The Student Room Group

Top universities in UK for Theoretical Physics?

I am thinking of doing a course in Physics/Physics with Theoretical Physics at university and have some questions:

What are the top universities for Theoretical Physics?
How much maths is there? i.e. is it just further maths a-level carried on?

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1
anybody?
Imperial
Durham
Warwick (Maths + physics)

I think Birmingham or Machester might do a theoretical option as well.
The usual.

Durham and Bristol are superb.

London Met and Cambridge are obviously the natural choices.

Warwick also has an excellent theoretical physics programme.
Reply 4
Subscribes*
*subscribes too*
Reply 6
Original post by ilickbatteries
The usual.

Durham and Bristol are superb.

London Met and Cambridge are obviously the natural choices.

Warwick also has an excellent theoretical physics programme.


London Metropolitan ? what ???!!?!?
Reply 7
SUSSEX is quite good :smile:
Original post by Damix
London Metropolitan ? what ???!!?!?


London Metropolitan has a world-leading Physics department mate.
Reply 9
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/table/2010/jun/04/university-guide-physics

I dont know how accurate that guide is, with Royal Holloway at 2nd and no sign of Cambridge!
Reply 10
Original post by tekno
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/table/2010/jun/04/university-guide-physics

I dont know how accurate that guide is, with Royal Holloway at 2nd and no sign of Cambridge!


It's because Camb does't offer standalone undergraduate Physics degree. You can do Mathematics for Physics or Natural sciences.
Reply 11
Original post by ilickbatteries
London Metropolitan has a world-leading Physics department mate.


London Met. doesn't offer Physics at all and it's very bad University. It's worst then my High school.
Original post by Damix
SUSSEX is quite good :smile:


Yay. I like to see other people defending Sussex physics.
Reply 13
Original post by Ruvermillion
I am thinking of doing a course in Physics/Physics with Theoretical Physics at university and have some questions:

What are the top universities for Theoretical Physics?
How much maths is there? i.e. is it just further maths a-level carried on?


1. Cambridge; The natural sciences course, you specialise as you progress but certainly don't miss out on anything.
2. Imperial; Physics course, specialise later
3. Durham;
4. Warwick

after that, kind of subjective, do some research or base it on the uni you like most.

How much maths?

LOTS

it's further maths a-level carried on, but carried on for a long way. Much more rigorous as well. You wont meet anything that is entirely 100% a new area of maths, that hasn't been mentioned before, but it all goes a lot further.
How much maths?

More maths than a degree in maths.
Reply 15
Original post by OdinsThunder
How much maths?

More maths than a degree in maths.


depend on uni.
Original post by OdinsThunder
How much maths?

More maths than a degree in maths.


This surprises me
Reply 17
Original post by The Mr Z
1. Cambridge; The natural sciences course, you specialise as you progress but certainly don't miss out on anything.
2. Imperial; Physics course, specialise later
3. Durham;
4. Warwick

after that, kind of subjective, do some research or base it on the uni you like most.

How much maths?

LOTS

it's further maths a-level carried on, but carried on for a long way. Much more rigorous as well. You wont meet anything that is entirely 100% a new area of maths, that hasn't been mentioned before, but it all goes a lot further.


I'd prob say Imperial edges it but I am biased as i'm talking about my own course.:biggrin:

Pros of Cambridge Nat-Sci would be the tutorial system which is obviously a game changer if you respond well to supervised learning. But not everyone does for instance I never responded well to being told how to do things!

Also another pro is the ability to switch degree courses which is good individually and arguably helps produce happier and more academically satisfied grads.

Pros of Imperial Theo Phys would be more maths. We do an analysis course in 1st year with proof, lemmas, epsilons etc (which I havent heard of elsewhere) a methods course in 2nd year and an advanced classical physics course in 3rd year plus standard maths courses on top.

Another thing would be the range of options you can take. Probably something like 30 options over 2 years which you choose 10 plus a lot of theory 1s. so theres really a lot of choice and flexibility.

Lastly I believe our research output in the field is No1(don't quote me on that) so that would obviously help if you were looking to get really get stuck into academia.

Also I heard Durham and St Andrews are decent. but dont go to UCL. Poor quality physics there
Reply 18
Original post by slylion1
I'd prob say Imperial edges it but I am biased as i'm talking about my own course.:biggrin:

Pros of Cambridge Nat-Sci would be the tutorial system which is obviously a game changer if you respond well to supervised learning. But not everyone does for instance I never responded well to being told how to do things!

Also another pro is the ability to switch degree courses which is good individually and arguably helps produce happier and more academically satisfied grads.

Pros of Imperial Theo Phys would be more maths. We do an analysis course in 1st year with proof, lemmas, epsilons etc (which I havent heard of elsewhere) a methods course in 2nd year and an advanced classical physics course in 3rd year plus standard maths courses on top.

Another thing would be the range of options you can take. Probably something like 30 options over 2 years which you choose 10 plus a lot of theory 1s. so theres really a lot of choice and flexibility.

Lastly I believe our research output in the field is No1(don't quote me on that) so that would obviously help if you were looking to get really get stuck into academia.

Also I heard Durham and St Andrews are decent. but dont go to UCL. Poor quality physics there


You haven't understood the supervision system, it's not supervised learning, it's detailed teaching in areas you want help getting a better grasp of and stretching your knowledge in areas you're good at.

There's no cons to the system, apart from the amount of academics time it takes up.

Additionally, you're being taught 2-1 with real academics. My supervisor every so often has to take a week out to go to CERN. That knowledge feeds back.
Reply 19
Original post by The Mr Z
You haven't understood the supervision system, it's not supervised learning, it's detailed teaching in areas you want help getting a better grasp of and stretching your knowledge in areas you're good at.

There's no cons to the system, apart from the amount of academics time it takes up.

Additionally, you're being taught 2-1 with real academics. My supervisor every so often has to take a week out to go to CERN. That knowledge feeds back.


And you havent understood my claim that not everyone learns well with somebody in their face. There are a lot of students (myself included) who work best in isolation.

Overall supervision is a positive resource which is why I listed it as a pro but it is not universally superior to all other forms of learning.

Lol at your attempt to project superiority because your supervisor works at CERN. There are also bigshot Physics professors that undergrads come into contact with at other universities but nice try.

I will also reply to your neg with a pos rep as I am a nice guy:smile:

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending