Physics major: Small LAC v. Large State Research University

Parents Forum
21

<p>hadsed: I am a professor at an R1 school (not of physics, but one of my best friends is, and I know people in the medical school as well. That’s where I got my information. </p>

<p>LACs are not for everyone, and R1 schools are not for everyone. Both can be great in many ways, I went to a LAC myself. But if you are interested in research and the sciences (as the OP son), I would lean towards Penn State. You have not finished your undergrad, you still don’t know how your PhDs applications will go, and how hard it will be for you since you haven’t taken the harder classes that would be available somewhere else. Nobody knows, I hope you do well and I think you will, but you still do not have the complete picture.</p>

22

<p>S4 is an undergraduate at a LAC and he was able to get an internship in chemistry doing the following:</p>

<p>•Manipulation of Nanoparticle Surface Chemistry and Formation of Nanoparticle/Thin Film Composite Materials</p>

<p>He told us he gets to use an electron microscope and other research equipment and just loves it. I don’t think he would have gotten the same opportunity at a major university. He would have been one of many bright students competing for the same spot (1 of 20 vs. 1 of 50 or more). </p>

<p>I think a lot will depend on the quality and strength of the science department of the LAC. While LACs focus on the Liberal Arts, many do have strong science departments that provide research opportunities to undergraduates that normally go to graduate students.</p>

23

<p>It is an enduring myth on CC that there is huge competition for the best research spots at large universities. One of my kids reported that professors at MIT would regularly stay after lecture to ask kids walking out of class to stay after to hear about research opportunities. He got one of his UROP’s (MIT’s name for undergrad research positions) when the professor corralled him (and no, he was not one of the top kids, and no, he didn’t seek him out) to ask if he knew a certain programming language that his team needed. Son responded “no” and professor announced, “I’ll teach you, you’re hired!”</p>

<p>What competition? Professors are running multiple projects for multi-year grants which suck up both grad and undergrad talent like sponges. S had weekly meetings with the senior professor (the one who hired him) to talk about issues, brainstorm on ideas; had daily or hourly meetings with the grad students; professor was always available and on call to his entire team.</p>

<p>At MIT students have an entire database of available research positions at their disposal which clearly states the nature of the project, the skills required, the duration of the project, etc. And students have the option of working for money or course credit, and can switch mid-project if need be. (S worked during the school year for course credit and during summer for money. But could have done the reverse).</p>

<p>There are many advantages to LACs. Getting staffed on research projects is not one of them.</p>

24

<br>

<br>

<p>Why not contact a few professors in the department and ask them what
the quality of their program is compared to a research university?</p>

<br>

<br>

<p>Many of the very best schools in the country have large lecture halls
and grad student TAs.</p>

<p>Wouldn’t it be a good thing for your son to become assertive in
looking for research opportunities? This will be useful when looking
for employment after graduation.</p>

<p>Son is a research assistant this summer and has an offer to continue
the work this fall and spring. He also has an offer to be a TA.
The research work will lead to multiple papers in areas that could
be used for Phd work. He’s known to most of the professors in his
department and he knows most of them. The department isn’t anonymous
if you make the effort to chat with professors.</p>

<p>I had a look at the grant proposal and I guess that it’s a standard
thing to put down how much grant money professors have pulled in on
the grant proposal itself. Perhaps those that have already pulled in
a lot of grant money are given priority in further grants. The grant
also said that it covered partial professors’ salaries over a period
of time.</p>

<p>I think that I prefer a place where a lot of research is done in the
major; this could be at a LAC or research university.</p>

25

<p>

</p>

<p>I’m also a professor at an R1 research university, and have taught at other R1s in the past. I think salander’s just wrong on this; or at least the statement is not universally true. Some faculty at some R1s are entirely on “soft money”—they basically need to raise their own salary through competitive grants. Others are on a full-time university-supported salary line but they may use a portion of a research grant to “buy out” their own time, i.e., the money goes to the school and in return they’re freed of a certain percentage of their teaching obligations for the duration of the grant. Also, the university will generally take a fraction of the research grant as “indirect cost recovery,” basically to pay a portion of the university’s general overhead; this is allowed on the theory that if the university wasn’t indirectly supporting the research activity with a whole host of facilities and services, the researcher would need to go out and buy those facilities and services, raising the cost of the research and therefore of the grant. At universities with a high through-put of research grants, ICR is a pretty significant revenue stream that indirectly supports all sorts of things, including faculty salaries. But it’s true, as salander says, that a large fraction of every research grant goes to hire post-docs and research assistants. In most R1 universities grad students get first crack at those research assistant positions, but depending on the school there will be some opportunities for undergrads as well. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Again, this is not true across-the-board. At the LACs with the strongest science programs, many of the faculty are doing cutting-edge research and are supported by major research grants. And depending on the field and on the nature of the research project, often they are working in research consortia with faculty at R1 universities. At my daughters LAC (Haverford) every physics major and every chemistry major is expected to do research. Students have opportunities to do research at Haverford in the summers, during the school year, or both. Some are placed in labs at other colleges and universities (often with research collaborators of Haverford faculty members), in national laboratories, or in leading industrial laboratories. Physics and chemistry majors are also expected to do a senior project culminating in the presentation of a publishable scientific paper. Here are a few examples of recent student research in physics:</p>

<p>[Haverford</a> College: Departments of Physics and Astronomy : Welcome](<a href=“http://www.haverford.edu/physics-astro/student_research/recent_experiences.php]Haverford”>http://www.haverford.edu/physics-astro/student_research/recent_experiences.php)</p>

26

<p>

Okay, great. So what do you think of the information I posted in my last post? I would rather know if I’m actually wrong, so I can figure out what’s actually going on.</p>

<p>

Thanks. I try my best to figure out what the big picture is, and so far I think I’m reasonably sure what I have to do to do well, but of course I don’t know everything about what goes on everywhere so I just try to talk about what I already know.</p>

<p>

You talk only about MIT, but schools like MIT aren’t like big state schools. Luckily for MIT students, someone figured out that it’s not a good thing to ignore the needs of undergrads so they actively try to keep their undergrads from failing/burning out/committing suicide. MIT isn’t all that well-rounded either, like most state schools are (can’t say how much this really matters, but thought it was worth mentioning).</p>

<p>starbright: Yeah, I noticed that I was giving the impression that all R1 schools have professors who don’t care about undergrads. That would be an inaccurate generalization, and even at GT (which is somewhat notorious for treating undergrads like crap) I know several who get research positions. Still, what I’m arguing is that it’s nowhere near the same experience if you get lucky and find a good researcher at a smaller LAC. It’s something of a tradeoff though, not every LAC will have good researchers. If that’s the case, then you’re really screwed (since internships have a worse acceptance rate than most grad schools).</p>

27

<p>It wasn’t just your post but rather this general theme I hear that just doesn’t seem to match my experience. </p>

<p>I think it simply is not a challenge to work on a great research team and get to learn from the best at a top research university. Everyone knows that undergrads need research experience and great letters of rec to get into grad school…so usually you can count on their commitment, but also recognize it’s doing your part. It is part of the fundamental apprenticeship model that everyone is teaching the next generation. </p>

<p>Moreover, it often doesn’t cost anything to add undergrads looking for research experience- they are working for the experience and publications, not a salary. And they can do a lot of the work that would not be considered developmental for graduate students to do anyways (yet they can be trained to do more as needed, freeing up resources for those higher up to take on more tasks). </p>

<p>Also an undergrad doesn’t just need research experience, s/he needs publications. The odds of a publication are going to be higher if that team includes a prof, grad students and undergrads than if it only includes a prof and undergrads. And lets face it, those working out of LACs just are not publishing the same rate or quality as those at R1 institutions. </p>

<p>I fundamentally and absolutely disagree with the stereotype that at a top research uni faculty are these singularly focused drones pumping out papers. Sure we all know a few such people that fit the mould, but every single one of the outstanding researchers I know personally (okay except one) actually cares hugely about what impacts their field, - whether its reviewing others’ papers for journals, serving on editorial boards, worrying about issues in the field, giving workshops at conferences, and yes, training the next generation of scientists through the apprenticeship model. And I find for top researchers, there is a level of perfectionism and work ethic that seems to transcend to their whole career, not just the more narrow goal of ‘publications’. As I write this I’m sitting across the table from such a person-- awarding winning researcher and ‘rockstar’ professor (in terms of teaching awards). Or look at Carl Weiman. Nobel Prizer winner in physics, now trying to change the face of science education. Endless examples. </p>

<p>There is nothing unique about the R1 I teach at; its far too big to say it has some kind of unique ‘culture’. Yet faculty are readily available to students, across disciplines. Mostly because if you ask, knock on their door, they are surprised and delighted an undergrad wants to learn more from them! One can take directed studies, volunteer in the lab, and so on. There is also nothing special about me, but if someone was truly excited about my field, it would not be a big deal at all for me to suggest readings, or direct them to papers, and mentor them about grad school. All of us went through it ourselves, its just part of the whole world of scholarship, and there is a huge satisfaction in developing future researchers (even for those that loath standing at the front of a room giving a lecture, which feels quite apart from scholarship).</p>

<p>As an alternative point of view, most scientists teaching at LACs could not publish the quantity and quality to get tenure at a research institution. They aren’t necessarily amazing teachers, it is merely by default they are at a more teaching oriented school that hired them. I can think of some exceptions of course, but few faculty love teaching so much that they opt out of the resources, prestige, flexible schedule, and salary coming from being at an R1 (especially when if they actually love teaching so much and are so good at it, AND were great researchers, they could have just gotten tenure at an R1, kept all the resources and status that goes with that, and taught to their hearts content). </p>

<p>I sound like I’m trashing LACs and that worries me. I truly think an undergrad should go to the place that feels the best fit and I would support any of my science-y kids going to a LAC for a bunch of very good reasons. I just think the whole ‘research is better at a LAC’ thing is overdone.</p>

28

<p>Hadsed, a research university like UIUC or any of the Cal’s or Michigan or Ohio or U T Austin is going to have projects that are significantly larger, bigger budgets, involving dozens more people, and of longer duration, than anything going on at an LAC. I mentioned MIT because I know my son’s experience as a very green, not too assertive freshman who ended up working with a significant “name”-- literally, by just showing up for class one day. But there are huge universities (like the one’s I named) whose annual budgets for research projects is vast.</p>

<p>Go to an LAC if that’s what suits you best. But don’t make the decision based on an illusion that you will not be able to get high quality research experience at a large State school.</p>

<p>And your point about MIT making research available to undergrads to prevent suicide was just stupid, even if it was a joke.</p>

<p>I am not advocating MIT, I am pointing out that your analysis is weak and based on faulty information.</p>

<p>I know kids at UIUC, Wisc, Rutgers, Arizona, UCSD (all public) doing research as cutting edge as anything going on at any university in the world. Do your homework.</p>

29

<p>Regarding Chemistry. I recall doing work in grad labs at UW-Madison as part of my Honors Organic and Physical Chemistry labs before doing a Senior Honors Thesis. This was all without making special efforts to connect with a professor. When I see college online course descriptions of courses I cringe at the lack of opportunities at LACs, even schools with overall ratings higher than UW. In Chemistry the labs were much longer (above general chemistry 8 or 9 hours for 2 credits)- how can students accomplish much in the limited hours labs elsewhere? We also worked with state of the art equipment and the lab book was written by the PChem faculty. There were and are also several different intro level chemistry courses- the majors don’t get the same material as the others, especially those in the Honors versions (true also for math and physics).</p>

<p>Physics/math now. Some students take grad level courses as undergrads- they will be much better prepared for grad work. Also- getting more than one author’s viewpoint in a book self studied… They also have an annual spring symposium for undergrad research presentations that they didn’t have in my day.</p>

<p>OP- I’ll bet the fit will be best at the bigger school. He will be among his small group of like minded students- have his small neighborhood within the big city…</p>

30

<p>Not arguing one way or another on LAC vs. large flagship, just offering our son as an example. He will be a freshman physics major at the University of Missouri this fall. He applied for the Honors College Discovery Fellows Research Program. It pays 30 freshmen to do research with a mentoring professor and pays them $1,800 a year.</p>

<p>Yesterday, he met his mentor in the Physics Department and they discussed the type of projects he would be involved in. As Starbright mentioned research projecst are conducted by teams–and at most large state universities those teams include undergraduates. Here’s the project team that our son is joining to study alternative energy sources for cars.</p>

<p>[url=&lt;a href=“http://all-craft.missouri.edu/people.php]All-Craft[/url”&gt;http://all-craft.missouri.edu/people.php]All-Craft[/url</a>]</p>

<p>It includes professors, staff members, collaborators and students.</p>

<p>When considering a school for your student, check to see if it has a specifi office dedicated to undergraduate research. Go there and talk to the students. That’s the best way to determine of undergraduates have the opportunity to be a part of a team.</p>

