I go to a top LAC for history and stem. It is overrated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:From what I can see, it does seem there's an issue for lac grads to get into good grad programs. From Pomona, where 2 recent Apker award winners have come from:

Independent of the job market, if you want to consider graduate school you have to ask yourself three questions:
-Do I have the grades to get into a reasonable graduate school?
-What subfield of physics am I interested in, and what does this tell me about grad schools I should look at?
-Do I have the motivation to go to and stay in graduate school?
We can help you with the first two questions, but the third you have to answer for yourself. Coming from a small college with no Nobel laureates to write you letters of recommendation means that to get into the very top programs you will need both very good grades and a very good score on the GRE subject test. The “very top” programs are places like UC Berkeley, Stanford, CalTech, and Princeton. If your physics GPA isn’t a steady string of A’s and A-‘s, though, that doesn’t mean that you should start thinking about taking the LSAT. Many good graduate programs exist at schools other than the top ten; the “very top” programs have that ranking partly because they have excellent programs in essentially all subfields of physics. Especially if you have a pretty good idea of the subfield you might want to enter, you should look around at less well-known schools for strong programs in your particular area.

If a top LAC is explaining that they're at a disadvantage, no reason to not believe them. It is an issue that your professors aren't well known researchers/advancing the field of physics.
Source: https://www.pomona.edu/academics/departments/physics-and-astronomy/physics-academics/plan-senior-year

You missed the point entirely. They are saying don’t expect a Hail Mary letter of recommendation to get you into a top program if you aren’t deserving. That’s exactly what any college should be telling a student, even the ones who have Nobel prize winners on campus (who aren’t exactly in the habit of writing them anyway). I found the level of advice on the Pomona page extremely impressive, and it’s probably a valuable resource for students from all colleges. Having read it I understand better why their STEM PhD feeder rate is in the top 10 (Table 6) among all institutions.

https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf22321

From a different section of Pomona’s site you can see the actual PhD programs their students most frequently matriculated into for the past 15 years. The 5 most frequent in order:

1. Berkeley (ranked 3rd by USNWR)
2. Madison (ranked 21st)
3. Boulder (17th)
4. UCLA (17th)
5. Stanford (1st)

https://tableau.campus.pomona.edu/views/Pomonagraduateschooloutcomes/EnrollmentsandCompletions?%3Aembed=y

The USNWR list includes 190 programs. So of course even Madison is a fantastic destination.

The LAC bashers on this forum are truly some of the most uninformed people I’ve encountered on the Internet. That’s not the surprising part, as it necessarily excludes the LAC crowd, who tend to be some of the best informed consumers with so many academia insiders preferring those destinations for their own children. The surprising part is the basher’s proud commitment to absurdity. Even when faced with very consistent and clear data on how PhD rates are higher for LAC alumni, they revert to the least likely theory supported only by hearsay that those students most be going to the bad grad programs. It’s just nonsense upon nonsense.

There are fine reasons to prefer universities for one’s own child, but LACs are at least as strong an option— and probably stronger— if the goal is advanced study past the baccalaureate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From what I can see, it does seem there's an issue for lac grads to get into good grad programs. From Pomona, where 2 recent Apker award winners have come from:

Independent of the job market, if you want to consider graduate school you have to ask yourself three questions:
-Do I have the grades to get into a reasonable graduate school?
-What subfield of physics am I interested in, and what does this tell me about grad schools I should look at?
-Do I have the motivation to go to and stay in graduate school?
We can help you with the first two questions, but the third you have to answer for yourself. Coming from a small college with no Nobel laureates to write you letters of recommendation means that to get into the very top programs you will need both very good grades and a very good score on the GRE subject test. The “very top” programs are places like UC Berkeley, Stanford, CalTech, and Princeton. If your physics GPA isn’t a steady string of A’s and A-‘s, though, that doesn’t mean that you should start thinking about taking the LSAT. Many good graduate programs exist at schools other than the top ten; the “very top” programs have that ranking partly because they have excellent programs in essentially all subfields of physics. Especially if you have a pretty good idea of the subfield you might want to enter, you should look around at less well-known schools for strong programs in your particular area.

If a top LAC is explaining that they're at a disadvantage, no reason to not believe them. It is an issue that your professors aren't well known researchers/advancing the field of physics.
Source: https://www.pomona.edu/academics/departments/physics-and-astronomy/physics-academics/plan-senior-year

You missed the point entirely. They are saying don’t expect a Hail Mary letter of recommendation to get you into a top program if you aren’t deserving. That’s exactly what any college should be telling a student, even the ones who have Nobel prize winners on campus (who aren’t exactly in the habit of writing them anyway). I found the level of advice on the Pomona page extremely impressive, and it’s probably a valuable resource for students from all colleges. Having read it I understand better why their STEM PhD feeder rate is in the top 10 (Table 6) among all institutions.

https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf22321

From a different section of Pomona’s site you can see the actual PhD programs their students most frequently matriculated into for the past 15 years. The 5 most frequent in order:

1. Berkeley (ranked 3rd by USNWR)
2. Madison (ranked 21st)
3. Boulder (17th)
4. UCLA (17th)
5. Stanford (1st)

https://tableau.campus.pomona.edu/views/Pomonagraduateschooloutcomes/EnrollmentsandCompletions?%3Aembed=y

The USNWR list includes 190 programs. So of course even Madison is a fantastic destination.

