Admissions: Where You Go Is Not Who You’ll Become

[Astronuc]

Looking Beyond the College Rankings - http://www.wnyc.org/story/looking-beyond-college-rankings/

I listened to the program, which I found quite insightful. Good hard work on the part of the student/individual is what counts. The name of the college or university is not important.

Bruni's column in NY Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/15/o...o-survive-the-college-admissions-madness.html

From Bruni's column -

. . . , there’s only so much living and learning that take place inside a lecture hall, a science lab or a dormitory. Education happens across a spectrum of settings and in infinite ways, and college has no monopoly on the ingredients for professional achievement or a life well lived.

Bruni's book -

http://www.hachettebookgroup.com/titles/frank-bruni/where-you-go-is-not-who-youll-be/9781455532704/

 

[QuantumCurt]

A lot of people get hung up on things like prestige and the reputation or selectivity of their academic institution, but as you say, these things do not have to define who they are or where they end up. Many people seem to not want to believe this fact.

I think it stands to reason that a physics student from MIT, CalTech, Stanford, Princeton, Berkeley etc. is going to have a bit of a leg up on the competition simply by merit of having had access to better facilities and a more reputable and knowledgeable faculty. However, a college education is what you make it; not only what is given to you. Self studying new material or researching your course material at greater depth is always a possibility. Research experiences and internships are open to nearly anyone. There are many students that have attended lesser known schools and still ended up working alongside graduates from the bigger name schools.

I think the only (partial) exceptions to this are in fields like investment banking, law, political science, and some areas of business. The more elite schools tend to have greater collegiate and alumni support networks for these types of fields, and many firms recruit specifically at some of these top schools. A graduate from a lesser known school might not have as good of a shot at a job at Goldman-Sachs, because they tend to do nearly all of their recruiting from a handful of schools (see Goldman-Sachs target schools. However, this doesn't mean that the field of investment banking is closed to people from other schools. They may not be able to get a position at this specific firm or some of the other 'top' IB firms, but there are many paths to success in such a field that don't involve working at the 'best' firms.

 

[Entanglement]

So there's no difference in the quality of education?
I'm going to apply for Rutgers University, which is a mediocre university, and I'm going to major in physics.
I've always wanted to get into Princeton, or any of the highly ranked universities, but my chances to be accepted are very low right now so I feel very discouraged. I may try to transfer from Rutgers to one of these highly ranked universities after my sophomore year in Rutgers.
However, is it really possible that I'll get the same education in Rutgers as if I were in the Ivy League? Will I have the same physics foundation and understanding when I graduate ?

 

[Arsenic&Lace]

So there's no difference in the quality of education?
I'm going to apply for Rutgers University, which is a mediocre university

No, Rutgers is not a "mediocre university"; there are some phenomenal physicists and researchers in a variety of disciplines at that institution. In fact I don't see any evidence whatsoever that there is a meaningful difference between any of the schools in the top 50 for physics, and that's only because I assume that once you get approximately below 50 there is probably only a very limited focus on the department.

I would guess that the overwhelming difference in outcome is attributable to individual character, with the institution you attend for your undergrad (and arguably graduate) serving a distant second.

 

[SteamKing]

So there's no difference in the quality of education?

The dirty little secret about higher ed, at least in the US, is that the quality of the education you receive at any two particular universities does not correlate that well with the amount of tuition you are charged.

In certain fields, like engineering for example, accreditation of the particular learning institution is intended to ensure that you receive instruction in the minimum number of course hours and subjects in order to receive a degree. If you decide to pay 2X by going to school A instead of paying X by going to school B for an engineering degree, that's your prerogative, just like some people will pay 2X for a certain brand of car versus X for another. Both cars get you to your destination, but you pay extra for the privilege of driving the more expensive car. Whether the more expensive car is worth the extra money is entirely subjective.

 

[clope023]

So there's no difference in the quality of education?
I'm going to apply for Rutgers University, which is a mediocre university, and I'm going to major in physics.
I've always wanted to get into Princeton, or any of the highly ranked universities, but my chances to be accepted are very low right now so I feel very discouraged. I may try to transfer from Rutgers to one of these highly ranked universities after my sophomore year in Rutgers.
However, is it really possible that I'll get the same education in Rutgers as if I were in the Ivy League? Will I have the same physics foundation and understanding when I graduate ?

At the end of the day physics is physics and you'll be learning the same material whether you go to MIT or Random Low Level State School, but to say there's no difference in education quality at an Ivy League-esque institution vs elsewhere is patently false.

 

[Arsenic&Lace]

At the end of the day physics is physics and you'll be learning the same material whether you go to MIT or Random Low Level State School, but to say there's no difference in education quality at an Ivy League-esque institution vs elsewhere is patently false.

On what evidence? It might be worse because the professors are even more focused on research, but the notion that it is better is highly dubious. Unless you're at a liberal arts college, the education quality will best be summed up as "You're on your own" whether you go to Humble State or Fancy Ivy.

 

[clope023]

On what evidence? It might be worse because the professors are even more focused on research, but the notion that it is better is highly dubious. Unless you're at a liberal arts college, the education quality will best be summed up as "You're on your own" whether you go to Humble State or Fancy Ivy.

You are on your own whether you go to humble vs Ivy, but I can say the quality of education at a lower 'ranked' school vs a higher 'ranked' one based on personal experience; my school didn't require engineers or physicists to take Linear Algebra as a requirement (it was 'highly suggested') and most people were highly deficient in that area. I picked up notes from UW-Madison online to study for my E&M course in the physics department and despite having a great E&M professor the quality of what was being lectured on was quite different, UW-Madison was more rigorous, covered more material, used more deph (both mathematically and physically); we didn't even tough special relativity in E&M. Thermodynamics was even worse, the fact that the quality varied according to the professor was a big red flag; this PC notion that education quality is essentially the same everywhere is patently false.

 

[Arsenic&Lace]

More demanding courses are not necessarily more educational, and more demanding professors are not necessarily better teachers. A motivated, sharp physics student at your lower tier school will realize that taking linear algebra is a wise choice (my undergrad wrapped linear algebra into the mathematical physics sequence, so I opted to take an additional LA course because I'm motivated).

In particular, research is overwhelmingly more valuable than anything else offered by the school. A friend of mine with well south of a 3.0 is working at IBM's quantum computing center because he concentrated almost exclusively on research. This sort of thing tells me that the coursework simply doesn't matter much anyway. The only criterion a university can satisfy such that it has a truly poor physics program is if there is really no good research going on at all.

Finally it's a statistical argument; I would argue that most top 50 programs are probably approximately as "good" even if we define good in terms of how demanding the program is, questionable though that may be. In fact, the variance among the top 50 is so high that there are absolutely schools which may be in the 30's but which are more demanding than schools in the top 10.

 

[Entanglement]

The dirty little secret about higher ed, at least in the US, is that the quality of the education you receive at any two particular universities does not correlate that well with the amount of tuition you are charged.

In certain fields, like engineering for example, accreditation of the particular learning institution is intended to ensure that you receive instruction in the minimum number of course hours and subjects in order to receive a degree. If you decide to pay 2X by going to school A instead of paying X by going to school B for an engineering degree, that's your prerogative, just like some people will pay 2X for a certain brand of car versus X for another. Both cars get you to your destination, but you pay extra for the privilege of driving the more expensive car. Whether the more expensive car is worth the extra money is entirely subjective.

So it's like the difference between a Ferrari and a Toyota?
The drivers of both cars can get to the same destination, but the Ferrari driver only has the advantage of looking more fancy.
[emoji2]

 

[Entanglement]

So are there no actual advantage of going to an Ivy League school instead of a humble one ?


Are Ivy League graduates more employable and have greater chances when applying for a job ?

 

[Arsenic&Lace]

So are there no actual advantage of going to an Ivy League school instead of a humble one?

The result is a function of the student, institution, and chance. Maybe you personally would benefit more if you went to Princeton. I've met several students who went to ivy league schools for their undergrad and wound up at low ranking graduate schools (Princeton->U Delaware, Cornell->Arizona State); these individuals reacted very negatively to the environment of the ivy league schools for some reason. Other students will thrive there. Numerous students at the low ranking school I went to have been admitted to top tier graduate programs.

It just isn't even remotely clear cut or black and white.

 

[QuantumCurt]

I don't think it's as simple as saying that there's no advantage. However, I think the advantages are often inflated well beyond what they actually are. When you're looking at something like the US News top 50 or another comparable list, it's important to realize that there's not necessarily any clear, qualitative difference between #1 and #2, #1 and #5, or even #1 and #10. Is there a qualitative difference between #1 and #50? There's more of a difference than there is between #1 and #10. The top rated schools tend to offer more resources and opportunities for their students.

Are Ivy League grads more employable? Not necessarily. It's also important to understand what the Ivy League is - a sports conference consisting of 7 schools in New England. There are non-Ivy schools that are the equal or the superior of Ivy League schools. One is not going to get a better education at Harvard, Yale, Princeton, UPenn, Columbia, Dartmouth, or Brown simply because they are part of a specific sports conference. MIT, UChicago, Stanford, Berkeley, UChicago, Cal Tech, UIUC, and numerous other schools are on the same playing field or better than most of the Ivy League schools in many fields. There are dozens of better choices for a physics major than Dartmouth, despite Dartmouth being an Ivy League school. Labels only mean so much.

 

[Choppy]

For a student trying to figure out which school to attend I think the key point is this. Don't fall into the trap of believing that a schools name is going to substitute for hard work on your part. People are going to hire you because of the skills, experience and personality that you bring to the table. Similarly admissions to graduate programs will be based on your performance as an undergraduate. There may be cases where a school name will give you a leg up over the competition. There may also be cases where school name will act as a detriment. Counting on a school reputation will not do you any favours in the long run.

 

[QuantumCurt]

It's really important to put these things in perspective.

Suppose two people are competing for a job. One graduated from Harvard, and did relatively little else. The other graduated from UIUC, UT Austin, University of Arizona, or something comparable, spent two summers working as an intern in their field, and did research with professors during a few of their semesters. Which one are you going to hire?

 

[clope023]

In particular, research is overwhelmingly more valuable than anything else offered by the school. A friend of mine with well south of a 3.0 is working at IBM's quantum computing center because he concentrated almost exclusively on research. This sort of thing tells me that the coursework simply doesn't matter much anyway. The only criterion a university can satisfy such that it has a truly poor physics program is if there is really no good research going on at all.

My situation is very similar to your friend's, though I'm working as an engineer in another industry. My experience tells me coursework matters but grades are the thing that don't matter much. I agree research and how closely your desired school matches with your research interests is king vs name. If I wanted to do plasma fusion research I would up the creek without a paddle at Harvard for example because they have nothing of the sort. Regardless quality of research is also not the same everywhere.

 

[Entanglement]

It's really important to put these things in perspective.

Suppose two people are competing for a job. One graduated from Harvard, and did relatively little else. The other graduated from UIUC, UT Austin, University of Arizona, or something comparable, spent two summers working as an intern in their field, and did research with professors during a few of their semesters. Which one are you going to hire?

I'll surely hire the hard-working student.
But in the case that two graduates, both of them are brilliant and hard-working students and did much research and have excellent skills, applied for the same job, but one is from Harvard and the other is from University of Arizona, who is more likely to be hired?

 

[micromass]

I don't think you'll only compete against people from Harvard or Princeton.

 

[Entanglement]

I don't think you'll only compete against people from Harvard or Princeton.

That's an example, I mean a prestigious university.

 

[Entanglement]

Thanks mates for enlightening me. [emoji5]️[emoji5]️
Sadly, the idea that the prestigious universities are the only good ones is instilled in most students. Now I know better. [emoji5]️. Thanks very much !

 

[gleem]

I think it stands to reason that a physics student from MIT, CalTech, Stanford, Princeton, Berkeley etc. is going to have a bit of a leg up on the competition simply by merit of having had access to better facilities and a more reputable and knowledgeable faculty.

I think this statement is uncalled for. What is less reputable mean? More knowledgeable? really! Less prestigious programs may have as good or better facilities in a given area or even an unique facility. Some popular areas of research are often multi-university collaborations. Some experimental facilities are not even university facilities e.g.,Fermi Lab, LHC, Brookhaven. Good teaching takes time and time is better spent in research for ones survival if you want tenure.

Ranking of Grad programs put high priority on research and citations. So by and large big prestigious programs have an edge based on quantity. But large can be a bad place for a lot of students who just might need a little more time and/or guidance before they find their groove. .Most undergrads are really unqualified to judge the quality of a program. However I can say this much about the ranking of programs. At least you know who will be applying to those programs because you should know how you rank with respect to those students who you know are good. You don't want to compete with those students. You know they are not going to apply to Ubiquitous University. You don't have to go to MIT to do physics at CERN.

 

[QuantumCurt]

Nowhere did I suggest that one would have to go to MIT to do physics at CERN. I was saying quite the opposite actually.

More reputable schools for physics tend to have very active research environments, and professors are often researchers. Taking a quantum mechanics class, nuclear physics class, optics class, etc. from someone who is an active researcher at the cutting edge of this field is going to give an edge because such a professor is far more likely to have a more widely comprehensive knowledge of the field on which to draw while teaching. I'm not suggesting that a physics education at a less reputable institution is going to be bad. I did my first two years of undergrad at a community college, and I don't feel that my physics professor was lacking. He has a PhD from the University of Chicago and he's done research at Fermilab, Lawrence Berkeley, and other schools. He was tenured at the University of Utah for 7 years before moving to Illinois and starting at my community college. He's a very qualified professor who has done research in various areas of neutrinos, quantum cosmology, and other areas. He came back here because he was raised in this area and missed living in a smaller town.

Point being, there are many reasons for a professor to be at a less reputable institution aside from being inadequate for the 'better' schools...but schools like MIT, Berkeley, Stanford, etc. have a whole department of incredibly qualified professors who are at the cutting edge of their respective fields. One absolutely does not need to attend one of these schools in order to succeed as a physicist, but the opportunities and the environment at such a school are far more likely to be conducive to fostering such success.

 

[russ_watters]

I'm wondering what people who place high importance on the college you attend think the stakes really are? Do you think that if you go to Rutgers instead of Princeton that you'll be living in a cardboard box at age 40 instead of in a million dollar mansion? Any university above half decent (and Rutgers is well above "half decent") can set you up for a nice, comfortable top-10% income if you do it right. Much above that, the air gets very thin and you need either exceptional skill or exceptional luck, regardless of what the name in big letters on your diploma is - though at that level, depending on the field the name may help some (Supreme Court Justice? Must be Ivy League).

 

[QuantumCurt]

I'm a regular over on the College Confidential forums as well, and such an attitude is quite commonplace there. A lot of people come in thinking that if they don't go to Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, or MIT that they'll basically be a failure in life who will never succeed at anything. This is, clearly, quite ridiculous. There are far more people in the world who are successful graduates of non-HYPSM schools than there are successful graduates of HYPSM.

 

[WannabeNewton]

The quality of students is crucially different at top universities compared to that of lower-tier universities. This in and of itself obviously has a noticeable positive effect on a physics student attending such a university. Being around people that are just as if not more motivated than you, just as if not more intelligent than you, and just as if not more passionate than you towards learning and doing research in "advanced" areas of physics is an extremely beneficial thing.

My best friend goes to CUNY and he's an extremely intelligent person who was even more interested in physics than I was in high school but he completely lost all interest in physics by the end of his 2nd year solely due to the fact that there were basically no physics students around him that were even remotely as interested in the subject as he was. You just won't find such a barren environment at a top university.

Pretending that there is no measurable benefit in doing physics at the kinds of universities intimated in this thread is just plain silly and an exercise in political correctness. But honestly what's the point of this argument? What are you going to do, as a student, if you don't get into or can't afford a top university and have to "settle" for something else? Are you just going to give up in the face of something that's out of your hands? Or are you going to make the best of what you have and try not to get discouraged (which I admit is easier said than done)?

 

[QuantumCurt]

The quality of students is crucially different at top universities compared to that of lower-tier universities. This in and of itself obviously has a noticeable positive effect on a physics student attending such a university. Being around people that are just as if not more motivated than you, just as if not more intelligent than you, and just as if not more passionate than you towards learning and doing research in "advanced" areas of physics is an extremely beneficial thing.

My best friend goes to CUNY and he's an extremely intelligent person who was even more interested in physics than I was in high school but he completely lost all interest in physics by the end of his 2nd year solely due to the fact that there were basically no physics students around him that were even remotely as interested in the subject as he was. You just won't find such a barren environment at a top university.

