milesdavis2

Is there a reputable ranking of the top undergraduate physics programs? What do you consider to be the top physics programs? This can be in overall terms, or in specific areas, such as most professor-student interaction (i.e., less TA's), research opportunities, admission rates into top graduate physics programs, etc... thanks

phuriku

Caltech, MIT, Harvard, Princeton, Chicago, Stanford, Harvey Mudd

For PhD Production: http://web.reed.edu/ir/phd.html

milesdavis2

Wow, thanks! What about Yale?

vonlost

Yale is just a tiny bit further down the list. While 10% of CalTech undergrads later get a PhD in physics/astronomy, and only 0.6% of Yale undergrads do, the data may be a bit misleading if a higher proportion of CalTech undergrads study physics than do Yale undergrads (I suspect it's true, but have no numbers).

First posted by interesteddad:

Here is the PhD production list over the most recent 10 year period for Physics/Astronomy. This data is particularly meaningful in a field like Physics where most serious career paths include doctoral study:

PhDs and Doctoral Degrees: ten years (1994 to 2003) from NSF database
Number of Undergraduates: ten years (1989 to 1998) from IPEDS database
Formula: Total PhDs divided by Total Grads, multiplied by 1000

Note: Does not include colleges with less than 1000 graduates over the ten year period

1 California Institute of Technology 96
2 Harvey Mudd College 64
3 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 29
4 New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology 20
5 Reed College 13
6 Carleton College 13
7 Princeton University 13
8 University of Chicago 13
9 Rice University 13
10 Case Western Reserve University 9
11 Harvard University 9
12 Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute 9
13 Swarthmore College 9
14 Haverford College 8
15 Stevens Institute of Technology 8
16 Whitman College 8
17 Grinnell College 7
18 Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology 7
19 Colorado School of Mines 7
20 Yale University 6

milesdavis2

Thanks! I had no idea such data existed.

How does yale do in terms of getting its physics majors into the top graduate programs, like Stanford, Princeton, etc...?

vonlost

Sorry, I know of no data covering this. Someone might respond anecdotally...

kyledavid80

The above data is a bit biased toward small schools. For undergrad physics, here's the Gourman report (I think this is a credible ranking, though I wouldn't put Cornell ahead of MIT, or Princeton ahead of Berkeley):

Caltech
Harvard
Cornell
Princeton
MIT
UC Berkeley
Stanford
U Chicago
U Illinois Urbana Champaign
Columbia
Yale
Georgia Tech
UC San Diego
UCLA
U Penn
U Wisconsin Madison
U Washington
U Michigan Ann Arbor
U Maryland College Park
UC Santa Barbara
U Texas Austin
Carnegie Mellon
U Minnesota
RPI
Brown
Johns Hopkins
Michigan State
Notre Dame
SUNY Stony Brook
Case Western
Northwestern
U Rochester
U Pittsburgh
Penn State University Park

And from the NRC ranking:

1 Harvard 4.91
2 Princeton 4.89
3 MIT 4.87
4 Cal Berkeley 4.87
5 Cal Tech 4.81
6 Cornell 4.75
7 Chicago 4.69
8 Illinois 4.66
9 Stanford 4.53
10 Cal Santa Barbara 4.43
11 Texas 4.33
12 Columbia 4.25
13 Yale 4.21
14 Washington 4.20
15 UCLA 4.18
16 Cal San Diego 4.10
17 Penn 4.09
18 Maryland 4.02
19 Michigan 3.96
20 Rutgers 3.82

http://www.stat.tamu.edu/~jnewton/nr...41.html#area33

See this for breakdowns in the different areas of physics:

http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsa...ndex_brief.php

vonlost

Just curious: In what way is it biased toward small schools? As I said, it is biased toward schools with a higher percentage of physics majors. Why is that also a large/small school issue?

What makes the Gourman report credible? No basis is given; it's not transparent.

Your links are for graduate schools; the OP asked for undergraduate programs.

The beauty of the NSF/IPEDS numbers, subject to its limitations, is that is just gives results; it's nobody's opinion of anything.

