<p>^^ </p>
<p>But it surely undermines the argument made by Alexandre that LARGE research universities offer the … way to go. Actually, is there a better way to go than one that offers both the necessary resources AND a faculty dedicated to research AND teaching. </p>
<p>Bottom line. There are great schools in both LACs and research universities. And plenty that stink in both categories. The generic LAC versus RU remains the silliest debate on CC.</p>
<p>Better might be adjusted for physics department size.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Correct. I generated that list by querying NSF/webcaspar only for schools in 2 Carnegie classes, “Research I” and “Baccalaureate/Liberal Arts”. Rice falls in the “Research II” Carnegie class. For the same 2007-11 time frame, 19 Rice alumni earned PhDs in physics. After adjusting for institution size (~3800 undergraduates), Rice would fall between Stanford and Cornell. Three other RII universities (Brigham Young, Rensselaer and Notre Dame) would make the size-adjusted top 30. Here’s the list I come up with after adding these 3 “Research II” universities:</p>
<p>California Institute of Technology
Harvey Mudd College
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Swarthmore College
Reed College
Bryn Mawr College
Harvard University
Lawrence University
Williams College
University of Chicago
Haverford College
Princeton University
Carleton College
Stanford University
Rice University
Cornell University, All Campuses
Grinnell College
Rensselear
Vassar College
University of California-Berkeley
Colorado College
Johns Hopkins University
Columbia University in the City of New York
Oberlin College
Brown University
Yale University
Brigham Young
Nottre Dame
Wesleyan University
University of Arizona</p>
<p>In this new list, 13 of the top 30 physics PhD producers are LACs; 15 are private research universities; 2 are public research universities.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Here’s the link to the 100-level Physics listings for Autumn 2013 (so readers can interpret the information for themselves):
[UCB</a> Online Schedule of Classes: Search Results](<a href=“http://osoc.berkeley.edu/OSOC/osoc?p_term=FL&x=62&p_classif=U&p_deptname=Physics&p_presuf=--+Choose+a+Course+Prefix%2FSuffix+--&y=0]UCB”>http://osoc.berkeley.edu/OSOC/osoc?p_term=FL&x=62&p_classif=U&p_deptname=Physics&p_presuf=--+Choose+a+Course+Prefix%2FSuffix+--&y=0)</p>
<p>It is true that many courses include both a lecture and a discussion/lab component. The Berkeley listings break out these components separately. Generally, one and only one instructor is listed for each course/section listing. For the small discussion/lab sections below the 190 level, the sole listed instructor (or “lead”, if you prefer) usually is a grad student. Does the lecturing professor have significant oversight over these sections? Is the professor sometimes an active participant in these sections? Maybe. I think this would be relevant if you wanted to compare the level of student-faculty engagement across universities and LACs. </p>
<p>At any rate, to me, the Berkeley listings (and others I’ve seen) do not appear to support the claim above that even at public universities, Physics classes, past the intro-level classes taken by premeds and Engineering students, will seldom have more than 20 students enrolled, and they will be taught by faculty that are leaders in their respective fields.</p>
<p>The discussion here is in good hands and I won’t muck it up, but I will point out a few things that seem to be missing:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Check out how much opportunity you would get as an undergrad to do research. This is pretty much a given at LACs, at some of the larger schools, this may not be possible until you take some of the upper division classes, or the best research projects are reserved for grad students. The quality of the research projects and your access to them will all vary school by school - you’ll need to be the judge of which one does it best for your purposes.</p></li>
<li><p>Some schools require or allow a senior thesis which might or might not affect your future graduate work. I would think it a good thing for someone looking to do a Ph.D., but YMMV.</p></li>
<li><p>There are various lines of thinking on whether one should switch institutions on the way up the degree ladder or whether you should just stick with one all the way up, but it’s something to consider.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is much harder to calculate.
