Choosing a major physics versus EE

[maverick280857]

Hi.

PS--this will be a long post.

A year ago, I posted here under a topic which went something like "physics after electrical engineering". At the time, I was getting into an undergraduate program in Electrical Engineering. I have just finished my first year and will be entering my second year in July. I am from India.

A little background: I have had a course in electronics, two courses in physics (basic classical mechanics, special relativity, electromagnetism, some wave optics and quantum mechanics), two courses in mathematics (real analysis and complex analysis/linear algebra), a computer programming course (java) apart from other compulsory engineering courses (physics and chemistry labs, electronics lab, drawing, humanities, etc).

I am interested in pursuing research in certain topics in physics (as of now these are: quantum computation, particle physics/high energy physics) that interest me. Although I have not had much formal exposure, I have read a few things myself which have furthered my interest in physics and inspired me. At the same time, I have interests in electrical engineering subjects (microelectronics, semiconductor devices, etc).

I have to decide between physics (a five year integrated masters program) and electrical engineering sometime soon. I have been given to think that an engineering degree opens a lot of doors in terms of jobs and opportunities, but a graduate school education in physics (esp theoretical) will be harder to get without a solid background in undergraduate physics. (I am sure I want do research, that isn't a problem and that opinion will not change, even though I do not have research experience myself )

If I do physics, I am not yet sure about choosing between experimental and theoretical. I would like it to be a bit of both, but I am not yet exposed to enough courses and lab work to have a taste of either. I am told that an EE background will be very useful in experimental physics but will make it somewhat difficult to do theoretical physics, due to lack of exposure to a lot of ug courses.

I would like to know the scenario of post-undergraduate studies (I have already read "So you want to be a physicist"), what I should expect should I go in for physics, etc. I was told that post-docs and jobs after PhD in physics are hard to find and many people turn to industry jobs (not necessarily research) after PhD in physics. If I want to work in the area of particle physics, quantum computation, semiconductor device physics, what should I be looking forward to? Is there reason to worry about a post-undergrad "what to do next" especially if I want to pursue a research career in these fields? I understand that I can get into some form of experimental condensed matter physics (semiconductor device physics) work after an EE degree?

I invite comments from those of you who have some advice for me and/or would like to give me more information. Thanks for your time and help
While some of my questions may be old and may have been answered before, I would still like to initiate some discussion here so that I may get to know a lot more than by just using google.com.

 

[berkeman]

Well, I'll try to give you one answer (my perspective). There are many other answers/perspectives of course.

When I got to undergrad, I was focused on engineering of one form or another, and found EE the best match. But I also found that I had an affinity and genuine love for Physics, so the decision at the 2-year boundary was very difficult for me. Physics was the subject that really turned me on (and that I got the extraordinary grades in), but I felt at the time (late 70s) that EE would be a better guaranteed-income path if I did well in it, and I ended up chosing the BSEE+MSEE path.

I don't regret the choice at this point, because I've worked very, very hard in EE and done well financially (not quite enough to retire young yet, but close). But Physics is still my first love, and one of my goals is to return to school for my BS/MS in Physics and to work on some pet peave projects that I've been wanting to get back to.

On the other hand, one of the most important things that I've come to learn over my years of working, is that it would be great if you had a daily job where you had a smile on your face as you walked into work each day. There are only a few jobs that I can think of where you would have a smile on your face each day as you got to work, and honestly, my EE work does not qualify. Yeah, there are times when I'm happy with my work, but my EE work has mostly been very challenging and rewarding, not smiling happy fun stuff -- do you know what I mean?

But if I could have pursued a career in Physics, and gotten lucky enough to link up with a challenging and well-paying job, then I probably would have been smiling ear-to-ear each morning as I walked through the front door. But it's pretty hard to beat the satisfaction of working your butt off at an EE startup and achieving financial security for your family...

Hard choices.

 

[maverick280857]

Thanks for the reply berkeman

On the other hand, one of the most important things that I've come to learn over my years of working, is that it would be great if you had a daily job where you had a smile on your face as you walked into work each day. There are only a few jobs that I can think of where you would have a smile on your face each day as you got to work, and honestly, my EE work does not qualify. Yeah, there are times when I'm happy with my work, but my EE work has mostly been very challenging and rewarding, not smiling happy fun stuff -- do you know what I mean?

Well, I am hoping to get into some challenging and (intellectually) rewarding stuff either way, and I doubt if someone in a highly technical position can have a "smiling happy fun stuff" job at a stretch--unless he/she is in the smiling happy fun stuff company or something :tongue2:. On a serious note, I am not looking for a job...just trying to decide between these two fields, and trying to keep in mind my goals or possible opportunities 5 years from now. These thoughts are more due to the variety of information I gathered from different sources (for instance, some theory phd students saying that very few options are left in physics, expt facilities to do phd are not available for all grads, might not get a position for a long time, etc etc)

But if I could have pursued a career in Physics, and gotten lucky enough to link up with a challenging and well-paying job, then I probably would have been smiling ear-to-ear each morning as I walked through the front door. But it's pretty hard to beat the satisfaction of working your butt off at an EE startup and achieving financial security for your family...

While the majority of people might end up doing that, there are research opportunities too--after all, people in universities who teach engineering have gone through bachelors in engineering themselves. So its not at all about the financial satisfaction...I am not bothered about the money (of course I cannot sustain my future endeavors with zero money, but just about enough)...and while I do not have as much experience, I will still say that for some folks, the satisfaction of doing something as part of a research project is more than working at a startup. I somehow feel I will have a better time working at those challenging problems you're referring to (either in physics or EE) as I would get an opportunity to learn a lot in the process.

 

[oqan501]

EE has theoretical aspects, as well. For example, computer vision(CV) field is in a way near to theoretical physics, as applying mathematics to real problems. No, CV is not physics; but it uses calculus of variations, PDE, differential geometry and indeed classical mechanics is based on calculus of variations.
On the other hand, semiconductor physics is a research area in EE, and a person who likes theory, will not like them, since they are experimental.
Please follow the link
http://ee.stanford.edu/~jela/. You will see that that professor is physics graduate, and work on seminconductor physics experimentally at EE.
A person who likes physics and theory(like quantum information theory, quantum field theory, etc...) should choose THEORETICAL PHYSICS, EE is boring for him.
A person who likes experiment, can choose EE and go on with SEMICONDUCTOR PHYSICS (quantum dots, photonics, nanotechnology, etc...).
A person who likes applications of mathematics can enjoy EE, for example in control.
Today as an EE student, I still do not know you can escape from practical aspects in EE ( I mean not practical problems, but hand usage(i.e.,hardware) by practical). If one can answer my question, I will be happy. I think that you can write codes in PC, and escape practical things(hardware) as an EE. Is it right?

 

[maverick280857]

No, that's not right. I am interested in the practical aspects of EE as well...in fact that is what is keeping me from deciding in favor of either field--I am interested in and have participated and worked in several projects involving electronic circuits, robotics, etc. But of late my interests have diversified to two topics in physics as well...mainly particle physics and quantum computation. But I don't see how one can evade practical aspects at all.

 

[oqan501]

Well, Paul Dirac escaped from EE, because he did not like the practical things and he realized that he had a passion in mathematics. (or Bardeen) Then, he became a theoretical physicist. If one likes practice, he/she will be happy at engineering for sure.

 

[marlon]

Well, Paul Dirac escaped from EE, because he did not like the practical things and he realized that he had a passion in mathematics. (or Bardeen) Then, he became a theoretical physicist. If one likes practice, he/she will be happy at engineering for sure.

But those two guys were geniuses. Go for the EE direction because it will garantee you a "life". Doing theoretical physics is not a rewarding job unless you are extremely good at it. Otherwise you will just pass your time jumping from one ****ty post doc to another. EE is a very interesting and rewarding field to work in. Keep in mind that you should do what you love, BUT you also have to deal with financial reality !

marlon

 

[Manchot]

Wow, berkeman, you really depressed me. Your description of how you felt about EE and physics as an undergrad is almost identical to what I've felt as an undergrad. I'm about to graduate with a degree in EE and start grad school, and you've got me thinking that I've made a huge mistake.

 

[marlon]

Wow, berkeman, you really depressed me. Your description of how you felt about EE and physics as an undergrad is almost identical to what I've felt as an undergrad. I'm about to graduate with a degree in EE and start grad school, and you've got me thinking that I've made a huge mistake.

Absolutely not. Berkeman chose for the financial security and that is the only way to go. He would have been far more miserable with no money and no life as a theoretical physicist. EE will bring you lots of good things in life. At least, if you want to work for that. But at least you have this prospect, a theoretical physicist has none !

marlon

 

[berkeman]

Wow, berkeman, you really depressed me. Your description of how you felt about EE and physics as an undergrad is almost identical to what I've felt as an undergrad. I'm about to graduate with a degree in EE and start grad school, and you've got me thinking that I've made a huge mistake.

Why do you say that? I said that I feel that I made the right choice, and have been pretty satisfied in my work. As marlon said, you have to deal with financial realities in life.

If it's the smile each day going into work thing, as I said, there are very few jobs that I can think of where you could do that realistically. If I were a park ranger at a local dirtbike park, for example, I would definitely have a smile on my face most of every day! But the pay is pretty low for that job (folks are climbing all over each other for a sweet assignment like that), so you'd have to already have financial security somehow to be able to work that job.

A couple other jobs that I can think of that would put a smile on my face each morning would be a teacher (in the right place, with good students), doctor (in the right specialty), park ranger (there it comes up again...), or physicist (in the right job). But if you're stressed about finances, it would be hard to keep that smile on your face, in my experience and opinion.

 

[maverick280857]

Okay before you get the wrong impression, this isn't about a comparison between EE and theoretical physics. Why is it that anyone who wants to do physics necessarily means theoretical physics? As far as I know, the distinction arises only when you go for a PhD...at least in India, there exists no theoretical physics undergraduate program.

PS--Its also not about comparing the practical or theoretical side of EE with physics. (I believe there's a thread in here somewhere about EE versus theoretical physics...I didn't initiate that one)

Why is life difficult for physics grads? I can understand the situation back in India, because there's a rat race in engineering (those who choose to do physics do it because of interest and they constitute a very very small fraction) and a lot of people I know want to go on to do either business administration, software jobs or related stuff (not academia). But I am just curious to get an insight into why things are bad elsewhere in the world...(is this really about theoretical vs experimental??)

 

[oqan501]

It is me who like theoretical(mathematical) physics from outside (but I'm not a physicist), (i.e. calculus of variations from CM, Hermitian Operators from QM, lie algebra from Q.Information.) if it is wrong topic to discuss it, sorry for it!

 

[Younglearner]

Does your school have a concentration program? Some universities offer physics degrees with a concentration in a field--the most popular being materials science, electrical engineering, advanced physics topics, and chemistry. I know this because Auburn University has this exact program.

 

[Locrian]

Well, Paul Dirac escaped from EE, because he did not like the practical things and he realized that he had a passion in mathematics. (or Bardeen) Then, he became a theoretical physicist. If one likes practice, he/she will be happy at engineering for sure.

What does the (or Bardeen) part of that post mean? Bardeen believed strongly that research should have direct, practical benefits. To suggest he "did not like the practical things" would not be accurate.

 

[maverick280857]

No Younglearner, it doesn't offer any such concentration program.

 

[maverick280857]

What should someone who has an interest in some aspects of physics, EE and both theory/experiment do? As I said before, there isn't any theoretical physics undergraduate program here. The theory/experiment distinction arises only in graduate school. Is it true that getting into particle physics after EE is virtually impossible? That other branches of physics might still be open to some extent..?

 

[marlon]

What should someone who has an interest in some aspects of physics, EE and both theory/experiment do? As I said before, there isn't any theoretical physics undergraduate program here. The theory/experiment distinction arises only in graduate school. Is it true that getting into particle physics after EE is virtually impossible? That other branches of physics might still be open to some extent..?

Lots of electronic engineers work at CERN. You can certainly go into experimental particle physics with your degree. I suggest you contact some university departments and ask them your question. With the proper guidance, this transition should go quite fluently

marlon

 

[oqan501]

I can't remember his speech fully, but I think Bardeen says that theory is made for practical problems. He stopped make engineering for an academic job, and his role in invention of transistor was theoretical such that investigating experimental data which his friends get, and also he did BCS theory.

 

[maverick280857]

Lots of electronic engineers work at CERN. You can certainly go into experimental particle physics with your degree. I suggest you contact some university departments and ask them your question. With the proper guidance, this transition should go quite fluently
marlon

I tried, and generally I've been told the following: if you are sure of your interest in physics, do physics. Otherwise, don't do physics. But yes, I guess I should talk to a wider spectrum of people now that you've suggested this.

PS--There is also a school of thought that says a UG degree doesn't totally determine what you do after UG This however, doesn't totally explain or answer any of these queries.

 

[maverick280857]

Do all PhD programs (in the west for instance) require students to take lots of courses in the first few semesters, irrespective of whether they've done them in their undergraduate education. If so, how do people who do not have UG physics degrees fit in? Isn't it possible for them to do the relevant courses and go ahead? (I understand this is easier said then done...we're talking about at least 2-3 years of hardcore physics courses here..but still).

 

[maverick280857]

Do all PhD programs (in the west for instance) require students to take lots of courses in the first few semesters, irrespective of whether they've done them in their undergraduate education. If so, how do people who do not have UG physics degrees fit in? Isn't it possible for them to do the relevant courses and go ahead? (I understand this is easier said then done...we're talking about at least 2-3 years of hardcore physics courses here..but still).

Hello..anyone?

 

[Younglearner]

I have the same questions as you. I am trying to decide between experimental physics (seems to have more job security) and Electrical Engineering. Does anyone have a pros and cons list for maverick and I to consider?

 

[Locrian]

experimental physics (seems to have more job security)

Hmm, than what? Experimental physics seems to have more job security than EE? That seems possible to me, but I'd be interested in how you came to the conclusion.

 

[Younglearner]

Sorry, I was unclear in the post. Experimental physics seems to have more job security than theoretical physics. However, I do believe that the job market has taken an interest in experimental physics majors and are starting to hire more of them in private industry to work alongside engineers. Another thing to note is that there are tons, I mean tons, of EE entering the workforce each year. Some schools graduate nearly 300 EE a year. But there are far fewer physicists. That could possibly mean more job security in industry. A EE is easily replaced by the next young gun; physicists are scarcer. Just something to think about. But I was actually trying to say that Experimental had more security than Theoretical.

 

[berkeman]

Another thing to note is that there are tons, I mean tons, of EE entering the workforce each year. Some schools graduate nearly 300 EE a year. But there are far fewer physicists. That could possibly mean more job security in industry. A EE is easily replaced by the next young gun;

I don't agree with your last statement, at least not at the level where chroot and I work as senior EEs. There are basically no "young guns" who can do what we do -- it takes years of industry experience at a high level to get to where we are. In fact, we find it very difficult at my company to find any young EEs that qualify for us to hire into our R&D Lab environment. We periodically go looking for some young blood to bring into our lab, with the intention of nurturing them and getting some new perspectives. But our standards for new hires are very high, and we are basically only looking at the top couple of percent of graduates.

In addition to doing well in school, the candidates that we interview need to have some related job or internship experience, and it helps a lot if they've done some projects on their own as well. We are looking for candidates who have truly understood and internalized the material that they've learned in school, because that is what you need to be able to do in the real world as well -- learn the material very well, and understand it well enough to be able to apply it to practical problems.

Maybe in the jellybean EE jobs (whatever those are), "young guns" can replace the experienced EEs every couple of years. But not in the elite EE jobs that you should be striving for. It's up to you and your work ethic and intelligence, whether you will be easily replaced or not.

(oops, rant off...)

 

[Younglearner]

Well Mr. Berkeman,
You do have a compelling point; I believe myself to be wrong then on the issue of getting replaced. I guess that what I was trying to point out that because the market has plenty of EE, two things result:
1. harder to stand out from others in the field than physicists
2. less pay in EE because the availability of EE is higher
Correct me if I am wrong, but I just feel that the supply-demand system comes into play here.

 

[berkeman]

Well Mr. Berkeman,
You do have a compelling point; I believe myself to be wrong then on the issue of getting replaced. I guess that what I was trying to point out that because the market has plenty of EE, two things result:
1. harder to stand out from others in the field than physicists
2. less pay in EE because the availability of EE is higher
Correct me if I am wrong, but I just feel that the supply-demand system comes into play here.

Please adjust your mental picture of what a "standout" person is. You stand out mainly (IMHO) based on your basic intelligence level in the major, and the quality and quantity of work you have put into your major.

How many hours per week outside of class do you spend working on your studies (homework, studying, etc.)? How many hours per week do you work an internship or outside technical work? What kind of personal projects have you built up in the last year? How did they work?

 

[Younglearner]

Again Berkeman, I feel that my opinions on this subject are inferior as I am not qualified to give any more than my limited knowledge. I am just trying to figure out whether or not Physics or EE is a better choice. My knowledge is basic and is derived from my age (high school). Based on the influences in my life, I have been led to believe that Physicists make more money because there are fewer of them than EE and that because there are so many EE, companies such as yours have the option of hiring only the top candidates (the very top). Thus, my foundation for the concept that it is harder to stand out. I understand that my views are most likely naive at this point in life, but I am counting on more experienced people such as yourself to call me on my naivety. In your opinion, what would make a strong EE candidate for your R and D lab? Could you possibly answer the questions that you posed to me. Oh, what is IMHO?
Thank you for your time; I know that dealing with young people can be a hassle.

 

[Dark Knight]

Okay before you get the wrong impression, this isn't about a comparison between EE and theoretical physics. Why is it that anyone who wants to do physics necessarily means theoretical physics? As far as I know, the distinction arises only when you go for a PhD...at least in India, there exists no theoretical physics undergraduate program.

PS--Its also not about comparing the practical or theoretical side of EE with physics. (I believe there's a thread in here somewhere about EE versus theoretical physics...I didn't initiate that one)

Why is life difficult for physics grads? I can understand the situation back in India, because there's a rat race in engineering (those who choose to do physics do it because of interest and they constitute a very very small fraction) and a lot of people I know want to go on to do either business administration, software jobs or related stuff (not academia). But I am just curious to get an insight into why things are bad elsewhere in the world...(is this really about theoretical vs experimental??)

Well, It seems to me like the technology development is much faster than the scientific one...

In the past, like a century ago, technology mainly depended on the development of natural sciences, but now, I think technologies are built upon each other, and sciences don't seem to participate much in their development..

I'm trying to say, that physics is not dominant in our lives, as EE is...That's why life is hard for physics grade..

I chose to study EE rather than physics cause I felt like EE is more important for people out there, while physics just fullfills my passion!

 

[Dark Knight]

Sorry, I was unclear in the post. Experimental physics seems to have more job security than theoretical physics. However, I do believe that the job market has taken an interest in experimental physics majors and are starting to hire more of them in private industry to work alongside engineers. Another thing to note is that there are tons, I mean tons, of EE entering the workforce each year. Some schools graduate nearly 300 EE a year. But there are far fewer physicists. That could possibly mean more job security in industry. A EE is easily replaced by the next young gun; physicists are scarcer. Just something to think about. But I was actually trying to say that Experimental had more security than Theoretical.

That's a new point of view!
I will go with the example you proposed..

Assume a company is working in a whatever project...The ratio of EE required to the Phyicists required is about 10:1...
You don't need many phyicists, but you will certainly need to many EE...

So, when you come to choose you physicists employee, you will go for the superb ones, which means less security for physics grades...

 

[Locrian]

In the past, like a century ago, technology mainly depended on the development of natural sciences, but now, I think technologies are built upon each other, and sciences don't seem to participate much in their development..

I can think of lots of examples to the contrary. . . but that doesn't mean what you stated is wrong in general - it's tough to quantify it.