Grumpster

This is for the original poster. If I were you, I would go to the top physics graduate programs' websites, and look at the grad students one by one. See where they went to undergrad. This will give you some idea of where you want to be.

kyledavid80

Not to be rude, but just search the forums -- this topic has been discussed to death, and the general consensus is that it's biased toward small schools. (And it makes sense -- the small schools top the list.)

Yes, there is. Again, search the forums -- Gourman gives the full methodology.

Do tell me how the grad and undergrad programs are so divorced. Are there different faculty? Different courses? Different facilities? Different library collections? No. It's mostly the same. And the rankings are largely based on peer review (NRC, US News, etc.); they review the programs, often irrespective of grad/undergrad.

Funnily enough, the perceptions of others are strangely related to what we would call "quality." For example, the schools at the top of the physics lists are those that have top faculty with tons of awards in physics and tons of publications (usually the leaders in their field, presenting at conventions and conferences), that have top facilities (particle accelerators, labs with cutting-edge equipment), that do some of the best research (which impacts the world), that have amazing library collections with breadth and depth, that attract top students, etc. There's a reason they're top-rated.

In addition, what is it that this PhD productivity list tells us? Reed College is higher than Harvard; what does that mean? Does that mean that Reed is better than Harvard for physics? Does that mean it would be more sensible to go to Reed than Harvard if you're planning on majoring in physics?

vonlost

Again, the data are clearly biased toward schools with a higher percentage of physics graduates. What does consensus have to do with it? These are raw statistics. Where is the opportunity for the small-school bias to enter? Don't say it's obvious and generally available; please be specific. There is still the remote possibility that the small class size and individual attention from professors (no TAs at the small schools) is the reason for the higher percentage of future PhDs coming from the small schools. Look at it the other way: If all these things are true, how are the lower future PhD numbers of the larger schools explained?For those who care about perceived prestige, this is fine. Those who want the best statistical chance of earning that future PhD might best consult the statistical record. These large schools, with all their facilities for grad students, are indeed the preferred ultimate destinations for doing PhD work.Only if your goal is that future PhD; these statistics say nothing more, and nothing about the general concept of "better."

vonlost

As a follow-up, I searched all of CC and found not a single posting anywhere containing the word bias or biased in connection with IPEDS/NSF data. I found one posting on the bias of this data toward schools with a high percentage of subject majors.

milesdavis2

Thanks for the insight -- keep it coming! I think I will go to the grad schools' websites and check out the undergraduate institutions of the students -- good idea.

What are your reasons for the best undergrad physics programs, beyond ranking?

I have read on CC that some financial firms (e.g. goldman sachs) recruit hard science majors at some universities -- which colleges do they recruit most at for physics majors? I am just curious, in case I end up going on that path, which is unlikely but a possibility.

Grumpster

For physics, you want to check the course offerings for the school, to make sure they offer the courses at the depth you will want. Not just the course catalog, but the class schedule, to see if they are actually offering those courses. You also want to make sure they have an "honors" sequence in physics; future physics majors shouldn't be taking classes with mechanical engineering students, there should be a more advanced option for those interested in a more theoretical understanding. You want a place with enough of those "honors" types of students where you can have a little community. This may also offer you more interaction with professors and not just TAs.

I think with physics, you're oftentimes better off at a big state school with a big physics department, with lots of grad students and ongoing research, than a smaller school even if it is better ranked overall.

kyledavid80

Er, because it's small, so the denominator is smaller? This does not mean that the numerator will be smaller, as normalizing for such size differences is not so easy (in a perfect world, the ratio would be).

Hmm, perhaps that there are more students who don't want to get a PhD in physics?

"Best statistical chance"? What? That makes no sense. In order for there to be a statistical chance, the event in question must be random (basic statistics). This is not random. Thus, if you want to get a PhD in physics, you can go to a school that sends 90% of its students on to get physics PhDs, or you could go to school that sends 50% of its students on to get physics PhDs. Either way, you are going to get a PhD in physics; going to the former will not help that any more than going to the latter. Notice that the list is not based on how many students the school gets into grad school. In other words, it's not a reflection of the school's job.

Believe me, there are plenty of times where people have discussed why smaller schools are near the top. (They may or may not have used the word "bias" specifically, probably more roundabout.) I've seen discussion on PhD production so much that I usually ignore the threads to do with it.