Physics BS - is it even worth it?

[George Jones]

You plan to shoulder to shoulder the full financial burden of your education so that your brother will not have to shoulder any of his? Have I misunderstood? What/who gives you the right to do this?

Sometimes parents behave unfairly, e.g., my grandmother

My mother’s mother said that her first girl to finish grade eight had to stay home to help with her large depression-era family. My mother excelled at and loved school, and she skipped a grade. She had a sister a year older than her, but her sister had to repeat a failed grade, so my mother ended up a grade ahead of her sister. My grandmother did not make an exception, so, effectively, my mother was punished for doing well at school.

but, as a parent (hypothetically, as I only have one kid), I would not allow what you propose to happen. My wife and I contribute annually to an RESP for our daughter; this is money we (and the Canadian government) set aside for her to use for her education after high school. We choose how much money we want to set aside for this, not her (although she is only in grade 1, so does not yet think about this).

 

[micromass]

Where do you get those statistics?

According to this site the attrition rate in graduate school for physics & math is about 30%.
http://www.phdcompletion.org/index.asp

That is about what it was at my graduate school, though my adviser said it was more like 50%. Same at my undergrad. The professor I TA'ed for said the non-completion rate there was 50%. These were each PAC10 schools.


Maybe your statistics are not counting people who get masters or choose to transfer to another program?

He got those statistics from knowing wbn. If you know him, then you also know that the only way he won't complete grad school is that he won't like the subject.

 

[atyy]

He got those statistics from knowing wbn. If you know him, then you also know that the only way he won't complete grad school is that he won't like the subject.

What if he doesn't get along with his advisor? Or, given that he wants to do experiments, money runs out half way for the project? Or his supervisor happens to give him an unworkable project? Or his supervisor dies half way and he has to switch supervisors? Or his supervisor doesn't get tenure?

One famous guy who ought to have gotten funding, but didn't is Douglas Prasher.

 

[Physics_UG]

What if he doesn't get along with his advisor? Or, given that he wants to do experiments, money runs out half way for the project? Or his supervisor happens to give him an unworkable project? Or his supervisor dies half way and he has to switch supervisors? Or his supervisor doesn't get tenure?

One famous guy who ought to have gotten funding, but didn't is Douglas Prasher.

I agree. There are many factors outside of the student's control in grad school.

 

[Jorriss]

What if he doesn't get along with his advisor? Or, given that he wants to do experiments, money runs out half way for the project? Or his supervisor happens to give him an unworkable project? Or his supervisor dies half way and he has to switch supervisors? Or his supervisor doesn't get tenure?

One famous guy who ought to have gotten funding, but didn't is Douglas Prasher.

Yes, there are things that can go wrong, I wasn't actually saying it's impossible for him to not complete graduate school but that it's not worth doubting ones self about given his ability.

Most of the people I know who did not complete their PhD's were not because of a lack of ability but because, mostly, people found they did not like research.

 

[Arsenic&Lace]

1. Engineering graduate school, masters or PhD. I know several friends who've done this, and the job prospects are pretty good. Take some pre reqs now.

2. If your parents are paying your way, then let your parents pay your way. Or pay half of the way yourself. It all depends on what they are willing to do or capable of doing. Frankly I find it bizarre that anybody would do anything other than what I did, which was to get an in state scholarship for a big "lousy" state school, but that horse has left the barn.

3. Physics Bachelors can and do get well paying jobs; in particular, try plugging into engineering job fairs. Cornell has a good engineering department from what I've been told. Unfortunately I lack the experience to say how realistic my experiences were, but at the job fairs I found employers who seemed either fine with or even keen on my physics major, Intel in particular.

4. Get your freakin' physics PhD. You'll get funding somewhere. If that somewhere is not Harvard, so what; buddy, you're only going to live once. You want to do physics research? This is your shot. Oh, and when you've got that PhD you can probably get some kinda job afterwards if you're not totally clueless. Hell even if you do it in something esoteric like cosmology. Just have marketable skills (start learning how to program NOW! I did, it's good fun, a whole different way of thinking. Learned that in my particle lab, of all places) and do a good job meeting people. Or get a solid state physics PhD if you're not confident you can pull it off with something crazy out there like field theory.

