How do you get an engineering job with a physics degree?

bpatrick

I think you're right that many mathematicians and physicists believe they are more intelligent. There are a few reasons I think this is true:

1) at my university, there were many physics majors that got to sophomore/junior E&M + statistical mechanics and failed the course. These same people, often switched to some engineering major, did the coursework in that, then returned their senior year to retake those final required physics courses, and did fine. To their former physics classmates (who often TA'd the classes that the ex-physics / engineers were re-taking), it seemed as if they "couldn't cut it in physics, so they fell back on engineering".

2) again, this is just an observation from my university days: upper level physics and chemistry labs were working with "cool stuff" while their classmates who were taking engineering were building basic amps, alarm clocks, and "playing" with k'nex building bridges during their labs ... in a very ignorant comparison, it makes the engineers seem "juvenile".

3) this is again, simply my observations: there were quite a bit of engineers who realized they wanted to be in engineering only after having failed their first upper level math class. They had always been great at math, straight As from kindergarten until differential equations, but when they took abstract algebra or analysis, they just didn't like the subject anymore, and often failed the course. Their fellow mathematics students often saw their realization simply (and incorrectly) as "they're stupid and just can't cut it as a mathematician".

4) while you're in academia, there is this magical quality about things that are "pure" ... as if it's more desirable and noble among academic disciplines. Like if you're studying math or physics, you're drive is to uncover the mysteries of the universe or something ... same with philosophy. Not sure why, maybe because these views are being passed down by subtle comments made by professors ... based on similar things to the scenarios I've just described.

My best friend from college was a Jazz Trumpet major. He is a design engineer for a large A/V - communications company and has been for over 7 years now. He has a minor in EE, but other than that, by educational accreditation, he is all musician. His engineering training involved taking 1 calculus class, 1 class in C programming, and 4 EE classes ... hardly the rigors of what you'd describe as a "degreed engineer" but I doubt anybody at his workplace nor most anywhere else in the world would not consider him an engineer ... considering that's what he does 40 hours a week.

Maybe you could consider him a "jazz musician", but I certainly do not considering he earns his salary via being employed as an engineer, not gigging as a musician. It would almost be the same as describing Bill Clinton as a "lawyer" just because he got his J.D. from Yale ... granted that may not be the best example, since I'm pretty sure he did work as a lawyer a few times during his career, but never for very long ... but you get my general idea.

**********************
as for the actual thread:

my advice would be to go for programming gigs. I'm sure there's entry level stuff out there for people with moderate programming experience + great math skills. General business is also an option. Many manufacturing companies hire entry level management with the only requirement being a bachelors in anything, then with computer and problem solving skills to boot, the odds are a bit better.

Rika

In my case I switched from EE to physics and I found physics much easier than EE. Does it mean I'm just too stupid to do EE and physics is easier than EE? Oh and pure math was much harder for me than same math used in physics so does it mean that pure math is hardest? But then why math majors are clueless and don't understand math used in physics and they even fail hard in mathematical physics classes?

I think the reason that many ppl switch from physics to engineering and do well/better in last one is simple - engineering requires DIFFERENT skillset than physics. Ofc skillset is similar but NOT identical so it's possible that someone is just more suited to do engineering rather than physics which has nth to do with physics being harder than engineering.

And ofc it's possible for physics major to work as engineer but it's not unusual for engineer to do research in physics because those two disciplines overlap each other.

Luv this one

And now please tell me that being classical literature specialist is much easier than being physics major :D

chill_factor

There definitely is both an arrogance and a curiosity with physicists. No offense, but I feel that many physicists do not have good communication skills.

I had the same experience. Engineering requires a different sort of mindset to get through the classes. I don't think this means physicists cannot design things as well as engineers though. The STM for example was invented by physicists.

lisab

Deciding who is smarter, which classes are harder, etc., has been done a lot on these forums and it's really a waste of time, imo.

However, there was a "joke" that I heard frequently when I was studying physics at the University of Washington. "What do you call a physics student who can't pass physics?" "An engineering major." Yeah, it wasn't funny then, either.

The "joke" was on us physics majors, though, who learned the sad corollary after graduation: "What does someone who has a degree in physics call someone who has a degree in engineering?" "'Boss'."

As evidenced by this thread (and many similar ones).

Mistake

I prefer this one:

http://brightlywound.com/?comic=22
http://brightlywound.com/?comic=24
http://brightlywound.com/?comic=25
http://brightlywound.com/?comic=27

4-part comic.

Back on topic: the reason so many people say it's easy to become an engineer with a physics degree is because professors seem to always say that.

I had a professor who said he worked as an engineer while getting his physics bachelor's degree. This would have been some 30 years ago. Maybe 30 years ago it was just easier to become an engineer since there weren't as many college graduates.

That's not the case these days obviously.

Shackleford

I was a physics major before I swapped my major and minor to math and physics. I graduate in May with a B.S. Math, Physics Minor. I learned that in physics you need to be a good problem solver and have patience in working out the often complicated problems. I'm mainly thinking back to my experience in classical mechanics. I did not like that and became very frustrated. In the core undergrad math courses and probably in general, the mathematical concepts are the most important thing, not necessarily solving long, complicated problems like you do in physics. You also have to keep track of the physics, too, not just the math. However, the more specialized and advanced undergrad math courses are very similar in rigor to physics mainly because that advanced math is necessary to solve the physics problems, e.g. PDE, advanced linear algebra, etc.. It wasn't until this semester that I formally learned the advanced linear algebra math that was used my quantum mechanics class a year and a half ago.

Mistake

One more question to you guys... what about when I see an ad for a job that requires the skills I think I posses... but I have no idea if I'll be able to hack it?

Take for instance this job:

http://seeker.dice.com/jobsearch/res...uctor-compnies

From the "requirements" page, it seems like I'm a shoe-in. All that stuff is standard learning material for a physics Bachelors. O-scopes, function generators, solid-state physics, C++, etc.

But when I read the job description... I want to crap my pants. Sales? Customer design specifications? Is this just weird corporate-speak for something that's actually fairly straightforward? Is this something I should even consider? I really want to consider it because like I said, it's one of the few jobs that lists (almost) everything I already know.

josh_einsle

the job description just describes a fairly standard set of duties for interacting between external customers and then your internal customers. Basically, reading those requirements, it sounds like you will be directly interacting with external (read paying) customers to understand the technical requirements of the company's product. You will then need to translate those requests in a series of internal specifications so that the various product engineers will know how to implement. You are asked to look at the whole product at a high level and then need to internally discuss with subsystem specialists about how possible it will be to meet each of the requirements. Some equipment manufacturers this would be described as 'applications'. In other words you need to know how the system works better than the customer so you can come up with creative ways in how they will use it.

Finally, I would not worry about if you understand all this at the get go, since the company should do their part in training you up to their systems. I would not worry too much as long as you meet the requirements listed and do a bit of research about what products the company actually makes before applying. This was you can mention your interest in the product in the cover letter and any potential interview, since it shows you took the time to find out about what that company actually does compared to the quick sketch in the advertisement.


I say apply as this can be really fun work, as I did something similar for 10 years before going back to get my PhD in Physics.

carlgrace

Mistake, I would say you are potentially qualified for this position. Applications Engineers are usually generalists, so this might be a good entry point into the profession. If they are prepared to hire new engineering grads, they would consider you as well. New EEs would still need training to learn the products of this company, and you would be no different. You might have to work a little harder to catch up on some fundamentals, and the interview might be a bit more challenging for you, since you will obviously have some holes in your background.

And don't take the negativity on here too seriously. Engineering is something you do, not something you are. Some of the best engineers I've worked with have physics degrees.

Good luck.