Williams vs Bowdoin?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There seems to be more overt elitism with Williams. That’s probably unsurprising given a certain cross section of top students want to be able to say they went to the #1 ranked LAC. But there actually is a cross section of top students who are turned off by that vibe.

Both schools are great. I think Bowdoin has the better location. The academic pros/cons come down to field of study. For life sciences, environmental science, and poli sci, I would personally prefer Bowdoin because those depts are strong enough that I would give the edge to the location advantage. But for art, Econ, CS, math, and physics, I would probably go with Williams. Other majors I’d be on the fence about.

I will say the rest are probably very true, but I don't agree with Physics. There's really nothing special from either school when it comes to Physics and you can end up in great or mediocre places from both. Evaluating their curriculum and offerings, it's about the same, if not identical (which is expected, physics content is practically standardized across the United States).

I see a broader selection of advanced physics courses at Williams. They also appear to have a significantly higher PhD production rate in physics (14th vs unranked in top 50 by rate). The Apker award successes are a small sample size but a bonus.

DP but I checked both spring 2025 course options.
Advanced Courses at Williams (That aren't major requirements for a physics major): None.
Advanced Courses at Bowdoin: The Physics of Black Holes, Methods of Experimental Physics, Methods of Computational Physics, Nuclear and Particle Physics
You may have just checked the flashy physics page, but for LACs you have to actually look into course catalogs, because classes often aren't taught for years.

I don’t know why required courses wouldn’t count.

I see 5 courses at the 300 level or above this year, not all of which are required anyway.

Because required courses are shared across universities? Have you graduated/done physics? Everyone takes stat mech, mechanics, e&m, and quantum, electronics, and lower div transition courses across the us. You do the same courses at an even harder level in graduate school.

It’s not true that all required courses are the same, even among these two schools. Nor is true that the course descriptions cover the same topics, even among these two schools. They don’t even require the same number of labs. Or even the same number of physics courses. Or even the same number of total courses for the major.

It’s amusing you are arguing all this after conceding Williams is likely better for math. It is wise for physics majors to take extra math, usually the more the better.

But really we don’t need to look further than the physics PhD rates to see evidence the Willams program has some advantage.

Yes, as a matter of fact I do have a degree in physics (from a school whose required curriculum is very different from either of these.)

We are way off topic. OP never even mentioned physics. Their kid probably would like Bowdoin more given they are inquiring about claustrophobia.

What upper div Williams Requires: Electricity and Magnetism, Vibration Waves and Optics (Intro, also known as "Baby," Quantum Mechanics), Math Methods, Quantum Physics (Big Quantum), Statistical Mechanics and Thermo
What upper div Bowdoin Requires: Electric Fields and Circuits (E&M), Quantum Physics and Relativity, Statistical Physics (This is Stat mech and thermo). Bowdoin tucks Baby Quantum into Intro Physics II.

Trying that again…

Waves and Optics isn’t really “baby quantum,” nor does that course even serve the role of introducing quantum physics in the Williams curriculum. Some waves material can help prepare the student for higher level quantum topics, but that particular dedicated waves/optics course appears missing from Bowdoin’s requirements, and Bowdoin doesn’t appear to require the equivalent to Williams upper level quantum mechanics anyway. There are many other differences in their requirements but I think there must’ve been some trolling going on cause the differences aren’t hard to see. There are similarities and differences in any two schools’ STEM curriculums, not just physics, so none of this is super surprising. If a student takes additional courses to go beyond the requirements the differences become more subtle but, based on the available descriptions, there would still be differences. Also not surprising.

The question was about an Econ major being heavily recruited by coaches at both schools. Specifically, which feels more claustrophobic?
This thread has gone off the rails.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There seems to be more overt elitism with Williams. That’s probably unsurprising given a certain cross section of top students want to be able to say they went to the #1 ranked LAC. But there actually is a cross section of top students who are turned off by that vibe.

Both schools are great. I think Bowdoin has the better location. The academic pros/cons come down to field of study. For life sciences, environmental science, and poli sci, I would personally prefer Bowdoin because those depts are strong enough that I would give the edge to the location advantage. But for art, Econ, CS, math, and physics, I would probably go with Williams. Other majors I’d be on the fence about.

