there are 5 at your school, take 2 in one year. If you're a year behind the highest level in math (i.e. there are 2 levels left but you only have 1 year to go), try to test out of one year and get into the highest class. If you're not expected to take a math or science class one year, take one anyway.

Also important are essays and letters of recommendation. These are the intangibles. A well-written essay can really raise the reviewers' opinion of the applicant (which, as I'm sure you can imagine, is quite important). In the letters of rec, specific events are important. Letters of rec. tend to suffer the same problem as school records: they're all the same, they all say "I think this is a great student." But why should the reviewers take one teacher's opinion over another? It'd be like writing an essay saying "I should get in because I'm a better candidate than everybody else" and not explaining why. Specific events support the opinion of the recommender and give the reviewers an opportunity to form their own opinion of you (an opinion that will stay with them more strongly than an opinion assumed from someone else) and set the letters apart.

Naturally, you should take all of this with a grain of salt. I'm not an admissions director--I'm only a student--but this is what's worked for me and (in the case of what not to do) what hasn't worked for my classmates.

cookiemonster

 

[holly]

Oh you kids, you make my eyes cross. You're so EARNEST and so utterly MISLED! You are going to miss all the fun. Why not go to a nice medium school? There are big discoveries out of lots of the medium schools, I bet you it's more than the Ivy League ones. The guy who figured out the sun oscillates is at the U Arizona. LSU has Nobel Laureates. Lots of places do that you might not think do. UNM is coming up in the ranks, is right there with Sandia. Don't work yourselves sick, live a little. A mom's advice who also has seen physicists work themselves into unhappiness and beat themselves up alot.

 

[brum]

Originally posted by franznietzsche
By 4.0 do you mean all A's or your GPA is actually 4.0 after weighted classes? Cause if its 4.0 after weighted classes then you prolly won't get in except on affirmative action, those schools (the ivy league ones) are just that competitive. I actually didn't apply to any ivy leagues simply because being white, middle class, i won't get any money, even if i get in, so i couldn't go anyway. Pisses me off. So go UCSB! tenth physics university in the nation! or so certain ranking organizations claim...its all good though.

Sorry, I wasn't very clear. I have a 4.0 on an unweighted scale, and a 4.08 on a weighted scale (only one semester so far has had weights).

My high school is not as liberal with its weighted classes like cookiemonster's. Only academic classes (not pottery, hah) can have weights. For example, I'm in AP US History currently, along with three other "half-weighted" classes (4.0 becomes 4.5), which are basically accelerated classes (spanish 4th year, physics, pre-calculus).

Thanks for the other info. and advice, guys.

 

[ZapperZ]

First of all, I'm rather hesitant to add to this on-going plot, because honestly, this would end up just another being another 5-cent worth of opinion (inflation forces me to upped it from 2 cents). Having gone through the whole shebang, and a postdoctoral appointment, and looking for a job afterwards, I can only give you an anecdotal description on this, so take it for whatever it is worth.

I enter into this because there appears to be an over emphasis on "Ivy League" type schools. What is even more astonishing is that this is going on at the undergraduate level. Now, there is certainly nothing wrong with that, and nothing wrong with wanting to go to a prestigious school, with distinguised faculty, etc, etc. However, to be blunt, if you are seeking an undergraduate institution, it makes no difference (to a first approximation) on where you go! Honest! It really doesn't matter how many Nobel Laureates a school has, or if it has so much research money. There's a good chance that as an undergraduate, you don't see any of those.

What you should be looking for is an institution that excels in TEACHING. Ask around if there are good instructors there, if their undergraduate labs are well-equipped, if their TA's are well-trained, and that there are enough of a variety of courses to allow you to take them during your senior year. Look in journals such as American Journal of Physics, and European Journal of Physics, and Physics Teachers, etc. and figure out if there are anyone from that particular institution doing any reserach in physics teaching. That would be a good clue in how much that institution/department emphasize good teaching methodology. You will be surprised that some of the best physics teachers around are not from high-caliber, well-known schools. Assuming that your undergraduate education is a stepping stone to go on to graduate school, how well you understand your undergraduate curriculum is of utmost importance to increase your chances of getting into the graduate school of your choice. Now THEN, going to a top-ranking school will make a difference.

The only advantage that I see of going to large, well-funded school is that you may have a chance of participating in some sort of a research program, or initiate your own indendent study with a professor. You do need to do something extra like this if you intend to go to a prestigious graduate school later on. However, even in this instance, going to a smaller school still isn't a major handicap. The National Science Foundation and the Dept. of Energy sponsor internships every summer for undergradutes in the sciences, engineering, mathematics, and computer science that allow these students to do research work at various US National Labs. I have encountered many students from smaller schools that managed to obtain such sought-after internships - just think of how well that would look in your grad. school application. So even if you end up going to one of those small schools with limited funds and opportunity for extra research work, there are many means to still make yourself competitive with others who went on to bigger, more well-known schools.

Moral of the story: Do not restrict yourself to Ivy League schools. There's nothing wrong with that, but with everyone clamoring to go there, you are losing the whole aim of an undergraduate education in physics. Look for good physics teachers, and go there! They are the ones that have a direct impact on your physics education, not to mention, the ones that you may end up requesting letters of recommendation. A smaller student body in a physics dept. means that there's a good chance these instructors know you a lot better personally and can write more than just a "form" letter of recommendation. And we already know from the various previous postings on here how important those can be.

Good luck!

Zz.