All of those schools are good, but if he goes to UCSB, and he excels, is there a chance he could transfer to Cal? As a Stanford guy it pains me to say this, but Cal is one of the best universities in the world, especially if he is really determined to do theoretical work.
OTOH, and perhaps this is not the case for your son, but I’ve known people who went to UCSB and get too distracted by the place to do well in school. Santa Barbara is one of the most beautiful places in the world. It can be an inspiration, or it can be a distraction.
I assume by “Cal” he mean UC Berkeley, colloquially known as Cal to Bay Area residents ( and sports fans ) and eternal rival to Stanford. Quite distinct from our other local campus UCSF, which is always just UCSF even though they’re both a University of California ;).
'Cause there are no distractions in the hive of villainy and scum that is Berkeley… (Also, I think the hills of Berkeley and the North Shore in general give Santa Barbara a run for its money.)
Really, unless there is a pressing reason to switch schools (e.g. better research opportunities), or you are doing a community college to university plan, it is probably best to stay at the same school for undergraduate. I’ve known people that have done that and it generally hasn’t worked out for the best, as there are often classes that either don’t fully transfer or don’t satisfy a particular requirement or prerequisite, and of course you have to learn a new school and make new social and academic contacts (though if you’re just hanging out with the same people you met at a freshman mixer for four years, you’re doing it wrong). UCSB is a perfectly good school and I think if you look through c.v.'s you’ll find a representation of people who went on to graduate school at first tier universities with undergraduates from UCSB. Heck, even the lesser UC schools like UC-Davis, UC-Irvine, and UC-Riverside end up sending students to first tier schools. It really is more about the work that you do and the contacts you make than the school you go to for undergraduate, provided it is at least a decently rated school. And with a few notable exceptions like Cooper Union or Harvey Mudd, any ABET-accredited school is going for natural sciences or engineering is going to have essentially the same curriculum for undergraduate, and for physics in particular, that curriculum hasn’t really changed much in the past sixty-odd years except to add more content on computation.
If I recall my undergrad curriculum when I was in physics, there were only like three or four elective courses in discipline, and for the most part you either took an astronomy/astrophysics track or solid state physics/material behavior track and spent at least an elective unit on mathematical methods for physics. It’s pretty much impossible to get very deep into theoretical particle physics or general relativity in undergraduate; there is just too much material beyond the first couple of basic courses, and too much time spent getting into the core work of basic mechanics, electrodynamics, classical optics, and statistical mechanics to do more than a survey (albeit a survey across three or four quarters) into modern physics, much less cover current developments and research areas. There’s really a good argument that the traditional four year university structure just doesn’t work well for technical disciplines (especially with the need for engineering students to learn computational methods and tools that were neither available nor expected of previous generations), and the engineering and hard sciences courses should be a five to six year plan, graduating with the equivalent of a master’s degree by default before going into a specialization.
Cal is University of California, Berkeley, known as such because it is the flagship school of the UC system. California Institute of Technology is Caltech; it’s even referred to that way in a lot of formal literature. Caltech does actually have several exchange and dual degree programs with UCLA, especially with the medical school and in aerospace engineering.
A little prettier at UCSB IMHO, a somewhat funkier and more diverse urban culture at Cal. Both areas are absurdly expensive to live in if you’re not in a dorm. Though Santa Barbara is traditionally tonier, Silicon Valley refugees are spiking the rents something fierce in Berkeley these days.
I’m only speaking from my personal experience. Well, personal experience of other people. I’ve known lots of folks who went to Cal (UC Berkeley), but none that felt the area was a distraction to studying. Can’t the same about SB. But, as I noted, it doesn’t sound like that is a problem for the OPs son. And it’s obviously not a factor for most people.
I have a PhD in physics from a top 3 program in the US. My undergrad school was higher ranked than any on your son’s list, and I was by far the best student in physics there, but I was still woefully under-prepared for grad school. For example, I took graduate quantum mechanics and got an A+, and then inquired about a quantum field theory class. I was told “nobody takes that as an undergrad; besides, it’s offered only every other year”. When I showed up to grad school, 70% of the people who are interested in theoretical high energy physics had taken QFT in undergrad. I ended up doing a different kind of theoretical/computational physics and have had a great career so far.
Honestly, I can’t see someone who finds the academic challenges for undergrads at UCSB or UTAustin appropriate for his intellectual level ever becoming a theoretical physicist.
They both are top 15 physics programs in the U.S. by the rankings I’ve seen. Or are you saying merely top 15 is insufficient? Because that would seem a wee bit…pretentious to me ;).
Especially for undergrad programs where nobody does theoretical work in the first place. My father got his undergrad at the University of Pittsburgh way back when, more like a top 50 physics school these days, yet somehow managed to struggle his way through to a physics doctorate from Cornell. Granted that was in the far more bourgeois field of experimental physics :D.
I also don’t make friends easily, and I went to college 300 miles away from my hometown and all my friends. I lasted about 1 semester before I broke down and started suffering from severe depression. I would hang out with some of the kids there, go to parties, but I never felt like I could really confide in anyone there like I could back home. They were just “drinking buddies” and not really “friends” if you know what I mean. If his best friend is at Rochester, I would seriously consider that.
Yeah, BrightSunshine, there’s gotta be a way to frame your basic point “hey, TP is hard” without the lofty tone. CairoCarol’s basic point, reinforced by most posters, is different.
Your point: if a student finds TP hard at a non-tippy-top school, they should forget choosing the major.
OP point: taking into account the kid’s Goals, capabilities, social abilities and priorities, etc., and given the qualities of the schools available, how best to proceed?
At this point, I haven’t heard anything that suggests that any of the options available won’t provide a grounded physicis education. If your son remains truly focused on TP, he will figure out what he needs to focus on, and how he needs to engage the field, he can do so credibly from any of those schools. And if he “needs” to get to a tippie-top school as part of his ongoing education, he can figure that out and apply himself to make that happen. Such is life.
Wait a minute, I thought I was quite clear on this point. If you want good BBQ, then UT Austin. I will add that if you want bikinis instead, then the clear choice is UCSB.
ETA, 2 things:
And, good luck in the choosing! May he (and mom) find the right fit.
And yet, oddly enough, those schools have graduated students who have gone onto careers in theoretical physics. The more appropriate leeson to be garnered from your experience would seem to be “Look at the prerequiustes for your desired graduate program and select your electives accordingly,” rather than, “Give up all hope if you can’t get into Caltech, MIT, or Stanford.”
That is an oddly specific recommendation that doesn’t even seem to fit what the o.p. has described as her son’s are of interest. Honestly, a student shouldn’t start focusing on a graduate school until well into third year when he or she has gotten enough of a taste of experimental and theoretical physics to have a good idea what they really want to do. Some people enter school interested in theory and discover they love building equipment and doing experimental work. Some think qua tum computation is sexy and then find optics a hoot. Some realize they’d rather get an engineering degree and do applied research or application rather than compete for the dwindling number of pure research jobs that are available. Any career plan a student holds the day they walk into their first class is lilely going to change, often radically, by the time they get a diploma. And that’s okay, because the point of post-secondary education is (or at least should be) being exposed to a wide variety of subjects and finding what you’re really good at or passionate about. Heck, Ed Witten, the first physicist to win the Fields Medal (in mathematics) got his undergraduate in history and was a speechwriter for the McGovern campaign before going on to get a Ph.D. in physics from Princeton and reinvigorate the field of M-theory.
The grad program ranking has very little to do with the undergrad quality. UTAustin has a admission rate of 84%, which means his peers are not going to be intellectually very strong. The undergrad education is also unlikely to benefit from superstars like Weinberg and Gross. I had a Nobel Laureate teach my grad class and he was really just winging it. As far as I know he never teaches undergraduates.
I don’t know how old you are, but your father’s generation likely saw much less cut-throat competition for graduate student spots, tenure track positions, and grant funding. There is also enormous difference between between theoretical and experimental physics, starting with the number of research positions for graduate students (~5-15% theory typically).
Undergraduate preparation is enormously important for theoretical physics because there are so many prerequisite courses before being able to do research. If he goes to a top grad program, students from Princeton and Harvard and Caltech would have been far better prepared and therefore grab the few available RAships in theory. If he doesn’t, he has next to no chance at a faculty position.
That would be very good advice for the OP to give to her son. Make sure he explores options while an undergrad. He may not even be aware of some of the options open to him at this point. Don’t forget that teenagers are notoriously bad decision makers, and it’s unlikely that the OP’s son is some huge exception to that rule.
IMHO, the other thing is that those things we find interesting as a teenager to pursue in college may lose their allure once we get there and get into the grind of actually studying the subject in great depth. And once you’re in college and exposed to the wide variety of subjects that can be studied, you might find yourself pursuing a different path. (That’s one reason I always advise people to attend a well-rounded university, so there are other options available to you on campus. I attended a nerd school and it had few options for those who found that science and engineering really weren’t for them.)
(Also, I think the hills of Berkeley and the North Shore in general give Santa Barbara a run for its money.)
