I'am currently a junior met major who just completed Synoptic I this past semester, starting Synoptic II this coming semester. The main reason I started this thread is because, compared to other students at other schools or in a different class in my school, I feel like I have learned very little. More on that later.

Id like as many people as possible to discuss their synoptic classes or other similar classes at the college level.

What topics specifically did you cover?
How much useful knowledge did you gain that helps you forecast today (if thats what you do)?
What was the most helpful topic/forecasting technique you learned?
How much did you learn about computer applications?
Interpretation of Satellite/Radar data?
Model interpretation?
MOS?
Global/Large scale indicies/climatology? ie (NAO, AO, ENSO, etc., etc.)
How much hand analysis of maps did you do?

A little background about my class, we have a professor who has been at our school for 3 semesters. He is extreemly smart and very good at teaching the concepts that he teaches in a way that everyone can understand. He taught my thermo class which I got an A in and I got an A in Synoptic I. The problem is the topics he has chosen to cover and more specifically how he has chosen to teach them. The class offically lasted for 2 hours and 45 min two days a week. We literally spent 3/4 of that time hand analyzing maps. Iam not completely against hand analysis but enough is enough, your only going to learn so much from it. He was crazy about it and he is not even close to what you would call "old school" yet he is teaching the class like its 1950. The lectures lasted on average about 15 mins before he threw some assignment at us for the rest of the time that was more suited for an art class than meteorology. When you have 2hr45min to lecture you take at least an hour. There is SO MUCH to learn about this field and so LITTLE TIME. We learned nothing about interpreting model output though the syllabus said we would, nothing really useful about basic forecasting techniques beyond just taking the models verbatum. I could go on forever about what we did not learn.

Since I started college met classes i have taken are
Intro to met
Intro to met analysis (lab for intro to met class)
Instruments and observations
Atmos Thermodynamics
Dynamic Met I
Synoptic Met I

I still could not forecast my way out of a paper bag, I'am literally useless with that stuff beyond about 12 hours maybe even 6 hours. All of our class is pretty much in the same boat. Id say half of the euswx members who dont have any formal education in met know about 10 times what I know from reading the forum for the past 2+ years. We have basically learned nothing compared to kids I know at other schools and even the sophomores who have a different teacher for Synoptic I (they chaged the sequence of courses this year so sophomores get to take synoptic). Sure I have a basic understanding of how the atmosphere works, all the "intro to met" concepts but as far as forecasting goes, I might be 5% better at it than I was senior year of high school. I would'nt mind if I went to a school who's met program was more oriented towards research but it's not and even if it was iam in no better position to do that either than I was 3 years ago. I would do more reading on my own time if not for the fact that the current workload (about 50% of it totally useless) takes up most of my time. Iam not saying any of this because I can't cut it in the hard core math/physics/chem/dynamics either, I got A's in all 3 of my calc classes & dif eq, B's in Physics, B's in chem and a straight A in Dynamic Met I which consisted of derivation after derivation even on tests and quizzes.

It just seems like every other met/met major I talk to is ahead of me. I listen to grad students who have come here from other schools or other pro mets on this forum and wonder how the hell just 3 more semesters is going to get me all that knowledge at the pace we are going. I know nothing about computer applications compared to what I see some other people doing and wonder how I'am ever going to learn. We have less classes oriented towards operational forecasting than most other schools I look at, yet so far Synoptic I has been completely blown by our professor and Iam not very optimistic about there being a drastic change in synoptic II. That leaves Advanced Synoptic as my only hope as thats our only other class oriented towards operational forecasting. Maybe I will learn something useful in Meso next semester if I get lucky. Older kids who had a different synoptic prof have sat in on our class and told me it was nothing like their's in terms of content. It's the guys first year teaching this class but he is a much better teacher that what he has shown, the guy knows what we need to know to be good at our jobs in the future, he was a NWS met for at least a year in addition to having extensive experience as an observer and in research. He is a really bright guy but he is not teaching us what we need to know. I think our professors are somewhat disappointed in our class (and they should be for many reasons but I wont go into that) and dumb down some things cause they think we are idiots. I'am well liked by the professors and have very good grades in an extremely difficult major but I still dont feel like I can be happy about it because everywhere I look I see how much I don't know. Iam not comparing myself exclusively to people who have been doing this for a long time but mainly my peers.

Sorry for the rant but I want to try to compare with more people as to their experiences in Synoptic classes or other operational forecasting type classes.
Thank You for taking the time to read/respond.

I think it's frustrating for all us undergrads. I'm not sure the situation at your school is really any worse than the norm, though. I'm a junior at OU and have yet to take a single synoptic class - don't until senior year, in fact. I know virtually nothing about forecasting beyond the very superficial stuff I've picked up in my time here, and fully expect to graduate not a whole lot better.

I'm actually surprised at your description of Plymouth State, though. I thought the smaller, undergrad-focused programs were usually much more application-oriented.

cja1987, on Jan 4 2008, 12:31 AM, said:

Here's what we learned in intro to synoptic laboratory at Penn State this past fall 2007, with Dr. Jon Nese (this list is taken from the ANGEL course management website that Penn State uses... less typing than if I used the syllabus on paper):

Day 1 - Synoptic [we did the syllabus and brief history of synoptic/observation systems]
Aug 28 - Hydrostatic & NWP
Aug 30 - Sept 4 - Advection Review ... few slides added
Sept 6 - Satellite imagery
Sept 11 - Radar
Sept 18 - Con(fluence)(vergence) / Di(fluence)(vergence)
Sept 25 - Thickness
Oct 2 - Jet Stream
Oct. 11 - Jet streaks
Oct 18 - Vorticity
Oct 23 - Vorticity equation
Oct 25 - Frontal analysis
Sea Ice } Quick mentions of
Santa Ana } weather stories
Late Season Hurricanes } in the news, at the beginning of lecture.
Nov 1-6 Cyclone Model (pdf)
Nov 6 - Conveyor Belts
Nov 6-8 - Frontogenesis
Nov 8-13 Isentropic Analysis Example
Nov 15 - Zonal Index
Nov 27-29: QG handouts
Dec 4-6: Topo & Omega
Dec. 13 - Synoptic Setup for Severe Weather

I'm not here to gloat, but I loved this class. Your questions...

> What topics specifically did you cover?
Written above.

> How much useful knowledge did you gain that helps you forecast today (if thats what you do)?
A fair amount. The class had a forecast contest for the second half of the semester, which could give you bonus points if you beat the TA or Dr. Nese. We had a map discussion at the beginning of every lab period. Did a lot of past analysis too...most of the labs dealt with analysis of past events...some maps were from forecast models since they illustrated some points much better than a near-real time map.

> What was the most helpful topic/forecasting technique you learned?
The QG omega equation.

> How much did you learn about computer applications?
We used GARP something like 3 times for the labs during the semester. Mainly used model images or reanalysis from the Internet for the rest.

> Interpretation of Satellite/Radar data?
Went through a basic unit of how the satellites and radar work and some analysis notes (what level of the atmosphere a water vapor image usually detects water vapor, anomalous propagation, etc.)

> Model interpretation?
Usually occurred during the map discussions. Applied what we learned in lecture to what's displayed on the models.

> MOS?
Never really lectured on it. A few people showed MOS maps during their map discussions, but Dr. Nese never really elaborated on it. I'm sure a class more dedicated to forecasting would go in depth.

> Global/Large scale indicies/climatology? ie (NAO, AO, ENSO, etc., etc.)
Actually he did spend the lecture before Thanksgiving break primarily on the zonal index (first year for this topic, however), and he chose a regional one - the NAO - to use for a more numerical example. AO came up briefly during a map discussion.

> How much hand analysis of maps did you do?
A lot. Seemed like every other lab or every 3 labs we were isoplething. Shading, etc. was common as well, but isn't as time-consuming as the isoplething. At the beginning of the course, the isoplething was mainly just to get us analyzing basic features again, then in the middle and latter portions, we had to use what we isoplethed for calculations as well as qualitative analysis.

Riemann pretty much covered it....I took it with both Nese and Markowski and Markowski was more theory based with a bigger emphasis on QG Theory and Severe Weather. Also, we only have 1 Synoptic course that is 4.0 semester credits as opposed to two courses.


Personally, I'm not too great at synoptic/mesoscale meteorology classes (earned a C in Synoptic and C+ in Mesoscale) (i.e...these are great forecasting tips!)....I'm much better at the dynamic side and looking at a mathematical equation to describe what is going on....but that might just be me. Also, I just hate forecasting unless it's for the track and strength of a TC.


Just remember, there are a broad range of subjects in meteorology...while a lot of people will be good at the things described in synoptic meteorology, that may not be your strong area and you might be much better at something else. You sound like you are good at dynamics...look into that further. Also, I'd start taking a load of computer programming classes. If you can do well in those, you will be set for a job.

Hope this helps.

I took Synoptic in 1961-no satellite, precious little radar, no computer applications, no computer models or MOS were available so we learned to forecast from the analyses that we prepared ourselves-my son has the copy of the book on analysis that I used which is probably worth a lot of money as an antique book.

Steve

The Synoptic Meteorology course I took was heavy on applications of computer modeling, dynamics --> real weather and plotting maps via GEMPAK. It was light on hand analysis, though I am one of the few who were skilled prior to taking the course.

During the 2nd semester, we had a forecasting contest and heavy application of what we learned in Synoptic I to real life forecasting situations daily. The class took a trip over to the NWS office on campus and worked with AWIPS, and we were allowed to ask questions about how what common weather forecasting techniques are applied.

Since then, I have moved on to other coursework that included Tropical Meteorology, Meteorological Stats (Grad-level), Hydroclimatology and various courses in preparation for my Dissertation.

At least you guys use computers. We are taught by a Dinosaur of a synoptic professor. Everything is hand drawn!!! I understand that he wants us to learn, but really the methods he is using are outdated. I don't even know how to use GARP or any of the other computer programs because he hates computers. His wife cheated on him over the internet on a chat room with one.

Now we are all screwed. I'm sure any Kean U head on here can attest to that.

Thanks for the replies, keep them coming.

well go to mississippi state..its all about forecasting minus the math.

My school was aweful in terms of teaching you anything about forecasting. And from what I've heard and seen, they were far from the exception.

I was VERY fortunate to get a job at a private weather firm while still just a Sophmore. Learned SOOOOO much more there than at school... to the point, that I was correcting the professor in Synoptic! He just loved that....

So personally, I'm quite disappointed in what I've seen schools are teaching in relation to real, operational forecasting. Not sure what will change that, but it needs a LOT of improvement IMO.

Having taken Synoptic I and II with Hoffman last year, I'm surprised that Miller is spending so much time with the hand analysis. His classes seemed like traditional "talk and chalk" lectures whenever I sat in the back of 306 doing work on the computers while he was teaching. I didn't take any classes with him, though. Hoffman generally spent the first half of the period doing lecture and the second half was generally doing some type of activity with a short 10 minute break in between. During the first semester we did a fair amount of hand analysis (i.e. isoplething ), decoding METAR and SYNOP code, and toward the end of the semester, some forecasting. If I recall, we also did some stuff with the thermodynamic charts too. We were required to take part in the WxChallenge both semesters and keep a weather journal during the second. The first semester was basically an extension of Intro to Met with very little mathematics involved. Lectures during the first semester were a wide mix of things including some of the above but also some stuff on forecasting. I can't remember too much detail at the moment, though.

The second semester became much more theoretical and heavier in the mathematics (not as much as dynamics, however). Hoffman also didn't make us derive on his exams which was nice, unlike Koermer. The class was focused toward using the equations you've learned in dynamics and applying them to forecasting problems. We did a lot of vorticity advection, trough and ridge propagation, thermal winds, jet stream, jet streak, areas of divergence and convergence, cyclogenesis, some QG theory, etc. It was my favorite class at Plymouth. After lecture we generally did some type of forecasting exercise, sometimes on GEMPAK. Hoffman likes GEMPAK a lot. The second semester also involved a large case study where we had to pick some weather event and go into the archives and find maps on it. We had to do a 10-15 minute presentation and write a substantial analysis paper on it. I loved the case study project (BTW, I did the March 2005 arctic front bomb). I hope Miller gets into this stuff a bit more during the second semester. While map analysis is important, you need to learn what is causing the weather and how to apply the theory to forecasting.

Mesoscale with Koermer is a good class. It is mostly descriptive with a few equations sprinkled in here and there. We did some stuff on frontogenesis, instabilities, severe weather, etc. It too was somewhat forecasting based.

I'm not sure if moving synoptic I to first semester sophomore year is a temporary move or not. I think it has a lot to do with Hoffman going on sabbatical this upcoming semester. The sophomores will get synoptic II with Hoffman during the spring of next year and Ins and Obs next fall (or so I was told). I strongly disagree with it because it worthwhile to know thermo prior to synoptic I since we did some stuff with Skew-Ts and also you need to have synoptic I fresh in your mind for synoptic II.

I cannot say much about Advanced Synoptic since I graduated prior to taking it. I've heard it's very math based and a lot of dynamics. It's really a graduate level course and has a major research project. I've heard a lot of good things about it and wish I could've taken it. Hoffman is a great professor. Hopefully, I'll be able to take a similar course at Penn State at some point.

During my three years at Plymouth (I was a transfer student), I have seen more of a movement toward applied meteorology and less of the theory stuff (somewhat unlike what I've heard about other meteo departments on this board). Dr. Zabransky, who recently retired, was a very traditional theory based professor. He was very heavy on the math and derivation. I had him for 3 classes (Ins and Obs, Thermo, and AP) and they were all tough. Miller seems more application based from what I've heard. After all he does the grad courses on Satellite and Radar Met.

A lot of stuff I've learned in meteorology was outside of class. Experience will teach a lot in this field. You do not stop learning once you leave the ivory tower. I've found that reading posts on here by some of the other pros to be very informative. I wish I knew more about NAO, AO, EPO, QBO, etc., but hopefully will learn in time. Good luck.

Quote

Oh don't worry, for our synoptic classes we used computers very little. GARP was only used about once or twice with Nese, and we used a computer program for maybe one lab with Markowski. Everything else was hand drawn...so trust me, you aren't alone there. I swear if I have to isopleth one more thing, I might just crack. lol

Seriously though, you should look into computer programming as well...even if it means taking courses in your equivalent of a cse dept. It's worth it.

I took Synoptic with Dr. Hoffman at Plymouth...the class was great, and I use it every day for TV.

...I really thought it was the most important Met class

downdraft84, on Jan 4 2008, 05:35 PM, said:

Yup, Hoffman teaches a Synoptic class at the exact same time right across the hall from us and everytime I look over there, Hoffman is still teaching while we work on yet another useless assignment. After taking thermo with Miller I really wanted him for Synoptic because I thought he would be more practical but it has turned out to be completely opposite. I would have been better off with Hoffman.

Couldn't you audit Dr. Hoffman's class whenever he teaches it again?

weather55, on Jan 4 2008, 04:19 AM, said:

LOL I could go on, Steve!

stormMASCO, on Jan 4 2008, 12:46 PM, said:

Yeah, except for the fact that almost nobody accepts the degree!

Have to chime in here, since this topic has been one of my 'pet peeves' for almost 20 years. Although great strides have been made in the education of meteorologists over the last 30 years, one thing I believe still lacks in many of the programs out there is the training aspect of the industry. Training is much different that education, and cja1987 hit the nail on the head with the quote "I couldn't forecast my way out of a paper bag". I have seen many fledgling meteorologists (and student interns) in the same situation over the years. Frankly, I have been surprised. The Air Force, and Navy are good at training forecasters....(many) university programs are not. Some do offer specific courses designed for the technical nuts and bolts of operational forecasting, and I applaud them. The others who focus more on the theory really need to beef up, and support their practical course offerings.

Twenty years ago, as a sophomore at LSC, I took a pilot course called "Practicum in Weather Analysis and Forecasting". This was offered at least a YEAR before the theory of Dynamics and the classic Synoptic meteorology course material was introduced. It was all about the points cja1987 addressed. What are the models? (LFM/NGM/Spectral) How do you read that smelly, 4-panel difax chart anyway? (LOL, and how do you change the paper, or clear a jam?!) What is MOS? This is what a baroclinic leaf looks like on satellite...and what is going on underneath it. I know having that technical background (plus another 1-3 semesters of "forecasting") under my belt, I related the theory to the operational aspects a lot better than trying to chunk it all into the Dynamic/Synoptic combo.

It appears as though this course still exists today as a 200 level course "Weather Data and Analysis", and also it appears as though there is a subsequent 300 level "Forecasting Applications" course. It looks like MT4330 and MT4340 could be similar at Plymouth. I'm quite sure many of the other institutions out there have similar electives. Speaking of...I think in order to get the "training" you desire, you will need to take as many of the elective meteorology courses available to you. That seems to be where the good stuff is, which may not necessarily be found in the core courses. I also took an Aviation Meteorology course, which was probably my favorite at the time. Many of my cohorts also took Mesoscale, Satellite, etc. Do the contests, or just forecast, observe and verify each day on your own.

SrnTierWxman, on Jan 4 2008, 07:39 PM, said:

Well Said!! That's what my experience has discovered too... you just said it better.

SrnTierWxman, on Jan 4 2008, 07:39 PM, said:

At OU, we have one mandatory class in Synoptic senior year. That's it. No other core courses, and no electives specifically aimed at operational forecasting or synoptic meteorology that I'm aware of. It doesn't seem to be a primary interest of many of the faculty, at least in my admittedly short experience so far. Slightly depressing.

Before college, I had always assumed just about anyone in a field like meteorology must be driven by the same kind of raw passion for weather that most of us on here are. Now I realize that's not necessarily the case. Some of the most respected researchers and professors freely admit they don't know much about forecasting and other more practical aspects of the science, nor do they have the slightest interest in it.

brettjrob, on Jan 4 2008, 09:15 PM, said:

I really don't see a problem with this, to a degree. Obviously, a faculty should include at least a few experts in synoptic meteorology and those well-versed in forecasting and teaching forecasting. I have raw passion for weather and do not have the slightest interest in forecasting, what you consider the "practical" aspects of the science others may not. It has nothing to do with passion if you have different interests within the science than someone else.

This is all off the topic, of course, as I agree with the overall points being expressed that most meteorological programs do not spend nearly enough time or resources on educating students about forecasting.

AtticaFanatica, on Jan 4 2008, 10:36 PM, said:

Oh, having different interests within the science is definitely not a problem - in and of itself, anyway. Obviously, it's a good thing not all meteorologists spend their nights ogling over the GFS, or the science would never advance. It's just that I was surprised to see some so firmly entrenched in the field, yet seemingly not that interested in day-to-day weather and such in addition to their field of research. Not a bad thing at all, just unexpected.

My only concern is that the apparent propensity of some (if not many) in academia/research to view forecasting and the operational side as uninteresting could be influencing the curriculum problems that we all seem to agree need addressing. Just a thought, since I'm not qualified to say definitively that such is the case.

brettjrob, on Jan 4 2008, 10:54 PM, said:

Interesting point, though I think the problem is deeper than that. This could be avoided if faculty members were hired solely to teach forecasting, but that is not usually the case.

most universities are so wrapped up in teaching equations that they never get around to teaching operational meteorology. i think this is something that really needs to be looked at. i learned more in my first 6 months in the nws than i did in 4 years in school. none of my professors had ever written a public forecast in their life.

the synoptics class at u of md was average. they offered everything mentioned at the start of this thread, minus the climate data.

I think the profs are aware of the need to train but won't do it. They don't feel that the university is where the training should take place.

This brings up a point that I have been and will probably continue to ask for the next year or so: Plymouth or Penn State?

I visited Plymouth last summer and met with Dr. Zabransky who talked with me a while about what they had for a program at Plymouth. I love the facilities and the fact that it is a smaller school. Also important to me is the fact that it is close to home, and in state (less expensive).

My physics teacher went to Penn State and has been trying to convince me to go there. I've heard great things about the school and I plan to visit this summer. Two factors pulling me away from it is its large size and expensiveness.

This is the list of requirements for a degree in Meteorology at Plymouth (source is the Academic Catelog for 2006-2007):

Intro to Met
Intro to Met Analysis
Met Instruments and Obs
Climatology
Atmospheric Thermodynamics
Synoptic Met I
Synoptic Met II
Dynamic Met I
Dynamic Met II
Atmospheric Physics
General Chem I
General Chem II
General Chem Lab I
General Chem Lab II
Scientific Programming using FORTRAN
Technical communications
Stats I
Calc I
Calc II
Differential Eqs
Multivariable Calc
University Physics I
University Physics II
University Physics Lab I
University Physics Lab II

one of the following:
Intro to computers
Computing fundamentals

one of the following:
Air quality
Climate change
Micrometeorology

one of the following:
Current Weather Seminar
Forecasting/Radio Practicum
Forecasting/television Practicum

Im currently taking Calc I and Calc II and will be taking Multivariable Calc, Physics I and Physics II, and doing an independent study for Dynamic meteorology in my senior year.

Is there anything in the list that has changed or will be changing? Is there anything not on there that I should be taking in college? Are the requirements different at Penn State or other colleges?

Any suggestions on which school? (And of course suggest other schools if you want - although Id like to stay in the northeast)

Thanks in advance!!

wxwatcher91, on Jan 5 2008, 10:28 PM, said:

All that chemistry and no hydrology?

wxwatcher91, on Jan 5 2008, 09:28 PM, said:

If you do a search, there are literally a half a dozen threads about which colleges to go to for meteorology, this school vs. that school, etc. For example, this one:

http://www.easternuswx.com/bb/index.php?sh...c=79724&hl=

brettjrob, on Jan 4 2008, 11:15 PM, said:

I had the "displeasure" of running into some of the Met faculty at a meeting at my office here back in early 2005....not only were they not very forecasting savvy, they could hardly even hold a normal conversation, something not too unusual for the MS/PhD people in this field, brilliant, but absolutely no common sense or street smarts whatsoever.

SnowGoose69, on Jan 6 2008, 01:58 AM, said:

As a Ph.D student, your comments sound an awful lot like stereotyping to me.

Since I know them all, who did you meet and how did they exhibit absolutely no common sense and no "street smarts" in your office meeting?

AtticaFanatica, on Jan 6 2008, 12:15 AM, said:

Thanks.

My Advanced Synoptic Meteorology class was quite useful (took it this past semester). We covered an intro and history of NWP (and forecasting in general), model data collection/assimilation and analysis, model descriptions, MOS methods and ensemble forecasting. Then we went into forecasting techniques, the forecast process and forecasting for each parameter such as wind or temps. We also got an introduction to the WRF and got a chance to practice running it.

The next third of the class covered a review of thermal wind, and went into quasi-geostrophic vorticity and thermal eqs. relating to analysis. That led into the height tendency/omega equation/Q-vector/Sutcliffe-Trenberth subjects and then the frontogenesis/secondary circulations and upper level fronts discussions. A review of extratropical cyclone development using the QG methods followed. A few classes were also devoted to PV and non-classical cyclone development.

The last third was my favorite as it covered convective forecasting. Parcel theory, stability indices, the structure and evolution of convective systems airmass to multicell, squall line and supercell storms was covered. Forecasting convection was covered and a few lab sessions were devoted to going through the COMET convective storm matrix. Slantwise convection and precip banding was also mentioned before we went into doppler radar and the use of its imagery.

The labs consisted of either completing a lab on the subject we were covering or writing a weather discussion and we were expected to make forecasts and discussions for the student website. A lot of material for reading was assigned from the MetEd site or handouts from various textbooks. The professor knew to tailor the course towards things that could be used in operational meteorology and that made a load of difference. We used GARP quite often in the lab portions and there was very little hand analysis (only for some quizzes and/or HW assignments). We also forecasted for the WxChallenge contest. The professor was very forecasting savvy and suggested we aim our weather discussions to be at a higher level than those of the AFDs.

The requirements for my school's (SUNY Stony Brook) Atmospheric Sciences (Meteorology track) B.S.:
o ATM 205 Introduction to Atmospheric Sciences (take in fall semester of soph)
o ATM 247 Atmospheric Structure and Analysis (take in spring of soph year)
o ATM 345 Atmospheric Thermodynamics and Dynamics (take in fall of jun. year)
o ATM 346 Advanced Atmospheric Dynamics (take in spring of jun. year)
o ATM 348 Atmospheric Physics (includes cloud physics, take in spring of jun. year)
o ATM 347 Advanced Synoptic Meteorology and Weather Forecasting (take in fall of sr. year)
o ATM 397 Air Pollution and Its Control (take in spring of sr. year)
o MAR 334 Remote Sensing (take in fall of jr. or sr. year)
o MAR 350 Ocean Physics (take in spring of sr. year)
o MAT 131 and 132 Calculus I and II (take in freshman year)
o MAT 203 Calculus III with Applications (or the other equiv. courses to Calc III, take in soph. year)
o CHE 131/132 General Chemistry I and II (take in freshman year)
o PHY 125, 126, 127 Classical Physics A, B and C (take in freshman/soph year)
o PHY 277 Computation for Physics and Astronomy (take any of these in soph year)
or ESG 111 C Programing for Engineers
or CSE 130 Introduction to Programming in C

We're also suggested to take:
o ATM 320 Spatial Data Analysis Using Matlab (take in spring of jr. or sr. year)
o ATM 437 Forecasting Practicum (as a complement to ATM 347)
o ATM 487 Research in Atmospheric Sciences or ATM 488 Internship (take anytime in jr. or sr. year)

AtticaFanatica, on Jan 6 2008, 03:11 AM, said:

I also know some of them and the ones I know are pretty normal and at least two are weather weenies or closet weather weenies at least they were when I last talked to them.

usedtobe, on Jan 6 2008, 10:54 AM, said:

Yeah, I just think it's an unfortunate stereotype that anyone who goes to grad school can't hold a normal conversation and has no common sense (the absent-minded professor), surely such people exist just like there are forecasters who can't hold a conversation. It just struck me as odd since I have found the faculty here to be much the opposite of that.

AtticaFanatica, on Jan 6 2008, 03:11 AM, said: