There are two planetary science programs that I know about – and I’m not pretending to know much about this subject area beyond having a child who’s interested in planets big time!
Also, for a unique perspective, you may want to look into University of Wyoming – cheap, great skies, and I know a student who went out there because he thought it was the best program for him and all he was interested in doing was astrophysics of some sort. (Again, I’m not pretending to be the sort of expert that clearly @harvardandberkeley is).
There’s a school of thought that attending a school that isn’t so pressure-cooker in teaching and learning style can be helpful for budding minds, especially in creative fields, as this clearly is. Less pressure means there’s time for the student to come up with his or her own ideas and thereby make a unique contribution to the field.
College Navigator offers a lot of useful data, but one of its limitations is that it can’t handle double majors. This is a significant issue at many LACs, where lots of students double-major. According to Section J of the Williams CDS, there were a total of 771 majors for 536 students in 2015-16, which implies about that about 44% of students double-majored. https://provost.williams.edu/files/williams_cds_1617.pdf
College Navigator is currently using that 2015-16 data as well. If you look at the total number of majors in CN, you will see that it is 536 (the total number of students), and not 771 (the actual total of majors). So 235 of 771 Williams majors went uncounted by CN.
If a student has a double-major, how does CN decide which major to count? What I’ve heard is that they simply take the first one in alphabetical order. If this is true, then CN is likely to be accurate for astronomy or astrophysics majors, but probably not for physics majors. Double-majors like astronomy/physics, chemistry/physics, economics/physics or math/physics would be uncounted as physics majors by CN.
The CDS says that there were 85 majors in “physical sciences” in 2015-16, while CN counts only 63. So there are 22 missing physical science majors in CN. The physical sciences include astro, chemistry, and geology as well as physics. However, physics is clearly the most alphabetically disadvantaged of these, and probably accounts for the greatest share of missing majors.
Quite a few Carleton College profs, alumns and (undergraduate) students were co-authors on the recent Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) publications.
@harvardandberkeley I recommended Conn College, because I know a student who majored in Physics there, spoke very highly of the program and went on to study at the graduate level and attributed her success back to her experiences at the college. It is not my favorite school by any means, (D toured, did not apply )and while I have no problems with you asking for clarification, your presumptions are way off base. The OP was asking for well regarded Physics programs, beyond the elite schools. To say Conn college, which is quite strong in the sciences, does not ‘even remotely fit the bill’ is a bit uninformed
Here is the full breakdown for astronomy and physics majors in that class:
1 Astronomy/Econ double major
3 Physics single majors
1 Anthropology/Physics double major
1 Computer Science/Physics double major
1 Mathematics/Physics double major
1 Philosophy/Physics double major
So the correct count should be 1 astronomy major and 7 physics majors. However, CN didn’t count 4 of the 7 physics majors, apparently because they were alphabetically second as double-majors. The astronomy double-major did get counted, apparently because it was alphabetically first.
Corbett is absolutely right about how College Navigator undercounts the number of students in a major at colleges that permit double majors. Double majoring is a badge of honor at Amherst and at Williams, so College Navigator significantly underrepresents the numbers of physics majors at those colleges. (Neither Amherst nor Williams qualifies as “second tier” as far as admissions is concerned!)
A more reliable source for the numbers of physics majors and astronomy majors is the American Institute of Physics annual rosters. Here are links to the rosters from the present back to the 1980’s. https://www.aip.org/statistics/rosters/physics https://www.aip.org/statistics/rosters/astronomy
These rosters offer a convenient way to compare the numbers of physics majors and astronomy majors at all colleges and universities.
In 2016, the most recent year for which data is available, there were 750 degree-granting physics departments in the roster. Only 39 colleges or universities had stand-alone astronomy departments. Forty-two had combined physics and astronomy departments that offered both physics degrees and astronomy degrees. The majority of colleges and universities do not offer astronomy degrees, but many offer some coursework in astronomy within their physics departments.
@fifty: THANK YOU. I hadn’t seen this enrollment/degree data before. This will give us more schools to look at and cross check with the “best of” lists (USNWR, Gourman, National Research Council). Minimally, I can now see with this data that there aren’t a lot of school options to work with an Astro major, and the total enrollment is so small (puts things into perspective) - we are also looking at strong Physics depts with Astro options.
