Advice please? Materials Science or Electrical Engineering

[yllihp]

Hi guys, I just finished my BSc in physics, and I’d really appreciate any advice on deciding between Electrical Engineering and Materials Science & Engineering for my masters.

Anyway my argument goes as follows:

Interests?
My interests lie in nanotechnology, super/semiconductors, green energy technology (superconductor cables?, fusion, solar cells), biomedical technology (e.g. nanomaterials for drug delivery, biomaterials)…Interests seem more MSE-ish rather than EE-ish.
--> MSE win

Prerequisites?
I’ve taken solid state physics and an introductory materials science course so I think I have a pretty good idea of what I’m getting into if I do a masters in MSE. Whereas for EE, I lack quite a few undergrad core courses (e.g. signals, circuits, digital stuff, etc.) – what EE program is going to admit someone who hasn’t got these prerequisites?
--> MSE win

Job prospects?
EE more traditional. Electronics is everywhere, thus more jobs.
--> EE win

So to summarize, my interests and undergrad training make me better suited to MSE. But EE probably has more job prospects…What should I do?? Please help, app deadlines are coming up, and this dilemma has been driving me crazy!

 

[Obis]

I would recommend Materials Science, just because you like it more, and that's the most important thing. Even if getting a job with a good salary is more important for you, still go to MS, because it's not the field that you work in that matters the most, but how good you are at that field, and because you like Materials Science, a magical chain reaction occurs : you like something -> you enjoy doing it, so you do it a lot -> you get better at it extremely fast -> you become extremely good -> you get good money for doing that.

 

[DrummingAtom]

Hi yllihp, if you don't mind me asking, how did Solid State differ from that Materials science class? You said it was only an intro class but I'm curious because I'm torn between Physics and Materials Science. Thanks.

 

[creepypasta13]

Prerequisites?
I’ve taken solid state physics and an introductory materials science course so I think I have a pretty good idea of what I’m getting into if I do a masters in MSE. Whereas for EE, I lack quite a few undergrad core courses (e.g. signals, circuits, digital stuff, etc.) – what EE program is going to admit someone who hasn’t got these prerequisites?
--> MSE win

Job prospects?
EE more traditional. Electronics is everywhere, thus more jobs.
--> EE win

So to summarize, my interests and undergrad training make me better suited to MSE. But EE probably has more job prospects…What should I do?? Please help, app deadlines are coming up, and this dilemma has been driving me crazy!

I don't think not having taken signals, circuits, etc hurts you for EE admissions. From the few EE phD programs I saw, quite a few of them only require you to take 2 classes or so outside your research area.

I was in a similar spot as you in terms of having lots of difficulty deciding what departments to apply to. Then, I found out that lots of departments do plenty of interdisciplinary research. So as EE and materials overlap, if you choose the right programs, you should easily be able to take classes in materials but still do research for an EE prof if you wish, and vice-versa

According to BLS, EEs are expected to have a much slower job growth than materials

 

[yllihp]

Hi yllihp, if you don't mind me asking, how did Solid State differ from that Materials science class? You said it was only an intro class but I'm curious because I'm torn between Physics and Materials Science. Thanks.

The solid state and materials courses I took both dealt with a lot of the same topics (e.g defects, bonding, crystal structures, semiconductors, thermal stuff, etc). The difference between the two was that while materials covered a more diverse range of topics (e.g. ceramics, nanomaterials, alloys, polyermers, composites), solid state was more mathematical and focused more on 'fundamental physics' (e.g. thermal and electrical conductivity, phonons, quantum mechanics). However, this may just be the case at my uni - at a different uni with a different lecturer, maybe materials will be more mathematical.

Anyway, I would recommend physics as a major rather than materials science just because physics is broader and keeps open more doors...u can always specialize later in materials science (especially if u don't mind the idea of grad school).

 

[yllihp]

The more I think about this, the more confused I get...

The advantage that EE offers over MSE is that it is more ‘traditional’ and therefore appears to be more marketable in terms of finding a job.

But…

In my case, would doing a masters in EE really be more marketable? Since my BS is in physics, the only EE graduate courses I can take are physics-ish ones (e.g. electromagnetic theory, quantum mechanics, solid state), and I’d have to avoid the more traditional EE courses (e.g. circuits, signals, networks, computer stuff, control & systems, etc). However, I get the impression (correct me if I’m wrong) that it is these traditional EE courses which make an EE degree attractive to employers, so my avoiding these courses actually negates the advantage that EE has over MSE…

Would I be better off doing a bachelors in EE rather than a masters, so that I can pick up the traditional EE knowledge??

 

[foxfyr]

From a purely expedient point of view, follow the path that provides you with profession certification. Once the prerequisites that open the employment doors are satisfied, you can pursue whatever area of interest you like!

A physics degree is great, but it will not get you a job in engineering as they will require a professional PE certification - regardless of how much you might want to debate the applicability of the physics degree.

Just like a doctorate in physics (plus 20 years applied experience actually 'doing' physics) will literally not qualify you to teach 7th grade math or science (as in - do you have the prerequisite professional teaching certificate required to teach in public school!)! You still need to obtain a teaching certificate which will be gained by an undergrad education major who has never 'done' physics and is for all intents and purposes a physics historian - but not the physics doctorate (plus perhaps an additional graduate degree, say an MBA, and 20 years applied experience actually 'doing' physics)! And by the way, this is literally correct.

For you see, the NEA and the College of Education are not interested in having a bunch of folks from the Department of Humanities coming over and taking jobs from grads of the College of Education.

Absurd perhaps, but nevertheless its reality. Plan for it.

And to cite one more practical example. Say you have a doctorate in electrical engineering, but you decide that you want to become a electrician. Most states do not simply have a technical proficiency exam to demonstrate one's subject knowledge, with perhaps a test to demonstrate a knowledge of codes, thus qualifying you as an electrician.

Nope!

In fact, using Texas as an example (and their requirements are actually tougher than most states!)the requirement to become a master electrician requires apprenticeship for a period of 6 years under a master electrician. And that same path applies to a high school drop out as well as for an EE doctorate! But, you might say, wait a minute - isn't the EE doctorate more qualified in the area of electronics? Sure. So the state acknowledges this and requires the EE doctorate to apprentice under a master electrician for only 5 years.

Asinine maybe - OK, definitely! But, aside from being real current examples (made more rigid by No Child Left Behind), the point is that a few more would do well to start investigating the mechanics of the real world rather than speculating about career planning from the confines of your university academic office where ideas are formed abstractly based upon assumption and upon emotions and investigate the real world constraints where political and professional interests like unions are more concerned with establishing protected job paths rather than simply insuring technical proficiency.