<p>Obviously it's very difficult since it's one of the top physics programs in the country. What I am trying to find out is the "shock effect" straight A high school students experience when they try to tackle Cornell physics. </p>
<p>Does anyone know a student in the program? My son is interested in possibly applying (although I prefer he try the more practical engineering-but he wants to keep his options open).</p>
<p>He is a straight A student but I know the level of difficulty ramps up at a college like Cornell.</p>
<p>Do most of the students get weeded out? Anyone have any experience with the program?</p>
<p>If your son loved AP Physics C and did exceptionally well and also does very well in AP Calc BC (or perhaps beyond), he should be just fine in Physics 1116. My son loved it (as he loved Math 2230, though 2240 was less of a love). He should follow his passion and not worry about how other kids are doing in those classes. He can change his mind after he arrives. Many kids do.</p>
<p>Yeah, perhaps. It was actually concurrent with 2240. He chose to take it. He sacrificed some of his AP credit because he wanted to learn more physics. He said that 1116 covered a lot of material not covered by Physics C. His schedule for spring is 3 math classes at the 4000 level, math 2810 and a cultural film type course (distribution requirement). I don’t even ask him about the math.</p>
<p>Don’t know, but you’re really over-thinking it. A lot of friends thought their kids knew what their majors were before arriving at school. Once they start classes, it may change. Kids think they’ll be math majors until they take 2230-2240. Not so many are once those classes are done. Most don’t even make it to 2240. I’m sure something similar could happen in physics, though I don’t know the courses. Engineering is killer demanding. My son has a friend who was taking a campus tour at the end of his junior year. When asked why, he simply said that he had never really had time to see campus. </p>
<p>Your child will choose what he wants to study. It may or may not be what he gets his degree in when all is said and done. I started out in honors engineering in the fall of '85 (not at Cornell). I ended up with international studies, a minor in photography and later two additional master’s degrees in unrelated areas. You don’t know what he’ll choose. You can only support what he thinks he wants right now. Wherever he goes.</p>
<p>I get your point NJCornellMom, but it’s also true that some programs and schools focus more on weeding out students than on trying to help as many as possible. For instance, some engineering schools have actually made changes in their programs to be more supportive and to lower the attrition rate of engineering students. </p>
<p>That said, who knows, he may end up in a different field. For now, he loves physics and I want to give him the best chance of success that I can.</p>
<p>Yeah, I can see that. Ohio State back in the 80’s had a tremendous drop out rate in engineering. I didn’t really know what engineering was. They just told math/science kids to major in engineering without any understanding of the field. Then, they tossed us into huge classrooms for calculus with 500 students (my high school didn’t even offer calc back then). TAs didn’t speak English. I lasted less than one quarter (no semesters at the time). I don’t think most departments are quite that harsh anymore. Even for engineering. I hope they aren’t. Can you call the department (or check online) and ask how many majors they have? Also, how many graduate in the major each year? It might be telling.</p>
<p>NJCornellMom- Thanks and I actually did just that and got a quick response. The info on # of majors was on the website but I asked about dropout rate of physics majors. While they said they didn’t keep track on those stats, they did try to reassure that they were supportive of their physics majors.</p>
<p>My son started out at Cornell as a physics major. He did fine in the classes, but decided that he enjoyed the practical side of it more than the theoretical side. He transferred to engineering for that reason.</p>
<p>If ancient history may be even partly relevant, I am an old guy who graduated, eons ago, as Cornell’s all-time stupidest ever physics major.</p>
<p>With respect to an actual physics major, no they don’t (didn’t) deliberately weed you out.
But physics is really, really hard. Everyone tries hard, but at the end of the day you are either smart enough to do the problems, or you aren’t. They don’t water it down, the curriculum must be sufficient to groom future physicists. Most of the textbooks (hence problems) are written by professors at other universities, so I doubt it’s any easier at those places. Nor should it be. I worked with a bunch of PhD physicists at a trading firm many years later, all these guys ((from state U undergrads) were geniuses. If you aren’t, you aren’t going to cut it in this field, in the long run. IMO. No matter where you do undergrad.</p>
<p>They may not weed you out, but if you’re really not cut out for it you would be well served to weed yourself out. It doesn’t really get better in the upper levels. For me, it got worse.</p>
<p>But that’s not their fault.</p>
<p>[Just answering this gave me flashbacks to intermediate E&M problem sets trying to calculate magnetic fields using toroidal coordinates…]
BTW engineering is a lot easier, don’t let them fool you. Though AEP is probably not any easier at all, it’s probably the same.</p>
<p>I don’t know for a fact that they are all the same difficulty, I only attended one school. But I think they need to be that level of difficulty if the goal is to impress a leading grad school that they should accept you into their high-rated PhD program. After all, not even every Cornell student who goes through their program can achieve that result. So how are you going to do it, if they are not convinced that your undergrad program was rigorous enough?</p>
<p>I think it’s possible that there are easier programs,with weaker fellow students, where things might be taught at a somewhat lower level. Somehow. But then how to go from there to a top grad program, if they don’t really give full credence to your grades? Recognizing that you are competing for those spots with people who they know have been well trained. Why should they take this kid with a 3.8 from Bumble u, when they are rejecting kids with 3.8s from Brown and Princeton, who did research with profs that they actually personally know?</p>
<p>I think to get into one of these programs you are best served going to an undergrad program known to be rigorous, and excelling there. These programs are taking a small number of the best of the best, internationally.</p>
<p>If your goal is to be a HS science teacher, things are likely different.</p>
<p>But this is a generic argument. It is always potentially easier to go to the school with the least-capable students. In which case, nobody should go to a “top” school, they should all go to community college and then on to a directional state u. But don’t expect that people evaluating your credentials afterwards are necessarily completely blind to these differences. They are not all idiots. IMO.</p>