The difficulty is in gathering consistent department-size numbers. For some majors, one can estimate the number of graduates from the CDS section J distributions. However, the CDS does not break down “degrees conferred” into every major. And even if you can get these numbers, I’m not sure it actually produces a better perspective.</p>
<p>Anyway, I agree w/xiggi’s observation that there are great schools among both LACs and research universities. So far, I’m not seeing any data that make a slam-dunk case that large research universities are the way to go.</p>
<p>This American Institute of Physics report compares physics majors from large vs. small departments in terms of outcomes and satisfaction:
<a href=“http://www.aip.org/statistics/trends/reports/bachplus5c.pdf[/url]”>http://www.aip.org/statistics/trends/reports/bachplus5c.pdf</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, the discussions are intrinsically linked to the lecture, and the faculty member and TA(s) are supposed to coordinate how they run the course. For example, a student enrolled in Physics 105 must enroll in both the lecture (the one listed in blue) and one of the discussions (listed in black). I.e. the student will get 3 hours of class with the faculty member and 1 hour of class with the TA per week in Physics 105. (Also note that the level of interactivity varies from instructor to instructor, whether the class session is listed as a “lecture” or “discussion” in the schedule.)</p>
<p>You may or may not like this classroom model (and that can be a whole different discussion), but you need to understand what it is first.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Also note that most private research universities use this same model for intro-level courses.</p>
<p>I also think it’s a mistake assume UC Berkeley has more favorable class sizes and student-professor ratios than other public universities. My understanding is that in general GSIs do more teaching of undergrads at Berkeley than at Michigan, for example, and Berkeley also has an unusually large number of physics majors. Michigan’s physics department has 70 tenured or tenure-track faculty, and in a typical year it graduates only 20 to 30 physics majors. As a result of this highly favorable student-faculty ratio, all the upper-level undergraduate physics classes are small classes taught by tenured or tenure-track faculty, and advanced students can also take graduate-level classes. Most intro-level classes are taught in the large lecture/small recitation-lab format with professors doing the lectures and GSIs leading most of the recitations and/or labs, but there are separate tracks for pre-med/health science, science/engineering, and non-science majors, and even some of the intro-level classes (e.g., honors and accelerated classes for well-prepared science majors, and some “physics for poets”-type intro classes for non-majors) are smaller classes taught by tenured or tenure-track faculty.</p>
<p>Bottom line: I think it’s a mistake to lump all public universities together, just as it’s a mistake to lump all LACs together. Some LACs have terrific science programs, others are just plain weak in that area. Some public universities have large classes at all levels, others don’t. Some public universities rely more heavily on GSIs for undergraduate instruction than others. You really need to look at the particular school, not the generic category. (FWIW, the OP specifically mentioned Penn State and Ohio State, which have somewhat higher overall student-faculty ratios (17:1 and 19:1 respectively) than UC Berkeley (17:1) or Michigan (16:1); but again, you can’t necessarily infer a lot from that, you need to look at the particular department or program because student-faculty ratios, class sizes, and use of GSIs typically vary widely by department within a large university).</p>
<p>Wisconsin keeps course lists with enrollment. In Physics classes above the various intro level classes last Spring you had class sizes as follows not including ind study-Avg=24. 19 if you remove the two basic int level classes. All upper level classes taught by TT faculty. No TAs.
58
49
16
16
16
26
36
29
6
7
30
10
12
24</p>
<p>Fall 2013 schedule/faculty</p>
<p>[Fall</a> 2013 Undergraduate Courses Reference Page | Department of Physics](<a href=“Physics Course Descriptions – Department of Physics – UW–Madison”>Physics courses, Fall 2013 – Department of Physics – UW–Madison)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[Portal:</a> An error has occured](<a href=“Guide < University of Wisconsin-Madison”>Guide < University of Wisconsin-Madison) lists Wisconsin Physics 322 (Electromagnetic Fields) as having 3 hours of lecture with a faculty member and 1 hour of discussion with a TA per week.</p>
<p>This is also true of Physics 311 (Mechanics), but not 415 (Thermal Physics) and 448 (Atomic and Quantum Physics), which just have 3 hours of lecture with a faculty member.</p>
<p>Meaning no TA as main lecturer. Discussion is a bonus.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is pretty standard everywhere, except possibly for beginning foreign language and English composition courses.</p>
<p>Note that LAC profs are hired primarily for their teaching ability, Big U profs primarily for their research. Dunno which is more important.</p>
<p>Depends entirely on the kind of LAC. At the top LACs like Swarthmore and Amherst, professors are hired just as much for their research as they are for their teaching, and they teach a 2/2 load just like professors at research-intensive universities. The difference is that LAC professors are also hired specifically for their passion in working with undergraduates and mentoring undergraduates in research. It really depends on what level of LAC we’re talking about. Also, at some LACs professors collaborate with professors at nearby universities, so even though you’re going to a small college you’re using big university resources. I know a biology professor who used to be at Haverford who pooled resources with researchers at nearby Penn to use an expensive piece of equipment she needed, and through that collaboration her undergraduates got exposure to using the expensive piece of equipment.</p>