I will say the rest are probably very true, but I don't agree with Physics. There's really nothing special from either school when it comes to Physics and you can end up in great or mediocre places from both. Evaluating their curriculum and offerings, it's about the same, if not identical (which is expected, physics content is practically standardized across the United States).

I see a broader selection of advanced physics courses at Williams. They also appear to have a significantly higher PhD production rate in physics (14th vs unranked in top 50 by rate). The Apker award successes are a small sample size but a bonus.

DP but I checked both spring 2025 course options.
Advanced Courses at Williams (That aren't major requirements for a physics major): None.
Advanced Courses at Bowdoin: The Physics of Black Holes, Methods of Experimental Physics, Methods of Computational Physics, Nuclear and Particle Physics
You may have just checked the flashy physics page, but for LACs you have to actually look into course catalogs, because classes often aren't taught for years.

I don’t know why required courses wouldn’t count.

I see 5 courses at the 300 level or above this year, not all of which are required anyway.

Because required courses are shared across universities? Have you graduated/done physics? Everyone takes stat mech, mechanics, e&m, and quantum, electronics, and lower div transition courses across the us. You do the same courses at an even harder level in graduate school.

It’s not true that all required courses are the same, even among these two schools. Nor is true that the course descriptions cover the same topics, even among these two schools. They don’t even require the same number of labs. Or even the same number of physics courses. Or even the same number of total courses for the major.

It’s amusing you are arguing all this after conceding Williams is likely better for math. It is wise for physics majors to take extra math, usually the more the better.

But really we don’t need to look further than the physics PhD rates to see evidence the Willams program has some advantage.

Yes, as a matter of fact I do have a degree in physics (from a school whose required curriculum is very different from either of these.)

We are way off topic. OP never even mentioned physics. Their kid probably would like Bowdoin more given they are inquiring about claustrophobia.

What upper div Williams Requires: Electricity and Magnetism, Vibration Waves and Optics (Intro, also known as "Baby," Quantum Mechanics), Math Methods, Quantum Physics (Big Quantum), Statistical Mechanics and Thermo
What upper div Bowdoin Requires: Electric Fields and Circuits (E&M), Quantum Physics and Relativity, Statistical Physics (This is Stat mech and thermo). Bowdoin tucks Baby Quantum into Intro Physics II.

Trying that again…

Waves and Optics isn’t really “baby quantum,” nor does that course even serve the role of introducing quantum physics in the Williams curriculum. Some waves material can help prepare the student for higher level quantum topics, but that particular dedicated waves/optics course appears missing from Bowdoin’s requirements, and Bowdoin doesn’t appear to require the equivalent to Williams upper level quantum mechanics anyway. There are many other differences in their requirements but I think there must’ve been some trolling going on cause the differences aren’t hard to see. There are similarities and differences in any two schools’ STEM curriculums, not just physics, so none of this is super surprising. If a student takes additional courses to go beyond the requirements the differences become more subtle but, based on the available descriptions, there would still be differences. Also not surprising.

The question was about an Econ major being heavily recruited by coaches at both schools. Specifically, which feels more claustrophobic?
This thread has gone off the rails.

It’s likely not everyone who clicks on a “Bowdoin v Williams” topic will have an Econ major student, but I agree, OP probably won’t care about 90% of what’s on this thread!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There seems to be more overt elitism with Williams. That’s probably unsurprising given a certain cross section of top students want to be able to say they went to the #1 ranked LAC. But there actually is a cross section of top students who are turned off by that vibe.

Both schools are great. I think Bowdoin has the better location. The academic pros/cons come down to field of study. For life sciences, environmental science, and poli sci, I would personally prefer Bowdoin because those depts are strong enough that I would give the edge to the location advantage. But for art, Econ, CS, math, and physics, I would probably go with Williams. Other majors I’d be on the fence about.

I will say the rest are probably very true, but I don't agree with Physics. There's really nothing special from either school when it comes to Physics and you can end up in great or mediocre places from both. Evaluating their curriculum and offerings, it's about the same, if not identical (which is expected, physics content is practically standardized across the United States).

I see a broader selection of advanced physics courses at Williams. They also appear to have a significantly higher PhD production rate in physics (14th vs unranked in top 50 by rate). The Apker award successes are a small sample size but a bonus.

DP but I checked both spring 2025 course options.
Advanced Courses at Williams (That aren't major requirements for a physics major): None.
Advanced Courses at Bowdoin: The Physics of Black Holes, Methods of Experimental Physics, Methods of Computational Physics, Nuclear and Particle Physics
You may have just checked the flashy physics page, but for LACs you have to actually look into course catalogs, because classes often aren't taught for years.

I don’t know why required courses wouldn’t count.

I see 5 courses at the 300 level or above this year, not all of which are required anyway.

Because required courses are shared across universities? Have you graduated/done physics? Everyone takes stat mech, mechanics, e&m, and quantum, electronics, and lower div transition courses across the us. You do the same courses at an even harder level in graduate school.

It’s not true that all required courses are the same, even among these two schools. Nor is true that the course descriptions cover the same topics, even among these two schools. They don’t even require the same number of labs. Or even the same number of physics courses. Or even the same number of total courses for the major.

It’s amusing you are arguing all this after conceding Williams is likely better for math. It is wise for physics majors to take extra math, usually the more the better.

But really we don’t need to look further than the physics PhD rates to see evidence the Willams program has some advantage.

Yes, as a matter of fact I do have a degree in physics (from a school whose required curriculum is very different from either of these.)

We are way off topic. OP never even mentioned physics. Their kid probably would like Bowdoin more given they are inquiring about claustrophobia.

What upper div Williams Requires: Electricity and Magnetism, Vibration Waves and Optics (Intro, also known as "Baby," Quantum Mechanics), Math Methods, Quantum Physics (Big Quantum), Statistical Mechanics and Thermo
What upper div Bowdoin Requires: Electric Fields and Circuits (E&M), Quantum Physics and Relativity, Statistical Physics (This is Stat mech and thermo). Bowdoin tucks Baby Quantum into Intro Physics II.

Trying that again…

Waves and Optics isn’t really “baby quantum,” nor does that course even serve the role of introducing quantum physics in the Williams curriculum. Some waves material can help prepare the student for higher level quantum topics, but that particular dedicated waves/optics course appears missing from Bowdoin’s requirements, and Bowdoin doesn’t appear to require the equivalent to Williams upper level quantum mechanics anyway. There are many other differences in their requirements but I think there must’ve been some trolling going on cause the differences aren’t hard to see. There are similarities and differences in any two schools’ STEM curriculums, not just physics, so none of this is super surprising. If a student takes additional courses to go beyond the requirements the differences become more subtle but, based on the available descriptions, there would still be differences. Also not surprising.

Maybe you should read course descriptions. Williams’ waves and optics is a intro/intermediate quantum mechanics course. It’s literally in the description.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Williams is the only LAC my kid is considering, the tutorials really set it apart. But that won’t appeal to every kid.

The tutorials are great, but every good LAC makes it easy to do something similar, like an independent study. My third year student (attending a different school) is on their 4th at the moment, with at least 2 more happening next year. Tutorials have the benefit of being well structured by the prof ahead of time, but an independent study can demonstrate greater ability to navigate the unknown on the part of the student.

You can do an independent study anywhere, including universities, but the tutorials are unique to Williams among US schools.

The branding is unique to Williams. Their tutorials can have up to 10 students. So by that criteria my kid’s LAC has roughly 50 tutorials, they just call them courses.

I think highly of Williams but I have never heard of someone applying there and no other LACs simply because of its “tutorials.” Some depts, like CS, offered none this year. Some, like Math, offered only 2. Chem offered one.

Independent projects offer more personalization, but if looking for small discussion type classes, Williams is not unique.

Don’t fall for marketing.

+1

If you want small discussion type classes, consider U Chicago, Northwestern, Columbia, Claremont McKenna, and many others. The Williams college "tutorials" bs is getting old.

I have no horse in this race - they are both phenomenal schools and I hope my ds applies to both. That said, I just want to correct the misinformation about the tutorials - I sometimes hear said that other schools offer the same type of tutorials Williams does. That is simply not true - nor is what the poster above says about tutorials having up to 10 students. Yes, 10 students can register for a tutorial, but the way the class time works is that the professor splits the group into pairs and each pair meets with that professor weekly. They are assigned reading for the week; one student writes a paper and shares it with the other student, who writes a response to the paper. (STEM classes have less reading and more problem sets, labs, etc.) At their next class, they discuss. The students switch off on the paper and response for the rest of the semester. The 10 students are not in the same class - they may meet occasionally, to hear a speaker for example, or for dinner with the professor at the end of the semester - but the tutorial is 2 students/1 professor. It is not the same as other small classes (which Williams and many other schools offer, of course). The reason people mention the Williams tutorials so often is because they are unique to Williams - if anyone knows of another US college that offers this, please let me know.

Maybe I’m unsure of tutorial, but DS goes to Pomona for physics and upper div classes are called tutorial- in the first class you are put in a tutorial group of maximum 2-3 students and you get weekly reading, then you get assigned a problem where you have a window to talk with and bring up your ideas with your professor, then the class meets later that week and you each discuss and debate the solution to your problem. Maybe that isn’t tutorial.

I know Claremont McKenna does have tutorial for PPE- it’s imported straight from Oxford. Since my kids go to college in California, that’s where my knowledge is, but I’m sure there’s other colleges with a tutorial system.

Dp, but the difference is that on the Williams model, one student will serve as the lead, turning in their assignment to the other near the end of the week, and that other student wll file an assignment that is responsive to the first student’s (not to the original assignment) then will play the same roles in the discussion with the professor, in which there is only the two students present and the professor. The next week, the roles change, and so on. It’s much different than just having a very small class.

Also worth noting, this is not all classes at Williams. A tutorial is a special option that a student would only take once a year or so, and some chose not to take at all.

I think that’s neat. But I don’t really think it’s more neat than students doing peer reviews of one another’s work at other schools (which everyone does multiple times at our kid’s school at least) to develop the same type of skills. The bigger point perhaps is that I believe the Williams tutorials are predominately not in STEM fields. I think there are 10 across all STEM depts next year.

I would much rather have a graduate PhD student review my student's work than another undergraduate.

Obviously the professor is reviewing both. Personally don’t want TAs involved with my kid’s education.

Yet you would have your child's time wasted by review from another undergrad student ???

DP: you are, perhaps intentionally, misundertanding the structure of an Oxford-style tutorial. A student's peer reviews a paper IN FRONT OF the professor. Then, the professor discusses the strengths and weaknesses of the paper AND of the peer critique. Having a PhD teaching assistant grade a whole class worth of undergraduate papers is not the same thing, and is certainly not better than the individualized feedback in a tutorial.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Williams is the only LAC my kid is considering, the tutorials really set it apart. But that won’t appeal to every kid.

The tutorials are great, but every good LAC makes it easy to do something similar, like an independent study. My third year student (attending a different school) is on their 4th at the moment, with at least 2 more happening next year. Tutorials have the benefit of being well structured by the prof ahead of time, but an independent study can demonstrate greater ability to navigate the unknown on the part of the student.

You can do an independent study anywhere, including universities, but the tutorials are unique to Williams among US schools.

The branding is unique to Williams. Their tutorials can have up to 10 students. So by that criteria my kid’s LAC has roughly 50 tutorials, they just call them courses.

I think highly of Williams but I have never heard of someone applying there and no other LACs simply because of its “tutorials.” Some depts, like CS, offered none this year. Some, like Math, offered only 2. Chem offered one.

Independent projects offer more personalization, but if looking for small discussion type classes, Williams is not unique.

Don’t fall for marketing.

+1

If you want small discussion type classes, consider U Chicago, Northwestern, Columbia, Claremont McKenna, and many others. The Williams college "tutorials" bs is getting old.

I have no horse in this race - they are both phenomenal schools and I hope my ds applies to both. That said, I just want to correct the misinformation about the tutorials - I sometimes hear said that other schools offer the same type of tutorials Williams does. That is simply not true - nor is what the poster above says about tutorials having up to 10 students. Yes, 10 students can register for a tutorial, but the way the class time works is that the professor splits the group into pairs and each pair meets with that professor weekly. They are assigned reading for the week; one student writes a paper and shares it with the other student, who writes a response to the paper. (STEM classes have less reading and more problem sets, labs, etc.) At their next class, they discuss. The students switch off on the paper and response for the rest of the semester. The 10 students are not in the same class - they may meet occasionally, to hear a speaker for example, or for dinner with the professor at the end of the semester - but the tutorial is 2 students/1 professor. It is not the same as other small classes (which Williams and many other schools offer, of course). The reason people mention the Williams tutorials so often is because they are unique to Williams - if anyone knows of another US college that offers this, please let me know.

Maybe I’m unsure of tutorial, but DS goes to Pomona for physics and upper div classes are called tutorial- in the first class you are put in a tutorial group of maximum 2-3 students and you get weekly reading, then you get assigned a problem where you have a window to talk with and bring up your ideas with your professor, then the class meets later that week and you each discuss and debate the solution to your problem. Maybe that isn’t tutorial.

I know Claremont McKenna does have tutorial for PPE- it’s imported straight from Oxford. Since my kids go to college in California, that’s where my knowledge is, but I’m sure there’s other colleges with a tutorial system.

Dp, but the difference is that on the Williams model, one student will serve as the lead, turning in their assignment to the other near the end of the week, and that other student wll file an assignment that is responsive to the first student’s (not to the original assignment) then will play the same roles in the discussion with the professor, in which there is only the two students present and the professor. The next week, the roles change, and so on. It’s much different than just having a very small class.

Also worth noting, this is not all classes at Williams. A tutorial is a special option that a student would only take once a year or so, and some chose not to take at all.

I will also note that not all tutorials are taught that way: that is how humanities and social science tutorials are operated. STEM tutorials typically are problem-set based.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There seems to be more overt elitism with Williams. That’s probably unsurprising given a certain cross section of top students want to be able to say they went to the #1 ranked LAC. But there actually is a cross section of top students who are turned off by that vibe.

Both schools are great. I think Bowdoin has the better location. The academic pros/cons come down to field of study. For life sciences, environmental science, and poli sci, I would personally prefer Bowdoin because those depts are strong enough that I would give the edge to the location advantage. But for art, Econ, CS, math, and physics, I would probably go with Williams. Other majors I’d be on the fence about.

I will say the rest are probably very true, but I don't agree with Physics. There's really nothing special from either school when it comes to Physics and you can end up in great or mediocre places from both. Evaluating their curriculum and offerings, it's about the same, if not identical (which is expected, physics content is practically standardized across the United States).

I see a broader selection of advanced physics courses at Williams. They also appear to have a significantly higher PhD production rate in physics (14th vs unranked in top 50 by rate). The Apker award successes are a small sample size but a bonus.

DP but I checked both spring 2025 course options.
Advanced Courses at Williams (That aren't major requirements for a physics major): None.
Advanced Courses at Bowdoin: The Physics of Black Holes, Methods of Experimental Physics, Methods of Computational Physics, Nuclear and Particle Physics
You may have just checked the flashy physics page, but for LACs you have to actually look into course catalogs, because classes often aren't taught for years.

I don’t know why required courses wouldn’t count.

I see 5 courses at the 300 level or above this year, not all of which are required anyway.

Because required courses are shared across universities? Have you graduated/done physics? Everyone takes stat mech, mechanics, e&m, and quantum, electronics, and lower div transition courses across the us. You do the same courses at an even harder level in graduate school.

It’s not true that all required courses are the same, even among these two schools. Nor is true that the course descriptions cover the same topics, even among these two schools. They don’t even require the same number of labs. Or even the same number of physics courses. Or even the same number of total courses for the major.

It’s amusing you are arguing all this after conceding Williams is likely better for math. It is wise for physics majors to take extra math, usually the more the better.

But really we don’t need to look further than the physics PhD rates to see evidence the Willams program has some advantage.

Yes, as a matter of fact I do have a degree in physics (from a school whose required curriculum is very different from either of these.)

We are way off topic. OP never even mentioned physics. Their kid probably would like Bowdoin more given they are inquiring about claustrophobia.

