Are big name schools really that different?

[Chemicist]

I've been working hard academically to meet the requirements to go to Caltech for a while now, though I was recently thinking, other than the benefit, albeit a major one, of having a big name school on your résumé, are there any benefits to going to universities like Caltech, Stanford, Harvard, etc.? My instinct is telling me that in things like physics, it's not a particularly differentiating science, so I'd assume that any university is going to teach the same physics as the next. Is this assumption correct?Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

 

[Jorriss]

Are you talking about undergraduate or graduate?

 

[Chemicist]

Are you talking about undergraduate or graduate?

Undergraduate.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I went to one of those schools as an undergrad, and got a lot out of it - more than I would have at Big State School. Others didn't get so much, and others thrived at a school where they would have been steamrollered at Snooty Ivy School.

 

[drcalef]

As an undergraduate I went to Pomona College. As a graduate student I went to Harvard. I sort of crept up on "snooty."

 

[Jorriss]

I went to a community college, then a medium university and I made it into a top graduate program. Going to a top university is not a necessity to making it to a good graduate program.

That being said, the people I know from Caltech are completely nuts! Academically, I would give so much to have gotten the chance to receive my education from there.

 

[Chemicist]

I would give so much to have gotten the chance to receive my education from there.

My question is why?

What makes them so much better than a school such as UC Berkeley? (No offense, UCB grads. It's a great school but it's fact that it's not considered a best in the world school like Caltech or Stanford.)

 

[WannabeNewton]

Actually UCB is usually ranked higher than Caltech in world rankings. It's because UCB is across the board brilliant at many things outside of just physics (well at least it used to be-I don't know how it is faring now what with all the money problems in the state of Cali); UCB's physics and math departments are revered so I don't know where you got your information from (hopefully not from college confidential). Regardless, Caltech's undergraduate physics program is just plain hardcore, you can see for yourself. Plus they are about as selective as they come so the environment is extremely competitive (which may or may not be a good thing but I would consider it to be a good thing). You would be pushed to your limit as far as physics goes and really get a rigorous physics education.

 

[Theorem.]

Sometimes I feel that it can be hit or miss. There are more things to look at. Whether a school is big or small, considered overall top notch or not, does not necessarily speak for the department. I go to the University of Alberta, which is analogous to a big state university over here. UofA is well respected in many areas. I was in the Mathematical physics program to start and to be honest I was quite upset with the overall physics program. It didn't seem that the department really cared all too much about there undergraduate program (and this was an honors program). Oddly enough, the honors math classes were brilliant. The honors math program here is very small: the university has 37 000 students and there are about 8 people in my program only. Yet great care is taken to nurture the undergraduate honors math students into individuals who are capable of doing research level work.

 

[caldweab]

My question is why?

What makes them so much better than a school such as UC Berkeley? (No offense, UCB grads. It's a great school but it's fact that it's not considered a best in the world school like Caltech or Stanford.)

I think it all boils down to funding and the staff of the department, from what I've seen this big name schools usually have big name professors and researchers. Doesn't mean you can't get that at big state schools, it's just chances are you'll have less big name researchers, professors and perhaps funding

 

[D H]

I think it all boils down to funding and the staff of the department, from what I've seen this big name schools usually have big name professors and researchers.

While those are very important concerns when selecting a graduate school, they are of much lesser importance when it comes to selecting an undergraduate school. The most important criteria at the undergrad level are the quality, rigor, breadth, and depth of the education one receives.

These aren't measurable, so like the drunk who looks for his lost keys under the streetlight, ranking systems use measurable qualities that oftentimes have little connection with those important criteria. It doesn't matter at the undergraduate level if a school has a bevy of Nobel laureates if those prize-winning professors don't teach at the undergraduate level. It similarly doesn't matter if a school produces ground breaking research but doesn't communicate this to their undergrads.

One thing that does matter is the quality of the students themselves, and this is somewhat measurable. There's no dumbing down of the curriculum so that the slow students can keep pace because there are no slow students at those top-ranked schools. Those top-ranked schools instead accelerate the curriculum. Non-honors classes cover material that only honors classes cover elsewhere, and the honors/advanced classes are brutally advanced.

 

[Dembadon]

I went to one of those schools as an undergrad, and got a lot out of it - more than I would have at Big State School. Others didn't get so much, and others thrived at a school where they would have been steamrollered at Snooty Ivy School.

This is a great point. I'm at a Big State school and most of my professors have been willing, and often excited, to help when I come to office hours bringing difficult problems that weren't in the homework.

Find your own challenges wherever you go; don't expect them to fall in your lap!

 

[Chemicist]

Actually UCB is usually ranked higher than Caltech in world rankings. It's because UCB is across the board brilliant at many things outside of just physics (well at least it used to be-I don't know how it is faring now what with all the money problems in the state of Cali); UCB's physics and math departments are revered so I don't know where you got your information from (hopefully not from college confidential). Regardless, Caltech's undergraduate physics program is just plain hardcore, you can see for yourself. Plus they are about as selective as they come so the environment is extremely competitive (which may or may not be a good thing but I would consider it to be a good thing). You would be pushed to your limit as far as physics goes and really get a rigorous physics education.

I find that slightly hard to believe, but I will take your word for it. That said - you get my point, and if UCB was a poor example, take your pick of any big state school.

:)Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

 

[dustbin]

Not that these things are reliable, but just for S's and G's:

US News rankings:

Caltech [ 1 Physics ] [ 7 Math ]
UC Berkeley [ 5 Physics ] [ 2 Math ]

QS World rankings:

Caltech [ 8 Physics ] [ 12 Math ]
UC Berkeley [ 5 Physics ] [ 5 Math ]

 

[TheAbsoluTurk]

Sometimes I feel that it can be hit or miss. There are more things to look at. Whether a school is big or small, considered overall top notch or not, does not necessarily speak for the department. I go to the University of Alberta, which is analogous to a big state university over here. UofA is well respected in many areas. I was in the Mathematical physics program to start and to be honest I was quite upset with the overall physics program. It didn't seem that the department really cared all too much about there undergraduate program (and this was an honors program). Oddly enough, the honors math classes were brilliant. The honors math program here is very small: the university has 37 000 students and there are about 8 people in my program only. Yet great care is taken to nurture the undergraduate honors math students into individuals who are capable of doing research level work.

Which schools in Canada are not state schools?

 

[Theorem.]

Which schools in Canada are not state schools?

Well technically none are : ) we have provinces! schools are not private in the same sense in most cases, but there are many smaller schools. I could provide a list but I don't think that would be necessary. there are 4 universities based out of Edmonton alone, UofA being a 'provincial' school. There is University of Calgary 3 hours south which is not a 'provincial school', there is Simon Frasier University in BC, University of Victoria, Waterloo, and countless schools in the east. Many are smaller schools considered to be elite in certain fields as opposed to a school like UofA which would be pretty close to a state university.
How about Carleton, York, Mcmaster (very well respected), Guelph (very well respected), Ryerson, Dalhousie.

I think you are missing the point. Its not like I am restricted to schools like UofA. I go there because I want to. I could go to the US or wherever If I liked. The divide between schools doesn't disappear at the border. We have the same options here as over there. International students are welcome. The only reason I mentioned it is that my school would fall into the big state university category. How to categorise other students in Canada is irrelevant for this discussion, I am comparing my school to the same schools everyone else is.

 

[WannabeNewton]

I find that slightly hard to believe...

I find it hard to believe you would think UCB is nowhere near as good as the other schools you mentioned. I'm not sure you realize just how world class it is. Did you even look up UCB's history in math/physics/chemistry, course offerings in math/physics/chemistry etc. before making those statements? There's a difference between saying one university has a more rigorous curriculum than another in some field at the undergraduate level and a more competitive undergraduate enviorment and saying one university is unequivocally inferior to another.

 

[leroyjenkens]

What matters is how good the teachers are at teaching. You can go to the best schools in the world and know everything about science, but if you're not good at putting that information and intuition into the brains of your students, then you may as well teach at a community college, or not at all.
So do these top schools really have the best TEACHERS? Or do they just have staff who know a lot?

 

[D H]

What matters is how good the teachers are at teaching. You can go to the best schools in the world and know everything about science, but if you're not good at putting that information and intuition into the brains of your students, then you may as well teach at a community college, or not at all.

That is not all that matters. The best schools in the world have the best students. The quality of the students dictates the depth and breadth of the material that can be covered.

