Maybe these have some relevance. Maybe not.
https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf13323/
https://www.aip.org/sites/default/files/statistics/undergrad/bachreport-p-04.pdf
https://www.aip.org/sites/default/files/statistics/undergrad/bachdegrees-p-10.pdf
https://www.aip.org/sites/default/files/statistics/rosters/PhyRost15.3.pdf
Regarding the link in #19, note that the initial goals of physics PhDs may not coincide with the availability of employment, as only 350 faculty positions arise for the over 1600 physicists who earn PhDs annually. The article itself makes a distinction between temporary and potentially permanent employment, and here refers to the former:
Then continues to state that . . .
Given that 40% of the Apker Awards granted from 2010-2016 were to students at LAC’s, if would appear to me that the research opportunities at top ranked LAC’s are proportionally superior.
Regarding the question as to which is better, while all have strong science programs I think much of the LAC experience is about the unique feel of each school which is much different than picking between 30-50k student state flagships.
So, do you want a very small campus feeling like Haverford and it’s 1,200 students? Or do you want a large campus like Hamilton has in relation to it’s 1900 students? Or do you want one that has a much larger student population like Wesleyan and its 3,300 students as its 2x Haverford?
In science and math related competitions Hamilton often outperforms larger colleges, as in this case in math . . .
https://www.hamilton.edu/news/story/mathletics-team-freezes-out-competition-in-snow-bowl
. . . and against 30 other schools in computer science . . .
https://www.hamilton.edu/news/story/comp-sci-department-hosts-college-computing-conference
“Examples: Cornell, JHU, Tufts, Carnegie Mellon, Boston College, UCLA, William & Mary, URochester, Brandeis, or Emory. Have these been considered and ruled out for some reason?”
Cornell, JHU, Tufts, Carnegie Mellon are reaches for me.
All the others except UCLA and Emory are likelys.
UCLA doesn’t offer enough FA, and as for Emory, I don’t really like the South. Thanks though.
I don’t think you’ve made it clear whether you’d estimate USC to be a reach for you. If it would be, then adding a potential ultra-reach like Haverford would only be a good idea if you particularly like the school.
@apple23, with 200 students majoring in math and 50 in CS, Hamilton is continuing to grow its well regarded STEM focus; now totaling ~40% of all students, when including psychology/neuroscience - make that 41% when my DD matriculates in the Fall.
The facts are :
Wrt #22 “only 350 faculty positions arise for the over 1600 physicists who earn PhDs annually.”
So?
https://www.aps.org/programs/education/conferences/upload/Careers-In-Physics-Talk.pdf
@merc81, I think what @CrewDad is pointing out is that there are far more working in high tech and bio tech careers and likely making multiples of what could be realized in a university role - it’s a great story, much like math majors where “quants” are coveted in both high tech and investment banking.
I think my points relate to whether the initial goal of the PhD was academia or the private sector. In my own field I was advised early on that a PhD (but not a Master’s) would be superfluous for any goal other than academia, so this may account for my resistance to PhD production data as an indication of undegraduate college quality. Earning a law degree or M.D. would similarly not be indications of institutional insufficiency.
However,
which I wouldn’t question, particularly since I’m aware as you are of the recruitment of physicists and others with quantitative academic backgrounds for the private financial sector, @Chembiodad, which itself has not been without consequence, and to which this interesting article tangentially relates:
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/feb/12/black-scholes-equation-credit-crunch
The colleges listed below have Princeton Review admission selectivity scores no higher than Georgetown’s but no lower than Michigan’s.
