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

[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.

 

[gleem]

I went to Unobtrusive College (private sectarian) which had a small physics department( 3 faculty) and small math (3 faculty) but they were coordinated and a synergism was created. I had 10 other physics majors in my class alone. Our core curriculum was fixed with no electives. No research was available. ( this was a number of decades ago). I was just a solid B student. We were told just do well here and the rest will take care of itself. We were told to take the math GRE first (fall senior year) and submit this for the graduate program. We took the physics GRE in the spring and submitted it for consideration also. My GRE math score was in the upper 10%. My physics score was in the upper 30% even though we had not had much QM or Optics before then. We all went to graduate school with TA's and as far as I know all received PhD's. Some are faculty in upper tier schools. I know only one who opted out of a physics career. So when I here people making such a big deal out of so called upper tier programs I just smile after I calm down a bit. The experience was one of the best. Those who as high school student think they want to do QFT or Astrophysics because it it the hot topic today have a lot to learn about physics. They will probably change horses a couple of times before the have to choose one they think they can live with. If the schools program has at least a dozen physics students in its program then it probably has something going for it. There are over 7000 physics BS currently granted each year meaning that there are probably well over 20,000 undergrads. High tier graduate programs probably only accept about 40 students each year max that end up getting a degree. The rest (it seems about 90% ) must settle form someplace less prestigious. So if you think you are the one in ten then go for it. The rest should check out a place with the program they think best suits them.

I my opinion I do not think that a CC college is the best place to start you physics career unless it is a feeder school to the state university in that subject or you are unsure for you ability or interest.

 

[Arsenic&Lace]

^^agreed.

I'm just going to repeat my prior point that the outcome is a function of luck, individual and institution, in that order.

 

[QuantumCurt]

No, a CC isn't the best place to start a physics career. It's unavoidable for some though. I'm a high school dropout that started college at 25. Starting at a university simply wasn't an option for me. However, I don't feel today that I'm at any kind of a disadvantage compared to a student that went to MIT right out of high school. I imagine there were students at top schools that applied for the same internship I applied for, and were denied, while I was accepted. The only disadvantage I see is that I'm a little older than the typical student. And in many respects, I feel that being older may actually give me a further advantage. I find that I'm much more motivated than many of my classmates, although this can't be attributed solely to age.

I don't think anyone here is suggesting that one must attend a top school to succeed in physics. However, as you point out, there were no research opportunities available at your school. Although this isn't necessary to succeed, I don't think it can be denied that having greater access to research opportunities such as are available at many of the more 'prestigious' programs is an advantage. There are many advantages to being in a smaller program as well. Having a collective group of ten total physics majors in a school means that each student is going to get much more personalized attention than a physics program containing a few hundred physics majors.

What it really comes down to is that generalizations don't work on this topic. Large research universities have some advantages, and smaller Liberal Arts schools have advantages of their own. As I've pointed out before, an education is really what one makes it. If one allows the limitations of their current environment to dictate what they can or cannot do (within reason), then it's not likely that they'll succeed. However, if one takes advantage of available resources and uses them to go beyond the minimum requirements, they are far more likely to succeed.

 

[Dishsoap]

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.

Yes indeed, which is one ofthe reasons I love my school. Taking a course with only one or two students, you learn SO much more. You can ask a question and the professor will spend the whole time answering it, and in the meantime you'll learn SO much more. One of my profs actually switched the topic we were supposed to cover for half the semester because I was already familiar with it (parallel processing).

I went to Unobtrusive College (private sectarian) which had a small physics department( 3 faculty) and small math (3 faculty) but they were coordinated and a synergism was created. I had 10 other physics majors in my class alone. Our core curriculum was fixed with no electives. No research was available. ( this was a number of decades ago). I was just a solid B student. We were told just do well here and the rest will take care of itself. We were told to take the math GRE first (fall senior year) and submit this for the graduate program. We took the physics GRE in the spring and submitted it for consideration also. My GRE math score was in the upper 10%. My physics score was in the upper 30% even though we had not had much QM or Optics before then.

Dang... nice! Do you think the lack of research experience made it more difficult to get into graduate school, or perform once you got in? Or was being in such a small school and having super small classes sort of like research in and of itself. Also, how did you choose that college?

I my opinion I do not think that a CC college is the best place to start you physics career unless it is a feeder school to the state university in that subject or you are unsure for you ability or interest.

A good place to start your physics career, no. A good place to knock out some gen eds and low-level math and physics courses, maybe.

 

[gleem]

I'm just going to repeat my prior point that the outcome is a function of luck, individual and institution, in that order.

I agrees that luck is an important element in success but only in the opportunities that one is presented with.and ones ability to recognize it. For me it was the individual that was most important element followed by the institutions. It was luck that I found my college. It was me with sweat and hard work that earned the BS. It was luck that I didn't give up on my thesis topic when I doubted its outcome that helped get that PhD. It was luck that I heard about the post doc that I eventually accepted.

 

[gleem]

I'm a high school dropout that started college at 25.

Bravo!

 

[Arsenic&Lace]

Bravo indeed quantum curt, I have friends with similar or worse histories who have succeeded very well (one guy is getting a physics PhD at Cornell).

I don't see there being much of a problem with starting at a CC, especially if it saves you a lot of money. The only criteria is that you need to have a state school with decent physics budget near by you can transfer to.

 

[gleem]

Dang... nice! Do you think the lack of research experience made it more difficult to get into graduate school, or perform once you got in? Or was being in such a small school and having super small classes sort of like research in and of itself. Also, how did you choose that college?

No I can't say it did or didn't. At that time anyway It seems to me that unless you have a well defined experience in a current research project it shouldn't matter.
Each area has its own requirements and most students just wouldn't match up anyway. Anyway I think in general it is too early to know for sure what you want to do. You haven't seen the whole or even a good part of the physics research universe. Class size was important because I knew all my classmates well. I think for me the faculty was the most important, they were managing our education

As a HS senior I didn't think I was college material. Sure I was good in the sciences and math. When my physics teacher asked me if I was going to college I kind of shrugged. I said I was interested in physics. She said that their was a good program at a little college about 20 mile from home. I went for a visit and it is history after that.

 

[Loststudent22]

It seems if you want to stay in Academia the name brand school does help. Choosing a top 20 school vs a top 50 probably won't be a major difference overall though.

 

[radium]

No one has said that you can't be as successful going to a less prestigious school. College admissions at the Ivys are based on a lot of "holistic" factors which have nothing to do with academics or intelligence. Naturally there are a lot of incredibly brilliant people who get turned down in favor of others who are relatively mediocre. However, to say that there is no benefit of going to a prestigious school is frankly just plain wrong.

If you look at the schools with the top endowments, the Ivys, Stanford, etc. will be in the lead and by a large margin. These schools have unprecedented resources which undergrads can really benefit from. It makes it much easier to get money for undergrad research and related activities. If we are referring to large research universities like Harvard, Chicago, etc. there will also be a lot more courses offered as well as some which are very specialized in a research area.

Even as an undergrad, the environment is also great for networking. You can get to know very renowned professors (unlike a lot of people think, most are very friendly and will be happy to speak with you and get to know you) who can also introduce you to other people/opportunities.

All of these things are even more important at the graduate level, but if it is affordable and you have the choice to attend one of these institutions, I would say that education is the most valuable thing to spend your money on. In regards to physics though, if you are a resident of a state like California, Illinois, or Michigan, schools like Berkeley, UCSB, UIUC and Michigan have programs that are in the same league or better than programs at the top schools.

 

[WannabeNewton]

I couldn't agree more with your post radium!

 

[heatengine516]

I decided to try and get my education as cheaply and conveniently as possible. My university is not even in the top 100 on those college ranking sites I don't think - but it's still a large research university and many of the professors have Ivy League degrees, or were fellows at Ivy League universities. Even the ones who got their degree from a public university or even the ones who graduated from my university and stayed there as a professor publish works that get recognized by a lot of the big-name researchers and institutions. Some have written important books in their fields (like the first textbook on quantum error correction). I have a lot of good research opportunities at my fingertips. But my tuition/fees is ~$10-12,000 per year instead of $50,000+.

 

[Loststudent22]

I decided to try and get my education as cheaply and conveniently as possible. My university is not even in the top 100 on those college ranking sites I don't think - but it's still a large research university and many of the professors have Ivy League degrees, or were fellows at Ivy League universities. Even the ones who got their degree from a public university or even the ones who graduated from my university and stayed there as a professor publish works that get recognized by a lot of the big-name researchers and institutions. Some have written important books in their fields (like the first textbook on quantum error correction). I have a lot of good research opportunities at my fingertips. But my tuition/fees is ~$10-12,000 per year instead of $50,000+.

Well the big schools do offer full coverage for students that don't have wealthy parents. I do agree that you can still get a good eduction from any university if you put the effort in.