Accepted as Regents’ scholar at several UC’s - UCD (materials engineering), SB (physics in Coll. Creative Studies), SD (comp sci) but also accepted at Pomona College, USC, and Brandeis. Accepted at UCB but didn’t like the school/environment. Accepted at UCLA (materials engineering) but not Regent. Planning to study physical sciences with computers or materials engineering and plan on grad school.
I think I’m less of an hands-on engineer than a scientist (love theory and math), hence not sure whether I should study physics or computer sci with addl classes in the opposite field, and do grad school in mat. sci. if still interested or whether I should pursue materials science as an undergrad. With Regents’ scholarship, I’d get priority registration and cost of all UC’s will be the same for me. Pomona is ~$24K more per year - will likely need some loans. Don’t have Brandeis or USC financial aid packages yet. I really like the idea of a LAC science education - small classes, getting to know professors, and research opportunities, but don’t know if the Pomona or Brandeis name/experience would carry as far for grad school apps or whether the science education and research opportunities would be as good. Would CCS at UCSB give me some of the LAC feel for less $ but still let me focus on really getting into research? What would the prestige factor favor? UCSD has a very good comp sci program, but I don’t know about their physics, nor do I know if there would really be a significant advantage in one UC over the other - Davis, SB, or SD. I like all of these schools. I don’t really want to be in a city - suburb or college is great. I couldn’t care less about the social/party opportunities. I’m excited by being in an academic environment where I can focus on learning and doing serious research for the next few years. Otoh, the opportunities of a LAC like Pomona compared to being lost in the crowd at a UC sound very tempting as you only go to college once.
Advice? How would you weigh these factors? Thanks!
A National Science Foundation site posts a study showing the baccalaureate origins of PhD recipients in STEM fields.
After adjusting for institution size, 5 of the top 10 schools are LACs. The other 5 are relatively small private research universities, including Caltech and MIT. Pomona ranks #12. Brandeis is #37. Berkeley ranks 43rd.
This data does not prove (and may not even be very strong evidence) that Pomona is a better undergraduate science school than Berkeley or the other UCs. On its face, however, it suggests that Pomona and Brandeis can prepare students at least as well as the UCs for successful graduate work in STEM … although not necessarily in every specific STEM field.
Regardless, $24K/year is a big price premium to pay for Pomona. Wait to compare the Brandeis aid package. If it’s significantly better, you could try faxing it to Pomona with an appeal for more aid (including any information about your family circumstances that they might have missed.)
Pomona is considered one of the most prestigious academically, one among few intellectual colleges in the country, and it’s very very good for grad school admission. Being part of a consortium providesbyou with the attention you need but a larger social scene + course choices (including HarveyMudd if you’re interested.)
Honestly your real choices, in terms of research and academic opportunities, are ucsb ccs and Pomona. Those are hard to beat.
You should visit both and see which environment you like best - the environment is very different so you should have a preference after visiting .
@ucbalumnus, that is one of the things I’m unsure about. How much would I lose in not doing a formal major in Mat Sci? The only one that has it is UC Davis, though UCSD has engineering physics. If I’m planning on grad school, would majoring in something else and trying to make sure if I’ve taken background/prerequisites be as good, or should I go somewhere that has mat Sci classes for undergrad? UCSB has an excellent graduate Materials program, but the only formal UG option is through a 5 yr bachelor’s/master’s program. I could also see if I could do research at UCSB through the Mat Sci Dept as a physics undergrad. I don’t know if there would be enough cross-pollination at Pomona with Mudd to do that. I know I can’t do an engineering major at Pomona, but if I’m planning on grad school, how significant is that?
Pomona is one of the most represented schools per capita for engineering graduate schools because we have a lot fo math and physics majors. You don’t need a strict engineering degree to apply. You can also take engineering classes at Mudd; they are easy to cross-enroll in. Mudd also offers more physics classes + Physics/Engineering clinic, which is available for Pomona students to pursue who desire a more practical capstone project.
