Double major in physics and engineering physics?

In summary: I'm from the US, and I've never seen anyone looking for an "Engineering Physics" major. Are things different where you are?
  • #1
erotomania
5
0
I'm currently debating between majoring in physics or engineering physics. First and foremost I'm interested in the concepts and theories of physical phenomena, which is why I decided to go into physics. However, I would like to study it from an applied perspective as well.

Looking at course requirements for both physics and EP at various institutions, I've noticed that every single one has a common physics core; however, the majors branch off for topics/courses of choice. The truth is, at this point I'm very interested in taking all of the classes that differentiate physics and EP.

My question is, would it be redundant to take the upper division options for physics if I am doing the ones for EP? I know it wouldn't if I wanted to take something like astrophysics, but what about something like optics? I was thinking about majoring in EP and taking the options for physics as "electives," where I would technically meet the requirements for both majors.

Right now I'm taking calculus-based Physics II/Physics B/electricity and magnetism (whatever you call it), and the more I learn about it the more I'm interested to go further in depth theoretically and in practice. If I end up majoring in EP, I'll probably do my emphasis in electrical engineering. A double major in physics and EP does however sound much more appealing to me than physics and EE, because I'll probably go more into theory for graduate school (or so I think).

So, possible and ideal for me, or redundant?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
I'd be all over that, but no such program at my institution. :(

It would really depend on the specific differences in the programs. If you're going on to graduate school, the dual major won't mean crap...but the things you learn probably will.
 
  • #3
My guitar teacher went for an engineering physics degree (before realizing that he wanted to keep his sanity and switching to business). He said it was essentially an engineering and physics degree combined.

Anyway, I'm really interested in applied physics, too. However, I've been told that just going into experimentalism will give you all the applied stuff you'd need to learn.

So in conclusion, I don't know.
 
  • #4
why do you need to major in both? could you pick physics, for instance, and take engineering classes that interest you? Surely itd be a tight fit for the double major, and theyd make you take redundant classes
 
  • #5
Out of curiosity, what country are you from erotomania? Here in the US I've never seen anyone looking to hire an "Engineering Physics" major. Are things different where you are? Whom do you plan on working for?
 
  • #6
It's been a few years, but the EngPhys program where I went to school was essentially a combined Physics/EE curriculum. I always though the EngPhys guys I went to school with were masochists.

IMO, I think double majoring in both would be quite redundant. You should be able to major in one, and fill any 3rd and 4th year option slots with the physics courses you want to take (if you have room and meet the prereqs). However, if other programs are anything like the EngPhys program where I went to school, the workload gets so heavy that the last thing you'll want to add are more upper level physics courses
 
  • #7
I'm in California.

The most common EP programs are usually physics/EE or physics/ME. But it's also important to note it is not a double major in physics and another engineering discipline. Rather, it is a physics degree with a concentration of a particular engineering discipline. I'm debating between electronics or electro-optical communications as my concentration, which fall under the EE option.

From what I've seen, people don't necessarily hire "engineering physicists." They hire engineers or physicists, which EP majors can easily get jobs in. I know a few EP graduates who got jobs very quickly after completing their B.S. in both industry and academics, and some physics graduates who wish they would have done EP; according to them, an EP degree can get you a job more easily (not that you can't without a physics degree). There are those few special cases where "engineering physicists" are needed, the only cases I've heard of being research.

The workload is insane, and I am not planning on finishing in the three years that I theoretically have left. Some of the EP majors that I know will finish a semester or two "late."

I'm planning on going into graduate school, and because of my profound interest in theory, I'd rather go for a M.S. in physics rather than engineering. I think my ultimate goal is research, but I'd like the practical background as well.
 
  • #8
I doubt you can get hired as a "physicist" with just a bachelors, even if it were pure physics. They likely got engineering jobs. If that's what you want, then go for it. If you want to be a physicist as a career, then the engineering portion won't help too much. You'd likely learn everything you'd need about EE in grad school. And ME isn't that important for a physics grad student.