The LAC bashers on this forum are truly some of the most uninformed people I’ve encountered on the Internet. That’s not the surprising part, as it necessarily excludes the LAC crowd, who tend to be some of the best informed consumers with so many academia insiders preferring those destinations for their own children. The surprising part is the basher’s proud commitment to absurdity. Even when faced with very consistent and clear data on how PhD rates are higher for LAC alumni, they revert to the least likely theory supported only by hearsay that those students most be going to the bad grad programs. It’s just nonsense upon nonsense.

There are fine reasons to prefer universities for one’s own child, but LACs are at least as strong an option— and probably stronger— if the goal is advanced study past the baccalaureate.

Physics PhD programs, that is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From what I can see, it does seem there's an issue for lac grads to get into good grad programs. From Pomona, where 2 recent Apker award winners have come from:

Independent of the job market, if you want to consider graduate school you have to ask yourself three questions:
-Do I have the grades to get into a reasonable graduate school?
-What subfield of physics am I interested in, and what does this tell me about grad schools I should look at?
-Do I have the motivation to go to and stay in graduate school?
We can help you with the first two questions, but the third you have to answer for yourself. Coming from a small college with no Nobel laureates to write you letters of recommendation means that to get into the very top programs you will need both very good grades and a very good score on the GRE subject test. The “very top” programs are places like UC Berkeley, Stanford, CalTech, and Princeton. If your physics GPA isn’t a steady string of A’s and A-‘s, though, that doesn’t mean that you should start thinking about taking the LSAT. Many good graduate programs exist at schools other than the top ten; the “very top” programs have that ranking partly because they have excellent programs in essentially all subfields of physics. Especially if you have a pretty good idea of the subfield you might want to enter, you should look around at less well-known schools for strong programs in your particular area.

If a top LAC is explaining that they're at a disadvantage, no reason to not believe them. It is an issue that your professors aren't well known researchers/advancing the field of physics.
Source: https://www.pomona.edu/academics/departments/physics-and-astronomy/physics-academics/plan-senior-year

the only LACs I would consider top for physics are Reed, Harvey Mudd, Williams, Amherst (if you leverage the 5cc to take graduate courses at Amherst)

Amherst (who has not won an apker award) and Williams are interesting choices. By the way, Mudd and Pomona share a physics department…

Amherst College has produced an Apker recipient, and it is notable for having done so during the time when the Apker did not distinguish between colleges and universities. Only three other liberal arts colleges — Hamilton, Reed and Macalester — produced Apker recipients during this era.

Harvey Mudd and Pomona do not share a physics department.

Harvey Mudd and Pomona factually do. They piggyback off of each others course offerings, and you cannot graduate from the departments without taking courses at the other. I’m tired of people posting lies that continue to be repeated through these communities.

On the apker award bit, Amherst won one last year- no reason to go all the way back 40 years.

In terms of publicly available information, the entirety of Harvey Mudd's standard physics program can be completed, and perhaps must be completed, with courses designated as belonging to Harvey Mudd's curriculum:

https://www.hmc.edu/physics/program/majors/standard-program/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From what I can see, it does seem there's an issue for lac grads to get into good grad programs. From Pomona, where 2 recent Apker award winners have come from:

Independent of the job market, if you want to consider graduate school you have to ask yourself three questions:
-Do I have the grades to get into a reasonable graduate school?
-What subfield of physics am I interested in, and what does this tell me about grad schools I should look at?
-Do I have the motivation to go to and stay in graduate school?
We can help you with the first two questions, but the third you have to answer for yourself. Coming from a small college with no Nobel laureates to write you letters of recommendation means that to get into the very top programs you will need both very good grades and a very good score on the GRE subject test. The “very top” programs are places like UC Berkeley, Stanford, CalTech, and Princeton. If your physics GPA isn’t a steady string of A’s and A-‘s, though, that doesn’t mean that you should start thinking about taking the LSAT. Many good graduate programs exist at schools other than the top ten; the “very top” programs have that ranking partly because they have excellent programs in essentially all subfields of physics. Especially if you have a pretty good idea of the subfield you might want to enter, you should look around at less well-known schools for strong programs in your particular area.