31

<p>

I don’t really see how any of this here is contradictory to what I’ve said.</p>

<p>

I didn’t say anything like this, but most people seem to take it like I’m saying research is impossible at an R1 university. I’ve even mentioned that I know several students, even at a school like GT where treating undergrads well isn’t a very high priority, who do really good research. I also know, however, lots of people who get left to the side with mediocre recommendations, don’t do anything substantial as far as real research goes, and get maybe 5th author or something. Any of this could happen for a number of reasons, and I’m saying that one of the reasons may be because graduate students and postdocs take priority in authorship, research, etc. either because the principal investigator realizes that their job is to actually do research, maybe they need it more, and probably the biggest reason is that they simply have the skills to carry it out.</p>

<p>I’ve said this many times already; if you get lucky with a good dept., you can get first authorship, one-on-one time with the ‘principal investigator’, and some other great stuff that simply wouldn’t happen because you’re not being ignored because others have priority over you. This can definitely happen, but certainly does not mean that it happens to everyone always. I don’t understand how people can extrapolate this, it’s just so far off from what I was talking about.</p>

<p>

You’re in a contrarian mood aren’t you. I was serious about burnout, not serious about suicide. I don’t see how you can be so offended by everything that is not in perfect agreement with what you say (because your son goes to MIT). </p>

<p>

You only talked about MIT in your post. But you also know others at those schools doing cutting edge research? That’s great, but I’ve said nothing to the contrary.</p>

<p>Please, if you’re going to say that I said something incorrect, reference [specifically] what I said in my post and provide an argument with where you’ve gotten your information. I don’t want to give out bad information, and I also want to know if I’m saying something wrong and figure out why I’ve been misinformed. Still, ‘do your homework’ and ‘that joke was dumb!’ sound like you’re just annoyed at nothing, especially since you haven’t provided much explanation for what you think, why, and how you know.</p>

32

<p>My experience regarding undergraduate research at LAC’s and state universities has differed from starbright’s. Starbright says it doesn’t cost anything to add an undergrad to the research group – it doesn’t cost any money (except for expendables), but it can often be a huge time drain. As a grad student I was burdened three times with undergrads who wanted to do research in our lab (because I was using the most durable instrument in the lab and the professor didn’t want the undergrads anywhere near the other instruments). None of them produced anything of benefit to the group, but all of them burned up hours from my week and slowed my own research.</p>

<p>Also, starbright says research is a group effort at universities, but really each grad student has his or her own project to work on. Some are related or overlap and there is some collaboration in that regard, but it’s usually not a “team” effort the way it is in industry.</p>

<p>As far as research at LAC’s, starbright is right that it’s not going to be cutting-edge, but it doesn’t have to be. You’re learning the basics of doing scientific research, not trying to win a Nobel Prize. I did undergraduate research in electrochemistry, and in terms of both content and methods I gained a huge amount of knowledge in a short time. It prepared me for grad school, which is exactly the purpose of undergraduate research. Also, the professors at my LAC were not allowed to submit research grant proposals that did not include funding for undergrads.</p>

<p>So my experiences as an undergrad doing research at an LAC and as a grad student dealing with undergraduate researchers at a major state university seem to run exactly the opposite of starbright’s. The take-home message is probably that there is no single answer for any of these questions.</p>

33

<p>I didn’t say it wouldn’t drain in terms of training, but that is what grad students are for! And it’s the professor bringing them on, making the choice, not the grad students. And how can you complain about them when you were the same as an undergrad? </p>

<p>And it hugely matters if you get pubs and also where those pubs appear and how well known the professor is in the field. To suggest your odds of a top 10 grad school are the same so long as you have research experience- if that is what you are suggesting- is false.</p>

34

<p>Um… 1) if you ask the grad student, he’s not there to train undergrads in research. He’s there to get a degree. If he’s already being paid (by the department, not the advisor) to teach, then supervising undergraduate research is additional unpaid work. 2) I was not the same as an undergrad. I did undergraduate research at a LAC under the direction of a professor, for credit. 3) I wasn’t suggesting any of what you’re saying in that bizarre second paragraph, and I have no idea where you pulled all that from since it wasn’t in my post. But for the record I did not get any publications from my undergraduate research and my advising professor was unknown in research circles, and I got into a top 10 grad school. So once again your experiences and mine seem to differ.</p>

