- #1
xbomber88
- 43
- 0
Generally I've found that the more mathematical a Physics class I'm taking is the more I like it. For example I didn't really love the modern physics course I took because it wasn't very math heavy and focused a lot more on conceptual understanding rather than delving very deeply into the math. Right now I'm taking an upper level E&M course using Griffiths and I'm really enjoying it. Also I've always liked working on problem sets much more than I've enjoyed lab work. Does this suggest that I should be a theorist or not really? The thing I'm worried about is that I might not have enough math to be a theorist. I've only taken math up through ordinary differential equations. Though it's not because I don't have the ability to learn more math that I haven't. I didn't start taking any math or physics until my sophomore year so I'm doing all I can on the physics end to be able to graduate on time and be well prepared for grad school so I don't really have time to take more math on the side. Also I go to a small liberal arts school so most of the upper level math courses we have are very proof oriented pure math courses that probable wouldn't be very useful to physicists. We unfortunately don't even have a course on PDE's. The other thing I'm worried about is that it's my impression that being a theorist is much more competitive than being an experimentalist and I don't want to get a PhD and then never be able to find employment as a physicist. Is this true? But then again I'm not sure that I'd even like being an experimentalist even if it's easier to get a job.