<p>The article cited two posts above tries to offer explanations for why a higher % LAC students get sciecce PhD's, but it doesn't offer any argument at all that this number is good way to measure which undergrad physics (or other science) programs are the best.</p>
<p>contact some grad schools and ask about what they look for in an undergraduate coming in, and what schools are feeding into the program. Or go online at the big name schools and look at 1. teacher CV 2. doctoral student CV. Both are often listed.</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?
There are many theories that take time to be disproven, but I believe that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The burden of proof lies with the string theorists to show that their field is worth study, not with the rest of the physics community to disprove it.
[quote]
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'!
[/quote]
Did I ever say we should abandon it? No, I did not, because I know the theory has helped out a lot in mathematical techniques for theorists in gauge theory and the like. Reevaluating the priority that's been given to string theory, on the other hand, should be considered.
[quote]
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
[/quote]
See above. That having been said, as a member of the physics community I believe I should be able to voice my opinion on the matter because it does effect me: I already know that I probably would never find work as, say, a theorist in quantum gravity because that position would be taken by a more fashionable string theorist. Second, I do not believe that one theory should be touted as the answer to everything (as people like Brian Greene famously do) when in another breath it's complained that the theory isn't given a chance since it's still in its infancy. Such impressions by the public negatively impact the physics community as a whole.
Note that I never made an argument here based on the underpinnings of the theory itself: if you want to study string theory while it's not my thing I am not one to stop you. However, when the theory starts undermining my own pursuits and giving what some would argue as false promises as to its viability, I believe the physics community should rethink where it stands and how it acts on the issue.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The article cited two posts above tries to offer explanations for why a higher % LAC students get sciecce PhD's, but it doesn't offer any argument at all that this number is good way to measure which undergrad physics (or other science) programs are the best.
[/quote]
True, but the article goes into great detail (for eight pages without a mention of "PhD") on why the LAC experience provides better preparation in the sciences. The author indeed assumes that counting PhDs is one objective measure of the future success of undergraduates. </p>
<p>When we ask "which undergrad physics (or other science) programs are the best" we have to say for what purpose. Two main purposeful reasons come to mind for studying physics: to do research, and to teach. Can we ignore any other "best" rankings, like "What is the best physics program for getting into med school?" I can't address the teaching side; the answer may be very different.</p>
<p>But if the reason for studying physics is to later do physics research, then a PhD is required. So if a high school student knows she wants to ultimately do physics research, then in order to maximize her chances chances of attaining that goal, she should apply to those schools which offer the best preparation toward it. Those would be, I think, the ones with the best track record of having done so in the past.</p>
<p>Shouldn't we measure the quality of the program by the education received by the AVERAGE student attending it, i.e. the one who DOESN'T go on for a PH.D.?</p>
<p>I am trying to find colleges with great undergraduate programs in plasma, particle, or atom/molecular physics. I am interested in plasma and fission. I currently want to by graduate studies at MIT, Stanford, or Princeton.</p>
<p>I am looking for a wide variety of colleges admission- and cost- wise.</p>
<p>I would appreciate any lists or suggested searches.</p>
<p>Thanks</p>
<p>Here is one: [Theoretical</a> Particle Physics | Department of Physics](<a href=“http://physics.uchicago.edu/research/areas/particle_t.html]Theoretical”>http://physics.uchicago.edu/research/areas/particle_t.html)</p>
<p>Check out the undergraduate research link in the left column.</p>
<p>Which state are you in? Many state flagship schools (and non-flgaships in California) have top notch physics programs.
