<p>I'm a junior in high school from Massachusetts, and I'm beginning to look seriously at colleges. Any suggestions would be very helpful and greatly appreciated.</p>
<p>I'm looking mostly at small to mid-sized schools (about 3000-10,000 undergrads, although this is by no means a requirement). I want to study physics in college, and I'd really like to be around people who are intellectual and passionate about learning. I want a college with a distinct campus, hopefully located in or near a town or city, and it should be co-ed. Academics are really important to me, and sports-focused schools with lots of school spirit (in addition to party schools) kind of turn me off. I'd like to stay in the northeastern quarter of the country, although again this isn't a requirement.</p>
<p>I have about a 3.87 GPA (with the most rigorous course load possible), 2290 SAT (800 CR, 710 M, 780 W), and I'm probably in the top 5% of my class. I have a few ECs but nothing particularly exciting or fascinating.</p>
<p>Could anyone recommend some safety, match, and reach schools that I should look at? Any help would be appreciated. Thanks in advance!</p>
<p>Unweighted. My school is strange with weighted GPAs, and so therefore my weighted is somewhere around a 5.65-5.7, which probably doesn’t mean very much to anyone.</p>
<p>Although a bit smaller than you mentioned the top LACs with fantastic science programs would be worth a close look: Haverford, Carleton, Grinnell, and Wesleyan.</p>
<p>“I’m very fortunate in that money isn’t a huge factor in my decision, but of course it is always a consideration.”</p>
<p>Many of the top colleges offer need-based aid only. If you are looking for a merit scholarship you will have to investigate which schools offer them. You should have a frank discussion with your parents regarding finances. Many private schools cost upwards of $50,000.00 per year.
With that said, some suggestions that meet your criteria: Tufts, Johns Hopkins, Swarthmore, Haverford</p>
<p>Princeton, University of Chicago, Swarthmore, Haverford, Wesleyan. Williams has great academics but may be a bit “jockier” than the OP is looking for.</p>
<p>As someone who transferred from Wesleyan to UC Berkeley (because I suddenly discovered that I liked/was good at math/physics (after a fairly academically dormant high school career), I have a profound prejudice against studying science/math at a small LAC. The recources, the research, the sheer size of the faculty and their attendant areas of specialization cannot be underestimated at a university. I studied Physics (and World Lit) at CAL in a way that would have never happened at Wesleyan, Williams, Amherst, no matter how selective and renown those schools are.</p>
<p>My rec for a more intellectual school for science (you don’t specify whether you are speaking of life or physical science) would be Carnegie-Mellon or Univ. of Chicago or Tufts or Rice. There are many more schools, but they are larger than the high side of your preferred size spectrum. I picked those schools, in particular, because the students I know who go there, who are involved in science, are not just interested in majoring in grades but in ideas and the exchange of them. I didn’t cite Cornell, for example, because I think its isolation and social affect is very hard for some people.</p>
<p>@SWHarborfan, I’m almost completely certain that I want to study physics. Thanks for the input regarding studying science at a small LAC vs. a larger university. Does anyone else have any experience or thoughts one way or the other?</p>
<p>I just posted this someplace else, but FWIW:
Suggest one thing you might do is, for each school considered, look at the number of courses actually given each of the last two semesters in departments of interest, and count them. To do this you will have to find the class listings in the department of the registrar, not the course catalog which may list every course they’ve ever offered.</p>
<p>Some small schools have good track records, even excellent, but look out for places that offer very few sections of most courses, thereby increasing chances of course conflicts; many courses given only every other year, thereby increasing odds you won’t be able to take a particular course you may want, due to an irreconcilable scheduling conflict in the one semester it is offered to you. Also beware of schools that offer few upper level offerings in your area altogether.</p>
<p>Re:
“I think its isolation and social affect is very hard for some people.”
“Isolation” is relative. We’re talking about 20,000+ students in a city of 30,000 which is center of metro area of 100,00. It’s a college town, essentially a city of and for college students.Yes this is different from being right outside Boston. But also very different from a school of 2,000 students in a town of 8,000. Hard for “some” people, but lots of people like it there just fine. OP might be one of them. Personally, I loved it there.</p>
<p>Re: "social affect " I don’t know what this even means. It is not some little LAC, there are 20,000 students there studying in seven completely different colleges, with vastly diverse interests. There is no unified “social affect”. Whatever kind of “social affect” you are seeking will likely be well represented there.</p>
<p>How long before we see a discussion about PhD productivity? </p>
<p>Of course, as Jane Austen might have said, “It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a small liberal college cannot possibly deliver a good education in the sciences.” </p>
<p>Monydad, for clarification purposes, I hope you know that I find both the notions that LAC are inherently incapable to deliver a superior education in the sciences and that “larger is better” is universally true every bit as **ridiculous **as the PhD per capita lists that have circulated on College Confidential.</p>
<p>The problem with the PhD analyses is that the numbers attempt to present conclusions on an entire program when the PhD students only represents a very small percentage of the students pursuing undergraduate studies. Since only about 1 out 7 students who graduate with a UG in Physics (as an example) ever obtains a PhD, it is hard to accept the results of the PhD productivity as a conclusive comparative analysis of UG programs.</p>
<p>Of course, despite its low relevance, it should be said that it dwarfs the typical anecdotal evidence presented by the “depth and breadth” academic factories’ supporters.</p>
<p>“Since only about 1 out 7 students who graduate with a UG in Physics (as an example) ever obtains a PhD”.</p>
<p>Those #s do not even restrict to UG physics, the denominator is everyone who is there no matter what they are studying. If you want something non-anecdotal count the courses. Courses are relevant to all 7 out of those 7 students, not just the one who will get a pHd. And if Phd is your thing print out the total future pHds in physics & astronomy. If thousands of people are going on to get phds after graduating from an institution, obviously it provides training sufficient to support this objective. Even if many others there are studying in other areas and/or have different objectives.</p>
<p>For those who feel strongly about the relevance of school size, think of the link above as a way to identify schools (there are 100, large and small) with physics programs, not rank them.</p>
<p>To overcome the problem of physics PhD students representing only a small percentage of students pursuing undergraduate studies, interesteddad compiled the future PhD list for all of engineering, hard science, and math combined:</p>
<p>Of the top 25 schools on each of these lists, these 13 schools are on all three lists:</p>
<p>California Institute of Technology
Carleton College
Grinnell College
Harvard University
Harvey Mudd College
Haverford College
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Princeton University
Reed College
Rice University
Swarthmore College
University of Chicago
Yale University</p>