I’m a current chemistry (B.S.) major at a fairly-rigorous research university (think top public ivy) and would like to go on to graduate school to pursue physical or computational chemistry. I’ve come to the realization that 1.) I really like physics and 2.) I dislike a lot of the classes required for my chemistry B.S., especially the lab component. I’m highly considering switching to a double B.A. in both chemistry and physics.The chemistry department at my school doesn’t offer many physical chemistry courses and a BA allows for much more schedule flexibility but I’m worried graduate schools (or jobs if I don’t get into any) will look down on a B.A. I have considered doing a B.S. in chemistry and a B.A. in physics but it would require me to graduate a semester late and I don’t have enough money for that. Advice?
Check the graduate programs to see what undergraduate course work they expect.
Here is a list of the ten undergraduate institutions that produce the most PhDs in physical sciences, on a per-capita basis:
- Caltech
- MIT
- Reed
- New Mexico Tech
- Carleton
- Rice
- Chicago
- Wabash
- Grinnell
- Princeton
Five of those (Reed, Carleton, Wabash, Grinnell, and Princeton) only confer BA degrees in physics or chemistry.
http://www.thecollegesolution.com/the-colleges-where-phds-get-their-start/
My guess is that you have dual BAs in physics and chemistry from a top public, with strong grades and GRE scores, that grad schools will perceive you as a competitive candidate. The worst case is that you will have missed a handful of undergraduate classes that you would have taken in a BS program, and in that case they will simply have you make them up in grad school.
The biggest missing components in a B.A. in physics are likely the second semester of quantum mechanics and electrodynamics sequences. If you have those in your B.A. then you will not be at a disadvantage in a graduate program. The elective physics courses are less important.