The phenomenal increase in hard drive density over the past 15 years has certainly been driven by condensed matter physics (GMR). The entire area of organic electronics (we're seeing OLED displays appearing here and there already, and more are soon to come) are built off the combined work of chemists and physicists in the 80's. Maybe in a decade negative index metamaterials will be having an equally large effect on technology. There are many other examples.

As far as I can tell, the commonly stated belief here on physicsforums that important parts of our technology (such as processor speed, for instance) are technological rather than scientific endeavors is wrong. I believe these advances require both.

 

[Locrian]

Assume a company is working in a whatever project...The ratio of EE required to the Phyicists required is about 10:1...
You don't need many phyicists, but you will certainly need to many EE...

I have no idea what the numerical factor is, but I'd certainly agree with Dark Knight's conclusion - you need more EE's than physicists in industry.

However, as we've already said, there are many more EE's than industry-capable physicists educated.

Determining what the final demand comes to is tricky business, and I'm not sure anyone really has a great answer that is easy to apply to many situations.

 

[Dark Knight]

I can think of lots of examples to the contrary. . . but that doesn't mean what you stated is wrong in general - it's tough to quantify it.

The phenomenal increase in hard drive density over the past 15 years has certainly been driven by condensed matter physics (GMR). The entire area of organic electronics (we're seeing OLED displays appearing here and there already, and more are soon to come) are built off the combined work of chemists and physicists in the 80's. Maybe in a decade negative index metamaterials will be having an equally large effect on technology. There are many other examples.

As far as I can tell, the commonly stated belief here on physicsforums that important parts of our technology (such as processor speed, for instance) are technological rather than scientific endeavors is wrong. I believe these advances require both.

I do agree with you...But the fact is that the largest party in the technology fields doesn't actually require a rapid scientific development..

I mean, I'm an EE student, I discoverd that physicists only support the idea, but we (as engineers) develop it, that it may turn out to be a whole other invention than what the physicist came by!

We develop our technologies more rapidly than physicists develop physics..
And for economical purposes, countries and companies spend much more money in developing technologies, rather than natural sciences..

I know this is not how this thing was supposed to work, but I think it's happening already!

I have no idea what the numerical factor is, but I'd certainly agree with Dark Knight's conclusion - you need more EE's than physicists in industry.

Well, I was just guessing that ratio
From my knowledge of many industries, I came up with that conclusion, and I think it's pretty reliable...Isn't it?


(P.S. I always wanted and still want to be a theoritical physicist!)

 

[Younglearner]

I agree with Dark Knight as far as more EE are needed than physicists. I would also say that I think that the 10:1 ratio might even be fairly accurate, maybe a bit on the low side even. Is it wrong for me to conclude then that because more EE are needed that they have more security. I am thinking that more EE jobs mean more EE applying which means more competition. On the physics route, there are fewer physicists in industry so the competion is less. Yes, you have to be good, but there is physically (pardon the pun) less competition. Could be totally wrong, but that is what I see. Give me a holler!

Younglearner

 

[berkeman]

In your opinion, what would make a strong EE candidate for your R and D lab? Could you possibly answer the questions that you posed to me. Oh, what is IMHO?
Thank you for your time; I know that dealing with young people can be a hassle.

Not a hassle at all, Younglearner. The PF is a great place, made up of lots of different people with different backgrounds. That's part of what makes it such a useful and interesting place to stop by and help out.

I think I mentioned earlier somewhere that when we interview new graduates for positions in our Lab, we are looking for someone who did very well in school, truly understands the subject matter (didn't just learn the material to pass the tests), and has some hands-on experience with real projects. Either they did them on their own, or they have internship or summer job experience.

As for the questions, it was common for me to work > 40 hours per week on my studies outside of class in undergrad, and it paid off with very good grades, and helped me get a summer job at Tektronix, and then a scholarship for my MSEE with Bell Labs. One of the projects that I built outside of school work was a laser deflection mirror for music visual effects. Very cool and I learned a lot.

IMHO = in my humble opinion. www.acronymfinder.com