Pretending that there is no measurable benefit in doing physics at the kinds of universities intimated in this thread is just plain silly and an exercise in political correctness. But honestly what's the point of this argument? What are you going to do, as a student, if you don't get into or can't afford a top university and have to "settle" for something else? Are you just going to give up in the face of something that's out of your hands? Or are you going to make the best of what you have and try not to get discouraged (which I admit is easier said than done)?

This is something that I've experienced. I've been at a community college for my freshman/sophomore years, and I was the ONLY physics major in my classes for the first two years. There were plenty of other smart students in my classes that did have at least something of an interest in physics, but they were mostly majoring in various fields of engineering. They have an interest in physics, but only to an extent. They don't spend their free time studying physics, which I do. I'm transferring to UIUC in the fall, and I absolutely cannot wait to be surrounded by people that are as passionate about physics as I am.

 

[WannabeNewton]

I'm transferring to UIUC in the fall, and I absolutely cannot wait to be surrounded by people that are as passionate about physics as I am.

It really is an important thing. I can personally tell you that I get what feel like adrenaline shots when I'm around my physics friends here while talking about something physics related; I get a strong urge to just buckle down and plow through some calculations for research or independent study.

That's another thing: I can always easily find people (both undergraduate and graduate) willing to form reading groups over the summer, for example, for advanced subjects that we all want to learn e.g. the AdS/CFT reading group I'm in this summer. And the best part is this was setup and encouraged to form by more than one professor here, each of whom actively helps us along with the readings or problems. My friend at CUNY would not even remotely be able to consolidate something along these lines.

Finally, at the big research universities (not necessarily Ivy League or the likes) there is always a lot going on with respect to physics i.e. relativity talks, HEP talks, CMT and CME talks, seminars and lectures by leading experts in various fields, opportunities to make connections with people at the top of their fields etc. all of which are quite beneficial to a physics undergraduate. These are of course just a few points, there are certainly more.

 

[QuantumCurt]

It really is an important thing. I can personally tell you that I get what feel like adrenaline shots when I'm around my physics friends here while talking about something physics related; I get a strong urge to just buckle down and plow through some calculations for research or independent study.

I know exactly what you mean. I'm double majoring in physics and math, and there were a couple of other math majors in my calculus classes at my community college. I certainly got that feeling when we were studying calculus together. When multiple minds get put together on something that they are all genuinely passionate about, the insights that can be gained can be quite great.

That's another thing: I can always easily find people (both undergraduate and graduate) willing to form reading groups over the summer, for example, for advanced subjects that we all want to learn e.g. the AdS/CFT reading group I'm in this summer. And the best part is this was setup and encouraged to form by more than one professor here, each of whom actively helps us along with the readings or problems. My friend at CUNY would not even remotely be able to consolidate something along these lines.

This is something that I'm really looking forward to. I'm usually self-studying a topic during the regular semesters, and over the summer I take on a few different subjects to self-study. Doing this in a group format would make things so much easier a great deal of the time. Having multiple people helps to fill in the gaps, and through shared understanding we can paint the whole picture. I've never had anyone to do this with over the summer. I'm hoping I can find a few other interns this summer at Fermilab that would be interested in working together on a subject.

Finally, at the big research universities (not necessarily Ivy League or the likes) there is always a lot going on with respect to physics i.e. relativity talks, HEP talks, CMT and CME talks, seminars and lectures by leading experts in various fields, opportunities to make connections with people at the top of their fields etc. all of which are quite beneficial to a physics undergraduate. These are of course just a few points, there are certainly more.

This is one of the things I'm looking forward to most about UIUC. At my CC, we occasionally did various talks within the math club and science club on different topics (about a third of which were given by me), but this is in no way the same thing. There are fairly regular physics colloquia and lectures from various researchers from UIUC and many other research institutions. It'll be wonderful to actually get immersed in that environment after being the only physics major on campus for the last 2 years.

 

[Arsenic&Lace]

There's nothing politically correct about pointing out that it doesn't matter, since it is obvious that it doesn't. There is no special sauce being fed to MIT students to turn them into mega brained supermen, you just are observing the easily predictable result that when the most ambitious and clever students typically go to the same places, those places are going to produce a large number of successful people. If there are benefits, they are small compared with individual correlations.

