<p>Why is Cornell Engineering Physics tops? O.k. USNews rates Cornell's EP program as the best. And I've seen various instances on the web where their program is praised to high heaven.</p>
<p>But what's the reason? Any Cornell students out their who could give some good reasons? Or anyone else?</p>
<p>Thanks.</p>
<p>research spending for one.</p>
<p>Spending, labs, research. The school has its own nuclear reactor and particle accelerator for gods sake. Also it's a very rigorous program, probablly the most difficult in Engineering (which I think makes it the most difficult in the university). They basically make you take the honors versions of all the core physics classes.</p>
<p>Would undergraduates even use stuff like the nuclear reactor or particle accelerator? All the high-spending stuff seems to be something you would want to go to graduate school for. Why worry about that if you are interested in the undergraduate program?</p>
<p>O.k. I admit, I'm looking for specifics for my "why Cornell" statement. :)</p>
<p>I like the fact that the engineering physics program has the reputation of being very rigorous. But I've looked at other EP programs and they look the same on the surface. I'm trying to see what stands out at Cornell that makes it rigorous and the best. All I have so far is "I've heard it's very rigorous".... I just can't see it from the objective research I'm doing. It's all hearsay.</p>
<p>Actually undergrads get a very suprising ammount of access to these things. If you are serious, meet the right people, and know your stuff, you could deffinitly get some time on things like the particle accelerator (maybe assisting a phd or grad student in some researech?)</p>
<p>In terms of rigor, the courses are just graded much harder and you're expect to know your **** better then at other schools. So yeah, surface wise they may be the same courses, cover the same topics. But Cornell will cover the topics in much more depth, and expect you to be more competant.</p>
<p>Thanks mrnova!</p>
<p>Now I think I'm getting somewhere. I just wish Cornell had open course ware like MIT... I could get such a better feel for the programs that way. It sucks that they only let students view the course websites. :(</p>
<p>I remember a while back I was looking at some MIT classes and they even let you see the grade distributions! That is frick'n awesome--you can then take a test and see how you compare to the MIT class!! I hope more schools follow MIT's lead in that respect.</p>
<p>Cornell no longer has nuclear reactors. Shortly after the Nuclear Engineering department collasped both of them were shut down and dismantled.</p>
<p>Yeah, you're actually right, it happened when I was a freshman I think :/ But the building, Ward, is still arround.</p>
<p>First, to address the original question. I'm not sure why the EP program at Cornell is nationally touted, but I'm guessing it is at least partly due to the extremely high rigor of the program. Students do not sleep starting their junior years when they start taking the core courses in the major. The tough courseload is not due to time-consuming busy work or projects, which is often the case in other engineering majors, but instead due to the intellectual difficulty of the classes. You'll learn how to think analytically and mathematically by the time you graduate. Also, students tend to go to the best grad schools and secure desirable jobs after graduation. The department is also small. My graduating class had ~35 students and that was considered large.</p>
<p>Now, to clear up some things. The particle accelerator (synchrotron) belongs to the entire university, not just to AEP. Only a handful of faculty in the dept even use it. Also, the nuclear reactor didn't belong to AEP either. It was pretty inactive for the decade preceding its closure, and I'm not sure if any AEP faculty even used it while it was still functioning. Both of these facilities are available to research groups and as a student, you would have access to them only if you were part of a research group that used them. Just because it exists does not mean that everyone has free reign to use it.</p>
<p>There are a ton of Engr Physics threads that have cropped up this year. My guess is it is because of the first time USNWR ranking of the field. There are a lot of EP programs in the country. Half the battle is figuring out what the differences are between them. The EP program at Colorado Mines is much different than the one at Cornell which is very different than the one at RPI. Know what you're getting yourself into.</p>
<p>
[quote]
All I have so far is "I've heard it's very rigorous".... I just can't see it from the objective research I'm doing. It's all hearsay.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm sure that Electrical Engineering courses at MIT have the same general syllabi and cover the same material as Elec Engr courses at Bayou Swampland U. The main differences are due to differences in rigor, expectations, and course instruction.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Just because the reactor and accelerator] exist does not mean that everyone has free reign to use them.
[/quote]
I would imagine this is the case...can you imagine drunk frat guys playing with a nuclear reactor? hahaha</p>
<p>LOL... actually, I wouldn't wanna.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'm sure that Electrical Engineering courses at MIT have the same general syllabi and cover the same material as Elec Engr courses at Bayou Swampland U. The main differences are due to differences in rigor, expectations, and course instruction.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's exactly what I mean. I'm having a very hard time gauging the rigor of individual programs from a distance. It seems that you just have to rely on word of mouth or actually be there. I guess word of mouth is not too bad, but it can be a gamble at times.</p>
<p>But, I've gotta ask, does anyone know of an objective way to measure the rigor of a program? Are there stats one can look at? If you then combine those with word of mouth, I think it would be a really good indication.</p>
<p>Try suicide rates</p>
<p>That's actually not a bad idea. </p>
<p>"I chose XU because it had among the highest suicide rates in the country! What I needed was a challenge, and I thought to myself, what better fight than the fight to stay alive?"</p>
<p>Ahhh... I'm sure it would at least catch the admissions officer's attention. lol</p>
<p>
[quote]
But, I've gotta ask, does anyone know of an objective way to measure the rigor of a program? Are there stats one can look at? If you then combine those with word of mouth, I think it would be a really good indication.
[/quote]
If you have access, you can compare the difficulty of problem sets and tests. MIT's Openware is convenient for that purpose but only if you are a student at the other school with direct access to the corresponding courses.</p>
<p>I met with some Physics professors at Cornell when I visited and they told me that the Physics major is in CAS and the Engineering Physics was a joke. That was a big factor in my applying to CAS instead of engineering. SO what's actually the difference between the Physics major in CAS and Engineering Physics?</p>
<p>shoofy,</p>
<p>They literally told you EP was a joke?</p>
<p>My best guess as to the most substantial difference is that with the EP degree you could probably land a good job without going to gradschool. With the physics degree you are pretty much obliged to go to grad school if you want to make a careeer out of physics.</p>
<p>I'm no expert, but that's my guess. But to call EP a joke?</p>
<p>I'm not sure they used the precise term "joke," but they certainly looked down on it. Maybe it was because they were only interested in theoretical physics?</p>
<p>I guess if you are really interested in becoming a physicist, then yeah, EP is probably not a good idea. It would actually make little sense (why not just go for the real thing?). So if you were talking to the professors as though you wanted to be a physicist, then I could understand their reaction to EP.</p>
<p>But if you're not sure about getting a PhD--like I am--then EP seems like a great idea... At least at Cornell. I want some job prospects in case I can't go to grad school, but I'd rather study something more theory intensive than a pure engineering major.</p>