This goes back to the beginning of the thread, but U.S. News does not appear to rank undergraduate physics or astronomy/astro programs at all. If graduate department rankings are the source for post #2, then the listed order may not correspond to the respective qualities of the undergraduate offerings of the schools included, and more importantly, potentially excellent programs that focus entirely on undergraduates will have been omitted entirely.
The AIP links posted in #48 show undergrad & grad so those were very helpful, too.
I am finding that it is bit challenging to “suss out” strong programs (in a rigorous overall setting) in such an area that’s already small, beyond the elite few colleges that are always mentioned.
I might say that U.S. News seems to be outside of their typical purview in an analysis such as that. The schools they rank highly appear to be justifiably powerful in space science, but in some cases these schools’ enrollments are comprised of a majority of graduate students. And, as I read through, I did not see any purely undergraduate schools ranked at all. However, after seeing this source, I’m not suggesting that you have misinterpreted the ranking, @dogwood18, but more that the ranking itself appears to be vague in its intended purpose.
In terms of overall rigor, you may want to screen with respect to schools that would generally match your son’s indicated academic level:
After that point, it might be easier to sort through the respective offerings in his areas of interest, as well as through the many suggestions you have received on this thread.
Based partly on the presence of astronomical observatories, my own suggestions might include Swarthmore/Haverford, Williams, Wesleyan, Middlebury, Hamilton and Colgate. In terms of physics, all of these colleges have produced Apker recipients. Your son would be likely to find a few admissions matches within this group.
Thank you @merc81, yes overall academic rigor wherever he ends up is certainly important to all of us and I appreciate you linking to those two Business Insider Reports. All of these rankings (and their methodologies) all have their pros and cons, and blind spots, and we’re sort of just thinking of them as a starting point. The schools you listed were definitely on our “working list” of LAC’s that might also be worth considering as an alternative to a larger research institution/state universities- thank you!
This is such an interesting exercise. We can certainly look at how many PhD’s are coming out of a particular institution, but I’m not sure that’s necessarily an indication of how strong the UNDERGRAD program and focus will be (and what kind of experience that might end up being - maybe good, maybe not so much?). Does anyone have any additional suggestions - everything from larger research institutions/state schools down to LAC’s with a strong Physics/Astro program beyond the elite, as I mentioned in the original post? And we are leaning towards concept at this point that this doesn’t NEED to be a separate degree - objectives could be met within a strong Physics dept with robust Astro offerings. Appreciate everyone’s observations, links, and input very much!
Most physics programs are quite similar in the required coursework and will prepare a student for a graduate program. With a physics degree, it is easily possible to move into astronomy or astrophysics in a graduate program. There are some astrophysics programs and those also will give a student some flexibility in choosing a direction for a graduate program.
The things to look for in a physics program are the number and frequency of upper division courses. In order to be prepared for a graduate program it is important to have a full year of electrodynamics, quantum mechanics and classical mechanics plus a semester of statistical mechanics. If the program you choose only has a semester of quantum mechanics, for example, you might be at a disadvantage in starting off with the initial graduate quantum sequence. A second important consideration is to be able to have good research opportunities on campus. This is clearly easier at a university which has a Ph.D. program and funded research projects but most universities and LACs these days make a significant effort to have undergraduate research available and it is often possible to get into one or more REU programs during the summers.
The bottom line is that you can get a solid physics preparation in many universities, the rankings of physics programs is generally focused on their graduate programs and the bigger programs are usually ranked higher. Undergraduate programs can be very strong at universities which are not among the “top” physics schools. My advice is to find an undergraduate program that has a complete and rigorous set of core courses and that is affordable for the family finances. Then once enrolled take as much advantage as possible of the research opportunities and take the most rigorous courses available. Students get into highly selective graduate programs from all universities, not just the usual suspects…
There is a very big difference between major research universities and smaller elite liberal arts schools that happen to have strong Astronomy/Astrophysics programs. For hands on research and access to equipment you will have greater first hand experience at a smaller school. You cannot do anything in Astrophysics without a PhD so realistically you will have to select a PhD program for the specific type of research and programs which will be a decision AFTER undergraduate. Speaking of personal experience, there is no better training than going to a smaller liberal arts program and having unrivaled access and ability for original thesis research, and then going to the top post-graduate programs like MIT/CalTech etc… but hey… this is just my personal experience… if instead its a Physics program focus with a strong math backdrop with goal of working in Finance post graduation then a Name Brand Ivy or Stanford/MIT/CalTech could look better… maybe… but that is another conversation…