<p>Would someone list the top schools for each major? I'm anticipating to trible major (or double) in these courses. I don't want to judge my school according to rank, etc., because I know whereever I may end up in college/univ., I will always pursue my desire and passion for these subject. Thus, I want decent, quality education with an emphazies on rigourous courseloads.</p>
<p>EDIT: I'm not considering med. school, but rather looking forward to research and ph.d.</p>
<p>The usefulness of double/triple majors seems dubious. Might want to try a biochem program and then get a masters or phd in physics after you graduate (since you are interested in research anyway).</p>
<p>I would think that MIT and Caltech are near the top for those fields. Especially chemistry and physics. And if you try to triple major there I suspect you wouldn't have any social life whatsoever.</p>
<p>Hmmm...same with double major, or maybe even just single major lol</p>
<p>jk sort of</p>
<p>I would say try biochem or biophysics. Its pretty foolish to try to triple major in anything, let alone hard sciences. Most top schools will give you a good education in each.</p>
<p>Maybe you want to look at Integrated Science Program (ISP) at Northwestern? ;)</p>
<p><a href="http://www.isp.northwestern.edu/%5B/url%5D">http://www.isp.northwestern.edu/</a>
<a href="http://www.ugadm.northwestern.edu/pdf/wcas/ISP.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://www.ugadm.northwestern.edu/pdf/wcas/ISP.pdf</a></p>
<p>NU's chemistry program is in the top 10.</p>
<p>I recommend Harvey Mudd.</p>
<p>Harvard is pretty good at physics, chemistry, and biology. So are Stanford and Berkeley.</p>
<p>I would recommend Reed as has been mentioned before, except for the triple major part- there is no way you could triple major at Reed.
There are grads in bio chem however & they have the only nuclear reactor in the country staffed by undergrads for physics
I would also concur with the other recommendations</p>
<p>HPSMC (I'm not sure about Yale) are all very good in the sciences.
Berkeley as well.</p>
<p>What would be wiser:</p>
<ol>
<li>Stay at extra year for receive BS (5 yrs total) and triple major, take classes during summer and research throughout my whole college years. Next, I would apply to graduate school. </li>
</ol>
<p>or</p>
<ol>
<li>At least double major, receive bachelor's degree, proceed to graduate school for masters and Ph.D. (considering that I will be do research and enroll for summer courses throughout my college years as well)</li>
</ol>
<p>I woudn't really mind to stay a extra year in college, since it would expand my scope of knowledge to do better research and understand science from different prospectives. Would you have other suggestions?</p>
<p>I would recommend option #3 - which is to just do a single major, and take that extra time you would have spent in getting another major, and instead using it to do more undergrad research, i.e. actually trying to get something published in major journal. </p>
<p>Instead of spending an extra year in college getting a double major, I would just take a job doing something science-related for a year. Either that, or get a master's degree in that year. </p>
<p>The truth is, the return-on-investment on getting multiple majors is pretty low. Most people who go on to getting their Phd's do not have multiple majors. And after you get a graduate degree (master's or PhD), nobody is really going to care what you did in undergrad anyway.</p>
<p>I really like what Sakky said. Why do you want to triple major? Why don’t you just study biochem or biophysics?</p>
<p>there is no need to major in all 3. you can major and double minor, or double major and minor in one. if you want to do research, what type? if medical i would major in biochem and minor in physics. have you done serious research? if not then try physics research one semester, chem the next, and bio the next. see what you like best by the end of soph year and major in it and take lots of classes in the other two. some schools offer biophysics, so try majoring in that. i honestly cannot see why you want to tripple major. i would like to major in one of these sciences too, but two or three seems overkill. </p>
<p>to answer your question, any top university (even yale) will have a very good science program. MIT will have almost the best internships for undergrads tho. if you do want to tripple major i think MIT's curve will be too intense for your heavy courseload.</p>
<p>Thanks for the infor</p>
<p>Biophysics and Biochem. is not available in the liberal arts college (Augustana college in sioux falls to me more specific) I anticipate to attend. However, I believe I would be able to finish a double major and minor, considering that a girl last year quattropoled majored at Augustana.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.isp.northwestern.edu/alumni/pdf/ISP_Newsletter_2005.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://www.isp.northwestern.edu/alumni/pdf/ISP_Newsletter_2005.pdf</a> has brief biographies of the 2005 ISP graduates. Most them had carried out independent research with their journal articles being published. I think this program is one of the best out there for people with diverse interest in sciences and you will be exposed to diffrent areas of sciences without staying extra years. In fact, ISP is supposed to be just a 3-yr program! But many ISP students do double major:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Although listed in a three-year format, many students spread the program over four years, often to combine an ISP major with a second major in a more traditional (i.e., Chemistry, Mathematics, Physics) department. Double majors in other areas such as economics are possible as well.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But the program is pretty rigorous and quantitative. I think you need to be pretty good not only in sciences but also math.</p>
<p>
if you do want to tripple major i think MIT's curve will be too intense for your heavy courseload.
You actually can't triple at MIT -- it's not allowed.</p>
<p>But about 20% of MIT students (including me) double-major -- although, as sakky said above, the return on a double isn't as great as the work you're putting into it.</p>
<p>And for the OP, graduate students in the sciences rarely get master's degrees -- most people apply to PhD programs with only a bachelor's, either straight out of college or after a few years doing technical work in a lab.</p>
<p>
[quote]
However, I believe I would be able to finish a double major and minor, considering that a girl last year quattropoled majored at Augustana.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, I hope that you're not pursuing multiple majors just because somebody else did. There will ALWAYS be somebody who has more degrees than you do. There are people who get dual-PhD's. I think one person I know might even go for a 3rd PhD. The question that it always elicits from me is - why?</p>
<p>If you really intend to get a Phd, it ought to be because you actually have a genuine interest in research to make a contribution to science And the fact is, you're not really making a contribution by just collecting more majors or more degrees. You make contributions to science by actually conducting more research and publishing more papers. That is how science is advanced. Not by collecting degrees. This is not like the trinkets you as a kid may have gotten in cereal boxes where the object was to "collect all 3". This is not a game here. If you really want to contribute to science, then good, then you should do that by publishing something powerful.</p>
<p>You don't have to actually major in something to learn it. Self-study is a tremendously powerful tool. You really can learn most things on your own time just by reading the book. Look, if you are going to get your PhD, as it sounds like you will, then you are going to be expected as a doctoral candidate to pick up knowledge in areas that you know nothing about. I know one Econ PhD student who discovered that her research was taking her into deeply political issues. So she responded by basically spending an entire summer reading a slew of advanced political science books and journal articles. I suspect that she knows more about poli-sci than a lot of people who actually majored in poli-sci. Self-study is a powerful tool.</p>
<p>"If you really intend to get a Phd, it ought to be because you actually have a genuine interest in research to make a contribution to science And the fact is, you're not really making a contribution by just collecting more majors or more degrees. You make contributions to science by actually conducting more research and publishing more papers. That is how science is advanced. Not by collecting degrees. This is not like the trinkets you as a kid may have gotten in cereal boxes where the object was to "collect all 3". This is not a game here. If you really want to contribute to science, then good, then you should do that by publishing something powerful."</p>
<p>Yes, I would totally agree with you that having multiple degrees doesn't necessary prove genius (rather prestige, which I have mentioned earlier, is irrelavent to me), and don't understand me wrong here, I'm not doing this because someone else is, I'm trying to explore and learn in depth each of the three branches of science. Though I had physics, biology, and chemistry in HS, I find all three studies vital and meaningful to me. Thus, it's up to me to discover myself in college and evaluate what I'm likely to pursue in graduate school. During summer 2006, I went to the chemistry department to meet the professor. He showed me around the machines, and previous student publications. I'm starting freshman year this fall and research will be my fundamentally priority throughout the year and the summer. Thus, I definitely uphel your statement mentioned above, since genius isn't created through degrees or even the prestige of a school, but rather through hard work, motivation, and curiosity to understand the world.</p>
<p>"You don't have to actually major in something to learn it. Self-study is a tremendously powerful tool. You really can learn most things on your own time just by reading the book. Look, if you are going to get your PhD, as it sounds like you will, then you are going to be expected as a doctoral candidate to pick up knowledge in areas that you know nothing about. I know one Econ PhD student who discovered that her research was taking her into deeply political issues. So she responded by basically spending an entire summer reading a slew of advanced political science books and journal articles. I suspect that she knows more about poli-sci than a lot of people who actually majored in poli-sci. Self-study is a powerful tool."</p>
<p>Again, I would agree about the importance of self study. Not only does it allow one to learn more, develop greater discipline, and establish efficient study skills, but allows one enjoy the subject, and pursue to learn more. To tell you the truth, self studying AP Biology textbook, and reading non-assigned chemistry and physics chapters is actually what sparked my interest in this field. In other words, one can't emphazies enough to how impotant self study is, since allows one to find a passion.</p>
<p>EDIT: Two PH.Ds? That's insane.</p>