<p>I'm wondering what some of the better LACs are for physics. I know that Williams, Swarthmore, Amherst, Harvey Mudd, and Carleton are regarded as some of the top. If you can help give me any more colleges to look into, it would be greatly appreciated.</p>
<p>I would personally not go to an LAC for physics, especially if you plan to go to grad school. From what I have seen, the undergrad research opportunities at most LACS do not compare to the opportunities at bigger research opportunities. Additionally, when getting recommendation letters, university professors usually have significantly more connections to and knowledge about research in your field. Another thing to worry about is that if you are quite advanced in coursework coming in, you will very likely run out of classes to take, whereas at many research universities you can take grad classes quite easily.</p>
<p>Of Cal Tech’s 20 entering physics grad students in 2012, two graduated from liberal arts colleges (Carleton and Williams). For at least the past four years, Cal Tech has admitted at least one LAC graduate, which is all the more impressive when one considers that many universities considered strong in physics were not represented at all even though schools which graduated much smaller numbers of physicists still managed to get its alums into one of the best grad schools in that field.
[Caltech</a> Physics Grad Students](<a href=“http://www.pma.caltech.edu/GSR/gradclasslist.html]Caltech”>http://www.pma.caltech.edu/GSR/gradclasslist.html)</p>
<p>Poeme, you’re way off. LACs are <em>over</em>-represented in science grad school admissions, and schools like Reed and Swarthmore are physicist-producing powerhouses. Sometimes you can do undergraduate research at an LAC or do what others do: an REU at another school. The most widely-used e&m textbook is written by a Reed professor.</p>
<p>And I’m a guy who normally scoffs at LACs, especially far-left ones like Reed.</p>
<p>Post #3</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Interesting how many students on that list (and the lists for previous years) come from “not big name” universities. I wonder if the profs at such schools are much more attuned to current research than those at a top LAC, or if they have better connections in the field.</p>
<p>While students from Amherst, Swarthmore, Reed, and some others seem to be pretty well represented, these are only a few of the top LACs. I have met students from conferences and REUs at some of the lesser ranked ones (past the top 20), and they definitely do not have the same opportunities as students at top research universities or state schools. For example, most of their research is done for a thesis, and could not really be published in a high caliber journal like Physical Review.</p>
<p>I would also argue that if you could get into a top LAC like Amherst, that you should think about applying to top 20 research universities. It seems to me that people emphasize LACs due to the teaching and small environment, but in my view that is just coddling students. To be a successful physicist, you need to be self sufficient and able to learn things on your own. In this respect, it is more important to be exposed to cutting edge research than the highest quality teaching (which you can most definitely still get at a research university). People also seem to argue that the presence of grad students detracts from the undergrad education. I find that it enhances it. Grad students are a wonderful resource to the overall community and are really great when it comes to providing advice for the future.</p>
<p>My personal experience has been at a top 10 research university. I started research the summer after my freshman year with funding and joined my current group the spring of my sophomore year. I am about to publish a first author paper with leaders in the field and will have taken 8 grad classes by the time I graduate. If I had gone to an LAC, not only would I have run out of courses to take, I would definitely not have had this research experience. So in the end, even though attending a top LAC like Swarthmore would not have affected my chances of getting into a great graduate school, I feel like the education I received at my university has better prepared me to take the next step in my career.</p>
<p>Adding to what Whenhen said, and taking the example of the college I will be attending this fall : Among all colleges and universities, Mount Holyoke ranks eighth (tied with Stanford and Wellesley) in the number of graduates who earned U.S. doctorates in physics from 1966 to 2004; ninth in chemistry; and sixteenth in biology.</p>
<p>Coe College has a surprisingly strong physics program. A few years ago half (2 of 4) of Harvard’s new physics Ph.D candidates were Coe grads. This article is not recent, but gives some insight:
[Coe</a> physics department makes national name for itself | TheGazette](<a href=“http://thegazette.com/2009/09/07/coe-physics-department-makes-national-name-for-itself/]Coe”>Coe physics department makes national name for itself | The Gazette)</p>
<p>Check out how LACs are represented:</p>
<p>[COLLEGE</a> PHD PRODUCTIVITY](<a href=“http://web.reed.edu/ir/phd.html]COLLEGE”>Doctoral Degree Productivity - Institutional Research - Reed College)</p>
<p><a href=“Physics programs - Parents Forum - College Confidential Forums”>Physics programs - Parents Forum - College Confidential Forums;