The truth is nobody has a clue how to turn people into good physicists, which is readily apparent given a cursory shuffling through the history of physics, at which point you ought to observe that the character and traits of historically important physicists (or applied scientists in general) can vary widely (see: Gell-Mann vs. Feynman, or really bizarre characters like mathematician Stephen Smale). There is hardly anything rigorously known, from a theoretical standpoint, about how to educate people, an observation quickly confirmed by the fact that a considerable number of top tier graduates wind up with careers which are pretty similar to their competitors from elsewhere.

Actually measuring the success of graduates is also challenging. People have tried to produce metrics of success as a researcher in the past without really producing anything of much value. My personal impression is that there is no obvious difference in work I've seen produced by individuals working at/educated at top universities as opposed to those from elsewhere*. Also note that more applied work seems more "egalitarian" by contrast to something highly pure like string theory; there are more opportunities, and the distribution of quality work flattens commensurately. When there are very few opportunities to work on an opulent topic such as cosmology, one finds that only the most luxurious universities can spare resources on them; unsurprisingly, there is a much more uneven distribution of string theorists than biophysicists.

*Side note: This is obviously something that would need some elaboration but I'm not sure how to do it without discussing specific technical problems. All I can really do is say that I've seen really excellent work by people from lower tier institutions and/or with education from lower tier institutions, and plenty of lousy work from people by/from top tier institutions. There seems to be no magic recipe for making good scientists.

EDIT: WannabeNewton seems not to have noticed that we're talking about schools with a substantial physics/applied physics research footprint, something CUNY does not have. This criterion includes at least the top 50 physics programs.

EDIT2: Whatever the supposed benefits are, they are certainly overwhelmed by some economic considerations. If Local Big State University is giving you a free ride and has a large physics research program even if it is #40, and Fancy Pants University is going to put you into some substantial amount of debt, the choice is made (substantial to me being anything on the order of 10^4, but that may differ for you).

 

[Dishsoap]

At the end of the day physics is physics and you'll be learning the same material whether you go to MIT or Random Low Level State School, but to say there's no difference in education quality at an Ivy League-esque institution vs elsewhere is patently false.

I am currently a senior at Random Low Level State School, and I'm going to say that this is false at least in my case. For instance, Mechanics 2 is offered once every 6 semesters. It was offered before I took Mechanics 1, and then again after I graduate. The case is the same for Math Methods 2, Nonlinear Dynamics, and Optics. The fact of the matter is that the detriment is not only in the quality of knowledge, but in the quantity. And because of the way the scheduling works (as above), succeeding on the GRE is nearly impossible without months and months and months of self-study (which I've done, mind you).

Also, in regards to the previous post about the community of physics students in a particular school, that is the main reason I REALLY regret going to Random Low Level State School instead of a better one (I got into UIUC). The lack of competition is very depressing. It's hard to study for the GRE together when you are the only one going to graduate school. It's difficult to study together for classes when everyone else is just concerned with passing.

 

[G01]

Obviously this is anecdotal, but still useful: I did my undergraduate degree at a regional private liberal arts college, i.e. not even in the national rankings. It's a good school and I received a great and broad education in physics and especially in the liberal arts. I got into a respectable, though not elite, graduate program and I'm now starting a post-doc at a "selective" "Ivy League" school. So, it is possible to "work your way up" through the system. Though, the real point to the story is that prestige and selectivity do not determine your career trajectory.

Lesson: Don't discount less selective regional schools on account of feeling that prestige and selectivity is all that matters.

 

[clope023]

I am currently a senior at Random Low Level State School, and I'm going to say that this is false at least in my case. For instance, Mechanics 2 is offered once every 6 semesters. It was offered before I took Mechanics 1, and then again after I graduate. The case is the same for Math Methods 2, Nonlinear Dynamics, and Optics. The fact of the matter is that the detriment is not only in the quality of knowledge, but in the quantity. And because of the way the scheduling works (as above), succeeding on the GRE is nearly impossible without months and months and months of self-study (which I've done, mind you).

I also went to Random Low Level State School so it's not like I'm knocking them; I got a pretty good education and research opportunities there. Ah, at my alma matter they're wanting to change the curricula to a way that matches yours (and even remove the necessity to do part 2 of mechanics and others) AFAIK, ridiculous! Thankfully I graduated before that happened. My school had a fairly standard sequence: Modern 1, Mechanics 1, E&M 1, QM 1, Thermo in the Fall; Modern 2, Mechanics 2, E&M 2, QM 2, Math Methods in the Spring. Electives were Solid State, Optics, Nuclear, Plasma and others were taught once every two years. I've also had to do lots of self-study for the PGRE due to the same reasons.

 

[QuantumCurt]

I am currently a senior at Random Low Level State School, and I'm going to say that this is false at least in my case. For instance, Mechanics 2 is offered once every 6 semesters. It was offered before I took Mechanics 1, and then again after I graduate. The case is the same for Math Methods 2, Nonlinear Dynamics, and Optics. The fact of the matter is that the detriment is not only in the quality of knowledge, but in the quantity. And because of the way the scheduling works (as above), succeeding on the GRE is nearly impossible without months and months and months of self-study (which I've done, mind you).

Also, in regards to the previous post about the community of physics students in a particular school, that is the main reason I REALLY regret going to Random Low Level State School instead of a better one (I got into UIUC). The lack of competition is very depressing. It's hard to study for the GRE together when you are the only one going to graduate school. It's difficult to study together for classes when everyone else is just concerned with passing.

This is a very worthwhile point. When there are only a very small handful of students in an entire school that are interested in taking a given course, it's hard for the school to justify the time and the money spent on offering it on a regular basis. Coming from a community college, I experienced this a lot. There are two sections of calculus 1 at my CC, and only a single section each of calculus 2 and calculus 3. Calculus 1 is offered both semesters, but calculus 2 and calculus 3 are both only offered in the spring semester, which basically forces students to take differential equations between calc 2 and 3 (which isn't necessarily a bad thing by any means). The same is true of physics. Physics 1 is in the spring, Physics 2 is in the fall, and Physics 3 is in the spring. If a student wasn't ready to take Physics 1 this spring, they would have to wait until next spring. Taking it in the fall wasn't an option. The same was true of calculus. If one took calculus 1 in the spring, they wouldn't be able to take calculus 2 until the following spring. This presents considerable problems for some students, and results in many students having to stay in CC for an extra year. My calculus 3 class last semester only had 11 students in it out of the entire school though, so it's hard for them to justify having more sections.

 

[Dishsoap]

This is a very worthwhile point. When there are only a very small handful of students in an entire school that are interested in taking a given course, it's hard for the school to justify the time and the money spent on offering it on a regular basis. Coming from a community college, I experienced this a lot. There are two sections of calculus 1 at my CC, and only a single section each of calculus 2 and calculus 3. Calculus 1 is offered both semesters, but calculus 2 and calculus 3 are both only offered in the spring semester, which basically forces students to take differential equations between calc 2 and 3 (which isn't necessarily a bad thing by any means). The same is true of physics. Physics 1 is in the spring, Physics 2 is in the fall, and Physics 3 is in the spring. If a student wasn't ready to take Physics 1 this spring, they would have to wait until next spring. Taking it in the fall wasn't an option. The same was true of calculus. If one took calculus 1 in the spring, they wouldn't be able to take calculus 2 until the following spring. This presents considerable problems for some students, and results in many students having to stay in CC for an extra year. My calculus 3 class last semester only had 11 students in it out of the entire school though, so it's hard for them to justify having more sections.

Very true. Economically, there's no real reason why my school should EVER offer some of these courses. In 3 of the 5 classes I'm taking next semester, I'm the only one enrolled. One of them has three professors team-teaching it. Not so efficient.

 

[QuantumCurt]

Very true. Economically, there's no real reason why my school should EVER offer some of these courses. In 3 of the 5 classes I'm taking next semester, I'm the only one enrolled. One of them has three professors team-teaching it. Not so efficient.

The same is really true at my CC. Their cutoff point is 7 students. If fewer than 7 students are registered for a class, they'll cancel it. They make exceptions to this for sequenced classes though. For example, last semester I was in Physics III, and there was a total of 4 students in the class. Economically they can't justify having this class. At <7 students, it actually costs the school money to have the class. They basically have to have this class to grant certain transfer degrees though, and since it's part of a sequence they still hold it.

In many respects, I see this as a distinct advantage. My lectures in Physics III were more like discussion sections rolled into a lecture. With such a small enrollment, it's much easier for students to ask the questions that they need to ask, which I've found to be quite advantageous. Had I taken these courses at UIUC, I'd have been in a gigantic lecture hall with hundreds of students.