 

[kinkmode]

I think you can get a great education at 'lesser' schools. However, as D H states, one of the big things the top schools have going for them is they have really bright, really hard working students. And they have a lot of them.

I'd say if you can get into one of those schools and it won't bankrupt you financially, there's a lot to be said for going there. If you can't for whatever reason, don't despair, you can still get a great education if you are motivated. You just might have to be motivated because your classmates might not push the curriculum quite as hard. But you might get more out of physics at a school like Caltech if you have the opportunity.

I went to a top undergrad liberal arts school. I was in the middle of the pack. I can say that I got more out of being in the middle of the pack at a good program than from being at the top of the class in a 'lesser' program. All those kids who got it easier than me pulled me up.

That being said, I can honestly say that the teaching quality at my undergrad (top liberal arts college) was lightyears better than the teaching quality at the grad school I went to, a top ranked Ivy.

 

[WannabeNewton]

I don't think that's really uncommon kinkmode since the teachers at liberal arts colleges are (ideally) dedicated to teaching as opposed to research. Man Harvey Mudd must be an amazing place to study physics and chemistry at just for that reason haha. But I must agree with D H that the abundance of dedicated/motivated students at top universities is a definite plus as far as academics goes.

 

[atyy]

Juan Maldacena got his initial degrees at the University of Buenos Aires and the Instituto Balseiro, Bariloche.

 

[MarneMath]

I agree completely that the number one advantage of a big name school is the student. I've had the 'ability' to go to a highly ranked school for my undergraduate (where I think Jorriss goes now.) I eventually got thrown out and went to a less than stellar state school.

The difference between content and student is extremely drastic. For example, in my Calculus class at the former university, the typical question was: Prove that f' is increasing then every tangent line of f intersects the graph of f only once. In my latter university, I spent 30 minutes explaining why the limit of (x + pi)/sinx as x approaches -pi is -1. I'm moderately convinced some of those people still don't believe me -_-.

While clearly, it isn't impossible to do well at a small school and eventually jump into a bigger pond. In fact, for some people it's sometimes better to be at a less competitive place so you can work at a pace you're comfortable and absorb information at your own pace. However, if you are capable and have the ability, then it would only benefit a person to place themselves in an environment that challenges them and where everyone else can challenge them too. I graduated from that small state school and went to graduate school at a rather well known school. However, it took a lot of self-study, interacting with professors, and doing independent work, that made that transition possible. If I wasn't such a self-motivated person, I think the education I received at my state school would've screwed me hard.

 

[Arsenic&Lace]

I used to be opposed to the idea that one should invest a lot of effort in going to a top program, but in part my views have changed:

1. You'll be exposed to stronger competitors. I've had the situation where I go where I feel as though I'm not investing much effort but I'm near the top of the class. I suspect I would not encounter this feeling at a more prestigious institution, and I don't think this is healthy for me.

2. You'll probably develop a stronger network. Networking is a big deal in practically anything, and the same is true of physics (although from my experience it seems to be more of a meritocracy than say, art or business, where you may be socially inept but very skilled and this can advance you).

However, it would appear as though you can go to a poorly known school and still wind up doing fine. A collaborator of the lab group I work for started out at Bob Jone's Bible college, which is almost the last place you'd expect a skilled physicist to come from. However, he wound up at a top graduate program and in the large collaboration for which he works is extremely well regarded and ranks highly (having attempted to unfuddle his QED monte carlo code has certainly earned him my respect, for what it's worth). Indeed the PI for whom I work went to a completely unknown undergraduate institution and a graduate program well outside the top ten and is a very powerful and well regarded member of the collaboration (it's one of the big national labs).

One speculation of mine is that certain individuals possesses the sharps, motivation, and most importantly, endurance and independence to survive practically anywhere. Individuals lacking in some of these traits might experience greater benefit in the fiery cauldron of a competitive top ten school where I guess you'll probably need to develop them fast to survive.

 

[prasa043]

Disclaimer: this is only anecdotal evidence

I think one of the possible benefits from going to a state school (apart from the obvious, cost) is that if you're bright enough to have a serious shot at going to big name schools, you'll stand out. I go to my local flagship University and I've been able to get research positions probably more easily than I would if I went to MIT (I'd be average there rather than towards the top like I am here); I was also able to use the credits I took here during high school so I'll be able to take more upper level classes than I probably would have been able to.

If you put the same effort in at your local state school as you would have had to at a more prestigious place, I don't think think you'll end up with that much worse of an education. Of course, there are things like the networking opportunities that you'll miss out on. One of the other things I've noticed here is that I expected the Physics majors to be more motivated and frankly, a little bit smarter than they actually are; I kind of stayed the go-to guy for help that I was in high school rather than becoming more equals with my peers (like I expected).

 

[mathwonk]

The top schools have much better qualified professors and much harder courses and much higher standards, and much stronger student bodies, than do state schools in general.

The only student I have known who went to MIT recently was the brilliant son of a brilliant professor, and who took several grad courses at state school while in high school.

Thus he prepared for undergraduate school at MIT, and some courses at Harvard, by doing a chunk of graduate work at a solid state school before attending undergrad school at a top institution.

He still enrolled in honors undergraduate courses at Harvard (google math 55, the "hardest course in the country").

The downside may be that you are not really ready to be worked that hard, or to receive so little support. If you are a bigger fish as a good student at a state school where there are relatively few good students, you may get special attention from professors who are probably students of the professors at the top schools.

I went to harvard as undergrad and was pretty much blown away. When I interviewed for honors calc and presented my all A's transcript, my 800 SAT's and my state championship awards in math (from Tennessee), I was told "those are a dime a dozen here". And they were. In my freshman honors math class they said half the class were either valedictorians or salutatorians in high school. And half also dropped out after the first semester.

At Stanford more recently, they start the honors students out with volume 2 of Apostol. Which means you need to have studied volume 1 on your own, since Stanford (and Harvard) no longer offer such an elementary honors level course. I do not even know where one can find a vol 1 Apostol course in high school, certainly not here in Georgia.

The really good students were starting off freshman year taking graduate courses at Harvard. and some of them were only 15-17 years old.

When I returned there as a postgrad, after my PhD. it was still intimidating, but very valuable, about right for me.

At that time, I noticed even some grad students at Harvard were overwhelmed, but certainly not all.

The strong ones were so strong I collaborated, as a postdoc, with a grad student who had not even finished his degree, on some of my best work. He was much stronger than me and already knew far more.So yes, the top schools have much more to offer, but that does not necessarily mean you should go there.

I agree with others that the many good students at top schools is a big plus, since you often learn mainly from them.

 

[afreiden]

I'm going to pick apart your post a little bit mathwonk; hope you don't mind :)

The top schools have much better qualified professors and much harder courses and much higher standards, and much stronger student bodies, than do state schools in general.

I'll assume that "top school" means "top private school in your major" based on most of the posts in this thread.

Professors at such a top school are "better qualified" for what? Teaching undergrads? I disagree. Teaching grads? Perhaps. Mentoring you as a postdoc and getting you an academic job? Probably.

"Much harder courses with higher standards?" Ivy league schools (I went to one) are known for grade inflation and hand holding. Based only my experience, which is in engineering, the course material was the same. Additionally, there was no noticeable difference in undergraduate and graduate student "strength" among the three schools that I attended (big private, small private, big state).

(google math 55, the "hardest course in the country").

Is it really that "hard" though? You have a PhD (I assume in math), so I'll take your word for it. It surprises me. However, it might be a misunderstanding on my part of what you mean by "hard." It would surprise me if the course is indeed that advanced and students at that level are getting something out of it -- the key word there is "advanced."

At Stanford more recently, they start the honors students out with volume 2 of Apostol. Which means you need to have studied volume 1 on your own, since Stanford (and Harvard) no longer offer such an elementary honors level course. I do not even know where one can find a vol 1 Apostol course in high school, certainly not here in Georgia.

The really good students were starting off freshman year taking graduate courses at Harvard. and some of them were only 15-17 years old.

How do those students do?
They sound really impressive. I have a lot of experience with Stanford as well and advanced engineering courses are definitely not taught to freshman.

If you are a bigger fish as a good student at a state school where there are relatively few good students, you may get special attention from professors who are probably students of the professors at the top schools.

In my experience, at a "state school" the general student population is large and the population of motivated and capable students is proportionally large. In my experience it is easier to obtain research opportunities at a smaller school ("top school"=smaller school by our assumed definition).