<p>If your goal is a physics PhD, be coddled! :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Note that the “not big name” universities are the kind of places which do get some top students, even if their baseline admissions selectivity is low (e.g. University of Kansas, University of New Mexico). PhD programs likely care about whether the top students in the major at the school can be successful at PhD study, not what the worst students at the school are like.</p>
<p>thanks guys, I appreciate all the advice! I’ve seen another thread about safeties for physics and most seem like state schools(which I don’t think would give me enough finaid) are there any LACs or private schools that could be counted as safeties?</p>
<p>“the number of graduates who earned U.S. doctorates in physics from 1966 to 2004”</p>
<p>Is it perhaps not number but percentage? E.g., a small school with 5 of 10 suggests a better chance than a large school with 10 of 100.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The problem is, many private schools consider “level of applicant’s interest” in admissions, which indicates that they explicitly do not want to be used as safeties by students with much higher stats than the school’s median (since such students are unlikely to attend, why bother offering them admission?).</p>
<p>Also, the less selective private schools are less likely to have good need-based financial aid.</p>
<p>^ Also, schools that consider “level of applicant’s interest” may favor students who want to attend the school because of a perceived cultural fit, as opposed to those who would attend as a last resort.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You acknowledge that you have no direct LAC experience yourself, and in fact have not yet even graduated from your undergrad college program. I would say you would have more relevant input if you had completed your PhD AND found that the LAC students you met through that process were less able or qualified in some way than you are. At this point you only have your own experience to draw on.</p>
<p>Wildlifeman, Lawrence is a LAC with pretty decent physics for you to consider as a safety.</p>
<p>thanks, everyone. I think that both LACs and big private universities have their advantages and disadvantages, but I don’t think going to an LAC would mean that I would be any less able than if I went to a big university. Although, obviously I have no experience at either.</p>
<p>St. Olaf is another potential safety with a good physics program, if your stats put you in range for Williams/Swarthmore. I have a cousin who did his undergrad there and got his PhD in physics at Cornell.</p>
<p>My experience with LACs comes from my interactions with students at two REUs I participated in. It was pretty obvious that students at top research universities have an advantage over students at MOST LACs. This is not necessarily only an admissions advantage, this refers to the overall experience. Compared to the other students at the REU I attended this summer (at a top state school) who were mostly from small LACs, I know significantly more about the grad school application process and grad school in general (because of interacting with graduate students at my home institution), have much more research experience, and have taken several grad classes. I actually could potentially skip a lot of classes once I enroll in a graduate program and start research earlier.
I wouldn’t judge schools by the number of PhDs they produce, but by where the students end up. At my school, many students go into other fields following graduation, but the ones who do get PhDs consistently attend top programs, the among common names in the last few year have been Harvard, Stanford, Berkeley, and Cornell.
My major advisor also once mentioned a student of hers who had trouble adjusting to grad school. She thought that the undergrad preparation of the student had something to do with it. I was surprised to hear this student actually attended a top 5 LAC which I had heard was very rigorous.
So overall, I don’t really understand the purpose of attending an LAC if you want to go into research. I don’t think the academic environment is any better than that at a research university. It is smaller, but like I said, if you can’t advocate for yourself in a larger environment, then a PhD is probably not for you. My father is in academia as well (not physics) and told me that you should go to the place with the most cutting edge research because of the stimulating environment.
The research opportunities at a university are much less restricted than at an LAC. People argue all the time that most of the research at universities is not accessible to undergrads, but they would definitely be surprises if they actually saw what some of these undergrads have accomplished even before grad school.</p>
<p>“I wouldn’t judge schools by the number of PhDs they produce, but by where the students end up.”</p>
<p>We have the statistics for the percentage of future PhDs undergrad schools produce; what are the statistics for where they end up?</p>
<p>Then there’s this side of the issue:</p>
<p>[Where</a> Professors Send Their Children to College - CBS News](<a href=“http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505145_162-37244508/where-professors-send-their-children-to-college/]Where”>http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505145_162-37244508/where-professors-send-their-children-to-college/)</p>