Does a physics background combine better with ME or EE industry jobs?

[Ryuk1990]

As the title asks, does a physics background combine better with EE or ME for industry jobs in America? Which engineering field would have more jobs for someone like that?

I'm talking in the context of someone double majoring in physics and ME/EE or doing an engineering physics degree.

 

[analogdesign]

I don't think combining Physics with EE or ME would significantly increase a candidate's prospects. Employers most likely won't care about the Physics major. EE and ME are quite a bit different in approach, some people love one and dislike the other, and vice versa. You should choose between EE and ME based on your interests, not on which fits better with Physics from an employment standpoint.

 

[heatengine516]

A lot of people on here always say that EE is the closest engineering field to physics, But I do not know for sure since I haven't studied any EE.

 

[Ben Espen]

That is a very tough question to answer. So I won't. Instead, I'll tell you what I do and how that overlaps with MEs and EEs I work with.

I design medical devices and the assembly lines on which they are produced. Most of the work of designing an implant overlaps with the kind of things an ME is educated to do, and not so much for an EE. Unless you are designing an X-ray machine, in which case the reverse is more true. The work of designing the assembly line calls on the talents of both MEs and EEs, usually working together to design machines. My own role is in the specialty of process engineer, rather than design the machine, I spec out what the machine needs to do, validate the machine when it is built, write procedures to run the equipment, and train machine operators to use the machine. I haven't seen very many EEs do this job, but a great number of MEs, as well has ChemEs.

In my career, I have found use for both ME and EE concepts. I'm not sure I could tell you which one fits "better". I think either could work, but you are likely to find very different career options depending on which you choose.

 

[Ryuk1990]

I don't think combining Physics with EE or ME would significantly increase a candidate's prospects.

Wouldn't a background in physics be good for nanoelectronics engineering? Doesn't that field require knowledge in quantum physics/statistical mechanics?

 

[JakeBrodskyPE]

I don't have any pat answers because both ME and EE are very broad fields of practice. Basically, you're looking at a degree in theory and you're asking how applicable it is to a field of practice. You're looking at one hell of a learning curve either way. The differences between the two are dwarfed by the practical shortcuts that you'd need to learn to practice in either field of engineering.

 

[Physics_UG]

I don't have any pat answers because both ME and EE are very broad fields of practice. Basically, you're looking at a degree in theory and you're asking how applicable it is to a field of practice. You're looking at one hell of a learning curve either way. The differences between the two are dwarfed by the practical shortcuts that you'd need to learn to practice in either field of engineering.

I would say there is just as much theory in EE education as there is in physics (having both a BS in physics and EE). I don't know if you have ever completed a physics degree, but there are a lot of useful practical skills that can be gained in a physics program.

Maybe waste water treatment plants don't require much physics knowledge, but advanced semiconductor device design and processes in the semiconductor industry, for instance, are a good match for the skills obtained in a physics program. In fact, the process engineer jobs for Intel, for example, specifically call for either a physics degree of engineering degree (and most as for an MS or higher).

 

[Physics_UG]

Wouldn't a background in physics be good for nanoelectronics engineering? Doesn't that field require knowledge in quantum physics/statistical mechanics?

yes, physics is a good background for nanoelectronics.

 

[Physics_UG]

I don't think combining Physics with EE or ME would significantly increase a candidate's prospects. Employers most likely won't care about the Physics major. EE and ME are quite a bit different in approach, some people love one and dislike the other, and vice versa. You should choose between EE and ME based on your interests, not on which fits better with Physics from an employment standpoint.

I agree with this. I have both an EE degree and physics degree. Most jobs outside the semiconductor industry call for an engineering degree of some type. The HR drones usually don't understand the value of a physics degree.

 

[Physics_UG]

I do agree with jake's comment though. You will have a steep learning curve when you get to industry regardless of what you major in.

 

[JakeBrodskyPE]

I would say there is just as much theory in EE education as there is in physics (having both a BS in physics and EE). I don't know if you have ever completed a physics degree, but there are a lot of useful practical skills that can be gained in a physics program.