What upper div Williams Requires: Electricity and Magnetism, Vibration Waves and Optics (Intro, also known as "Baby," Quantum Mechanics), Math Methods, Quantum Physics (Big Quantum), Statistical Mechanics and Thermo
What upper div Bowdoin Requires: Electric Fields and Circuits (E&M), Quantum Physics and Relativity, Statistical Physics (This is Stat mech and thermo). Bowdoin tucks Baby Quantum into Intro Physics II.

Trying that again…

Waves and Optics isn’t really “baby quantum,” nor does that course even serve the role of introducing quantum physics in the Williams curriculum. Some waves material can help prepare the student for higher level quantum topics, but that particular dedicated waves/optics course appears missing from Bowdoin’s requirements, and Bowdoin doesn’t appear to require the equivalent to Williams upper level quantum mechanics anyway. There are many other differences in their requirements but I think there must’ve been some trolling going on cause the differences aren’t hard to see. There are similarities and differences in any two schools’ STEM curriculums, not just physics, so none of this is super surprising. If a student takes additional courses to go beyond the requirements the differences become more subtle but, based on the available descriptions, there would still be differences. Also not surprising.

Maybe you should read course descriptions. Williams’ waves and optics is an intro/intermediate quantum mechanics course. It’s literally in the description.

Wrong again. Williams introduces students to quantum physics in 142, which is what maps best to Bowdoin’s 2140. You need to read the expanded descriptions. You can also learn something by visiting the bookstore. There are other clues.

The required curriculums have numerous further differences.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There seems to be more overt elitism with Williams. That’s probably unsurprising given a certain cross section of top students want to be able to say they went to the #1 ranked LAC. But there actually is a cross section of top students who are turned off by that vibe.

Both schools are great. I think Bowdoin has the better location. The academic pros/cons come down to field of study. For life sciences, environmental science, and poli sci, I would personally prefer Bowdoin because those depts are strong enough that I would give the edge to the location advantage. But for art, Econ, CS, math, and physics, I would probably go with Williams. Other majors I’d be on the fence about.

I will say the rest are probably very true, but I don't agree with Physics. There's really nothing special from either school when it comes to Physics and you can end up in great or mediocre places from both. Evaluating their curriculum and offerings, it's about the same, if not identical (which is expected, physics content is practically standardized across the United States).

I see a broader selection of advanced physics courses at Williams. They also appear to have a significantly higher PhD production rate in physics (14th vs unranked in top 50 by rate). The Apker award successes are a small sample size but a bonus.

DP but I checked both spring 2025 course options.
Advanced Courses at Williams (That aren't major requirements for a physics major): None.
Advanced Courses at Bowdoin: The Physics of Black Holes, Methods of Experimental Physics, Methods of Computational Physics, Nuclear and Particle Physics
You may have just checked the flashy physics page, but for LACs you have to actually look into course catalogs, because classes often aren't taught for years.

I don’t know why required courses wouldn’t count.

I see 5 courses at the 300 level or above this year, not all of which are required anyway.

Because required courses are shared across universities? Have you graduated/done physics? Everyone takes stat mech, mechanics, e&m, and quantum, electronics, and lower div transition courses across the us. You do the same courses at an even harder level in graduate school.

It’s not true that all required courses are the same, even among these two schools. Nor is true that the course descriptions cover the same topics, even among these two schools. They don’t even require the same number of labs. Or even the same number of physics courses. Or even the same number of total courses for the major.

It’s amusing you are arguing all this after conceding Williams is likely better for math. It is wise for physics majors to take extra math, usually the more the better.

But really we don’t need to look further than the physics PhD rates to see evidence the Willams program has some advantage.

Yes, as a matter of fact I do have a degree in physics (from a school whose required curriculum is very different from either of these.)

We are way off topic. OP never even mentioned physics. Their kid probably would like Bowdoin more given they are inquiring about claustrophobia.

What upper div Williams Requires: Electricity and Magnetism, Vibration Waves and Optics (Intro, also known as "Baby," Quantum Mechanics), Math Methods, Quantum Physics (Big Quantum), Statistical Mechanics and Thermo
What upper div Bowdoin Requires: Electric Fields and Circuits (E&M), Quantum Physics and Relativity, Statistical Physics (This is Stat mech and thermo). Bowdoin tucks Baby Quantum into Intro Physics II.

