<p>Well after being rejected at MIT and Caltech, I though that there was no hope. Today I was accepted at these two schools. I plan to study physics, and maybe end up doing theoretical physics. I really like these two schools but I want to hear your opinions. (I apologize in advance if this is offensive to anyone or sounding conceited in anyway). I already posted this on the Cornell thread but I want different opinions. Thanx.</p>
<p>columbia physics department is sub par.</p>
<p>Brian Greene! Though I think Cornell is better overall for physics.</p>
<p>columbia physics department is not "sub-par"... manhattan project anyone? it's just very small.</p>
<p>Look at the two departments professors' research interests. Whichever interests you more is probably the 'better' department (I'm assuming classes are rougly equal between the two). </p>
<p>Or choose based on fit - they're both good options.</p>
<p>Cornell definitely for physics.</p>
<p>Columbia has a very well regarded physics department with excellent placement into graduate school. For what it's worth, every year Columbia consistently sends physics majors off to cream-of-the-crop Ph. D physics programs. Pupin Hall (the physics building) is a national historic landmark, literally. I'm not very familiar with Cornell's physics program, but no one I know has ever been dissatisfied with their undergrad Columbia research experience. As an aside, Columbia does kind of have a fair (read: enormous) share of the Physics Nobel Prize winners. A while ago, for a period of decades, every single physics Nobel Prize winner had at some point been intimately connected with Columbia. To say that Columbia physics is sub-par seems a gross over-generalization, influenced by the university's emphasis on the humanities.</p>
<p>history is one thing. what is the present situation is another. Nobels are generally awarded for work done 20-30 years ago. As a scientist, I think that most people feel that columbia right now in physics is subpar. Imagine trying to do state of the art physics experiments in a building that is a historic landmark.</p>
<p>I'm not contradicting your expertise, oldman.
The question is, subpar compared to what? It's not Caltech or MIT. Physics is traditionally strong at Harvard and Princeton. And, no doubt space constraints in Morningside have their impact -- for example, on lab space for students in intro courses. But there are also opportunities at Brookhaven and Lahmont (sp?) facilities. And, for undergrad physics majors there are also advantages to being in a department that has a small number of students, but where there are plenty of professors heavily involved in research. Can't the undergrad physics majors go on to Harvard, MIT, and elsewhere for their graduate degrees?</p>
<p>Yes, and many of them certainly do, which at least attests to the strength of the undergrad program.</p>
<p>Yes, I completely agree with you. this discussion clearly deals with the "reputation" of the department, not the quality fo the teaching and the success of its graduates. I am 100% confident that Columbia grads have excellent records and opportunities at columbia and can go on to train at the very best institutions in "any" field of science. Smart, motivated kids can go anywhere.</p>
<p>Good to hear. I know that the University of Colorado and UCSanta Barbara have excellent physics departments, for example. But, they also provide a very different sort of undergraduate experience than Columbia would. So, as long as good physics students can go on to top grad programs, and especially if they are attracted to a humanities-based core curriculum, it seems to me that Columbia is a perfectly reasonable choice for those smart, motivated kids.</p>