- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review Physics Education Research

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Characterizing the U.S. graduate-level quantum curriculum: Insights into doctoral programs’ coursework and comparisons with undergraduate preparation

Alexis Buzzell1, Timothy J. Atherton2, and Ramón Barthelemy1

PDF

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 22, 020136 – Published 25 September, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/1ww9-cf72

Abstract

The completion of graduate-level coursework is an important milestone on the path to a doctoral degree in physics. Yet the structure and content of the graduate curricula remain largely undocumented. Here we provide the first national-scale analysis of the graduate-level quantum curriculum, drawing on catalogs from 184 institutions, 121 core quantum course syllabi, and 91 quantum field theory (QFT) course syllabi. Our results reveal the majority of graduate programs require two quantum courses (60.3%) and most commonly use Sakurai’s Modern Quantum Mechanics textbook (41.2%). Core quantum syllabi converged on four canonical topics: kinematics, angular momentum, approximations, and dynamics. While QFT may be considered advanced coursework that is not necessary for all research fields, it remains essential for describing relativistic and multiparticle systems, yet it is nearly absent from the physics education research (PER) literature. We found that 39% of graduate programs had no formal QFT course offering. Statistical analyses revealed that smaller graduate programs with less research activity were more likely not to offer a QFT course, raising concerns about equity and access. Among institutions that did offer QFT courses, a canonical set of topics emerged: interacting fields, Feynman diagrams, quantum electrodynamics, and radiative corrections. We provide comparisons to the undergraduate quantum curriculum, as well as recommendations to instructors and programs.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (35)