When I interviewed for honors calc and presented my all A's transcript, my 800 SAT's and my state championship awards in math (from Tennessee), I was told "those are a dime a dozen here". And they were. In my freshman honors math class they said half the class were either valedictorians or salutatorians in high school.

No doubt the students who enter a top school worked harder, academically, in K-12. They have a big head start but many factors come into play once they leave home and enter college.

half also dropped out after the first semester.

I don't understand this statement. Half of the students in your freshman math class at Harvard dropped out of Harvard? Or, only half of the students in the first part of the course (math 55a maybe?) moved on to the second part of the course?


Anyway, I just wanted to give a different perspective so that those attending the non-elite schools are not discouraged by the tone of this thread.

Based on your post, it sounds like mathematics students at Harvard and Stanford are a different breed. Makes me think of "good will hunting" -- teenagers stumping the professor :)

 

[stupo]

I can only provide a personal anecdote about student bodies. I did my undergrad at a large state school, but happened to do a summer REU at Caltech in math. While I was probably the best math student at my state school, I was only middle of the pack in comparison to the many math majors I got to know at Caltech. I even knew a few students who knew more back then than I know now half-way through graduate school. So, you can probably learn a lot more from your classmates at a 'top school' than at a big state school. I am pretty sure that I learned more from fellow students in one summer at Caltech than I learned from my fellow students in my entire undergraduate career at my state school.

Not to say that there isn't a downside. I knew several Caltech students who I knew to be more talented than me who didn't do as well applying to graduate school. Their only problem, as far as I know, was with grades. The fact that Caltech is famous for grade deflation didn't seem to help them very much. I am still certain that they received a superior education, but the graduate admissions process is not perfect.

 

[dustbin]

Some perspective on Math 55:

The first semester (linear and abstract algebra), they work through all of Halmos' Naive Set Theory, all of Axler's Linear Algebra Done Right, and about half (up to chapter 10) of Artin's Algebra. The second semester (analysis), they do all of baby Rudin and half of Marsden's Basic Complex Analysis.

I know at UCSD (a top 20 math school), they use Beachy & Blair for their "best" abstract algebra sequence. At UCLA they use Hungerford (usually) for their regular sequence and Dummit & Foote for the honors sequence. At Caltech, they work through most of Dummit & Foote and sometimes some of Lang's Algebra as well. That is a pretty big difference.

 

[jduster]

Not to sound like a cynic, but I do think there is a degree of status and politics in all of this.

 

[Digitalism]

I would imagine much of the difference might be found in the student population rather than in the faculty or academic program. These people are self selecting for excellence. I imagine the passion they have for their respective fields would be invigorating. However, that would be for schools such as Caltech where the motivation is to be a physics master, the next feynmann, etc not so much a school like harvard where the motivation is to get a B.A. in english and head to wall street for the cash (ie the field itself is not what is of interest/ what is seen as the PURPOSE)

 

[WannabeNewton]

What makes you think there aren't kids at Harvard who are looking to become pure physicists or pure mathematicians?

 

[mathwonk]

afrieden, top schools means Harvard , Stanford, MIT, CalTEch, Michigan, Chicago, the same schools that are usually considered the best on any top 10 or so list. I agree UCSD is a good math school, I have friends there whom I respect highly, but I do not think they would place it on a level with Harvard.

The half class of dropouts did not drop out of Harvard, but from the honors course back to the non honors course, or a different major entirely. Of course some did later drop out of Harvard.

I don't know what state school you are talking about, but I taught at one for over 30 years, and the number of motivated students and well prepared in an average calculus class of 35 was often as few as 1 or 2. After a scholarship program enticed more good students to stay in state, it went to about 5 per class. The most motivated and talented students at our school are encouraged to take the special honors class, taught from Spivak, which I never managed to snag. For these students our school may be a better place than Harvard, where they either might not get into this class, or might be overwhelmed by the competition. At our school they get good individual treatment.

In the year I personally know about, the Stanford students did as poorly as the Harvard students did in the honors class I myself took, i.e. they dropped like flies. In both cases after the second semester only a handful were still in math, as I recall.

But if you are asking about the 15 year olds, they were the best in the course and maybe in the school. I got help from one 15 year old on the most difficult elite honors calculus problems freshman year. He was a 15 year old freshman but he had had the elite honors level course while in high school at the Bronx high school of science. The 17 year old I met was a senior honors student, in philosophy I believe. There is a student at Harvard now who enrolled I think as a 14 year old and is doing fine, in math.