From what I've been told, it's also pretty hard to be hired as a physicist with only a Master's degree.
 
  • #9
Poop-Loops said:
I doubt you can get hired as a "physicist" with just a bachelors, even if it were pure physics.

Of course you can.

Poop-Loops said:
If you want to be a physicist as a career, then the engineering portion won't help too much.

That's completely wrong.

Poop-Loops said:
From what I've been told, it's also pretty hard to be hired as a physicist with only a Master's degree.

If depends on what jobs you're aiming for, but no, it's not "pretty hard," and it's fairly common.
 
  • #10
Laura1013 said:
Of course you can.



That's completely wrong.



If depends on what jobs you're aiming for, but no, it's not "pretty hard," and it's fairly common.

Countering baseless assertions with even shorter baseless assertions.

Nicely done; I'm convinced.
 
  • #11
huckmank said:
Countering baseless assertions with even shorter baseless assertions.

Nicely done; I'm convinced.


I figured someone would say that, but the answers are quite obvious. Look at any statistics anywhere. Look at your fellow classmates who have graduated. Look at physicists around the world. Of course bachelor's degree recipients get hired as physicists, quite frequently, in all fields, around the world. Many, many physicists (physicists, not engineers) I've interviewed have made a point (unasked) to say that engineering courses and skills are helpful in physics careers. Diversification and learning something from a different perspective is always helpful (not to mention marketable on a resume), even if one never intends to pursue engineering careers.

My reasonings for giving short statements in my previous post was to emphasise the jaw-dropping incorrect assumptions of the poster.
 
Last edited:
  • #12
My sources are post-docs and a guy who works on software on the project I was working on for a professor, who has a master's in physics (the guy, not the professor). He was an acoustics engineer at Boeing before moving over to software, and then getting a job at the university.

But let me hear what someone with a bachelors in physics would be doing to label himself as a physicist.

EDIT: Oh, and the part about engineering courses not helping much. The post docs and grad students I've talked to have basically said the same thing: they didn't know much EE going in, but they learned through osmosis. I can attest to that too. Sure the engineering courses can help (Not the ME though. I can't imagine how it would.), but it's not essential.

And if you're going to be spending a good chunk of your time doing engineering courses, you get diminishing returns. You'd be better off taking more physics courses.
 
Last edited:
  • #13
Poop-Loops said:
My sources are post-docs and a guy who works on software on the project I was working on for a professor who has a master's in physics. He was an acoustics engineer at Boeing before moving over to software, and then getting a job at the university.

But let me hear what someone with a bachelors in physics would be doing to label himself as a physicist.

Physics, of course; and employees don't label themselves, they're hired into titled positions. And, actually, I was thinking of several of my female friends (no "himself").

You need to widen your sources range.
 
Last edited:
  • #14
Laura1013 said:
Physics, of course;

Thank you, your opinion is now worthless. You get an F.

"Solve for X."

"X = X"

F

and employees don't label themselves, they're hired into titled positions. And, actually, I was thinking of several of my female friends (no "himself").

You need to widen your sources range.

You need to tell me what a person with a BS in physics will be doing as a physicist.

Sorry about the "himself", though. I also have several female friends who are getting degrees in physics.
 
  • #15
Poop-Loops said:
Thank you, your opinion is now worthless. You get an F.

"Solve for X."

"X = X"

F

No need to be so rude. It took me some time to compile this based on people I know. I can't type at the speed of light.

Not every one of these people are working as "physicists", but certainly they utilize their physics degrees. Every one of the titles below are held by people who have no higher than bachelor's degrees in physics.

Education and public outreach for NASA
Launch Vehicle Integration Engineer
Physics Instructor at a university
Flight Controller for NASA
Spacecraft Systems Engineer
Systems Engineer
Flight Dynamics for NASA
Engineer/Scientist for DARPA
Satellite engineer
Systems Engineer
Optical scientist
Scientist/astronomer/software engineer
I don't know her title, but she works in a space science lab making cables and parts for spacecraft

Edited to add:
http://www.aip.org/statistics/trends/highlite/emp/figure9.htm

This doesn't give a whole lot of information, but I'm sure you can look up more detailed statistics if you really care.

