Hello, so I have offers from Rice University in the US and the University of Cambridge in England. My offer from Cambridge is for maths, and I’ll likely major in maths and double major in maths and physics from Rice too.
I’m fairly certain that I want to pursue research in theoretical physics, though I don’t know what exactly under theoretical physics. So I guess I’ll go the traditional route: complete my higher education, PhD, post-doc etc etc and then take up a post at a university and teach alongside my research.
Funding isn’t really an issue, because I’m getting full tuition plus part living cost through scholarships from both institutions.
From what I understand Cambridge’s greatest strengths are the Masters in 4 years rather than the 6 years it would take in the US, intense and exceptionally rigourous programme even by the standards of many of the best institutions across the world, and of course the name.
Rice’s strength I think lies in the amazing opportunities available, and the greater research funding available.
I might of course be very wrong, and please don’t hesitate to correct me if I am. I’d be very grateful if you guys could tell me what you think and help me choose between the two
I thought that after long deliberations and the time and assistance of this forum, you chose Rice over Cornell and committed to Rice. When did Cambridge come into the picture?
People in the know can comment more on this, but if you want to do research in physics, I don’t see how studying purely math can get you there.
In general, I’m a fan of the greater flexibility of American unis and colleges as few 18 year-olds really know what they want to do with their life even if they think they do.
UK Universities don’t allow you to cover areas you are interested in, only what you are expected to major in. American universities allow you usually to take classes in other departments that you are not part of and let you take classes. So if you want to try out both Physics and Math, you are better off going to Rice. If you want to stick to one subject and follow the degree requirements with end of the year exams each year, go to Cambridge.
You can actually do physics as a maths major at Cambridge, although about 90% of the students would rather do pure maths. Maths majors in the UK are held in very high regard and are often targeted by banks and consulting firms.
OP, I would strongly suggest that you pick Cambridge over Rice. I think the Cambridge degree carries more weight than a Rice degree (and I think this is true even in the US). You’ll have better opportunities in getting yourself involved in high-quality research projects at Cambridge too. You’ll have a more respected professors who are the “Who’s Who” in your field. The maths (and STEM) facilities there are top-class. The student body, in my personal opinion, is more sophisticated.
There are a gazillion opportunities that await for Cambridge maths grads. You’d have better access to top employers and you’re more likely to win a scholarship at top grad schools.
And, have you been to Cambridge? If you haven’t been there yet, you should. The place is beyond beautiful and enchanting. You’re most likely going to live in a castle for the next three years of your life. The atmosphere will bring you back to several centuries ago. It would totally be a whole new experience.
@moooop, administrative minutiae may matter a lot. In the UK, changing what you want to study may be difficult/impossible. One question I would ask is how many who read maths at Cambridge later go on to PhD physics programs.
At Cambridge, and most other English universities, theoretical physics is considered to be a branch of applied mathematics rather than a ‘science’ per se. So the Maths course has a minimum of about 1/4th and as much as 3/4th theoretical physics depending on the lectures one chooses. So at Cambridge for a maths degree, I could very well be attending lectures on everything from quantum field theory to relativity to cosmology.
I cannot speak about other British colleges, but Cambridge does allow you to attend lectures that interest you in courses other than your course of study too. It is simply not a requirement, and does not contribute to one’s degree. But students eager to learn something new in another discipline are indeed free to attend any and all the lectures they choose to, subject of course, to space constraints and the permission of the lecturing Professor.
I have indeed been to Cambridge and I did find it beyond beautiful as you say. But a greater concern for me is the education I’ll get rather than the physical beauty and location. I do agree with what you said – I was thinking along the same lines. My only concern was that many people told me that the job market in England is in decline and research opportunities are few and far apart. I wonder if Cambridge is an exception to that or not.
Nearly all Cambridge maths undergraduates go on for masters degrees and about 45% of those go on to PhD programmes. About half of these go into pure mathematics while the other half go into applied maths which is Cambridge speak for theoretical physics.
Once again, I cannot comment on the UK in general but at Cambridge in particular, transferring out of maths into Physics, Economics or Computer Science at the end of the first year is permitted. Physics in particular is considered very normal with about 10% maths undergraduates moving out into the Natural Science tripos every year. The idea is that the Natural Science Tripos in the first year doesn’t let you specialise and requires you to study a number of other sciences too, including Chemistry and Geology, which many don’t want. So we do Mathematical physics in the first year under the maths department and then transfer out into NatSci in the second year, when we can specialise in Physics.
Thank you everyone for your advice. It has indeed been very kind of you to share your views, and try to guide me. I do hope what I have said in the post is accurate, but if it isn’t or if you have more advise you could give me, I’d be very grateful if you could do so.
You can go on to a career in theoretical physics from either university, and frankly, which one you go to isn’t going to matter that much in that regard.
Rice is an excellent research university with a well-regarded program in physics. There are lots of high-quality research opportunities to get yourself involved there, too. How respected your professors are doesn’t matter that much at the undergraduate level, but your Rice professors will still be actively involved in research and some will be well-known in their field. Of course you can also get all of those things at Cambridge, but it’s not like the opportunities will be lacking if you choose Rice.
It’s debatable whether you’d have better access to top employers coming from Cambridge, especially in the U.S. There’s really no reason to believe that you’re more likely to win a fellowship at top graduate schools from Cambridge: any quality PhD program in physics is going to award full funding to any student they admit, and you’re not necessarily more likely to get admitted to a PhD program from Cambridge than you are from Rice. Your undergrad school only matters a little in grad admissions, and the differences in prestige/reputation between Cambridge and Rice are not so great (on the undergrad, admissions level) as to make any significant difference.
Academically speaking, you’ll get an excellent education at either, and will be able to become a theoretical physicist (or whatever you decide) from either. So really the choice should be predicated upon what experience you want, because they are very different experiences.
Cambridge will be far from a traditional American college experience. Your degree studies will be more narrow, focused entirely on math/theoretical physics/That could be good for you if you are super passionate about one thing and unlikely to change. Rice will have more flexibility and more of an American stereotypical experience, but that may not be desirable to you. Rice will also require you to take classes in more areas and get a well-rounded liberal arts education. That may or may not be along the lines of what you want. Locations are different, too. Someone already pointed out what Cambridge is like. Houston is the fourth-largest U.S. city, with lots of scientific opportunities there (given the presence of many science and energy companies, including NASA), and lots of cultural activities and things. IT really all comes down to which one you want.
I am more inclined towards Cambridge. It’s just that I’m not 100% sure and I’m constantly rethinking each decision I make. Maybe its a bit silly, I guess, but I’m just afraid that in the long run, I’ll end up regretting the choice I pick
@juillet Thanks so much for the post. You’ve more or addressed some of my main concerns and have articulated them far better than I would have been able to.
@ciervo
My place at Cambridge is conditional, and Rice knows about this. It works like the waitlist system. Just as if a waitlist comes through, I’m allowed to unenroll, if my Cambridge condition is fulfilled I’m allowed to unenroll.
I have kept both institutions in the loop, and have been frank and honest with both. Since they’re in two separate countries, continents even, it is in fact okay.
It would be very kind of you be a little less accusatory. We’re all honest and decent people here, at least that’s what I’d like to believe, and wouldn’t knowingly do something illegal.