 

[WannabeNewton]

@George Jones, thanks for the advice. The thing is, my parents say they'll do it but honestly I'm pretty sure its just their ego getting in the way of them saying we're going to be screwed if we try to pay for two kids. I find it hard to cope with the guilt is all.

@Arsenic, thank you for the points. I don't have any plans to go into esoteric fields like cosmology or field theory. I would much rather work in a field like theoretical condensed matter physics / low temperature physics. I am not at all confident that I would pull off a PhD in esoteric fields like field theory or general relativity which is not to say CM physics is any easier but at least it is down to Earth and within the realm of contemporary experiment. Things like field theory and GR are fun to learn as a hobby but I would never try to do that as a PhD, I don't see any point in it.

I'll take your advice and look into engineering fairs. I have some programming experience and am more than willing to learn as much as needed to look marketable, regardless of what path I choose to take. If I do end up getting a PhD, hopefully that opens up doors towards well paying industry jobs should a career in physics not pan out (which, statistically speaking, is probably what will happen). Thanks again.

 

[clope023]

3. Physics Bachelors can and do get well paying jobs; in particular, try plugging into engineering job fairs. Cornell has a good engineering department from what I've been told. Unfortunately I lack the experience to say how realistic my experiences were, but at the job fairs I found employers who seemed either fine with or even keen on my physics major, Intel in particular.

.

Engineering job fairs are actually pretty kind to physics majors, Lockheed Martin's system engineering likes physics majors because they're known for being able to do simulations that engineers aren't trained to do. Military contractors like physics majors.

 

[physwizard]

What if he doesn't get along with his advisor? Or, given that he wants to do experiments, money runs out half way for the project? Or his supervisor happens to give him an unworkable project? Or his supervisor dies half way and he has to switch supervisors? Or his supervisor doesn't get tenure?

One famous guy who ought to have gotten funding, but didn't is Douglas Prasher.

Very well said. We had a jerk graduate program coordinator who would cut the TA funding if you exceeded 5 years in the program. And he would not allow anyone to change advisors after two years. Finally he got fired but it was too late to be of help to people who were already there. He was the reason for many people dropping out.
Especially if you land the combination of bad advisor + bad graduate coordinator things can get disasterous.
Many of these profs may be academically brilliant but don't have the people skills to mentor and take care of the student's needs effectively or most importantly even back up the student in defending his research. Some of them are outright eccentric and of absolutely zero help in a practical situation. Compare that to industry where people in mentoring roles undergo extensive orientation and training and their success is carefully monitored and scrutinized.
Quite often people who are capable and brilliant can drop out due to such reasons.

 

[atyy]

Well, I don't know if industry is necessarily better - I wonder if it was fun working for Steve Jobs! But yes, academia has some great mentors, as well as its share of jerks and thieves.

I think human nature is what it is wherever one goes, and the same person can do good and bad things.

@WannabeNewton, this is a tangent, but I did search for GR and engineering - expected to see GPS stuff, but instead got http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0607418 ! Not sure if it's really useful or just physicists trying to sell their stuff.

 

[MathematicalPhysicist]

Hi guys! I had a recent talk with my friend about my college debt / tuition and future job prospects as a means of paying off that debt and he voiced his concerns about my future financial state, concerns which hit me square in the face and brought me back down to reality - now I just can't stop worrying. My parents pay quite a sum of money per year for me to attend my current university and (hopefully) attain a bachelors in physics. Unfortunately, I also have a brother and they have to pay for his college education too so I will have to take on the debt that they will have accumulated for my education simply because it would be wrong to put the burden on them. The amount of money that will have been given to the university by my senior year (so 3 years from now) will have been about 120 grand.

