Survey Results

At the end of the course, a survey was taken of the beliefs of the course participants (both students and researchers). Each person was allowed to submit one vote for their "favourite" interpretation (i.e., "the most likely interpretation to really explain what's going on") and one vote against their "least favourite" interpretation (i.e., "a waste of time and shouldn't be supported"). Votes against were then subtracted from votes in favour. The class was not large enough to be statistically significant, but the results are interesting nonetheless. Among the students, the "Agnostic" interpretation was the most popular (3 in favour, 0 against), while the "Many Worlds" interpretation was by far the least popular (0 in favour, 6 against). Among the professors and researchers, the "Operational Aproach" was the most popular (3 in favour, 0 against) and "Many Worlds" was again the most disliked (1 in favour, 3 against). The summarized results are as follows. The exact results (i.e., the raw data) are available for comparison here.

Interpretation	Students For	Students Against	Student Total	Researchers For	Researchers Against	Researcher Total	Overall Total
Copenhagen and/or Orthodox	4	-5	-1	1	-1	0	-1
de Broglie-Bohm (and extensions)	3	-3	0	1	-2	-1	-1
Many Worlds (and decoherence)	1	-6	-5	1	-3	-2	-7
Statistical/Epistemic Interpretation	4	-1	3	1	0	1	4
Dynamical Collapse Approaches	1	-2	-1	1	0	1	0
Consistent/Decoherent Histories	3	-1	2	0	-1	-1	1
Agnostics and Operationalists	4	0	4	3	0	3	7
Quantum Mechanics is an Approximation	1	0	1	0	0	0	1
"Shut up and calculate!"	0	-3	-3	0	0	0	-3
Sollipsism	0	0	0	0	-1	-1	-1
None of the Above (Other)	1	0	1	3	0	3	4