Undergraduate physics competitions

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the lack of undergraduate-level physics competitions similar to the Putnam exam for mathematics. While the Physics Olympiad exists for high school students, no equivalent for undergraduates is widely recognized. Participants emphasize the importance of engaging in original research and internships, suggesting that the focus should be on practical physics rather than just theoretical games. Competitions are seen as beneficial for developing problem-solving skills and fostering a competitive spirit that enhances learning. The Putnam exam is highlighted as a successful model that encourages deep problem-solving abilities, even if it is perceived as a "game." Some participants mention the CAP prize exam in Canada as a notable undergraduate contest. Overall, there is a call for more structured competitions in physics to stimulate interest and skill development among undergraduates.
Caravan
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
At the high school level, there is the Physics Olympiad exam.

At the undergraduate level, there is the Putnam exam.

Are there any Olympiad-type, undergraduate physics competitions out there? Like the Putnam, except for physics?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Not that I'm aware of. At this point, it's not a matter of just memorizing facts. Now you're expected to be thinking about doing something original, and many undergraduates do manage to work on original research with a professor. Your goal now should be 'real' physics, not physics as a game - try getting an internship or working in a lab. Some conferences give awards to undergrad researchers who do a good job, and you can try applying for scholarships and grants for graduate school.
 
This is the only one that I know of: https://ortvay.secureweb.elte.hu/" . Some big company should do something about that though, and start arranging some undergraduate competitions. It's not like they can't make hard enough undergrad problems, just like the IPhO has tough questions for high school pupils, there should be a competition with hard problems for undergrad students.

Competitions provide such a thrill. People with a competitive mentality end up studying hard for such competitions. They learn faster and become better physicists for it. There's no way getting around solving problems as a physicist, and the more you hone your skill, the better you become. Doing 'real' physics certainly does not exclude 'playing physics games', especially when you learn something useful from it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Likes poseidon721
eri said:
Not that I'm aware of. At this point, it's not a matter of just memorizing facts. Now you're expected to be thinking about doing something original, and many undergraduates do manage to work on original research with a professor. Your goal now should be 'real' physics, not physics as a game - try getting an internship or working in a lab. Some conferences give awards to undergrad researchers who do a good job, and you can try applying for scholarships and grants for graduate school.

I see what you are saying, but why does the Putnam exist, then? Why is it so popular, if it's just a mathematics game? Don't the high scorers go on to be some of the most productive physicists and mathematicians?
 
In Canada, they do have an undergraduate contest called the "CAP prize exam".
 
Caravan said:
I see what you are saying, but why does the Putnam exist, then? Why is it so popular, if it's just a mathematics game? Don't the high scorers go on to be some of the most productive physicists and mathematicians?

I think the putnam did start as a more or less friendly competition between Harvard and West Point or something. You seem surprised by the fact that many contestants do treat it as a game. The Putnam is less about learning undergraduate mathematics deeply and more about building exceptional problem solving skills at the undergraduate level.

Often the problems use basic facts in the nicest way possible. For instance, the recent competition had a difficult PDE problem. But the PDE given was essentially something like the transport equation, which is one of the simplest linear PDEs. The dea behind the transport equation is that a particular directional derivative of a sufficiently smooth function vanishes. So if you had not studied PDEs, you had to rely on problem solving experience from multivariable calculus. At some point you also had to know the most basic differential equation: f' = f to proceed. There is certainly nothing theoretically deep going on here, but if you're not experienced at solving hard problems, it's hard to make progress.
 
Last edited:
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...
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...

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
18
Views
659
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
32
Views
2K
Replies
26
Views
5K
Replies
1
Views
809
Back
Top