<p>Which one is best do you think for math and physics?</p>
<p>They're all good enough that the vast majority of students at those colleges will not be able to use up all their resources. Therefore, what matters is where you personally think you'll do best.</p>
<p>University of Chicago</p>
<p>Chicago has some cool facilities for physics, and is strong in math. My impression for Yale and Williams has been that, though fantastic schools, their strong points were not so much in the hard sciences. Yale's best areas are, as far as I know, English and History, and Williams are Art History and Economics. I think of Princeton, MIT and Harvard much more for Math and Physics...</p>
<p>Chicago is significantly stronger in both areas.</p>
<p>I almost agree with escape, with the exception that math and physics are fields in which some superstars enter college well on their way to a bachelors degree.</p>
<p>If you have already covered most of an undergrad curriculum before you matriculate, then you could run out of regular courses at Williams. If you do not already have a math or physics international olympiad medal, or equivalent experience, don't worry about it. </p>
<p>Yale vs Chicago, no problem either would be great for anyone. But the olympiad types usually go to Harvard, MIT, Caltech, Stanford, or Princeton.</p>
<p>At the undergraduate level, the key difference is that Chicago and Yale have large graduate programs, whereas Williams focuses entirely on undergraduate education. </p>
<p>This means that you will be taught exclusively by professors at Williams, even at the introductory level, and will get to know them early in your college career. At Chicago and Yale, you be spending more time with grad student TAs. If you want to do research, you will probably be granted more responsibility and get more interesting assignments at Williams. At Chicago and Yale, grad students will get the best research assignments.</p>
<p>One indicator of the possible opportunities for undergraduates is the American Physical Society's Apker</a> Award, which is awarded to 2 or 3 students annually for research in physics at the undergraduate level. Williams students won it in 1999, 2002, and 2004. Chicago students won in 2003 and 2005. Didn't see any Yale winners.</p>
<p>Williams is great in both math and physics, the faculty is world renowned and you actually get to know them. Go for Williams. :)</p>
<p>
[quote]
Williams students won it in ... 2004.
[/quote]
Nate is the man!</p>
<p>
[quote]
At Chicago and Yale, grad students will get the best research assignments.
[/quote]
While this is true, there are also better research assignements at universities than colleges precisely because they have a graduate program. So it's not as cut and dry as you're presenting here.</p>
<p>Keep in mind that at Chicago the core will make it very difficult to double major in Math and Physics even if a few classes overlap</p>
<p>"While this is true, there are also better research assignements at universities than colleges precisely because they have a graduate program. So it's not as cut and dry as you're presenting here."</p>
<p>Having taught at Chicago (as a TA) I can tell you that precisely the opposite is true. The average student (and at any of these colleges, the average student is pretty darn good), will get very few substantial research opportunities at Chicago (and likely Yale as well). And the reason for that is simple: they'd have to compete with ME (or my likes), and I was well-paid to help the profs make a name for themselves.</p>
<p>The superlative student will find opportunities anywhere - actually, likely more at a good state university than any of these three, where s/he will be well-feted.</p>
<p>mini, I'm not sure you understood what I was trying to say. </p>
<p>I was saying that the research done at universities is better funded and is more influential than the research done at LACs. Certainly the grad students will take up the top spots at these programs - that's a no brainer to argue - but that doesn't mean there still won't be good opportunities for undergrads a priori. There's a balance between the higher quality and quantity of research versus having graduate students taking the top spots. </p>
<p>Maybe this isn't the case at Chicago (how would I know?), but I was simply pointing out that you can't argue that undergrads cannot get good research opportunities at national univerities just based on the fact that they graduate students performing research. </p>
<p>In any case, I'm dissapointed that you think of graduate students as competition for undergrads. Maybe I've been a bit privaledged, but my experience in research with graduate students has been nothing but supportive and helpful; I feel they're a great resource and have differing perspectives from both professors and postdocs which can be useful to hear.</p>
<p>"Maybe this isn't the case at Chicago (how would I know?), but I was simply pointing out that you can't argue that undergrads cannot get good research opportunities at national univerities just based on the fact that they graduate students performing research."</p>
<p>I attended Williams, and was a graduate student and TA at Chicago. And I am saying quite clearly and emphatically that "for the average student", the research opportunities will be greater at Williams (and I know there are LACs with greater opportunities than Williams, but that's another subject.) In fact, I never met a single UChicago undergraduate who had any research opportunities outside of the summers in the first two years, and I haven't heard of any at Yale (but I'm not in that loop.) And I am saying, clearly, that faculty depend on their paid graduate students to work with them on their topflight research - there may be some opportunities for the very best students, but not very often for the average one (and the average at these schools is pretty darn high.)</p>
<p>"In any case, I'm dissapointed that you think of graduate students as competition for undergrads." Not competition at all - the graduate students are paid to help the profs pull in the publications and the big bucks. And that's what the university pays the profs for.</p>
<p>I think I understood you. I am saying that there are NOT "better research assignements at universities than colleges - FOR THE AVERAGE UNDERGRADUATE STUDENT -- precisely because they have a graduate program." And, again from experience, I think the best research opportunities of all are available for the top students at the large public research universities - in other words, the same students who would otherwise have been attending Yale, Chicago, or Williams.</p>
<p>There are wonderful reasons to go to any of these three schools - research possibilities isn't high on the list.</p>
<p>in terms of reputation..Chicago</p>
<p>I agree with cghen. Research is certainly available at Yale for undergraduates, and many of the grad students are the first to point the way. The extent varies by department, but the university is also very generous with it's funding of undergraduate summer research/fieldwork.
I don't know about the "average student', as my kid is "above average" as I'm sure all of yours are. ;) But for the serious student, opportunities are definitely available.</p>
<p>"Keep in mind that at Chicago the core will make it very difficult to double major in Math and Physics even if a few classes overlap"</p>
<p>This is not true. Math/physics is one of the easiest double-majors at Chicago and I know about half a dozen people doing it. But it is worth noting that Chicago only ever grants one degree, so while you might have double-majored, you'll only have a degree in one or the other, never both.</p>