College for Geophysics

College Search & Selection
1

So I am having some troubles deciding which college would be the best choice for me. I’ve recently been accepted to the following schools:

  • University of Wisconsin -Madison
  • Texas A&M
  • Colorado School of Mines
  • University of Minnesota- Twin Cities
  • Still waiting to hear from - University of Texas- Austin

So far I think I have ruled out Colorado and Minnesota. If you think I should still consider them, please state why below. The biggest dilemma I’m facing is deciding whether I would go to UT-Austin if I am accepted there. Texas A&M is also a good school for geophysics, but I believe Madison is just as good if not better. It’s also closer to home since I live in Wisconsin and therefore cheaper as well. So the main comparison is between UT-Austin and UW-Madison for me right now. UT-Austin is a lot more expensive since it’s out of state. But it seems to be rated higher than Madison in geosciences, and I think there are more opportunities for internships and connections down in Texas. Any help/advice is appreciated

2

I would go to Madison. Because the ‘rated higher’ doesn’t matter much for undergrad, highly rated programs will have research and good faculty in general you don’t need to split hairs. And why pay more for undergrad for no good reason?

3

Those are good points. Thanks

4

I concur with BrownParent’s comments above, and can maybe add a few things:

Believe it or not, UW-Madison has been traditionally very strong in geosciences (though you don’t yet specify a sub-field, which is quite understandable at your age; indeed, it may change over time), and arguably a bit stronger than UT-Austin. Here’s a current example below. While I’d caution not to go overboard with rankings, right now you’ve got UW ranked at 20 globally for geosciences, UT-Austin at 36 (and Minnesota at 35):

http://www.usnews.com/education/best-global-universities/geosciences?page=2

I remember studying evolution, housed within geosciences at UW, with a wonderful professor, Dana Geary. She’s still at UW; her PhD advisor at Harvard was Stephen Jay Gould. In other words, you won’t go lacking in geosciences at UW, even though it seems so close to home.

I happen to love both UW and UT-Austin for many (similar) reasons. I don’t consider Texas A&M as a match, either in research depth, or overall institutional strengths as UW and UT-Austin, though I’m sure some specific disciplines at A&M are relatively strong. But structurally – not in the details of course, which clearly vary, even with peer institutions – they are so similar as to not warrant extra $$$ for undergraduate. If I had the resources and campuses in my home state, when I was young, as those of Ann Arbor, Madison, Berkeley, or Austin (to name some examples with roughly similar, outstanding campuses / towns / research opportunities), I would have been hard pressed to leave with admissions in hand and in-state tuition.

I know it is hard sometimes to imagine staying in your home state for college. But with your major, your admissions, and the resources UW offers, I’d personally save the money during undergrad. You can maybe think about taking some trips during breaks or even studying abroad for a bit if it’s within your budget, and going elsewhere for grad school. And many advisors will suggest precisely that, as academics often see it as an advantage to study elsewhere for graduate school. With good grades and some strong research background as an undergrad, you should be seeking full funding for a grad program.

5

P.S. – I am not a geoscientist by profession, but you may note my handle.

6

Lol anhydrite, I would have thought someone with your [url=<a href=“http://www.mindat.org/min-234.html%5Dusername%5B/url”>http://www.mindat.org/min-234.html]username[/url] was certainly in the geosciences.

To the OP, most of what anhydrite wrote is correct although I take issues with the idea that Texas A&M is not as strong as UW Madison in geophysics. Unless your research interests happen to involve glaciation or some other rather esoteric subdiscipline the geophysics education you’ll receive at A&M will be at least as strong as in Madison. It may even be stronger should you want to work in industry owing to the numerous partnerships which are well developed at A&M/ UT Austin, but much less so at UW - Madison.

I go to a school whose levels of Petroleum Engineering/ geophysics recruitment are just a tier below UT Austin and A&M. My best friend is a recent geophysics graduate from UC Berkeley, which by most measures has the top ranked geophysics department of any public US school. Another close friend is graduating from UC Davis with the same degree (UC Davis is typically seen as on par with UW-Madison in the discipline in terms of research output). Over the years we’ve compared curriculum and experiences in our shared classes/ department. While we do much of the same work, they typically go on more geologically interesting field trips (think Yosemite vs. Woodford Shale). However, the level of recruiting at my petroleum focused school simply trumps both of theirs and from what I understand from graduate students who went to the two top Texas schools, it’s even better at UT and A&M. So make no mistake, there will be a substantial difference in terms of post graduate opportunities you’re exposed to. That doesn’t mean you can’t find out about said opportunities. A simple google search will reveal a host of companies currently recruiting both summer interns and long term employees, but it will be harder.

Personally I’d advocate saving money and going to UW - Madison. The price difference coupled with the program’s overall strength makes justifying going to UT Austin, A&M, and CSM extremely difficult. Plenty of Madison alums do work in industry as well as academia. As an added bonus, UW has a chapter of AAPG (American Association of Petroleum Geologists), which means that you can easily go to the conferences and network with some of the top people in the field.

7

In terms of geophysics and petroleum-related disciplines, I will defer to whenwhen’s experience. Thanks for the clarifications and industry-related specificity. Indeed, I was reading for overall geosciences, and that isn’t exactly what the OP stated. It had crossed my mind that the Texas schools do get a bump in recruiting for subjects such as petroleum engineering – not necessarily in curriculum – but I was not clear on the OP’s intended discipline. Nor may he be yet, either.

However, we seem to be in agreement that the education and opportunities vs. the price at Madison are very hard to beat. There is also the knowledge that the related geosciences disciplines at UW are sufficiently strong that they seem to offset the slightly-less-strong geophysics, vis-a-vis UT / A&M, and help UWs geosciences to remain prominent.

I do stand by my assessment that A&M overall doesn’t possess the wide and robust strengths at the graduate level, nor, frankly, at the undergrad level, that UW and UT do. This is not to disparage A&M, as I did indicate certain departments are strong. One would simply be foolish to think that the petroleum disciplines in Texas are neglected at the major research institutions.

Thank you for the kind words re: my username, whenwhen! I insist, I am most certainly not in the geosciences. I do like my rocks, though…