Schools The US Graduate School System - Comments

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the differences between a Bachelor of Arts (B.A.) and a Bachelor of Science (B.S.) in physics within the U.S. educational system. It highlights that there is no standardized distinction between the two degrees; some universities offer only one type, while others provide both, with the B.A. often being less rigorous or requiring more general education courses. Graduate schools typically focus on the courses taken and academic performance rather than the specific degree title. The conversation also touches on the lack of official standards for degree requirements in physics, unlike some other fields where professional organizations set guidelines. Additionally, it addresses the challenges faced by international students from countries with different degree structures, suggesting that pursuing an honors degree or a master's program may enhance their qualifications for U.S. graduate programs.
ZapperZ
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
Messages
32,814
Reaction score
4,725
ZapperZ submitted a new PF Insights post

The US Graduate School System

soyouwantto7-80x80.png


Continue reading the Original PF Insights Post.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Very helpful post!
I have a question regarding the 2nd paragraph - what's the difference between a B.A. in physics and a B.Sc? I thought that the two are identical and the names are a semi-arbitrary choice of the university? Is there a significant advantage of getting one over the other? (in the U.S. at least?)
 
ELB27 said:
the names are a semi-arbitrary choice of the university?

There's no standard distinction between B.A. and B.S. in the United States.

Some schools (such as the college where I did my undergraduate) offer only a B.A. in physics, some offer only a B.S.

Some schools offer both a B.A. and a B.S., in which case the B.A. may be less "rigorous" in terms of physics courses, or it may simply include a larger number of "general education" classes outside of physics, for example in languages, history, etc.

I'm pretty sure graduate schools in the U.S. don't pay any attention to the precise title of the bachelor's degree, but instead look at the actual courses that you have taken and how well you did in them.
 
  • Like
Likes ELB27 and Greg Bernhardt
Another point that I think I should make... in the US, there is not even an official standard for which courses a B.S. in physics should require! (likewise for a B.A.) Different schools can (and do) require somewhat different sets of courses. If a school strays too far from a sort of general consensus pattern, then their regional accrediting agency is likely to question their requirements and make them justify them or even change them, but this still allows for some variation.

In some fields, professional organizations publish standards that schools can adhere to, voluntarily, for their B.S. programs. For example, the American Chemical Society has this:

ACS Approval Program for Bachelor’s Degree Programs

Schools that meet these requirements can advertise themselves as "ACS accredited". However, the American Physical Society does not have a similar program.

Yet another point: in the US, course requirements for a degree are usually intended to be mininum requirements. Students can and do take courses beyond the ones that are specifically required, even beyond any number of elective courses that they are required to take, depending on what they plan to do with the degree. I have the impression that in some countries, degree requirements are very complete and rigid, so this may cause some confusion.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes ELB27 and Greg Bernhardt
ELB27 said:
Very helpful post!
I have a question regarding the 2nd paragraph - what's the difference between a B.A. in physics and a B.Sc? I thought that the two are identical and the names are a semi-arbitrary choice of the university? Is there a significant advantage of getting one over the other? (in the U.S. at least?)
It's somewhat arbitrary I think. It even happens with some masters degrees. My graduate program actually did not offer an M.S. (or M.Sc.) in physics, only a masters of arts (M.A.) or a Ph.D. The M.A. degree did not require a thesis component. So perhaps this is why it was not called an M.Sc.

Additionally, one could not even apply to the program with the goal of leaving with the M.A. You had to apply to the PhD program and either declare the M.A. "along the way" to the PhD or leave the PhD program after getting the M.A.
 
First - thanks so much for putting this out there - many don't know it.

The other issue with applying to graduate programs in the US from outside the US is countries like the UK, India and Australia do not have 4 year Bachelors. Some of these are recognised as equivalent (eg a 3 year degree from Oxford) - but some are not. I know Australian 3 year Bachelors generally are not - but you can get 4 year degrees by doing a double degree or an honours year - these are recognised. My suggestion if you are in one of these countries is do either an honours degree or a double degree in physics/applied math. But getting a Masters first is probably even better because that will give valuable experience in research work and only takes an extra semester over a four year degree.

Thanks
Bill
 
TL;DR Summary: I want to do a PhD in applied math but I hate group theory, is this a big problem? Hello, I am a second-year math and physics double major with a minor in data science. I just finished group theory (today actually), and it was my least favorite class in all of university so far. It doesn't interest me, and I am also very bad at it compared to other math courses I have done. The other courses I have done are calculus I-III, ODEs, Linear Algebra, and Prob/Stats. Is it a...
I’ve been looking through the curricula of several European theoretical/mathematical physics MSc programs (ETH, Oxford, Cambridge, LMU, ENS Paris, etc), and I’m struck by how little emphasis they place on advanced fundamental courses. Nearly everything seems to be research-adjacent: string theory, quantum field theory, quantum optics, cosmology, soft matter physics, black hole radiation, etc. What I don’t see are the kinds of “second-pass fundamentals” I was hoping for, things like...

Similar threads

Replies
20
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
32
Views
3K
Back
Top