Edited again because I forgot three people!
 
Last edited:
  • #16
Laura1013 said:
No need to be so rude. It took me some time to compile this based on people I know. I can't type at the speed of light.

Not every one of these people are working as "physicists", but certainly they utilize their physics degrees. Every one of the titles below are held by people who have no higher than bachelor's degrees in physics.

I said you can be an engineer with a physics degree. What you said is that your title will be "physicist". Which I contend you'll be hard pressed to find a job like that. What you learn to get your physics degree, however, can give you lots of job options besides doing physics.

Education and public outreach for NASA
Launch Vehicle Integration Engineer
Physics Instructor at a university
Flight Controller for NASA
Spacecraft Systems Engineer
Systems Engineer
Flight Dynamics for NASA
Engineer/Scientist for DARPA
Satellite engineer
Systems Engineer

No where in that list is anybody a physicist. That would entail them doing physics i.e. experiments or theory.
 
  • #17
Poop-Loops said:
I said you can be an engineer with a physics degree. What you said is that your title will be "physicist". Which I contend you'll be hard pressed to find a job like that. What you learn to get your physics degree, however, can give you lots of job options besides doing physics.



No where in that list is anybody a physicist. That would entail them doing physics i.e. experiments or theory.

On the contrary, I believe every single one of the people on that lists are physicists, because they are directly using their physics degrees in their careers daily. You have a narrow and in my opinion incorrect definition of a physicist. I think we'll have to agree to disagree. Your point of view will only pidgeonhole you, and, and mine will only have a positive impact on my career.
 
Last edited:
  • #18
Laura1013 said:
On the contrary, I believe every single one of the people on that lists are physicists, because they are directly using their physics degree in their careers daily. You have a narrow and in my opinion incorrect definition of a physicist. I think we'll have to agree to disagree. Your point of view will only hurt and, and mine will only have a positive impact on my career.

Err?

The distinction seems to be that I find nothing wrong with using physics to do something that isn't physics, whether it be engineering, or statistical market analysis.

Your definition doesn't make sense. What about the people who work those same jobs without a physics degree? Are they physicists? They know a fraction of what your friends know of physics, but still do the same job?

Are you saying that knowing physics + doing something = being a physicist?
 
  • #19
Laura1013 said:
On the contrary, I believe every single one of the people on that lists are physicists, because they are directly using their physics degrees in their careers daily. You have a narrow and in my opinion incorrect definition of a physicist. I think we'll have to agree to disagree. Your point of view will only pidgeonhole you, and, and mine will only have a positive impact on my career.

I agree mostly with this point of view: it is very difficult to categorise people into "who's a physicist," and the person who defines a physicist as one working in either industry or academia is rather narrow minded.

Ok, poop-loops, what would you categorise me as? I have a mathematics degree, and am now studying for a PhD in cosmology in the maths department of a university. Am I a mathematician (I use maths everyday, and am involved in teaching and marking undergraduates), a physicist (I need to use a lot of physics too, thermodynamics, etc..), or would you just call me a cosmologist (which is really a mix of the two anyway)*. Do you see what I mean by the fact that it's very difficult, and not always benficiary, to pigeonhole people.

[*Ok, so I'm probably just a student, since I know hardly anything yet; but I was trying to make a point by my above words!]
 
  • #20
Poop-Loops said:
Are you saying that knowing physics + doing something = being a physicist?

I looked this up, but wasn't going to post it. But since you asked:

Dictionary.com: "A scientist who specializes in physics; a scientist trained in physics."

Wikipedia.org: "A physicist is a scientist who studies or practices physics."

I'm through hijacking this thread, since nothing more I say will convince you. Be careful that your narrow view of what a "real" physicist is doesn't insult the members of the physics community that don't conform to your standards. For further insight, read Sigma Pi Sigma's Radiations feature called "Hidden Physicists." You sound very young and may learn something.
 
Last edited:
  • #21
cristo said:
Ok, poop-loops, what would you categorise me as? I have a mathematics degree, and am now studying for a PhD in cosmology in the maths department of a university. Am I a mathematician (I use maths everyday, and am involved in teaching and marking undergraduates), a physicist (I need to use a lot of physics too, thermodynamics, etc..), or would you just call me a cosmologist (which is really a mix of the two anyway)*. Do you see what I mean by the fact that it's very difficult, and not always benficiary, to pigeonhole people.

[*Ok, so I'm probably just a student, since I know hardly anything yet; but I was trying to make a point by my above words!]

Yeah, I was just going to say "You are a student". When you get a job, then I can tell you "what" you are.

Honestly people, it's all in the title. If I get a Ph.D. in physics and become a race car driver, I'm not a physicist.
 
  • #22
Poop-Loops said:
Yeah, I was just going to say "You are a student". When you get a job, then I can tell you "what" you are.

Honestly people, it's all in the title. If I get a Ph.D. in physics and become a race car driver, I'm not a physicist.

You completely missed the point of my post, and from the sounds of your last comment, Laura's too. However, if one has a PhD in Physics, then one could be a racing driver and be a physicist. You seem to be missing the point that in order to obtain a PhD, one has to immerse oneself in the world of academia-- it's not all about sitting around and being lectured/ taught by professors!
 
  • #23
My sources for the most part are professors, engineers and recent graduates, from several states of the U.S. (and a few international as well: the UK, New Zealand, and India). Those with B.S. degrees didn't have trouble finding jobs, and some of them are in fact doing research. In fact, one professor told me the only time some physicists had trouble finding jobs was during the decline of the Cold War.

My reason for wanting the engineering background is for personal use, in building guitar tube amplifiers. That would not be my profession, but my hobby. I figure having theory in engineering as oppose to learning it straight from experience would certainly be more than helpful. Yet, despite me being an engineer for that, I'd still consider myself a physicist.

And I agree with Laura1013 and cristo, you don't have to hold a title as a physicist to indeed be a physicist.
 
  • #24
erotomania said:
building guitar tube amplifiers

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

I've been wanting to do this for a while, but I can't find the time to research some diagrams for tube amps and actually get the tubes.

Still, I'd love to have my gear be home-made than store-bought. I've been dying to make a guitar on my own, but the neck is just too difficult to make. I kind of want to make a guitar body next summer, and then fit a Warmoth neck onto it.

Also, holding a physics degree doesn't make you a physicist any more than holding a journalism degree makes you a journalist. A degree tells people what you know, not what you are doing.
 
  • #25
I guess you did miss all of our points. Never did I say having a degree in physics makes you a physicist, its what you do (you said it yourself), not your title.
 
  • #26
Yes, and if you do something that someone without a degree or knowledge of physics is also doing (i.e. a co-worker), does that mean that your co-worker is also a physicist or that you are not?
 
  • #27
Poop-Loops said:
A degree tells people what you know, not what you are doing.

Like you said, a degree tells people what you know. Your last statement lacks validity, because it is a given that one must be able to know physics to do physics. I think you have diverged from the argument of what defines a physicist to be a physicist.
 
  • #28
erotomania said:
Like you said, a degree tells people what you know. Your last statement lacks validity, because it is a given that one must be able to know physics to do physics. I think you have diverged from the argument of what defines a physicist to be a physicist.

Answer my question. If I am doing something with a degree in physics that my coworker is doing with a degree in engineering, am I a physicist? If so, is my coworker also one?
 
  • #29
If I am a teacher with a degree in teaching and my co-worker is doing the same with a degree in physics, does that make him/her any less of a teacher?

Having said that, I would say that about half of that list are more engineering than physics positions. You could be pedantic and say that what they do requires knowledge of physics, but if they are engineering something, doesn't that make them engineers first and maybe physicists after, if not at all? For some positions mentioned like 'flight dynamics for NASA", they are obviously physicists. But a systems engineer is obviously an engineer...
 
Last edited:
  • #30
Messages of posts #25 through #29 show trouble with trying to label people. Too many people look for the wrong details to assign a label. Students do this, managers and supervisors also do this. What really matters is what one has learned and what one understands, and what are ones skills. Also, there is the very obvious opportunity while in school for a particular major field, one may enroll in a few courses from another field... and later use some of them in ones job. Examples: Chemistry degree, and then working as computer programmer; Physics degree, and working as Engineer; Microbiology degree, and then working as a chemist; Engineering degree, working as a teacher for maybe life sciences or biology; or Psychology degree, and have a career as a performance artist.
 
  • #31
Yes, yes obviously labels don't do people justice. But you have to use them for quantitative and qualitative purposes. For example, when discussing job prospects. And practical purposes too. You can't possibly say... this is so and so and he works as a ... as a... I don't know how to label it. Perhaps what can be done is for a clear and precise definition with a wide enough scope to be stated at the beginning of each discussion according to the needs of the one who started the thread. You can't run away from the age-old problem forever. You have to come to a compromise.
 
  • #32
I wasn't planning to respond to this thread anymore, but it appears we have a fundamental misunderstanding of basic communications surrounding societal labels.

All of us use labels everyday to describe ourselves and those we come in contact with. Labels are not mutually exclusive. If someone is a "student", he/she can also be a human, a son/daughter, a brother/sister, an American, a [insert favorite band] fan, an artist, etc. We are what we consider ourselves to be. For example, an American who has been living in Europe for years and has completely integrated into a new society and gained new citizenship can still be an American (as well as a European).

Labels differ depending on each person's understanding of them, just as every word differs, even when clear-cut definitions are given. The color blue can be perceived slightly different for each person, with large overlap so that everyone mostly agrees. If you say, "I am 'x' label, and those who aren't the same as me aren't really x, even if they call themselves x," you're going to be wrong most of the time. Pop your bubble and open your eyes.

When one gains a bachelor's, master's, or doctorate in physics and decides not to continue with further formal education, one either gains a job as a physicist, switches fields, or remains unemployed. In the majority of the cases, a job that utilizes physics knowledge and skills is not going to have the specific label "physicist." Shockingly, a person with the job label "engineer" can consider him/herself to be a physicist as well as an engineer! Even more shockingly, a physics professor can be a physicist, a teacher, a mentor, a mother/father, a volunteer, an athlete, a scuba diver, and a race car driver! The band Queen's guitarist is an astrophysicist as well as a musician and rock star. Imagine that!

Tying this nicely back erotomania's original question, it almost doesn't matter what label your degree is. Almost. The knowledge and skill sets you learn in college/university and work experience, as well as the way you learn to think, contribute to your identity. Others' perceptions of your identity based on your degree label also influence what direction you head. In the big picture, you have the majority of the control over what you do and where you end up. Don't let others' ideas of what's proper hold you back from realizing that your education and career path is much wider than some would lead you to believe.
 
Last edited:
  • #33
Laura1013 said:
Long Post

You still haven't answered my question.

Person with an Engineering Degree is doing something that a person with a Physics Degree is doing. Say working on bridges or something. Is the Engineer a Physicist, or is neither a Physicist in this case?
 
  • #34
Poop-Loops said:
You still haven't answered my question.

Person with an Engineering Degree is doing something that a person with a Physics Degree is doing. Say working on bridges or something. Is the Engineer a Physicist, or is neither a Physicist in this case?

See the above statement:
Laura1013 said:
Shockingly, a person with the job label "engineer" can consider him/herself to be a physicist as well as an engineer!
 
  • #35
My bus driver is a physicist. He has to know how much to accelerate the bus so as to not hit something and how far away he can break so as to not hit something.
 

Similar threads

  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
3
Views
289
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
13
Views
1K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
8
Views
929
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
13
Views
267
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
3
Views
748
Back
Top