Discussion Overview
The discussion centers on the accreditation of physics and astronomy programs, particularly in the context of the United States and comparisons with other countries. Participants explore whether there is a formal accreditation process similar to that of engineering or chemistry programs.
Discussion Character
- Exploratory, Debate/contested
Main Points Raised
- One participant notes that in the US, ABET accreditation is the standard for engineering programs, questioning if a similar accreditation exists for physics or astronomy.
- Another participant asserts that there is no formal accreditation for physics or astronomy programs in the US, contrasting it with chemistry, which has optional ACS accreditation.
- A third participant agrees, suggesting that the absence of a clear professional path for physicists with only a bachelor's degree may contribute to the lack of accreditation.
- One participant mentions that in the UK, undergraduate physics programs are accredited by the Institute of Physics (IoP), raising the question of whether there is an equivalent in the US or elsewhere.
- Another participant suggests that the reputation of the institution where one earns a PhD may serve as a de facto measure of program quality.
Areas of Agreement / Disagreement
Participants generally agree that there is no formal accreditation for physics and astronomy programs in the US, but there is some uncertainty regarding the existence of equivalent systems in other countries.
Contextual Notes
The discussion highlights the lack of a clear professional pathway for physicists compared to other fields, which may influence the accreditation landscape. There are also references to differing accreditation practices in other countries, specifically the UK.