I am talking about elite honors classes here, not just regular honors classes. and yes, math 55 is that hard. The first day I was there, the professor came in rubbing his hands together, and said "this is math 55, it's hard, hard, hard; it makes strong men weep and women cry", and a guy in the front row got straight up and walked out for good, breaking the tension with laughter. I do not think he was a plant, as the professor looked so surprised.

More than half the class was freshmen, and we did calculus in infinite dimensional Banach space, the way it is done in graduate analysis. That was the fall, in the spring we did spectral theory of compact hermitian operators, as in a graduate functional analysis course, and applied it to sturm liouville systems of differential equations. We finished up with differential manifolds. The text was Loomis and Sternberg, in preprint form, as it had not yet been published.

More recently they covered also tensor products as I do when I teach graduate algebra. So it is a hard graduate level course taught to freshmen and sophomores.When you speak about grade inflation it reminds I went there in 1960, and you probably went to an ivy much later. So indeed my information may be obsolete to some extent, as possibly it's a different world there now.

There was very little if any grade inflation visible to me in 1960. The average grade was a C of some stripe. On my first writing assignment in philosophy or maybe English comp, the instructor gave our section 38 C's one D and one B. My C- comment was something like: "unoriginal and dull, you're lucky it wasn't a D."

The only break I ever got on a grade was in an advanced graduate functional analysis class I took as a senior. It had both real analysis and complex analysis as prerequisites, I had only reals, and complex was not being offered that semester. So I took it with the instructor's encouragement that all I had to do was read Knopp the first week. He said it was easy. I was unable to master that book on my own in a week, and I tanked, but and he let me off with a passing grade.

5 or 10 years ago I read in the Harvard alumni magazine that the average grade had gone up to A- or something like that. When asked, the current students said this trend reflected that they were smarter than we were, but oddly enough their average SAT scores had gone down since the 1960's.

My Stanford experience is also dated, being from 20 years ago. Things have indeed changed, but i suspect Harvard and Stanford are still miles ahead of most state schools. A quick look at the senior faculty list at Harvard shows at least two Fields medalists known to me, (McMullen and Mumford). The people I know at Stanford are also amazing.

When I was a freshman my beginning calculus class was taught by John Tate, a famous arithmetic geometer. Oh and in looking up the following link on him, I see John Tate has an Abel prize, which you probably know is an award which is given for a distinguished career, as opposed to a spectacular start to a career by someone under 35, which the Fields medal recognizes. According to wikipedia, he also has a Cole prize, Wolf prize, and Steele prize, if you want to look those up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Tate

I could be wrong, but I do believe the closest you can likely come to that experience at most state schools, is to be taught by a good student of such a person. Or at least it is much less likely.
Going to a top school offers the possibility of encounters with the best people in the world in any field. But you may have to work hard at getting that contact, since they are often careful of their time.

Of course i don't know what goes on at every state school, nor many schools at all now. Even my own former school is changing and getting better. But I have been convinced for a long time that the "top" schools, i.e. Harvard, MIT, and ones on that level, are very different environments indeed from most other places.

I am still trying to make or agree with the point that all this may not matter to you. As the students in our state school Spivak class know, you may well get better, more personal instruction at the state school, but the depth of knowledge of the professor, the challenge, competition, and stimulation is unmatched at a top school, maybe too much so.

 

[atyy]

Oh and in looking up the following link on him, I see John Tate has an Abel prize, which you probably know is an award which is given for a distinguished career, as opposed to a spectacular start to a career by someone under 35, as the Fields medal is.


Of course i don't know what goes on at every state school, nor many schools at all now. Even my own former school is changing amnd possibly getting better. But I have been convinced for a long time that the "top" schools, i.e. Harvard, MIT, and ones on that level, are very different indeed.

Do you think mathematics, especially pure mathematics is different from physics? To me, a biologist, physics seems somewhat easier to appreciate - say the way one may enjoy a piece of music, but not perform it. Mathematics, on the other hand, seems to me like pure magic.

 

[Digitalism]

What makes you think there aren't kids at Harvard who are looking to become pure physicists or pure mathematicians?

Nothing