SCORE … TYPE … SCHOOL
98 … LAC … Amherst *
98 … LAC … Barnard
98 … LAC … Bowdoin *
98 … LAC … Haverford *
98 … LAC … Swarthmore *
98 … LAC … Williams *
98 … PrU … Carnegie Mellon *
98 … PrU … Georgetown
98 … PrU … Notre Dame
98 … PrU … USC
98 … StU … UC Berkeley *
97 … LAC … Carleton *
97 … LAC … Colgate
97 … LAC … Colorado College
97 … LAC … Grinnell *
97 … LAC … Middlebury
97 … LAC … Scripps
97 … LAC … W&L
97 … PrU … Cornell U. *
97 … PrU … Emory
97 … PrU … Rice *
97 … PrU … Tufts
97 … StU … UCLA
97 … StU … UCSD
97 … StU … GA Tech
…
96 … LAC … Bates
96 … LAC … Hamilton
96 … LAC … Vassar *
96 … LAC … Wellesley *
96 … LAC … Wesleyan *
96 … LAC … Davidson
96 … PrU … Boston C
96 … PrU … Brandeis *
96 … StU … Michigan
96 … StU … UCSB
96 … StU … W&M *
PR’s selectivity score is based on:
Schools marked by an asterix (*) appear in Table 4 of the following publication (indicating high rates of alumni-earned STEM PhDs per capita): https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf13323/
This isn’t necessarily an exhaustive list of all colleges with those PR selectivity scores.
Suggest you might not want to ignore Table 2 of that publication. You have no asterisk next to U Michigan which is the 3rd most common undergraduate institution for science Ph D recipients 2002-2011, as that table shows.
2,025 BA/BS graduates of U Michigan (not asterisked), , received S&E PhDs during this period.
To give some perspective, that number is slightly greater than the combined output from these asterisked liberal arts colleges (Amherst +Bowdoin +Haverford +Williams +Grinnell +Wellesley).
Yet the inference (by lack of asterisk) is U Michigan is not a good place to get training leading to an eventual S&E PhD.
If I were a public policy analyst or decision-maker, I’d consider the table 2 data important in assessing the public impact of the listed schools. For choosing an college, I’d consider the table 4 (per capita) data more significant in assessing the quality of undergraduate STEM programs (especially if I wanted a lot of need-based FA, which one is less likely to get from big OOS public universities in table 2 than from the small private colleges in table 4.)
If it were available, perhaps an even better table (for college-choosing) would be one that normalized by program size rather than institution size. I believe such a table would list some (but not all) of the table 2 institutions that are not on table 4, including Berkeley and Michigan.
Absent a peer-reviewed table like that, in the meantime, in my opinion table 4 probably is a better aid than table 2 for what the OP seems to want (especially if schools that interest him include Bates, Hamilton, and Haverford … and if he wants a lot of need-based FA.)
Now, if he happens to be a Michigan resident … then forget all that. Just go to Michigan.
To be clear, the reason I suggested earlier that if USC might be a reach, then Haverford could be an ultra-reach was because of standardized scoring factors:
ACT Middle Ranges
Haverford: 31-34
USC: 29-33
Under certain testing scenarios, then, Haverford might not be realistic for students who would be reasonable candidates for USC.
If the OP would be satisfied with USC or other large schools, and, as seemingly indicated, even prefer them to more selective LAC options, there’d be no point in including these more selective LACs on his list.
Hamilton is similar at: 31-33, with class 2021 projected to be 31-34.
^ I think there’s some chance that, in looking for matches, the OP may have stumbled on reaches – though reaches with very nice physics departments.
Gustavus Adolphus College has one of the best undergraduate physics departments in the country at a LAC.
For the past ten years, Gustavus has been in the top 15 liberal-arts institutions nationally in production of the number of physics majors .
Gustavus has also been among the top 10 liberal-arts institutions nationally as the baccalaureate origin of physics PhDs (currently 6th, source: National Science Foundation WebCASPAR database, 2005-2014)
Gustavus also hosts the annual Noble Conference which brings Nobel laureates each year to discuss topics related to the sciences, economics and so forth. Student interact with them on a more personal level before and after the event. In addition to this, the school provides ample support for undergraduate research.
I am sure GAC is a good STEM school, but referencing incorrect NSF to try to substantiate that a school with an avg. ACT of 27 is in the top-10 of undergraduate physics departments just doesn’t square - talent attracts talent…
Here’s the correct information and no I don’t believe for a second that Bowdoin is only 40th best, Dartmouth is 41st best or Berkeley is 43rd best.