Trying that again…

Waves and Optics isn’t really “baby quantum,” nor does that course even serve the role of introducing quantum physics in the Williams curriculum. Some waves material can help prepare the student for higher level quantum topics, but that particular dedicated waves/optics course appears missing from Bowdoin’s requirements, and Bowdoin doesn’t appear to require the equivalent to Williams upper level quantum mechanics anyway. There are many other differences in their requirements but I think there must’ve been some trolling going on cause the differences aren’t hard to see. There are similarities and differences in any two schools’ STEM curriculums, not just physics, so none of this is super surprising. If a student takes additional courses to go beyond the requirements the differences become more subtle but, based on the available descriptions, there would still be differences. Also not surprising.

Maybe you should read course descriptions. Williams’ waves and optics is an intro/intermediate quantum mechanics course. It’s literally in the description.

Wrong again. Williams introduces students to quantum physics in 142, which is what maps best to Bowdoin’s 2140. You need to read the expanded descriptions. You can also learn something by visiting the bookstore. There are other clues.

The required curriculums have numerous further differences.

can you two get a hobby?

[Anonymous]

"Waves and oscillations characterize many different physical systems, including vibrating strings and springs, waves at the beach, or those that we hear as sound or see as light. Quantum mechanics describes particles with wave functions, and gravitational waves distort the very fabric of the universe. Despite these diverse settings, waves exhibit several common characteristics, so understanding of a few simple systems can provide insight into a wide array of phenomena. In this course we begin with the study of oscillations of simple systems with only a few degrees of freedom. We then move on to study transverse and longitudinal waves in continuous media in order to gain a general description of wave behavior. We conclude with a focus on electromagnetic waves and in particular on optical examples of wave phenomena such as interference, diffraction, and lasers. Throughout the course we will introduce and develop mathematical tools which will continue to see use in higher-level physics."
Sounds like what I learned in Intermediate quantum mechanics.... It's just interferometers and wave/particle behavior. I don't know how this is confusing any scientist.

[Anonymous]

The mention of quantum mechanics is in the description is to explain relevance of the course material to other physics topics. The course isn’t really an “intro/intermediate” treatment of quantum mechanics particularly more than an “intro/intermediate” treatment of vibrating strings or waves on a beach, also given as examples. It’s a dedicated required course on waves and optics, which Bowdoin lacks in its required set. Their closest course is probably their optics elective, 2340.

[Anonymous]

Williams's reputation is a step above Bowdoin's. It (Williams) is seen as being closer to HYPSM than Bowdoin in terms of student quality.

[Anonymous]

Meanwhile if you look at Felder’s Modern Physics, used by Williams 142, it maps almost perfectly to Bowdoin’s 2140.

Furthermore, Bowdoin also does not have a required equivalent to Williams 301, which should be obvious from the description, even more so from the prerequisites.

There are still more differences, including their math requirements, total courses, lab courses, placement vs credit policies, and more.

Your analysis was superficial at best.

[Anonymous]

No one cares about physics. Physics is not phun.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Sounds like what I learned in Intermediate quantum mechanics.... It's just interferometers and wave/particle behavior. I don't know how this is confusing any scientist.

Literally neither are mentioned in the index for the textbook for Williams 202.

What you consider “intermediate quantum mechanics” is what Williams considers introductory modern physics. Intermediate QM is 301, which is very different from 202.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No one cares about physics. Physics is not phun.

Ha!

Respectfully though, there’s a larger lesson here about how to compare curriculums, at least in STEM fields, and assumptions about every school having identical requirements for established fields. They do not.

The Williams base physics curriculum is very well structured, much more so than that of some (not all) other great schools. But (and this is important too!) it is possible to mostly fill in the gaps even if you go to a school with a weaker program by reading up on the details of more rigorous programs. It is easy for students to think their own school’s requirements are all they will be compared against post graduation, but that often isn’t the case.

[Anonymous]

Actually more interesting post than the pedantic physics ones.