  1. M. Verostek, C. W. Miller, and B. Zwickl, Analyzing admissions metrics as predictors of graduate GPA and whether graduate GPA mediates PH.D. completion, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 020115 (2021).
  2. N. T. Young, K. Tollefson, R. G. T. Zegers, and M. D. Caballero, Rubric-based holistic review: A promising route to equitable graduate admissions in physics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18, 020140 (2022).
  3. N. T. Young, N. Verboncoeur, D. C. Lam, and M. D. Caballero, Rubric-based holistic review represents a change from traditional graduate admissions approaches in physics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 19, 010134 (2023).
  4. N. J. Mikkelsen, N. T. Young, and M. D. Caballero, Investigating institutional influence on graduate program admissions by modeling physics graduate record examination cutoff scores, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 010109 (2021).
  5. C. Miller and K. Stassun, A test that fails, Nature (London) 510, 303 (2014).
  6. B. Bridges, C. Solis, J. Barron, J. Laverty, J. Chini, and R. Henderson, Investigating the assessment landscape of physics graduate programs, in Physics Education Research Conference 2023, PER Conference (Sacramento, CA, 2023), pp. 64–69, 10.1119/perc.2023.pr.Bridges.
  7. D. Campbell, T. Appelquist, R. Diehl, J. Fajans, J. D. Garcia, J. Gates, A. Goldman, P. Jung, and M. Paesler, Report of the joint AAPT-APS task force: Graduate education in physics, American Association of Physics Teachers and American Physical Society, College Park, MD, Technical Report, 2006.
  8. A. Buzzell, T. J. Atherton, and Rón Barthelemy, Modern physics courses: Understanding the content taught in the U.S., Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 21, 010139 (2025).
  9. A. Buzzell, T. J. Atherton, and Rón Barthelemy, Quantum mechanics curriculum in the U.S.: Quantifying the instructional time, content taught, and paradigms used, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 21, 010102 (2025).
  10. G. Zhu and C. Singh, Students’ understanding of stern gerlach experiment, AIP Conf. Proc. 1179, 309 (2009).
  11. G. Passante, Energy measurement resources in spins-first and position-first quantum mechanics, in Physics Education Research Conference 2016, PER Conference (Sacramento, CA, 2016), p. 236, 10.1119/perc.2016.pr.054.
  12. H. R. Sadaghiani and J. Munteanu, Spin first instructional approach to teaching quantum mechanics in sophomore level modern physics courses, in Physics Education Research Conference 2015, PER Conference (College Park, MD, 2015), p. 287, 10.1119/perc.2015.pr.067.
  13. J. Kruse, M. Griston, and B. R. Wilcox, Characterization of upper-level undergraduate quantum mechanics courses in the U.S., Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 21, 020162 (2025).
  14. D. J. Griffiths, Introduction to Quantum Mechanics, 3rd ed. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2018).
  15. D. H. McIntyre, Quantum Mechanics: A Paradigms Approach (Pearson, Boston, MA, 2012).
  16. J. Townsend, A Modern Approach to Quantum Mechanics (University Science Books, Sausalito, CA, 2000).
  17. J. C. Meyer, G. Passante, S. J. Pollock, and B. R. Wilcox, Today’s interdisciplinary quantum information classroom: Themes from a survey of quantum information science instructors, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18, 010150 (2022).
  18. A. Piña, M. Verostek, B. Boyle, E. Watts, M. Lawler, M. Cacheiro, N. Pradeep, C. West, S. El-Adawy, H. Lewandowski, B. Zwickl, United States quantum education landscape dataset and visualizations (2024), https://quantumlandscape.streamlit.app/.
  19. J. C. Meyer, G. Passante, S. J. Pollock, B. R. Wilcox1, Introductory quantum information science coursework at US institutions: Content coverage, EPJ Quantum Technol. 11, 16 (2024).
  20. D. Tong, Lectures on quantum field theory Part III Mathematical Tripos (University of Cambridge, 2006), https://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/tong/qft.htm.
  21. A. Sirnoorkar, A. Mazumdar, and A. Kumar, Towards a content-based epistemic measure in physics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 010103 (2020).
  22. M. Verostek, C. W. Miller, and B. M. Zwickl, Modeling when and how physics Ph.D. students search for a research group: The role of interests and prior research experiences in timely group integration, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 20, 020119 (2024).
  23. G. P. Lepage, Active learning in a graduate quantum field theory course, Am. J. Phys. 89, 317 (2021).
  24. A. Buzzell, T. J. Atherton, and R. Barthelemy, Assessing a combined human coding and natural language processing method for qualitative analysis in physics education research, in Proceedings of the Physics Education Research Conference 2025 (American Association of Physics Teachers, Washington, DC, 2025).
  25. USNEWS, https://www.usnews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-science-schools/physics-rankings.
  26. A. Buzzell, T. J. Atherton, and R. Barthelemy, “Survey of physics faculty insights on the US quantum curriculum and research need ” (to be published).
  27. MSI, https://inclusion.uci.edu/core-programs/minority-thriving-campus/msi-directory/.
  28. S. Nicholson and P. Mulvey, Roster of physics departments with enrollment and degree data, https://www.aip.org/statistics/roster-of-physics-departments-with-enrollment-and-degree-data-2024.
  29. https://carnegieclassifications.acenet.edu/.
  30. J. Creswell, Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches (Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, 1998).
  31. J. J. Skurai and S. F. Tuan, Modern Quantum Mechanics (Benjamin/Cummings Pub., Menlo Park, CA, 1985).
  32. M. E. Peskin and D. V. Schroeder, An Introduction to Quantum Field Theory (Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Reading, MA, 1995).
  33. C. Singh and E. Marshman, Investigating student difficulties with dirac notation, in Physics Education Research Conference 2013, PER Conference (Portland, OR, 2013), pp. 345–348, 10.1119/perc.2013.pr.074.
  34. S. Basir and E. Burkholder, Departmental case study of physics doctoral students’ perspectives of written qualifying exams, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 20, 020123 (2024).
  35. L. Parson, Are stem syllabi gendered? A feminist critical discourse analysis, Qualitative Rep. 21, 102 (2016).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 22, 020136– Published 25 September, 2026
  • Received 6 December 2025
  • Accepted 20 August 2026
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation