Thoughts on Cornell's Applied and Engineering Physics

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the Applied and Engineering Physics (AEP) program at Cornell University, focusing on its reputation, curriculum, and the experiences of current students. Participants share their perspectives on the program's rigor, interdisciplinary opportunities, and the differences between AEP and conventional engineering programs.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses concern about the difficulty of the AEP program, noting the challenging course load that includes advanced topics like Math Phys and Quantum Mechanics.
  • Another participant recommends conventional engineering programs over AEP, arguing that most engineering is applied physics and suggesting that AEP may not cover certain areas of physics.
  • Some participants highlight the interdisciplinary nature of the AEP program, mentioning that students often collaborate with other engineering disciplines and engage in both theoretical and applied research.
  • A participant asserts that Cornell's AEP program is among the top in the country, particularly for materials science, citing the university's advanced facilities.
  • There is a discussion about the breadth of physics topics covered in AEP versus traditional physics programs, with some arguing that AEP may not include certain theoretical areas like cosmology and string theory.
  • Several participants reflect on the evolving nature of physics education and the relevance of classical mechanics in contemporary studies.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the value and content of the AEP program compared to conventional engineering and physics programs. There is no consensus on whether AEP adequately covers all areas of interest for students who wish to study theoretical physics.

Contextual Notes

Participants mention varying backgrounds and experiences with the program, which may influence their perspectives. The discussion includes assumptions about the curriculum and the nature of physics education that remain unexamined.

Kevin Davis
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
I've been accepted to Cornell Engineering, and am thinking about doing AEP. I really like physics and math and was just wondering what people thought of it. Yeah I know I should ask people at Cornell, but they're just going to tell me that it's awesome and I should do it. I want to get a more objective opinion. What's the reputation of the program? I know it's Cornell, but specifically is the AEP department well known? Also it seems insanely hard- I've seen their semester course schedule. I would have to do Math Phys, Quantum Mech, Classical Dynamics, and another engineering course in one semester. My mother has a PhD in Physics, and she says a lot of the courses are stuff she learned in grad school (although her opinion is not a very big factor)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Shame on you, Kevin. Don't ever dis your mother!

Personally, I would recommend one of the conventional engineering programs at Cornell. Do not think that because the label says "engineering" you will not be studying physics. Most of engineering is simply applied physics. What you will likely not get in a conventional engineering program will be things like quantum mechanics (maybe in EE), cosmology, string theory, astronomy.
 
One of the perks of Cornell is its interdisciplinary study - many of the AEP students here do work with professors in biomedical, electrical, computer, and chemical engineering despite technically having an applied physics degree; it's designed this way - AEP is in the college of engineering, and not in the college of arts and sciences. On the other hand, many AEP students work in labs which lean more towards theory (the lab I work in is exactly 50/50 AEP/physics students). If you aren't sure whether you want to work in a classical engineering field, I'd recommend AEP; otherwise, Cornell's engineering program is one of the best in the nation so consider Dr. D's advice above.

Since I came to Cornell with a less-than-stellar undergrad background, I am currently taking undergrad-level courses in the AEP and physics department (which one depends more on scheduling than any other factor). The courses I have experience with (math phys, quantum) have very high expectations for students, but the teaching level adapts accordingly - the professors I've encountered here at Cornell are exceptional.
 
I think the applied physics program at Cornell is one of the top along with Caltech, Harvard, and Stanford. If you are interested in materials, I think Cornell has one of, if not the best clean room in the country.
 
Dr.D said:
What you will likely not get in a conventional engineering program will be things like quantum mechanics (maybe in EE), cosmology, string theory, astronomy.

That is not the entire spectrum of what physicists study.
 
clope023 said:
That is not the entire spectrum of what physicists study.

I should certainly hope this is correct. However, my point is that if the OP is seeking to include these areas of study, he should probably go straight physics. They simply will not appear in any sort of engineering oriented curriculum.
 
Dr.D said:
I should certainly hope this is correct. However, my point is that if the OP is seeking to include these areas of study, he should probably go straight physics. They simply will not appear in any sort of engineering oriented curriculum.

You mentioned strings, cosmology, and astrophysics, not the OP; just because an engineer wants their engineering to be more physics heavy does not mean that they want their engineering to come with theoretical astro-particle cosmology. Applied/Engineering physics programs generally ARE engineering programs that exist at the interplay between science and application and are more theoretically oriented.
 
You win! What do I know?

Long, long ago, when I was in school, if someone spoke of physics in the broad, undifferentiated sense, it might be expected to include several (not necessarily all) of the topics I mentioned. Perhaps those are no longer a part of physics; I really would not know.

I can't ever recall a physicist that I've known that was heavy on, for example, classical mechanics. But maybe that has changed too; what do I know?
 

Similar threads

Schools Cornell vs. UC Berkeley for Engineering Physics
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Programs Electrical Engineering PhD or Applied Physics PhD?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
Programs From a Nuclear Engineering BS, will I be able to do MS & PhD in Physics?
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Admissions I plan to apply for PhD program on 2025 Fall. What do you think?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Studying I need advice for a master's degree in applied physics
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Programs "Back door" into physics for a math major
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Other Engineering Physics vs Pure Physics
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
Programs University of Edinburgh or King's College London for mathematical physics masters?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
What's the best major between Physics & Chemistry for entering MS in Nuclear Engineering?
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K
Schools Which College Should I Choose for Physics: UF or Cornell?
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
3K