<p>BUT that’s not to say that R1 professors don’t like that, too. It really depends entirely on the school and professor. There are some research universities that are noted for their undergraduate mentoring and teaching, like Princeton and Rice.</p>
<p>The “standards” might be pretty universal for the model of lecturer plus TA/GSI, but the devil is in the details. There is a potential world of difference in the role of the TAs, and this depends on the involvement of the main instructor. At places where the TA is not only leading the discussions, but also responsible for the curriculum DETAILS that include the nature and scope of assignments AND grading, one has to realize that the TA is ultimately responsible for the progress or lack thereof of the students. It is also not unusual for TAs to place their “signature” on assignments that could be in a total departure from the lectures given by the academic superstars and divas. </p>
<p>When in comes to grading, there are also differences between paint-by-the-numbers grading (think STEM) and subjects that require research and writing. Not all TAs are equipped, educated, or trained to adequately grade research or term papers, and especially when having spent just a few months in the United States as a graduate students. </p>
<p>The model is indeed universal, but it is good to remember that this model was created for the benefits of the instructors by lowering the teaching duties, and hardly for the benefit of the students. This is especially true when the burden of the REAL instruction flips to the review sessions and TA sessions.</p>
<p>I think the claim at issue here was made back in post #6:</p>
<p>Even at public universities, Physics classes, past the intro-level classes taken by premeds and Engineering students, will seldom have more than 20 students enrolled, and they will be taught by faculty that are leaders in their respective fields.</p>
<p>This statement suggests to me that distinguished professors are closely engaged with small groups of students (guiding discussions and labs, commenting on papers). As far as I’m concerned, “no TA as main lecturer” doesn’t cut it. Not if it means the professor’s main interaction with undergrads is in a 70-student lecture (Wisconsin/Physics 235), an 85-student lecture (Wisconsin/Physics 307), a 38-student lecture (Wisconsin/Physics 311), a 42-student lecture (Wisconsin/Physics 322), a 40-student lecture (Wisconsin/Physics 415), or a 34-student lecture (Wisconsin/Physics 525). The smaller lab/discussion sections for these classes are taught by TAs. Or at least, the name that shows up on the section listing is a TA’s name (example: [TA</a> for Physics 249 and 322](<a href=“Portal: An error has occured”>Portal: An error has occured)). </p>
<p>To me, discussion (or guided lab work) is not merely a bonus. It should be the heart and sole of the class, the part that really distinguishes it from passively listening to an oral presentation of material that (minus a little Q&A) could just as well be captured in a textbook or online course.</p>
<p>A lot of this is how you feel in the environment. As a parent, I would have liked LACs for my kids,as I feel that there is just more of a closeness among the university community, more comradery overall to aeveryone. For those who need a litle extra help, I think an LAC makes such help more accessible. Not as much bureaucracy. Easier to make ones self home and get to know what’s there.</p>
<p>307 is a lab only class for 2 credits. There is no lecture and with 7 lab sections none is much larger than 12. Not bad. </p>
<p>As far as I am concerned having TAs for small labs or discussions is fine. </p>
<p>I don’t find classes in those sizes very large when you get profs with a CV like this and for every one in the 30-40 range there is another under 20. With different classes nearly every term you get lots of choices and depth.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.physics.wisc.edu/sites/physics/files/meriksson-cv.pdf[/url]”>http://www.physics.wisc.edu/sites/physics/files/meriksson-cv.pdf</a></p>
<p><a href=“http://home.physics.wisc.edu/~himpsel/biogr.html[/url]”>http://home.physics.wisc.edu/~himpsel/biogr.html</a></p>
<p>For the sake of conversation, the schools I’m looking at are in Pennsylvania and Ohio. Pitt, Penn State, and Marietta College as my LAC. My scores aren’t good enough to get into Swarthmore or I’d definitely be going there</p>
<p>Marietta’s physics degree program appears fairly orthodox, if you take the courses listed for those planning to attend graduate school in physics:
[Marietta</a> College ? Physics Degrees.php](<a href=“http://www.marietta.edu/departments/Physics/degrees/physics_degrees.php?degree=physics_major]Marietta”>http://www.marietta.edu/departments/Physics/degrees/physics_degrees.php?degree=physics_major)</p>
<p>However, browsing the schedules indicates that the department is small, with the usual upper division sequences (Classical Mechanics I - II, Quantum Mechanics I - II, Electricity and Magnetism I - II) offered only every other year starting in the fall. Thermodynamics and Statistical Mechanics was last offered in Spring 2012 and does not appear in the Spring 2014 catalog.</p>
<p>The upper division class sizes are very small, with 3 to 7 students. But that probably means that only about 3 to 4 students graduate as physics majors per year (since 7 students in courses offered every two years is split over two graduating classes).</p>
<p>[Marietta</a> College ? Academic Schedule](<a href=“http://www.marietta.edu/Academics/academic_schedule/index.html]Marietta”>Academic Schedule and Course Listings | Marietta College)</p>
<p>While the small number of physics majors means quite a bit of personal attention from the faculty, some might consider 3 to 4 students in the major per year to be too small. If you consider this to be too small, perhaps you may want to look for other LACs or smaller schools with a somewhat larger number of physics majors, but not too large if you do not want the huge university feel.</p>