This is certainly a heft sum of money to pay not to mention there is interest which will have accumulated on top of this. I will have to have a decent job in order to actually pay this off in a reasonable amount of time (I don't play on letting my parents pay most if any of it - I want them to focus on my brother's education). That being said, the main question I wish to ask is: how good a job, in the best case scenario, can you actually get with a BS in physics? By how good I simply mean in terms of salary. There don't seem to be much if any financially lucrative job prospects for a person with only a BS in physics and this worries me greatly.

I should note that I don't plan on getting married or having kids at any point in life so I will not have the gigantic financial burden that comes with marriage and kids. I am also asking specifically about the financial prospects of a physics BS and not a PhD because I want to be as realistic as possible; getting a PhD in physics is no joke for anyone and the chances of me failing are much greater than the chances of me succeeding statistically speaking. As such, I want to be as prepared as possible with just a BS in physics. Do you think it is possible, in regular circumstances (i.e. no lucky break with a miraculous job that is quite rare relative to the norm) to get an industry job with a physics BS that would allow, at the least, a ~120k base college tuition to be paid off in a reasonable amount of time (so that I won't be stuck with debt my entire life)?

I am asking now because I want to make these future decisions before its too late. I am going to enter sophomore year in august and if the job prospects are bleak then it would only serve me well to change my major to something more practical (e.g. electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, mechanical engineering etc.) so that I don't drown in a sea of debt that I can never claw myself out of as soon as I get out of college. Thanks in advance for the help, I honestly have no familiarity with job prospects for anything physics related and don't know where to turn. Thanks again!

You should be changing your major.

Edit: for some odd reason I read that you do plan on having kids and be married.

If you don't plan that then you can continue with your physics studies, and work also as a private tutor.

 

[dlgoff]

... I'm pretty sure its just their ego getting in the way of them saying we're going to be screwed if we try to pay for two kids.

Well maybe not. Are you sure you know your parents financial situation?

My father passed two years ago and now my mother is in a Alzheimer’s assisted living facility. Since I'm the responsible adult child (and poor at that) and now have Power of Attorney, I was surprised to learn they were kinda rich. Just sayin'

 

[Integral]

I haven't read all the posts in this long thread, however I can comment on the topic as given in the thread title.

I completed my BS in Physics in '77, I have only had one job since which REQUIRED a degree in Physics. However, I have remained consistently employed at professional level jobs for the past ~35yrs. I came out of the Navy an experienced Electronics Tech which has been the basis for all of the jobs I have had over the years. The Physics degree has always been the technical degree required for my jobs.

I have never once regretted my Physics degree. I did not get it to become rich, I got it to better understand the world I live in. In that respect I have "used" it every day of my life.

I payed for it (not my parents) with the GI Bill earned by serving 4 yrs in the Navy and with summer jobs in the saw mills. Never got a single loan or grant in all my years of education. This includes the BS in Math and 2yrs of graduate level math courses.

 

[clope023]

I haven't read all the posts in this long thread, however I can comment on the topic as given in the thread title.

I completed my BS in Physics in '77, I have only had one job since which REQUIRED a degree in Physics. However, I have remained consistently employed at professional level jobs for the past ~35yrs. I came out of the Navy an experienced Electronics Tech which has been the basis for all of the jobs I have had over the years. The Physics degree has always been the technical degree required for my jobs.

I have never once regretted my Physics degree. I did not get it to become rich, I got it to better understand the world I live in. In that respect I have "used" it every day of my life.

I payed for it (not my parents) with the GI Bill earned by serving 4 yrs in the Navy and with summer jobs in the saw mills. Never got a single loan or grant in all my years of education. This includes the BS in Math and 2yrs of graduate level math courses.

That's facetious isn't it (saying you 'used' it for your whole life, that's saying philosophy degrees are 'used' all the time since we're always thinking about ideas and philosophy is the analysis of ideas).
I mean yeah supposedly for the OP military could be on the table for him in terms of payment. Physics degrees (at least mine), don't by themselves account for a lot of the technical skills myself and my fellows have (I have an electrical engineering degree as well which accounts for those skills, my fellow physics majors did work outside of the classroom to get similar skills).
A good paying job is not being rich, this is a faulty and extreme view taken by lots of posters here when discussions of money come into the picture.

 

[jasonRF]

Employers in industry don't. They care about your marketable/usable skills, relevant research/publications and internships. If you can get those at a state school, your good. If you fail to get those at an expensive school, you are not good.

EDIT: CAVEAT- my company is modest size, not large. So not only can we visit fewer schools, we of course have way fewer available jobs and hence don't really matter for this discussion. So this first paragraph is likely not relevant:
END EDIT
One way in which it does matter is on-campus recruiting. My company cannot recruit at every school, it is just way too expensive. So we only recruit on-campus at the better schools. My hunch is that doing well in an on-campus interview gives you a leg up over the many folks who simply email resumes in. I don't have a list of schools we do and don't go to, but Stony Brook is well known to be a very good school.

Of course, if you know someone who works at a company, having them pass around your resume and put in a good word for you can improve chances of getting an interview. By the way, many companies give $$ bonuses to emplyees who help bring in new talent. So wherever wbn (or anyone, for that matter) goes to school, he should get to know upperclassmen/older grad students who will be getting jobs before him. Some of them will have a financial interest in helping him get a job.

Anyway, one of the best engineers we have went to a school I had never even heard of (and have since forgotten) and I have no idea what his degree is in - no one cares. He was promoted exceptionally fast and many folks would be upset if he ever left. So once you get your foot in the door (get the interview!) then it is up to you to make your opportunity.

To make a long post longer, I must say that I think the OP should have an open conversation with his parents after the semester is over - I think it would be best to be face to face. The financial situation his parents are in will clearly have a large role to play in terms of what makes sense, and he may not know the exact state they are in. If I could afford to pay to send my daughters to Cornell I would do it in a heartbeat, even if it meant I had to take on some loans. But of course there is some threshold beyond which it makes no sense. I have a number of years to go before mine are in college, so I have no idea where that threshold will be... EDIT but 120k is frightening... END EDIT

jason

 

[ModusPwnd]

He got those statistics from knowing wbn. If you know him, then you also know that the only way he won't complete grad school is that he won't like the subject.

Oh please... Anecdote is not statistics. You should know this. If he believes it because he knows WBN, that is another thing - its not statistics.

 

[Arsenic&Lace]

Jason,

I attend a "big lousy state school." There are loads of recruiters, some of whom are top of their game (Intel, for instance). Hell, even Goldman Sachs has started showing up here in recent years.

This is just a suspicion of mine, but there's a huge broadening of talent because the amount of quality students relative to the number of spots at say, Cornell or Harvard, is increasing. So employers are missing out if they don't come to my "big lousy state school." I would imagine the employment opportunities for a state school student that's not completely unknown (University of Vermont, perhaps not!) are not significantly different from say, Cornell.

In fact, my anecdotal experience with engineering students at BLSS (big lousy state school) is that those who work super duper hard win lots of awesome opportunities and are getting employed at places like Cirrus Logic, Intel, General Dynamics, and getting into grad schools like Stanford, U of T Austin etc.

 

[jasonRF]

Jason,

I attend a "big lousy state school." There are loads of recruiters, some of whom are top of their game (Intel, for instance). Hell, even Goldman Sachs has started showing up here in recent years.

This is just a suspicion of mine, but there's a huge broadening of talent because the amount of quality students relative to the number of spots at say, Cornell or Harvard, is increasing. So employers are missing out if they don't come to my "big lousy state school." I would imagine the employment opportunities for a state school student that's not completely unknown (University of Vermont, perhaps not!) are not significantly different from say, Cornell.