Maybe waste water treatment plants don't require much physics knowledge, but advanced semiconductor device design and processes in the semiconductor industry, for instance, are a good match for the skills obtained in a physics program. In fact, the process engineer jobs for Intel, for example, specifically call for either a physics degree of engineering degree (and most as for an MS or higher).

Most people can build something that works once. Keeping it working properly and safely under all the conditions you're likely to encounter is the art of engineering that nobody seems to teach in school. Only those with hard-won experience and mentoring can do it.

And by the way, physics is not what wastewater processing is about. There is a lot of microbiology, chemistry, fluid dynamics, telecommunication and electrical power design, and so on. The study of physics is interesting, but barely sufficient to get your foot in the door.

Most of all, we depend upon each other to keep an eye on some very subtle dangers that you'd never guess at. For example, years ago, we had some workers in an open silo of activated carbon. They were installing an ultrasonic level sensor. The activated carbon had reduced the oxygen supply at the bottom of the silo, even though the top was open to the air around them. It was lunch time and someone wondered where they were. They were passed out from hypoxia at the bottom of the silo. Thankfully a quick thinking welder heard the commotion. He cracked open the valve of an oxygen bottle and lowered it down next to the workers. The men recovered in time for the ambulance to cart them away to the hospital.

This is the kind of place I work in. The dangers are not always obvious. They don't teach it in physics class, but you do have to think about problems like this when designing a process. This is the sort of thing that I think about when I mention that learning curve.

 

[Physics_UG]

Jake,

I didn't say or imply that I thought waste water treatment was easy. I am just saying that a physics major does indeed learn applicable skills. They don't teach that stuff in engineering school either. Not sure what point you are trying to make.

But to say "physics is theory" and "engineering is practical" is an absurd assertion to make. Some fields of engineering DO make use of physics principles.

The OP is asking what field of engineering makes use of physics extensively and I gave an example.

 

[Locrian]

I don't know if you have ever completed a physics degree, but there are a lot of useful practical skills that can be gained in a physics program.

I do have a physics degree, and - in general - I strongly disagree.

 

[Physics_UG]

I do have a physics degree, and - in general - I strongly disagree.

Might be a difference between schools then. That is unfortunate for you. I learned a lot about designing experiments that I didn't learn in my EE degree. I assume you don't have an engineering degree to compare to. Engineering degrees are A LOT of useless theory too. I have even thought engineering was too much theory.

Things that were hand waved in my engineering classes were rigorously explained in my physics classes. Physicists and engineers gain very different thought processes, but they both can have their uses.

 

[caldweab]

Jake,

I didn't say or imply that I thought waste water treatment was easy. I am just saying that a physics major does indeed learn applicable skills. They don't teach that stuff in engineering school either. Not sure what point you are trying to make.

But to say "physics is theory" and "engineering is practical" is an absurd assertion to make. Some fields of engineering DO make use of physics principles.

The OP is asking what field of engineering makes use of physics extensively and I gave an example.

Actually they do teach that kind of stuff in engineering school. A big part of engineering is safety, so yes they do spend a fair amount of time addressing things like that. I'm a nuclear engineer, which is the most regulated field ever so maybe that's why we cover safety and things like that so much

 

[Physics_UG]

I'm a nuclear engineer, which is the most regulated field ever so maybe that's why we cover safety and things like that so much

Not in EE...at least at my school. But clearly, NE is different and more emphasis will be on safety in that field. I have an EE degree and we didn't cover it much, so my school or field is an example that counters your statement.

Ryuk, I would recommend majoring in the engineering field you are most interested in regardless of which field makes the most use of physics. I admit that I double majored in physics and EE because the EE major would ensure I get a job but I also had a strong interest in physics too but that was more just an intellectual itch I had to scratch.

 

[Physics_UG]

I don't think combining Physics with EE or ME would significantly increase a candidate's prospects. Employers most likely won't care about the Physics major. EE and ME are quite a bit different in approach, some people love one and dislike the other, and vice versa. You should choose between EE and ME based on your interests, not on which fits better with Physics from an employment standpoint.

