<p>Harvard University
Princeton University
Massachusetts Inst of Technology
University of California-Berkeley
California Institute Technology
Cornell University
University of Chicago
U of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Stanford University
Univ of California-Santa Barbara
University of Texas at Austin
Columbia University
Yale University
University of Washington
Univ of California-Los Angeles
Univ of California-San Diego
University of Pennsylvania
University of Maryland College Park
University of Michigan
Rutgers State Univ-New Brunswick
University of Wisconsin-Madison
State U of New York-Stony Brook
University of Minnesota
Ohio State University
University of Rochester a
Brown University
University of Rochester
Carnegie Mellon University
Johns Hopkins University
Purdue University
Michigan State University
University of California-Irvine
Indiana University
CUNY - Grad Sch & Univ Center
University of Florida
Northwestern University
University of Colorado
Boston University
University of Pittsburgh
Duke University
Florida State University
Rice University
Brandeis University
University of Arizona
University of Virginia
Texas A&M University
Univ of California-Santa Cruz
Iowa State University
University of Southern California
North Carolina State University
Washington University
New York University
U of North Carolina-Chapel Hill
Pennsylvania State University
University of Notre Dame
Syracuse University
Vanderbilt University
University of Utah
University of Oregon
University of Houston
Georgia Institute of Technology
College of William & Mary
U of Massachusetts at Amherst
Case Western Reserve Univ
Northeastern University
University of California-Davis
Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst
Univ of California-Riverside
Arizona State University
Virginia Polytech Inst & State U
University of Tennessee-Knoxville
University of Iowa
University of Delaware
University of Georgia
Oregon State University
Tufts University
Kent State University
Louisiana State U & A&M College
University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Drexel University
University of Hawaii at Manoa
Dartmouth College
Ohio University
University of South Carolina
State Univ of New York-Albany
Illinois Institute of Technology
University of Illinois at Chicago
University of Alaska
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
University of Kentucky
University of Texas at Dallas
University of Kansas
Temple University
University of Oklahoma
University of New Hampshire
University of Akron
Lehigh University
University of Missouri-Columbia
Catholic University of America
University of Connecticut
Kansas State University
University of Cincinnati
Colorado State University
University of North Texas
Montana State University
Colorado School of Mines
State Univ of New York-Buffalo
Stevens Inst of Technology
Brigham Young University
New Mexico State University
University of Maine
Clarkson University
University of Alabama-Huntsville
Tulane University
Univ of Arkansas-Fayetteville
University of Texas at Arlington
Washington State University
Texas Tech University
University of Alabama
Oklahoma State University
University of Miami
American University
University of Missouri-Rolla
University of Mass-Lowell
Polytechnic University
University of Alabama-Birmingham
Auburn University
University of Rhode Island
Clark University
Boston College
Old Dominion University
University of Denver
Oakland University
Howard University
New Mexico Inst of Mining & Tech
Bryn Mawr College
Worcester Polytechnic Inst
Michigan Technological University
George Washington University
University of Mississippi
University of Nevada, Reno
Oregon Graduate Inst Sci & Tech
Univ of Puerto Rico-Rio Piedras
Baylor University
Texas Christian University
Florida Institute of Technology</p>
<p>pateta00, that's an odd list. Four of the top-ten future physics PhD-producing schools aren't there: Mudd, Reed, Carleton, Marlboro. Maybe the list is out of date.</p>
<p>
[quote]
But: when all the other student-accessible reactors are NOT accessible to undergraduates, perhaps it means something when one is.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Another Reed fan here. D (undeclared first-year student, likely Math) is qualifying to operate the "Reaktor," and finds it rewarding. Operators put in many hours to stay current, for no $$ and no credit, but that's a Reedie thing.</p>
<p>grayza:</p>
<p>Thanks for the information. Greatly appreciated!</p>
<p>"pateta00, that's an odd list. Four of the top-ten future physics PhD-producing schools aren't there: Mudd, Reed, Carleton, Marlboro. Maybe the list is out of date."
so what if those schools produce a lot physics phd?? , i hope you are no trying to compare those schools to stanford princeton , MIT , Harvard , u of chicago, cornell.....</p>
<p>
[quote]
i hope you are no trying to compare those schools to stanford princeton , MIT , Harvard , u of chicago, cornell.....
[/quote]
Indeed I am. The OP asked about undergraduate programs. Many confuse this issue. Of the schools you name, Princeton, MIT and U Chicago are tops at both undergrad and graduate levels, but some schools with top graduate programs don't do as good a job of preparing undergrads as do some lesser-known schools. Especially in a field like physics, undergrad PhD preparation is a significant measure.</p>
<p>There are lots of problems with using the Weighted Baccalaureate Origins Study as a way of ranking programs.</p>
<p>a) The ranking is based on the % of graduates who get a PhD in the given field- so taking a given physics program, faculty and students combined, and then changing the student body by adding eg premeds or prelaw students lowers the ranking. </p>
<p>b)There is no correction for the quality of the PhD program, or for the new PhD's subsequent placement.</p>
<p>c) The "physics PhD" score gives weight 0 to students who get PhD's in biophysics, computational neuroscience, and other fields where a good physics background is important.</p>
<p>If one hopes to go to a top physics grad school, it would be nice to know what percentage of the school's physics majors were admitted to top programs, or even better, what percentage could have been admitted if they had applied.</p>
<p>While the larger schools have larger depts- more funding for research- and more big names- in general big names are there to attract more funding for research ;)
The top profs that I know personally- ( and actually I know several from Ds years in private schools- its interesting that of the university profs with their kids in private- they were almost always in the sciences)-
don't teach undergrad, in fact they do much of their work with post-docs.
actually- the UW profs were always in the sciences- although a local playwright who taught at a community college also had her D in the same schools</p>
<p>I'm not embarrassed to be a big LAC booster- not just for my kids, but for lots of kids who might not consider an LAC because they don't have a comparable "name" to a well known national University.</p>
<p>But the profs at an LAC are there * because they want to teach undergraduates*. They aren't there to do research and BTW, * " you need to teach another 4 credits this semester*".</p>
<p>Another thing for parents to keep in mind- because kids don't always.
They are still young and while academics in and out of the classroom are very important ( duh!)- the environment isn't just the academics.</p>
<p>"Indeed I am. The OP asked about undergraduate programs. Many confuse this issue. Of the schools you name, Princeton, MIT and U Chicago are tops at both undergrad and graduate levels, but some schools with top graduate programs don't do as good a job of preparing undergrads as do some lesser-known schools. Especially in a field like physics, undergrad PhD preparation is a significant measure." look vossron the OP asked for the top physics program that's what i gave. Now even for undergrad from your list O-N-L-Y Mudd get closer to the top 20 schools.
"Four of the top-ten future physics PhD-producing schools aren't there: Mudd, Reed, Carleton, Marlboro Maybe the list is out of date" quantity is not necessarily = quality.
You wanna compare Reed, Carleton, Marlboro to the top 20 best university for physcis be my guest... i would really like to see that.</p>
<p>good LAC's can be a good match for many students, I wasn't speaking against that, but against the idea that they were better "for undergraduate physics" for some unspecified student than Harvard, MIT,.or Princeton simply because a higher percentage of the LAC's graduates get physics PhD.'s.
As to senior faculty teaching undergrads, I don't know anything about physics at UW, but I know that senior faculty teach a number of undergrad physics classes at Harvard, and MIT, and I'd guess that the same is true at MIT and Princeton. And at Columbia Brian Greene teaches a year-long undergrad class with 15-20 students.</p>
<p>The OP asked: "Which universities have the best undergraduate programs in physics?" (emphsis added)</p>
<p>Anyone, please post objective data (other than HEDS) which provide guidance.</p>
<p>look i'm not gonna argue with you.If you really think that those schools i've listed are not good for undergrad. you shouldn't be posting anything on this threat.
second if you think Reed for exemple offers a better undergrad. than u chicago for exemple you should consider doing a little bit of research ..it won't take long to realised you HAVE NO CLUE WHAT YOU TALKING ABOUT.</p>
<p>I wouldn't argue that specific schools( universities) do a lesser job than ( specific) LACs-
However as a group- lacs focus on undergraduate education- which was what the original post asked about.</p>
<p>My daughter stayed at Chicago- she liked Portland better although several of her friends ( quite a few actually) did attend Chicago for undergrad in sciences.
Have they notified you yet? You seem a little testy ;)</p>
<p>In re post #50, The Harvard Physics Dept lists a number of highly regarded faculty teaching undergraduates. Roy Grauber (Nobel prize) teaches a freshman seminar; Lene Hau (who made light stop) teaches Quantum mechanics; Howarg Georgi, the Master of Leverett House, teaches Physics 16 (theme of Les Phys by a former Physics undergraduate concentrator), and many more, in fact, rather too numerous to mention.</p>
<p>Have not applied yet - will apply next year for Sept 08. Current list includes MIT. Princeton, Chicago and Rice. Williams & Stanford are possibilities as well.</p>
<p>my last post:
I just wanna give the op a last advice: you should consider a top research university since you are interested on the hard science. those schools offers a lot of research oportunities for undergrad and having world known professors might help you if you thinking about grad school.I personally don't belive that there is a significant difference among the quality of the undergrad and grad programs on top research school(UCLA BERKELEY WISCONSIN,STANFORD ,HARVARD ,CORNELL , UCSD.....). but if you do prefer a college....HMC, Pomona ,claremont.. are the ones that is known to be strong on hard sciences.</p>
<p>Missed this thread or I would have posted earlier, this thread needs advice from a physics major. ;)</p>
<p>As others have voiced here, the key to a good undergrad program is not mistaking it for the graduate program- a lot of schools have grad programs which aren't as good as their undergrad ones by far. I attend Case Western Reserve University, for example, and while our grad program's none too famous our undergrad one is considered the best lab experience in the country. A good indicator is to find out how active undergrads are in research at the school you're considering- if there are a lot of opportunities, particularly at research institutions, they probably care a lot about the undergrads.</p>
<p>Oh, and to derail the thread some more, I have to give a little shout-out against string theory. There's nothing wrong with studying it, of course, but after so many years with lack of evidence for the theory (we're going on 20+ years), nor of any proof that it might be forthcoming, I believe it might be better suited for the math department. I also worry that as of late you have had a lot of circumstances where people are cutting out other branches of physics in favor of string theory, which is certainly something you should never do!</p>
<p>Pateta, there's no reason to be insulting. The poster asked about undergraduate physics programs. We don't know his/her qualifications, and therefore it's appropriate to recommend a wide range of schools. Not everyone can get into UChicago or MIT.</p>
<p>Reed in fact has many of its graduates in scientific fields go on to, and successfully complete, scientific PhDs. In absolute numbers, it is a very high percentage of Reed graduates and of PhDs in general. While they may not provide the best facilities or the Nobel-laureate instructors, they appear to provide an excellent undergraduate education that gives a good foundation for graduate work. One reason this happens is that ALL Reed undergraduates complete a demanding thesis project. In the sciences, Reed undergraduates are expected to do an original research project as part of their thesis. </p>
<p>The weighted origins list indicates the Reed graduates, in fact, slightly outachieve UChicago graduates. They must be doing something right at Reed. <a href="http://web.reed.edu/ir/phd.html%5B/url%5D">http://web.reed.edu/ir/phd.html</a></p>
<p>From my experience, what one finds at UChicago grad school is a whole lot of Reed graduates. Always appeared very well prepared to me. For those who have not seen this, it is a thorough analysis of the LAC vs. University for science eduacation issue. <a href="http://www.collegenews.org/prebuilt/daedalus/cech_article.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://www.collegenews.org/prebuilt/daedalus/cech_article.pdf</a></p>
<p>As I said before physics has never encountered a subject as difficult as string theory, string theory is yet to be properly defined the field is definately in its infancy. And again as I said before it took what 3/4s of a century to disprove the local hidden variables theory why should people be concerned about 20 years? And why have a time limit at all for a field that promises so much. It would be silly to abandon it now after coming so far just because it's 'too hard'! I guess what one person sees as a futile waste another sees as a golden opportunity. I regret to hear that string theory has hurt the advances of other fields but I think its silly of those outside the field to mock it</p>