You are probably right - I should have placed the caveat that my company is modest, not HUGE, so is less relevant in every way. I will edit my post immediately. By the way, it is my current impression that the quality of education does not change dramatically from university to university. When I interview someone I do not care where they went to school. It is a lot more about what the student puts into their education than where they went to school. Many of the best schools for many fields are in fact public.

jason

 

[WannabeNewton]

Well it is quite clear that top universities also have rigorous and more advanced courses for offering at the undergraduate level. I bring this example up a lot but just take a look at the honors math sequence at UChicago, you won't be able to match that kind of an education at many other universities - the only equals that come to mind are Harvard and Princeton. Less prominent examples are honors introductory physics courses that use Kleppner / Purcell and advanced level sophomore / junior physics courses (Cornell for example has a Goldstein level course that undergrads can take instead of the usual Taylor level one and a similar advanced replacement for the usual Griffiths level EM).

@Jason and Integral, thanks for the advice :) I'll talk to my parents. By well off I didn't mean rich but just make enough to manage the debt and afford bare essentials.

@MathematicalPhysicist, yeah I don't plan on getting married or having kids so that, I feel, eases things up financially (except for the loss in tax benefits).

 

[PhysicsGente]

I assume this is a bad thing (haven't heard the expression before myself)? You're definitely right and I'm not disagreeing with you on anything. I'm just grappling with my personal priorities: do I pay the ridiculous sum just to go to a top university and get a BS in physics that might or might not get me a PhD and might or might not get me a good paying job with no PhD, do I change majors within same university to something more realistic like EE and at least know that I have a much better chance of getting a good paying job, or do I transfer to Stony Brook and have to pay much less (~20K for the two years ill be there + ~60K for the two years I'll have been at Cornell by the time I transfer, if I do choose that) and get a physics degree from there but give up Cornell?

Honestly speaking, after your and others' advice, it seems like transferring might not be the worst of ideas because let's be honest it's just Cornell it isn't Harvard, MIT, or Caltech so it's not like I'm getting an amazing education. Unfortunately it seems in today's world, prestige is always an issue when applying to top grad schools or when getting an industry job. Staying at Cornell and doing a BS in physics seems the worst of the three choices. Maybe I can dwell on switching to something engineering related within Cornell or go to Stony brook before its too late (even if I transfer I will have already taken a ~60k blow to my future funds because of the past year and the year to come).

Not really. From personal experience, it is not about prestige when applying to top grad schools. It's about who you know really.

Well it is quite clear that top universities also have rigorous and more advanced courses for offering at the undergraduate level. I bring this example up a lot but just take a look at the honors math sequence at UChicago, you won't be able to match that kind of an education at many other universities - the only equals that come to mind are Harvard and Princeton. Less prominent examples are honors introductory physics courses that use Kleppner / Purcell and advanced level sophomore / junior physics courses (Cornell for example has a Goldstein level course that undergrads can take instead of the usual Taylor level one and a similar advanced replacement for the usual Griffiths level EM).

Once you are done with undergrad stuff, no one stops you from taking grad level classes.

 

[WannabeNewton]

Not really. From personal experience, it is not about prestige when applying to top grad schools. It's about who you know really.

And why is going to a top school mutually independent from knowing prominent people? I would think to some extent it is the opposite - the opportunities to meet and collaborate with prominent people would be more abundant. (I am not saying this to be adversarial towards you or anything by the way, I'm just fleshing out as much information for both me and any other student in the same situation)

Once you are done with undergrad stuff, no one stops you from taking grad level classes.

Graduate level courses aren't replacements for rigorous introductory courses though.

 

[PhysicsGente]

And why are those two mutually independent?

Because the experiment collaborations are not only made of top college's groups.

Graduate level courses aren't replacements for rigorous introductory courses though.

In my opinion, you make the course as rigorous as you want. Besides, in the U.S graduate classes are just more rigorous undergrad courses.

 

[martinlematre]

not unless you really want to specialize in it. If you're smart and can network a physics degree can get you most anywhere, but if your primary concern is an easy job over working hard and networking for one then go right into engineering or something

 

[WannabeNewton]

In my opinion, you make the course as rigorous as you want. Besides, in the U.S graduate classes are just more rigorous undergrad courses.

I don't disagree with your first point but I do disagree with your second point. There is no substitute for e.g. a Kleppner or Purcell based class, especially since such courses are not offered in grad school. Of course a person can always self-study but sometimes you just need a classroom to get things done right at the undergraduate level. If you get things done rigorously at the undergraduate level then it is only natural that you will be more prepared for graduate level courses. This is certainly a selling point. I don't know how many schools offer GR at the undergraduate level but from what I've seen it is much more common amongst the "upper tier" schools to do so. Of course it would only help ,and not hurt, to have the opportunity to take GR at the undergraduate level before taking a graduate level GR class. (I'm refraining from using Caltech as an example for anything related to this because their undergraduate curriculum is essentially a graduate curriculum at most other universities)

 

[PhysicsGente]

I don't disagree with your first point but I do disagree with your second point. There is no substitute for e.g. a Kleppner or Purcell based class, especially since such courses are not offered in grad school. Of course a person can always self-study but sometimes you just need a classroom to get things done right at the undergraduate level. If you get things done rigorously at the undergraduate level then it is only natural that you will be more prepared for graduate level courses. This is certainly a selling point. I don't know how many schools offer GR at the undergraduate level but from what I've seen it is much more common amongst the "upper tier" schools to do so. Of course it would only help ,and not hurt, to have the opportunity to take GR at the undergraduate level before taking a graduate level GR class.

My friend, please tell me how is learning from Purcell different from learning from Griffiths.
I agree that Purcell's EM textbook is great, but the physics does not change. At the end, it's all the same.

 

[WannabeNewton]

My friend, please tell me how is learning from Purcell different from learning from Griffiths.
I agree that Purcell's EM textbook is great, but the physics does not change. At the end, it's all the same.

Well first, Purcell is meant as a freshman year text not sophomore year like Griffiths. Secondly, wherever there is overlap with regards to problem sets, Griffiths is measurably easier than Purcell. Third, Purcell is one of the few texts that from the start develops magnetism and the field of moving charges using special relativity. There is a reason why Purcell based classes are advertised for physics major wanting a "deeper" understanding of electromagnetism. You won't get anything close in a Halliday based introductory class and Griffiths doesn't do special relativity in EM till the very last chapter. Regardless, this is getting too specific, and the point is that there is a clear advantage to having more rigorous courses as an undergrad, both on paper and in preparation for higher level physics - to deny this would be irrational.

 

[deluks917]

Assuming the school has a good grad program (aprox stoney brook level) and grad classes are avialable to undergrads I do not see the real issue with just taking mostly grad classes startign in your junior year or so. It is not exactly the same as having a purcell/apostal/etc type class. But it does not seem like a huge issue to me. Plenty of people have attained a dep uderstanding of say general relativity after being introduced to it seriosuly for the first time in grad school. This sort of concern does not seem like something I would worry about anyway.

 

[Bipolarity]

What happened to the idea of switching into EE? I've noticed that a lot of math/physics people tend to steer clear from EE out of fear that it's not theoretical enough for them. While some EE courses (especially at my school) will you have you build large circuits, most are as fairly theoretical as their math/physics counterparts. If you open any book on DSP or control systems you will see that its layout is very much similar to that of physics/math textbooks (definitions/propositions/problem sets), only its a tad bit more useful in industry.

The thing about EE courses though is that a lot of stuff needs to be taken for granted. Often your textbooks will use results from math, but not prove them. A simple example is the fact that any piece-wise continuous function has a Fourier series which converges to it at points of continuity. This result from Fourier analysis is proven by mathematicians, but engineers don't care for the proof: they use it as an indispensable tool in signal processing though! If you really like math, you will take those courses alongside and it may or may not help you in signals. A lot of EE is also an "art" and there are not well-developed algorithmic ways of doing many things, which may annoy you if you are not at heart a mathematician, like I was.

In any case, Cornell's EE department is superb.

BiP

 

[WannabeNewton]

What happened to the idea of switching into EE? I've noticed that a lot of math/physics people tend to steer clear from EE out of fear that it's not theoretical enough for them. While some EE courses (especially at my school) will you have you build large circuits, most are as fairly theoretical as their math/physics counterparts. If you open any book on DSP or control systems you will see that its layout is very much similar to that of physics/math textbooks (definitions/propositions/problem sets), only its a tad bit more useful in industry.
BiP

Hey Bip (jesus christ I haven't heard from you in ages! Last I talked to you, you were like a 10th grader in high school!). Yes I am aware that EE is quite theoretical and heavy on electrodynamics which is why I put it on the table (and it is still on the table by the way, it is one of my choices that is high up there along with transferring to a cheaper school).

 

[Integral]

That's facetious isn't it (saying you 'used' it for your whole life, that's saying philosophy degrees are 'used' all the time since we're always thinking about ideas and philosophy is the analysis of ideas).
I mean yeah supposedly for the OP military could be on the table for him in terms of payment. Physics degrees (at least mine), don't by themselves account for a lot of the technical skills myself and my fellows have (I have an electrical engineering degree as well which accounts for those skills, my fellow physics majors did work outside of the classroom to get similar skills).
A good paying job is not being rich, this is a faulty and extreme view taken by lots of posters here when discussions of money come into the picture.

Not even a little bit facetious, my knowledge of physics has changed how I see the world, that is using my knowledge. Do not think that the only way to use knowledge is at work.

 

[WannabeNewton]

The thing about EE courses though is that a lot of stuff needs to be taken for granted. Often your textbooks will use results from math, but not prove them. A simple example is the fact that any piece-wise continuous function has a Fourier series which converges to it at points of continuity. This result from Fourier analysis is proven by mathematicians, but engineers don't care for the proof: they use it as an indispensable tool in signal processing though! If you really like math, you will take those courses alongside and it may or may not help you in signals. A lot of EE is also an "art" and there are not well-developed algorithmic ways of doing many things, which may annoy you if you are not at heart a mathematician, like I was.

BiP

You are definitely more of a mathematician than I. After doing some physics, I have come to terms with the fact that expecting the kind of mathematical rigor you would see in mathematics text is not a practical thing to expect from physics texts at the undergraduate or early graduate level. I have been spoiled, you could say, because the physics book I have used more than any other (save for Kleppner) is Wald's "General Relativity" and this book is quite precise as far as proper mathematics is concerned so I have the bad habit of using it as a reference to gauge the level of mathematics of other first year graduate texts with.

Eventually I came to terms with the fact that not all physics book will be that mathematically rigorous but they can still be very rigorous and difficult as far as physics is concerned (and by physics texts I don't mean mathematical physics texts such as the ones published under the Cambridge Monograph series because these can be extremely mathematical, especially books on gauge theory). I'm sure EE is the same way, in which case I wouldn't have any grievances.

 

[Arsenic&Lace]

Wannabe, how much serious research experience do you have?

 

[WannabeNewton]

Wannabe, how much serious research experience do you have?

I did numerical relativity projects with a professor for the entirety of the recently finished spring semester but not much other than that. Most of the research spots were filled by upperclassmen, who had already taken advanced lab classes. I, being a freshman, wasn't really allowed to do much outside of the theoretical work that I was lucky to get time with. I figure since I have 3 years left, I can start working on that once the spring semester of sophomore year starts at which point I'll have taken an advanced lab class.

 

[Arsenic&Lace]

Well, ok, so this will help me to illustrate the following point. While I agree that increased rigor is good, its value is highly overrated; learning from Young and Freeman or Halloway and Resnick in your first year actually makes far less difference than you'd think.

You'll figure this out in research, since the pace at which you must learn things on your own makes what you learn in the context of a class vastly less important than it seems; what you did in an intro class has waaaaay less effect than what kind of stuff you're teaching yourself and working on in grad school.

 

[WannabeNewton]

That is the same thing jorriss told me as well. I'll keep that in mind, thank you very much Arsenic! Although personally I have a hard time giving up opportunities to take rigorous courses, the kind of insight and challenge such courses provide are things I find to be of great utility.