If a top LAC is explaining that they're at a disadvantage, no reason to not believe them. It is an issue that your professors aren't well known researchers/advancing the field of physics.
Source: https://www.pomona.edu/academics/departments/physics-and-astronomy/physics-academics/plan-senior-year

the only LACs I would consider top for physics are Reed, Harvey Mudd, Williams, Amherst (if you leverage the 5cc to take graduate courses at Amherst)

Amherst (who has not won an apker award) and Williams are interesting choices. By the way, Mudd and Pomona share a physics department…

Amherst College has produced an Apker recipient, and it is notable for having done so during the time when the Apker did not distinguish between colleges and universities. Only three other liberal arts colleges — Hamilton, Reed and Macalester — produced Apker recipients during this era.

Harvey Mudd and Pomona do not share a physics department.

Harvey Mudd and Pomona factually do. They piggyback off of each others course offerings, and you cannot graduate from the departments without taking courses at the other. I’m tired of people posting lies that continue to be repeated through these communities.

On the apker award bit, Amherst won one last year- no reason to go all the way back 40 years.

In terms of publicly available information, the entirety of Harvey Mudd's standard physics program can be completed, and perhaps must be completed, with courses designated as belonging to Harvey Mudd's curriculum:

https://www.hmc.edu/physics/program/majors/standard-program/

DD attends the 5Cs, and you have to take the electives between the two, because they trade off on when they’re available. Often, a professor goes on sabbatical for a core physics class and you have to go to another campus. You don’t know what you’re talking about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From what I can see, it does seem there's an issue for lac grads to get into good grad programs. From Pomona, where 2 recent Apker award winners have come from:

Independent of the job market, if you want to consider graduate school you have to ask yourself three questions:
-Do I have the grades to get into a reasonable graduate school?
-What subfield of physics am I interested in, and what does this tell me about grad schools I should look at?
-Do I have the motivation to go to and stay in graduate school?
We can help you with the first two questions, but the third you have to answer for yourself. Coming from a small college with no Nobel laureates to write you letters of recommendation means that to get into the very top programs you will need both very good grades and a very good score on the GRE subject test. The “very top” programs are places like UC Berkeley, Stanford, CalTech, and Princeton. If your physics GPA isn’t a steady string of A’s and A-‘s, though, that doesn’t mean that you should start thinking about taking the LSAT. Many good graduate programs exist at schools other than the top ten; the “very top” programs have that ranking partly because they have excellent programs in essentially all subfields of physics. Especially if you have a pretty good idea of the subfield you might want to enter, you should look around at less well-known schools for strong programs in your particular area.

If a top LAC is explaining that they're at a disadvantage, no reason to not believe them. It is an issue that your professors aren't well known researchers/advancing the field of physics.
Source: https://www.pomona.edu/academics/departments/physics-and-astronomy/physics-academics/plan-senior-year

the only LACs I would consider top for physics are Reed, Harvey Mudd, Williams, Amherst (if you leverage the 5cc to take graduate courses at Amherst)

Amherst (who has not won an apker award) and Williams are interesting choices. By the way, Mudd and Pomona share a physics department…

Amherst College has produced an Apker recipient, and it is notable for having done so during the time when the Apker did not distinguish between colleges and universities. Only three other liberal arts colleges — Hamilton, Reed and Macalester — produced Apker recipients during this era.

Harvey Mudd and Pomona do not share a physics department.

Harvey Mudd and Pomona factually do. They piggyback off of each others course offerings, and you cannot graduate from the departments without taking courses at the other. I’m tired of people posting lies that continue to be repeated through these communities.

On the apker award bit, Amherst won one last year- no reason to go all the way back 40 years.

In terms of publicly available information, the entirety of Harvey Mudd's standard physics program can be completed, and perhaps must be completed, with courses designated as belonging to Harvey Mudd's curriculum:

https://www.hmc.edu/physics/program/majors/standard-program/

DD attends the 5Cs, and you have to take the electives between the two, because they trade off on when they’re available. Often, a professor goes on sabbatical for a core physics class and you have to go to another campus. You don’t know what you’re talking about.

Also if you’re Astro, Mudd only has 1 astronomer who teaches a singular class. Pomona holds the Astro department.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A family member works in a top 5 worldwide school for STEM in a position where the topic of undergrad study of prof children comes up often. The topic 3 destinations amongst that group’s children are LACs.

is the stem field math or physics?

