<p>I am finishing my final year of high school and would like to obtain an undergraduate education in physics or engineering. I was just accepted into Columbia University, the University of Chicago (which does not offer engineering), and Cornell University and plan to attend one of them. If anyone has any information that would help me make my decision, that would be very helpful.</p>
<p>I do not know exactly what job I want, but I would like to keep as many options open as possible. I may eventually work in industry, research, or some field not directly related to physics, such as finance. I plan to attend an excellent graduate school, perhaps for engineering (can this be done with a pure physics undergraduate degree?). So far, my greatest interests in science are astrophysics, thermodynamics, and aeronautical engineering (of course, I have very little experience). I also prefer an education that is broad, rigorous, creative, and interdisciplinary.</p>
<p>Based on the information I have provided and your personal experience, do you have any advice about these three universities and the major I would choose at them?</p>
<p>So you don’t think that a Chicago physics degree would prepare me for later education in engineering? Even after researching and contacting many graduate engineering schools, I am struggling to find a clear answer to this question. </p>
<p>Personally, I think that a strong background in the fundamental aspects of science would provide a more comprehensive understanding of its applications, but I’m not sure how much relevance this idea has in the practical realm of admissions and jobs.</p>
<p>Even though Chicago lacks engineering, how does its physics program compare to those of the other two schools? It seems to do well in the rankings I use.</p>
<p>Cornell has the best engineering program out of your list and offers significantly more fields of study than the others so you can keep your career options open and make drastic changes to your curriculum pretty easily if you want (with the ability to take classes across all 7 schools).</p>
<p>I’m a civil engineering major and I do not think it’s possible at all that a physics major could prepare someone to be a civil engineer or get a graduate degree in it.</p>
<p>I’ll say it again: Cornell all the way. It has a co-op program, which lets you take a whole semester off just to work in your field at a top-notch company, which gives you major industry exposure. </p>
<p>You have no idea what you’re missing out on.</p>
Not really, considering students shouldn’t be basing their college choices on the strength of their intended major at the graduate level at various schools. Its a lot more complicated than that.</p>
<p>I would say that any of the 3 would suffice to get a PhD in Physics. If Engineering is your goal, then Cornell has the slight advantage but Columbia Engineering is excellent as well.</p>
<p>By the way at Harvard’s Physics Graduate Program, here is the representation among the schools you are considering from 2000 to present.</p>
<p>That’s pretty much what I said goldenboy. The OP is still uncertain about his major. As such, Chicago does not make sense since it does not offer Engineering as an option. It comes down to Cornell and Columbia, and Cornell is stronger than Columbia in undergraduate Engineering and equal to Columbia overall. Unless the OP has a strong preference for Columbia, Cornell is the rational choice.</p>
Is the difference in the employment outcomes for Cornell and Columbia engineers that drastic? The OP hasn’t stated his preferences explicitly with regards to the type of career path he would choose. Cornell probably gets more OCR in absolute numbers for traditional engineering but Columbia engineers are better recruited by consulting firms and investment banks.</p>
<p>It is interesting to see the universities that have placed the most of their undergrads into Harvard’s Physics PhD program. The usual suspects really:</p>
<ol>
<li>Harvard College, 19</li>
<li>Princeton University, 19</li>
<li>Stanford University, 19</li>
<li>Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 14</li>
<li>Yale University 11</li>
</ol>
<p>“Big Five much?”</p>
<ol>
<li>California Institute of Technology, 9</li>
<li>University of Chicago, 8</li>
<li>University of California-Berkeley, 6</li>
<li>University of Michigan-Ann Arbor, 6</li>
<li>Cornell University, 5</li>
<li>Brown University, 4</li>
<li>Duke University, 4</li>
<li>University of Maryland-College Park, 4</li>
<li>University of Texas-Austin, 4</li>
<li>Columbia University, 3</li>
<li>Dartmouth College, 3</li>
<li>University of California-Los Angeles 3 </li>
</ol>
<p>It should be noted that although some of those universities are larger than others relatively speaking, the number of Physics majors will be pretty uniform at all of those universities. For example, at the University of Michigan, ~25-30 students graduate with degrees in Physics annually (including Astro, Bio and Engineering Physics). Even Caltech, which is tiny next to Michigan, has a greater number of Physics major.</p>
<p>“Cornell probably gets more OCR in absolute numbers for traditional engineering but Columbia engineers are better recruited by consulting firms and investment banks.”</p>
<p>Can you prove that? Do you have evidence to back your claim that consulting firms and investment banks recruit more Engineers from Columbia than from Cornell?</p>
<p>Academically, the only real issue is engineering program or no. Otherwise, for undergrad purposes, all three schools are similar enough as far as physics is concerned as to make no difference.</p>
<p>The big differences are in fit and location, and if money is not an object, I think you, OP, can choose whichever campus most grabs you.</p>