<p>I've read some discussion about physics at Cornell and Columbia and I think the general concensus is Cornell is a bit better, but there's no reason not to go to Columbia if you want the Core Curriculum and to live in NYC. What if University of Chicago is one of your other choices for physics? How would you rank between Chicago, Cornell and Columbia? He'll be visiting Cornell and Columbia next week and Chicago later in the month. </p>
<p>Cost-wise, for us, Columbia and Chicago are the same. We're still waiting on Cornell's financial aid letter but I haven't been encouraged by what I've read here at CC (everybody pretty much saying Cornell is the worst offer). The cost of Columbia and Chicago are a stretch for us and we couldn't pay much more to attend Cornell (if, in fact, they offer a higher out-of-pocket cost to us)</p>
<p>Some info I dug up off the university web pages:</p>
<p>Columbia:40 faculty (their term, I assume it means professors), 20 undergrads, 100 grad students
Cornell: 47 professors, 200 graduate students, ??? undergrads
Chicago: couldn't find any numbers</p>
<p>faculty means assistant professors, associate professors, and full professors. again, "better" is such a nebulous term. they're all good, cornell probably has a more established research team. uchicago is one of the most highly regarded in physics research (in the country). undergrad teaching and opportunities are a bit different though. student:faculty ratios are important because they play into house easy it is for a student to get research at the school, as well as how easy it is for students to get to know their profs. the majority of columbia undergrads in physics are mind-bogglingly smart, and it would certainly be great to work with them in tandem with the physics faculty members. as cliche as it sounds, students tend to learn a lot from each other as well as from the classroom, at least in terms of homework study groups (which are key for learning physics), casual lunch conversations, etc. however, the same (or at least comparable) assessment can apply to cornell and chicago as well.</p>
<p>My advice would be for him just to choose which school feels like the place where he would like to spend four years. Chicago and Cornell may rank higher by a notch or two, but I don't think there are enough differences in the departments to make the decision based on physics alone. Besides, many a kid who heads off planning to major in physics ends up in something else. (Including my own, though he may do a physics concentration while majoring in something else.) He could certainly go to a top PhD program from any of these three schools. </p>
<p>There are enough active researchers at Columbia to give students research opportunities if they want, and there are few enough undergraduate majors in physics to get personal contact with profs if the student seeks it. It's up to the student to take the initiative, but I believe that would be true at all three universities.</p>
<p>Columbia and Chicago both have a core curriculum, of course, and are urban schools. So they would seem alike. But my son found them very different when he visited and stayed overnight at both. I'd suggest your son do overnight visits if he can, and then make his decision. Good luck.</p>
<p>Sac makes a great point. As an undergrad, you're buying the university, not the department. In a PhD program, you're "stuck" in one department for the next 4-8 years of your life. In undergrad, the choice involves much more than subtle details about what you think you might want to major in.</p>
<p>The important thing is to find a school that offers a great overall education (all of these schools) and is somewhere where your kid will be happy at (socially, city vs. rural, core vs. no core). You might think twice about sending your kid to a school that is clearly weak in a department that strongly interests him, but that is clearly not the case here. All three of these schools are solid physics schools and his opportunities will be identical coming out of any of those three.</p>