<p>My point was only that your experiences and mine appear to have been 100% different, and that there are no single right answers to any of these questions. I stand by that. If you disagree, that just keeps our record perfect. :)</p>

35

<p>To the OP’s original question: Unless you think that your son truly cannot handle the environment at Penn State, the R1 university would be the better choice for a future physicist, in my opinion. I don’t think it’s even close.</p>

<p>In my experience, an undergrad at an R1 institution who would like research experience can get it–practically just by asking. There are a few exceptions to this: for example, at UT Austin, John Wheeler used to be so swamped by requests to work with him that he had to turn students down. (Wheeler was Feynman’s Ph.D. adviser, back when both were at Princeton, and he is the Wheeler of Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler’s Gravitation.) The competition for undergraduate research spots, mentioned in some of the posts, may exist elsewhere, but generally this will not be found at any public R1 institution, in physics.</p>

<p>There are grad TA’s at R1 institutions. In physics, they will often run the small group sessions that are an adjunct to the lectures. Lectures will almost always be given by the physics faculty, though. An exception to this might occur in “baby physics” or pre-calculus mathematics courses. </p>

<p>Penn State is very big. However, the physical sciences have only a small share of the majors. At many R1 schools, the ratio between physics majors and physics faculty is close to 1:1. Also, since there are not so many physics majors, and they have a lot of classes and interests in common, they tend to form a fairly close-knit group. At an LAC, students may have friends across a wider variety of majors (that would be a benefit). It is unlikely that a physics major would be lost in the crowd at Penn State, though.</p>

<p>The opportunity to take graduate courses while an undergrad is a substantial advantage of going to an R1 school. Lots of students do this. Also, having a “continuum” of older students and post-docs around is very helpful to an undergrad physics student, especially in the junior and senior years. Departmental seminars and colloquia will be more numerous at the R1 school. </p>

<p>Re: R1 university faculty salary support. This tends to be quite different from field to field. For example, grants from the National Institutes of Health will permit a faculty member to “buy out” time, to devote effort exclusively to research, with no teaching during the “bought out” period. Grants from the National Science Foundation will not permit faculty to “buy out” time. (I am not certain about DoE, AFOSR, etc.)</p>

<p>Specifically in the field of physics, most physicists at R1 institutions will be on “hard money” appointments. Their grants will provide salary support during the summer, but not during the academic year. Some faculty in interdisciplinary physics fields may have NIH support, but most won’t. In contrast, “soft money” positions, in which the person is obligated to bring in a portion of the regular academic year salary from grants, are much more common in medical fields.</p>

<p>Addendum: By “baby physics” I mean the non-calculus based physics course. Don’t mean to offend anyone, but it’s probably just as well to know that’s how it’s often termed informally.</p>

36

<p>^LOL, I was wondering when somebody would mention MTW.</p>

37

<p>Thanks for all of the opinions. The different perspectives are illuminating.</p>

<p>But in evaluating the quality of a LAC physics program, it’s very difficult to judge. The professors all sound qualified, their research all sounds impressive, and the school websites all proclaim the value of undergraduate research opportunities and personal attention.</p>

<p>My son has found several schools which fit his criteria, and is baffled about the quality of the physics undergraduate programs they offer. </p>

<p>Do you have anything to say about the undergrad physics programs at the following schools: Elon, U. of Richmond, Denison, George Washington, Lehigh, Lafayette, Miami of Ohio, Tulane?</p>

38

<p>Little known, but true: Denison received an application from Albert Einstein, who was seeking a faculty position at the time. They turned him down.</p>

39

<p>FWIW when the subject has come up regarding LACs in biology, my dh can’t think of a single person he knows who does cutting edge research from an LAC. (By cutting edge I mean attends the same conferences, is on the same grant committees, is being judge by him when he’s on the grant committees. I don’t mean winning Nobel prize cutting edge.) It may be completely different in physics (where there’s a lot of theoretical work) and chemistry.</p>

<p>My nephew at Rice (now a grad student at MIT) got a research position there during freshman orientation.</p>

40

<p>

This is probably very true in experimental physics as well, and biology research has that much in common with experimental physics. They both need lots of expensive equipment, which requires lots of grant money, which isn’t very abundant at smaller LACs.</p>