Yes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From what I can see, it does seem there's an issue for lac grads to get into good grad programs. From Pomona, where 2 recent Apker award winners have come from:

Independent of the job market, if you want to consider graduate school you have to ask yourself three questions:
-Do I have the grades to get into a reasonable graduate school?
-What subfield of physics am I interested in, and what does this tell me about grad schools I should look at?
-Do I have the motivation to go to and stay in graduate school?
We can help you with the first two questions, but the third you have to answer for yourself. Coming from a small college with no Nobel laureates to write you letters of recommendation means that to get into the very top programs you will need both very good grades and a very good score on the GRE subject test. The “very top” programs are places like UC Berkeley, Stanford, CalTech, and Princeton. If your physics GPA isn’t a steady string of A’s and A-‘s, though, that doesn’t mean that you should start thinking about taking the LSAT. Many good graduate programs exist at schools other than the top ten; the “very top” programs have that ranking partly because they have excellent programs in essentially all subfields of physics. Especially if you have a pretty good idea of the subfield you might want to enter, you should look around at less well-known schools for strong programs in your particular area.

If a top LAC is explaining that they're at a disadvantage, no reason to not believe them. It is an issue that your professors aren't well known researchers/advancing the field of physics.
Source: https://www.pomona.edu/academics/departments/physics-and-astronomy/physics-academics/plan-senior-year

A quick read of the entire page shows that it absolutely doesn't say what you are implying.

Might want to quit trolling. The two Apkers say all that needs to be said.

They quote the plain text

[Anonymous]

Amherst booster is weird. They don’t graduate physics phds at a significant rate compared to the rest of WASP: https://www.collegetransitions.com/dataverse/top-feeders-phd-programs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Amherst booster is weird. They don’t graduate physics phds at a significant rate compared to the rest of WASP: https://www.collegetransitions.com/dataverse/top-feeders-phd-programs

How is reporting accurate information "boosting"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amherst booster is weird. They don’t graduate physics phds at a significant rate compared to the rest of WASP: https://www.collegetransitions.com/dataverse/top-feeders-phd-programs

How is reporting accurate information "boosting"?

It’s not accurate though. Amherst is ranked quite poorly compared to its peers on graduate school placement for physics. Good try though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From what I can see, it does seem there's an issue for lac grads to get into good grad programs. From Pomona, where 2 recent Apker award winners have come from:

Independent of the job market, if you want to consider graduate school you have to ask yourself three questions:
-Do I have the grades to get into a reasonable graduate school?
-What subfield of physics am I interested in, and what does this tell me about grad schools I should look at?
-Do I have the motivation to go to and stay in graduate school?
We can help you with the first two questions, but the third you have to answer for yourself. Coming from a small college with no Nobel laureates to write you letters of recommendation means that to get into the very top programs you will need both very good grades and a very good score on the GRE subject test. The “very top” programs are places like UC Berkeley, Stanford, CalTech, and Princeton. If your physics GPA isn’t a steady string of A’s and A-‘s, though, that doesn’t mean that you should start thinking about taking the LSAT. Many good graduate programs exist at schools other than the top ten; the “very top” programs have that ranking partly because they have excellent programs in essentially all subfields of physics. Especially if you have a pretty good idea of the subfield you might want to enter, you should look around at less well-known schools for strong programs in your particular area.

If a top LAC is explaining that they're at a disadvantage, no reason to not believe them. It is an issue that your professors aren't well known researchers/advancing the field of physics.
Source: https://www.pomona.edu/academics/departments/physics-and-astronomy/physics-academics/plan-senior-year

A quick read of the entire page shows that it absolutely doesn't say what you are implying.

Might want to quit trolling. The two Apkers say all that needs to be said.

They quote the plain text

A quick read of the entire page shows that it absolutely doesn't say what you are implying.

Read the commnet my little rocket scientist....the poster made a selective clip and I suggested reading the entire page as it doesn't actually say what the posrter is implying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amherst booster is weird. They don’t graduate physics phds at a significant rate compared to the rest of WASP: https://www.collegetransitions.com/dataverse/top-feeders-phd-programs

How is reporting accurate information "boosting"?

It’s not accurate though. Amherst is ranked quite poorly compared to its peers on graduate school placement for physics. Good try though.

The poster literally gave the students' exact placements, along with evidence of an Amherst alum winning a major award. What are you on about?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amherst booster is weird. They don’t graduate physics phds at a significant rate compared to the rest of WASP: https://www.collegetransitions.com/dataverse/top-feeders-phd-programs

How is reporting accurate information "boosting"?

It’s not accurate though. Amherst is ranked quite poorly compared to its peers on graduate school placement for physics. Good try though.

The poster literally gave the students' exact placements, along with evidence of an Amherst alum winning a major award. What are you on about?

No they didn’t? Why did you just lie about something that clearly isn’t there?

Amherst College has produced an Apker recipient, and it is notable for having done so during the time when the Apker did not distinguish between colleges and universities. Only three other liberal arts colleges — Hamilton, Reed and Macalester — produced Apker recipients during this era.

The facts are that it is ranked in the near 50s for grad school placement among top LACs.