Also, U Arizona and ASU, both with very good physics programs, offer full tuition/full ride for national merit finalists.</p>
<p>Your post has been so helpful. I’m a mom just trying to guide my son a bit. We were first looking at schools for aeonautical engineering. We may be looking at the wrong major. We have come up with many of the same schools you listed. My son is very strong in math and science. Here in our little town he is a pretty big fish, but we know on the national level he may be one of the smaller fish. We have saved for college since he was in diapers. We’re worried about being able to afford many of the schools you listed. We’re in Ohio so are thinking about OSU, Univ of Cincinnatti, Purdue, Cornell, MIT, VATech, UVA. Many of these we may not be able to consider. He has a strong interest in quantum physics, string theory, and astrophysics. He was to invent/design for NASA, the military or for whatever. Any advice you can give?</p>
<p>Our S is interested in majoring in physics. UC Santa Barbara has a small “diamond in the rough” program called the College of Creative Studies. What is most interesting about it is that its inception was instigated by some top notch physicists who wanted to teach high achieving students in the style more often seen in grad school. They succeeded very well with this model and CCS expanded to include other sciences and math, and later a few other majors outside that realm.</p>
<p>I believe CCS has been going on since the 60’s. This year, a grad from the program, Prof Grieder now at JHU, shared in the Nobel prize for medicine.</p>
<p>We’re still researching, since UCSB is generally more known as a “beach party” school. If CCS is attracted by your separate application to the program, they will contract you. My S has already been called by a physics prof and additionally received an email from a biochem prof, inviting him to come visit. It’s not what you’d typically expect from a UC, but as I mentioned, this is a special program.</p>
<p>One source is <a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parents-forum/235936-physics-programs.html?highlight=physics+ipeds#post2925522[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parents-forum/235936-physics-programs.html?highlight=physics+ipeds#post2925522</a> which shows the top 100 producers future physics PhDs.</p>
<p>^ actually that list showed the highest proportions, not the highest number. If I read it right. Seems like high numbers would be just as valid a criteria.</p>
<p>One thing those of you with future Physics majors might consider - look at the entry requirements for graduate study at a few target schools, and make sure your kid satisfies those as an undergrad. For instance, what is the foreign language requirement (# years, # languages)?</p>
<p>Another thing to consider is whether kid wants to study mostly Physics, or if as an undergrad he/she wants some more general ed. breadth. Engineering Physics majors get engineering degrees that require fewer hours in social sciences and humanities, and more hours in math/physics.</p>
<p>A lot of my friends in physics think very highly of UCSB’s physics program as well.</p>
<p>Can anyone tell me how UC Davis rates in physics? I’m interested in an undergraduate degree in physics, but I also want to play D1 baseball. Thanks</p>
<p>Surprised nobody has mentioned Johns Hopkins and their Space Telescope Institute and world famous faculty (Giacconi - Nobel Prize) and Reiss - specialist in dark energy.</p>
<p>[Astronomy</a> Resources at STScI](<a href=“Home | STScI”>Home | STScI)</p>
<p>[Dr</a>. Adam Riess - Welcome](<a href=“http://www.stsci.edu/~ariess/]Dr”>Dr. Adam Riess - Welcome)</p>
<p>[Physics</a> & Astronomy @ Johns Hopkins University](<a href=“http://physics-astronomy.jhu.edu/]Physics”>http://physics-astronomy.jhu.edu/)</p>
<p>Grayza1234: I have been looking to find the best college out there for astro-physics specifically and I have been coming up a bit short. Would you mind helping me?</p>
<p>How about UCLA??? [UCLA</a> - Division of Astronomy & Astrophysics](<a href=“http://www.astro.ucla.edu/]UCLA”>http://www.astro.ucla.edu/)</p>
<p>and UCSD [Physics</a>, UCSD - Undergraduate Program](<a href=“http://www-physics.ucsd.edu/students/prospective/ug/program/]Physics”>http://www-physics.ucsd.edu/students/prospective/ug/program/)</p>
<p>Wait… Can’t forget Berkeley! [UC</a> Berkeley Astronomy Department Home](<a href=“http://astro.berkeley.edu/]UC”>http://astro.berkeley.edu/)</p>
<p>Cal Tech must be high on the list.</p>
<p>[PMA</a> Division](<a href=“http://www.pma.caltech.edu/]PMA”>http://www.pma.caltech.edu/)</p>
<p>As mini mentioned up thread, Williams has a very strong Astro-physics program.</p>