<p>How does Duke's physics department compare with schools like Reed, the University of Chicago, and Cornell? Do most of their student's continue their studies at top grad schools?</p>
<p>To be honest, it’s not a very highly ranked program. It’s probably better than Reed, but UChicago and Cornell are definitely better.</p>
<p>However, those rankings are more concerned with grad school. Since Duke, doesn’t have too many physics majors, the professors are very available, and research opportunities are easy to find. We do have a particle accelerator, albeit a pretty small one. So you won’t have any Nobel prize winners teaching you, but you will have a lot of resources at your disposal, which I think is more important as an undergraduate.</p>
<p>There are about 3-5 physics majors per year I think</p>
<p>“It’s probably better than Reed, but UChicago and Cornell are definitely better.”</p>
<p>Why probably better than Reed? Where does that come from?</p>
<p>
First posted by interesteddad, I added bold.</p>
<p>I was simply going on graduate program rankings. Reed doesn’t have one. However, in the rest of my post, I do mention that graduate programs aren’t necessarily a good indication of undergraduate strength. I concede that your data might be better.</p>
<p>I see. There are only a few schools where the undergrad-to-grad school stats match the prestige of their respective grad school in all disciplines offered: CalTech, MIT, UChicago and Yale (of the top ten; the other six don’t have grad schools). On a per discipline basis the results are different, with physics given above. This is most significant for careers in academia and/or research, which doesn’t apply to most college students.</p>
<p>So I guess this table means that New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology is a better place to study Physics than Stanford.</p>
<p>And if it doesn’t mean that, then it doesn’t mean anything pertinent to this thread.</p>
<p>If you want to see which schools are “better”, in a discipline look at factors such as: the breadth & depth of course offerings in that discipline and related subjects,number and credentials of faculty, and the nature of undergraduate research opportunities , if you want that. And if you want to look at Phds, look at the total # future phds produced, not the %. Otherwise, as in the Stanford case, you are penalizing schools based on having a diverse student body, which in and of itself says nothing about its actual offerings in Physics to interested students. </p>
<p>Just because Stanford has many students interested in careers other than graduate teaching in Physics does not mean that its (many, by the way, actually more no doubt) students who want that career don’t have more resources there behind them than those at New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology.</p>
<p>“So I guess this table means that New Mexico School of Mining is a better place to study Physics than Stanford.”</p>
<p>No, that’s a stretch; there are too many other factors. It just shows the schools that are good at undergrad preparation for a PhD in physics, and the campuses where physics is a relatively significant major. But I do disagree about percentage not being significant. For a HS student who knows she wants to eventually earn a PhD in physics, it seems better to attend a school where 10% of all undergrads do so (CalTech), than where 0.2% do so (Duke), even if Duke had a higher total (due to size, if it were so, which it’s not). Stanford may have a superb physics department, but there is no data to support its excellence at PhD preparation, a common goal in this discipline.</p>
<p>The PhD lists aren’t meant to be a ranking, just a means of identification. I do trot them out when someone makes a claim not supported by any statistics, but we have to consider their limits.</p>
<p>“Stanford may have a superb physics department, but there is no data to support its excellence at PhD preparation,”</p>
<p>I’m sure there is, actually: the total Phd number. If 6 zillion people have gone on from a Stanford BA to get a PhD in Physics, that’s a pretty darned good indication that people with that objective can get appropriate training towards that goal there. Even if lots of other students at Stanford choose to study humanities, or become doctors, lawyers,engineers, etc. instead and do not choose to pursue Physics Ph D.</p>
<p>What you’re trying to do could only make any kind of sense if the demoninator was something like the number of students at each school who actually wanted to get a PhD in Physics, and were intellectually capable of it. A denominator consisting of every warm body enrolled in the entire university, regardless of what they’re doing there, is completely meaningless.</p>
<p>Maybe Duke is actually better than Reed for physics. Because those 5 students are offered more course selection in physics and related fields, have better, more major research projects if they want to do them, and the students that want to are getting into better PhD programs. Even though many of their fellow students are chasing I Bank employment, whereas this option is largely unavailable to Reed students.</p>
<p>Your table would not address this, if it was in fact the case. Which for all I know it could well be.</p>
<p>Go back to the HS student. She sees (I’ll make this up) 10 future physics PhDs for every 100 undergrads at CalTech, and 20 for every 2000 at Duke. Even though there are twice as many at Duke, her chances of CalTech doing the job for her are ten times those of Duke. Plus, at CalTech she’d be on a campus with far greater emphasis on physics. But this applies only because she is singular in her goal, a future PhD in physics.</p>
<p>"…her chances of CalTech doing the job for her are ten times those of Duke. "</p>
<p>The data does not mean that, in any measure. You can only tell who its doing the job for, as a percentage basis, by using as a denominator how many individuals there wanted that job done. Otherwise, if you won’t use an appropriate denominator you need to just use the gross number of phds, not a percentage.</p>
<p>Reed may be worse, if hypothetically 13% got PhDs, but 18% actually wanted to. Whereas at duke maybe that 2% is everybody who wanted to. Plus maybe those individuals at duke were actually better trained in their efforts and got into better grad programs. And , in fact that 2% at Duke might represent as many or more individuals.</p>
<p>It does indicate homogeneity of the student body, I’ll grant you that. But not everyone who wants a Phd also wants a highly homogeneous cohort of fellow students, as a totality. Probably more people would want a sufficient-sized critical mass of like-minded students, but not necessarily everyone at the whole university. Actually, their “like-minded” cohort group might turn out to be larger at the large school with 2% than at the teeny shool with 13%. </p>
<p>Some people probably do prefer pure uniformity, and the charts can be useful to look at that. But that is not the context in which these charts keep getting trotted out. They are trotted out to imply that the least diverse school is somehow 'better", when, often, in reality it ranks so highly on this measure simply because it does not offer so much else, comparatively speaking.</p>
<p>My guess is: not many lawyers & I bankers churned out at New Mexico Mining Institute. Is it therefore better for Physics than stanford, because of that? I don’t think so.</p>
<p>Yes, my comments assumed everything else is equal, and I should have said so. :(<br>
“Maybe” would keep us going for hours! :)</p>
<p>“There are about 3-5 physics majors per year I think” - is that a serious comment? Basically, there are two main factors (in no particular order) by which I’m judging the schools:</p>
<p>1) How good of a physics education they offer
a) How many courses do they have that interest me (do they have adv. grad courses)
b) How accessible are the professors (are they only interested in grad students?)
c) How “good” the professors are - both their teaching skills & knowledge
d) Do the professors really love teaching, or are they solely interested in research</p>
<p>2) How good is the school at preparing students to get into and succeed in grad school?
a) Recommendations are vital - (what kind of connections are there?)
b) ^ Do they offer advanced courses ^
c) How is the program/department viewed by grad schools?</p>
<p>why would that not be a serious comment? I just talked to my physics major friend and he says there are about 7 physics majors a year…so I guess I underestimated the number a little. But it’s still a small department in terms of the number of undergrad majors (not counting minors and people who take physics courses because of requirements, etc). </p>
<p>As for the availability of advanced courses. I’m always talking with my friend about the grad physics classes he’s taking so it’s a fair assumption that those classes are not only available but also open to undergrads. Other than that…ummm I’m not a physics major so I can’t really comment.</p>
<p>He’s being somewhat serious. My roommate was a physics major. The intro class for majors starts with 30 people. I presume it drops to around maybe 10 by senior year. Yes, graduate classes are open to undergraduates. Anyway, the small department size could work to your advantage. They’re almost as many professors as majors, which should give you an opportunity to get to know them. They tend to be excited about the rare physics major. You should also find ample research opportunities.</p>
<p>Anyway, if you’re absolutely dead-set on physics, and there is no other major for you, you should be at UChicago unless you find their social environment unbearable. Socially, I feel that Duke has something for everyone, while I have not heard the same about UChicago.</p>
<p>My number is based on the number of students who actually declare for the physics major at the end of the sophomore year. In the class of 2010 (which includes both of my physics major friends) he said there are 7 people. So I guess the attrition rate is around 75% based on above numbers. </p>
<p>Anyways, small departments do work to your advantage in some ways because there are about 2 professors per student (raw numbers) so plenty of opportunities. But I agree with PPham27, if it’s physics you are set on, UChicago might be better.</p>
<p>Why not CalTech for those absolutely dead-set on physics?</p>
<p>Because the OP didn’t mention CalTech. So I assumed that he’s not really looking at it or that it’s not one of the choices available.</p>
<p>Sorry, I need to pay better attention. :(</p>