Rank Academic institution Institutional
control 2010 Carnegie
classification Number Institutional-
yield ratio
1 CA Institute of Technology Private Research-very high 739 34.9
2 Harvey Mudd C. Private Baccalaureate 359 24.4
3 MA Institute of Technology Private Research-very high 1,880 16.0
4 Reed C. Private Baccalaureate 374 14.2
5 Swarthmore C. Private Baccalaureate 472 13.1
6 Carleton C. Private Baccalaureate 555 12.3
7 Grinnell C. Private Baccalaureate 366 11.1
8 Rice U. Private Research-very high 728 10.8
9 U. of Chicago Private Research-very high 940 10.7
10 Princeton U. Private Research-very high 1,131 10.1
11 Harvard U. Private Research-very high 1,794 10.0
12 Pomona C. Private Baccalaureate 345 9.5
13 Haverford C. Private Baccalaureate 269 9.5
14 NM Institute of Mining and Technology Public Master’s granting 142 9.1
15 Williams C. Private Baccalaureate 451 8.7
16 Case Western Reserve U. Private Research-very high 608 8.4
17 Bryn Mawr C. Private Baccalaureate 245 8.3
18 Stanford U. Private Research-very high 1,359 8.0
19 Brown U. Private Research-very high 1,188 8.0
20 Yale U. Private Research-very high 1,020 7.8
21 Macalester C. Private Baccalaureate 311 7.8
22 Carnegie Mellon U. Private Research-very high 812 7.7
23 Cornell U., all campuses Private Research-very high 2,646 7.7
24 Hillsdale C. Private Baccalaureate 65 7.7
25 Oberlin C. Private Baccalaureate 523 7.6
26 Amherst C. Private Baccalaureate 309 7.4
27 Johns Hopkins U. Private Research-very high 797 7.2
28 Lawrence U. Private Baccalaureate 178 7.1
29 Duke U. Private Research-very high 1,103 7.1
30 Kalamazoo C. Private Baccalaureate 182 6.8
31 U. of Rochester Private Research-very high 771 6.6
32 Wesleyan U. Private Baccalaureate 471 6.6
33 Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science and Art Private Baccalaureate 125 6.5
34 Wellesley C. Private Baccalaureate 386 6.5
35 Hendrix C. Private Baccalaureate 129 6.3
36 Whitman C. Private Baccalaureate 193 6.3
37 Brandeis U. Private Research-very high 451 6.3
38 Allegheny C. Private Baccalaureate 233 6.1
39 Vassar C. Private Baccalaureate 348 6.1
40 Bowdoin C. Private Baccalaureate 240 6.1
41 Dartmouth C. Private Research-very high 654 6.0
42 Earlham C. Private Baccalaureate 138 6.0
43 U. CA, Berkeley Public Research-very high 3,406 5.9
44 Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Private Research-very high 590 5.9
45 Mount Holyoke C. Private Baccalaureate 278 5.8
46 Columbia U. in the City of New York Private Research-very high 829 5.7
47 CO School of Mines Public Research-very high 237 5.7
48 Occidental C. Private Baccalaureate 206 5.7
49 Franklin and Marshall C. Private Baccalaureate 231 5.5
50 C. of William and Mary Public Research-high 718 5
Also consider Grinnell. I have no idea of your stats, but if you’re looking at Hamilton and Haverford I anticipate Grinnell would be a match school for you. My roommate is a physics major here, so I can get you into contact with her for more information on the science department at Grinnell.
And your point being? Average ACT doesn’t really matter in this context, comparable schools like St. Olaf and Macalester have an average ACT of 26-30. Gustavus is test optional by the way, many students.
In terms of the physics department we have professors from top phd programs and it shows. I do not know why you state that NSF is incorrect when the National Science Foundation is a United States government agency that supports fundamental research and education in all the non-medical fields of science and engineering. The data, which is from the years 2001 through 2010.
Most of the schools on your list are great, as well.