However, if you want to do engineering straight after college, the others may be more viable. We do have 3-2 programs with Caltech and WashU, and 2-1-1-1 with Dartmouth. The WashU program comes with a half tuition award and is pretty much guaranteed; the others are more competitive but grant out need based aid. 24K is a really big difference as well.
You can look up materials engineering PhD programs to see what their expectations of undergraduate preparation are. For example: https://materials.ucsb.edu/academics/graduate-program-admissions . You can compare them to course offerings at schools where you would not be a materials engineering major for undergraduate study.
Would the rigor of CCS at UCSB approach that at Pomona, or would there be a real advantage to paying more to go to Pomona if that’s possible? I’m a very serious student and I’m looking for good quality education and opportunities where I can work hard and get a lot out of it, ideally surrounded by at least some other students who feel as I do. I’m not afraid to do my part to take advantage of opportunities that are available, but I also suspect the ‘name’ of some schools may open more doors than others in the future. If I were to study physics, would Pomona be a significant advantage over CCS at UCSB, USC (comp sci/physics major), Brandeis or UCSD? I understand USC has been getting stronger recently as well but don’t know that their strength in physics approaches the UC’s. Hopefully I’ll get financial aid info for USC and Brandeis soon for comparison.
Obviously it would be preferable to have professors who are truly interested in teaching, not just phoning it in because they’re required to teach some classes.
You can cross enroll at Mudd, but you are in classes with Mudders who are immersed via the core and very, very focused on STEM. I think it would be tough to keep up, honestly. Also, @nostalgicwisdom, you usually can’t just waltz into engineering grad school with a physics or math major, there is quite a bit of coursework you would need to pick up somewhere. Although materials science is sometimes in the Physics department, so the OP isn’t necessarily talking about an engineering grad degree.
@intparent That wasn’t my implication but you can certainly still go to an engineering PhD with a LAC background. Having HMC engineering also adds to your credibility. Pomona students can handle the HMC work- I’ve taken several science courses there and they’re of comparable rigor.
@ca2016 Pomona is probably the most valuable name brand among your list for PhDs in general. There is some elitism in academia and a degree from top LACs like Pomona will give an edge compared to the other schools; there are also factors like much better professor accessibility (better recommendations) and more manageable grading/inflation (really hard to get below a B; no curves to separate % of A’s like there might be at other schools). You might also be able to find more research opportunities given the lack of grad students. I’m not sure if the statements of prestige transfer over to physics/engineering PHDs in particular, but I know three physics majors who are or will be at Cambridge, Stanford, and UC Berkeley for graduate school.
I also know that physics is likely Pomona’s most rigorous major. The students spend hours on hours working on problem sets for each class- usually 10-20 hours per class per week, and that doesn’t include lab time and class work. I only took the intro sequence and the three classes were the hardest of the 30 courses I’ve taken at Pomona so far. It’s very rigorous but also very collaborative.
Physics also just got a new building this year which is one of the nicest academic buildings I have ever seen.
@nostalgicwisdom, I am going to guess that you have not taken engineering or physics at Mudd. And no, you really can’t go into an engineering PhD program without significant engineering coursework.
Of the 477 PhDs Pomona students earned from 1999-2008, around 3% were from engineering. It’s possible. I’m not saying it’s easy, but people have done it in the past. http://oberlin.edu/instres/irhome/assessment/phd.html
Also, I have taken one physics class at Mudd (Quantum with Dr. Townsend + the problem working section). It was graded more intensely than the Pomona physics classes, but it was not more rigorous. Pomona makes its physics course challenging (I found 70/71/72 more difficult) but it also puts in a healthy dose of curving up if the averages are low, which is a system I prefer.
My opinion with sciences at Mudd (I have taken 4 now- 3 in biology and the 1 in physics above)- I find them easier than most Mudders find them because Mudders take 6-8 courses a semester whereas I take 4-5. It means I have more time to focus on the science courses. Time manageability is a big reason why Mudders struggle- I’ve also found that they don’t seem to go to office hours as much as Pomona students do in their classes. The grades I got, ultimately, were a B (Quantum) and an A in the three biology courses.
So, yes, I do think Pomona students can handle Mudd courses- especially one at a time. If you have any differing perspectives, feel free to describe them.