<p>I got accepted by both MIT and Harvard and am really confused of where I should be going. I want to do Physics. And my dream is to join the academia and be a professor in Physics. Which school do you think would be better for my future career plan?</p>
<p>Either.</p>
<p>The feeling I get is that there are a lot more opportunities in experimental physics at MIT than Harvard. Theory-wise, they are equal. I think you’re a bit young to be choosing a field in physics just yet, so I don’t know how relevant that is. More generally, MIT has a larger physics dept and wider options for someone who is exploring, but I don’t think you’d regret going to either school. I don’t usually say this, but this is a case in which how you “feel” at a school becomes really important. They are pretty much polar opposites in terms of campus culture… most people I know who loved it at MIT hates the way things work at Harvard and vice versa.</p>
<p>Out of curiosity pebbles, what kind of physics do you study (if it is possible to say even vaguely to someone like me who doesn’t really know much physics)?</p>
<p>Wow… physicistic, are you international? Damn, I bet you did IPhO didn’t you? Anyway, congrats.</p>
<p>Yeah, he got a Silver Medal at IPhO o.O</p>
<p>I agree with pebbles…the feel of both campuses are pretty different, so choose whatever one that you think is a more comfortable environment for you. </p>
<p>I do think that the two-semester Junior Lab at MIT is unique in its thoroughness, and would be useful for an experimentalist to take. Still, I think wherever you feel more comfortable should be your choice.</p>
<p>I’d say MIT edges out Harvard a bit here</p>
<p>I dunno, my degree is in general physics, the research groups I’ve worked with have been in experimental/instrumental astrophysics… I’m not that thrilled about the work I do currently, after I graduate I’m going to make a move toward theory. It’s a weird question, what do you do in physics, to ask an undergrad. I feel hardly qualified to answer that.</p>
<p>^^ Why I’m sorry, for some reason I thought you were a physics graduate student. I’d definitely feel the same way as you did if someone asked me “What is your research interest in math” – while I have narrowed things down to an extent, it’s definitely a ways to go before I get really cozy.</p>
<p>Sorry to ask another thing, but what does it mean to say you’re moving more towards “theory” in physics? If a computer scientist told me this, I would probably understand, because there’s definitely a side that’s not at all “theory,” but physics seems inherently theoretical, hence my question.</p>
<p>Oh, haha, crudely speaking, physics can be categorized into: 1) coming up with crazy-ass ideas, 2) testing to see if these crazy-ass ideas actually turn out to reflect reality, and 3) making it possible for these tests to occur. </p>
<h1>1 are theorists, they don’t make a lot of money or get a lot of funding and they might not come up with anything worth anything in their lifetime, so it’s a riskier road. Also, theorists always give me the impression that they are kind of lonely.</h1>
<h1>2 are the experimentalists (majority of physicists), they test major theories in physics, they get to actually <em>touch</em> physics in a sense, at least I think that is the draw, to see something happen or to prove something exists. This is what differentiates physics from, math or philosophy, say. That no matter, there <em>is</em> a right answer. And many wrong answers, which is also why I sometimes can’t stand philosophy. Anyhow, if you’re a big guy in a lab, you might be a combination (theory & experiment that is). Like professors. On the other hand, if youre an underling, then your role might be bordering on 3)…</h1>
<h1>3 are instrument scientists. They design the optics for the telescopes and the lasers and the god knows what to make the experiment/observations possible. Their role borders on engineering. You’ll work with a lot of engineers here. But the attraction is <em>creating</em>, instead of just observing, kind of like theorists, but with something <em>real</em>, haha.</h1>
<p>Ah, that was helpful. I think I somehow pictured that all of physics was #1, and even that one could verify crazy-ass ideas in theory 
</p>
<p>(Wait, that defeats the whole point of calling it “physics,” not mathematics…I guess this came of looking at a mathematical physics book!) </p>
<p>For instance, those crazy books on dynamical systems, whatever it is they are.</p>