Also, I agree with this. Usually the HR people recruiting engineers have no idea what a physics major does in school and the physics major will not help you get a job.

 

[Locrian]

Might be a difference between schools then. That is unfortunate for you. I learned a lot about designing experiments that I didn't learn in my EE degree.

No, based on the difficulty physics BS holders typically have getting a job, this is pretty widespread. The poor foundation the physics BS gives has been unfortunate for lots of people (though it worked out okay for me).

I've never heard of an example of "designing experiments" taught in a physics undergrad curriculum I thought was a "useful practical skill", but I believe you when you say your program taught you such.

 

[Shaun_W]

They don't teach that stuff in engineering school either.

They did (somewhat) at mine.

But to say "physics is theory" and "engineering is practical" is an absurd assertion to make. Some fields of engineering DO make use of physics principles.

It's not absurd at all. It's very true, and is essentially the difference between engineering and physics. I'd imagine that every field of engineering is based on physics principles and their practical application, as that's essentially what engineering is.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I don't know if you have ever completed a physics degree, but there are a lot of useful practical skills that can be gained in a physics program.

I do have a physics degree, and - in general - I strongly disagree.

I do not believe you wrote what you meant. If you disagree with the statement that one can gain useful practical skills, you are saying you cannot. Not that people often don't, or that you didn't - that it is impossible. Somehow a physics degree taints you and prevents you from learning useful practical skills.

 

[ModusPwnd]

I do not believe you wrote what you meant. If you disagree with the statement that one can gain useful practical skills, you are saying you cannot. Not that people often don't, or that you didn't - that it is impossible. Somehow a physics degree taints you and prevents you from learning useful practical skills.

It prevents you from learning practical (marketable) skills because you are spending your time and money learning physics and doing esoteric research instead. Sure, one can learn useful skills before or after a physics degree. One can even learn useful skills outside of the program in spite of the time and money the degree consumes.

My undergrad was an average program. What I learned in the curriculum is not useful for a potential employer. The basic circuits course maybe... But even then it was far to basic to be of any real use to an employer.

 

[JakeBrodskyPE]

But to say "physics is theory" and "engineering is practical" is an absurd assertion to make. Some fields of engineering DO make use of physics principles.

Physics is about discovery. Engineering is about building something better using the existing experience, standards, and technologies that are known to work. It isn't just about the scientific principles. If this was just about learning science, you'd be absolutely right. A physics degree would suffice. But it isn't, and so it doesn't.

That said, Engineering educations, though they try to instill this sort of understanding, often fall short. Yes, I have met engineers who knew nothing but science and mathematics. They're hopeless idiots. I once knew a guy tasked with designing a stepper motor controller. He didn't realize that he had a defective multi-turn potentiometer. He spent TWO WEEKS looking for that sweet spot where the circuit gain would be just right for it to work. He had no practical experience to tell him how much his time was worth, how the circuit should have behaved if the gain wasn't correctly configured, or what a defective part might do.

Now I'm not suggesting that a physics student would have done the same thing. But my point is that this is not strictly a technical endeavor. Economics, Ergonomics, and failure modes are a huge part of this, and while they don't teach engineering students nearly enough of this, Physics students get even less.

Could a physics student learn this? SURE! You might also ask if an physics student could be a hairdresser, a psychologist, a politician, or an author of fiction.

Physics is a degree for a generalist, in much the same way as a degree in mathematics is a for generalists. You could branch off into many other areas. I'm not here to tell you it can't be done. But you shouldn't trivialize what others do by declaring that a physics student knows the technology, therefore it should be easy. It is not.

 

[StatGuy2000]

It prevents you from learning practical (marketable) skills because you are spending your time and money learning physics and doing esoteric research instead. Sure, one can learn useful skills before or after a physics degree. One can even learn useful skills outside of the program in spite of the time and money the degree consumes.

My undergrad was an average program. What I learned in the curriculum is not useful for a potential employer. The basic circuits course maybe... But even then it was far to basic to be of any real use to an employer.

Exactly how much time and money does a regular BS program in physics take up that would prevent the students from acquiring or learning practical (marketable) skills?

For example, I think there is a consensus that programming is a useful/marketable skill, and it is something that is not usually taught in most regular physics undergraduate programs (nor in most regular math programs, for that matter). However, I know many physics students who have strong programming skills (acquired before or during their studies), and I know many physics students who take computer science courses, enough to earn a minor or a possible double-major, just like I know many math students who double major in computer science.

 

[elkement]

I have degrees on physics and engineering, and I agree with Jake in that the most useful skills required to build dependable, safe solutions in a pragmatic and cost-effective way are picked up on the job and by learning from experienced colleagues.

That said, there have been aspects of projects I did as a student that came very close to this real-life learning experience:

As a master student in physics I had to figure out how devices work and maintain 'my' experimental setups. Other students showed me tricks how to find vacuum leaks quickly. As an engineering student I learned how to apply my existing programming skills to simulating, say, wind turbines.

However, the point I am trying to make here is that these most useful skills were not really part of the curriculum - it was self-paced learning or learning in a peer group.
The university either provided the infrastructure - such as lasers and the option to 'hire' technicians to build stuff (as for physics) or it provided the contact to real-life 'customers', such as the operations manager of a wind power plant who 'contracted' us team of engineering students.

This role of a university is not to be underestimated and I am grateful for these learning experiences. But I think had somebody with a BSc degree not been enrolled in a master's or PhD degree program given the same access to equipment or "job opportunities", he/she would also have picked up the same skills while simply doing the job.

 

[elkement]

As the title asks, does a physics background combine better with EE or ME for industry jobs in America?

I am from Europe, I try to answer nonetheless in order to stay on-topic: I think a physics degree gets useful from an employer's perspective because / when you specialize in something - working towards your master's degree (for the reasons explained in my previous reply - practical experience in projects).

Here those specializations in 'physics' are often very close to some sort of engineering - it depends on the taste of the university if this is called [XY] physics or [XY] engineering (... nano, laser,...)

What I am trying to say here is that you have to specialize as a 'physicist' anyway - and if you do experimental work this can get rather close to engineering. So you can pick either a subfield in physics that is closer to EE or to ME. I think there is no universal answer to your question.

 

[clope023]

A lot of people on here always say that EE is the closest engineering field to physics, But I do not know for sure since I haven't studied any EE.

I studied both, Modern Physics, E&M, and QM in the physics major will illuminate a lot of the concepts in solid state electronics and will give more insight into the concepts behind power engineering and communication systems from the EE major. I would say a lot of the practical skills are learned on the job of a project or experiment, those were more enlightening to me. Some jobs (military contractors such as Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and others) actually hire physics majors by name and some recruiters I've met from NASA have been very interested in people who can do both. Generally I'm not sure adding physics on top of EE or ME is the best idea unless you have a great fascination to do both and you want to do something that straddles both in grad school. I would say that engineering majors are harder than pure science majors due to all the projects work on top of the class work. Some physics majors deal with engineering concepts when working on experiments for REU's and such (my friends from physics and myself did REU's in experimental accelerator, nuclear, and plasma physics and we did plenty of hands on work). However, they're not given the same amount of experience the engineer is in building, designing, testing, etc due to those skills being directly part of the engineer's classwork vs the physics major dealing mainly with ideal concepts (spherical cows) and problems made in such a way that the math comes out pretty.

 

[clope023]

It prevents you from learning practical (marketable) skills because you are spending your time and money learning physics and doing esoteric research instead. Sure, one can learn useful skills before or after a physics degree. One can even learn useful skills outside of the program in spite of the time and money the degree consumes.

My undergrad was an average program. What I learned in the curriculum is not useful for a potential employer. The basic circuits course maybe... But even then it was far to basic to be of any real use to an employer.

If you're relying on your classes to make you employable, you're doing it wrong IMO. Classes teach you to speak the language, doing it in real life is a totally different endeavor from classes. Every engineer and their mother has generally taken the same classes, applying those skiils in novel ways is going to stand out more to employers. A friend of mine works for the Naval Surface Warfare Center as an engineer making $60 grand a year, she has a physics degree where she did research on accelerators.

 

[clope023]

I would say there is just as much theory in EE education as there is in physics (having both a BS in physics and EE).

That depends on what you call theory, I also did degrees in physics and EE and I disagree that there's just as much theory in both.

 

[ModusPwnd]

If you're relying on your classes to make you employable, you're doing it wrong IMO. Classes teach you to speak the language, doing it in real life is a totally different endeavor from classes. Every engineer and their mother has generally taken the same classes, applying those skiils in novel ways is going to stand out more to employers. A friend of mine works for the Naval Surface Warfare Center as an engineer making $60 grand a year, she has a physics degree where she did research on accelerators.

I agree. Physics classes are pretty much useless. But they do take a lot of time, time that could be spent otherwise. I had to work to pay the rent and I volunteered doing some research while I was taking classes. Of those three responsibilities the classes took the most time and were the least useful...

But engineering classes do seem somewhat useful because they are designed to be that way. There are classes on FPGA programming, PCB layout, RF design, etc, that are skills employers actually explicitly look for. Thats one reason I have gone back to school for EE after getting a couple physics degrees. That and the prospect of an internship (which physics did not offer).

edit - I choose EE over ME because I didn't want another general degree. I hear that EE is more suited for physics majors/grads. Maybe its because of the griffiths and jackson E&M but I am skeptical how useful that is for EE.

 

[clope023]

I agree. Physics classes are pretty much useless. But they do take a lot of time, time that could be spent otherwise. I had to work to pay the rent and I volunteered doing some research while I was taking classes. Of those three responsibilities the classes took the most time and were the least useful...

But engineering classes do seem somewhat useful because they are designed to be that way. There are classes on FPGA programming, PCB layout, RF design, etc, that are skills employers actually explicitly look for. Thats one reason I have gone back to school for EE after getting a couple physics degrees. That and the prospect of an internship (which physics did not offer).

There's nothing stopping a physics major from going to engineering conferences and seeking out internships (again military contractors like physics majors), though I do agree the opportunities are definitely more abundunt in engineering. I noticed you ignored that point about my friend who did not have a degree in engineering nor did she take engineering classes but she now works as an engineer, due in no small part to the skills she acquired from her research. My bit about classes was actually in reference to engineering classes having done a degree in EE, everyone and their mother generally takes the same engineering classes. Though sometimes having X class and having done Y project is enough, the students who stand out are the ones who can apply the skills they learned in class in relatively novel ways (ie research and projects). Not saying it's a bad idea to go back to school for those classes mind you.

 

[ModusPwnd]

I didn't ignore it. I agree. My research was far more useful than classes. But it was nothing like a real internship.

I'm sure its not like this everywhere, but at my current university there is something stopping physics grads from seeking out internships through the university. The engineering internships are open to engineering majors only, and they are very competitive. That is the way almost all companies want to get their interns. I have asked many of the regional employers if they take interns any other way and they don't.

 

[Lavabug]

The practical skills I learned during my physics program were largely learned outside of the classroom or more precisely: by not following course syllabi to the letter (ie: actually building amps or simulating them in SPICE or similar to check if your solutions to exercises are sensible). A physics program is designed to prepare you for physics research, the barebones subjects enable you to do this, along with practical skills like basic numerical programming and latex typesetting (which may or may not come in the form of classes). This is 99% of what you do in a physics bachelors and is not immediately useful for an engineering-type job, apparently.

When you have a degree X and want to work in a field Y, you will always be fighting an uphill battle, no matter how similar they are. With the pervasiveness of HR filters these days you are unlikely to even be called for an interview even if you really do have relevant experience in a very applied subject like transmission lines, image processing in IDL, or fluid dynamics. This has been my (uneventful) job-hunting experience.

So what I'm saying to the OP is basically: your physics background will at best have a neutral effect on your employment prospects for technical jobs. If engineering is your main major, this should not be of any concern.