Is a Degree in Physics Worthless Compared to Electrical Engineering in Industry?

[chiro]

what if i finish the three years in physics and go to australlia and switch to engineering by going to sydney university , and have a master in professional engineer ?

Engineering programs here don't give much credit. You will probably get at the most credit for introductory maths, physics, chemistry and nothing else.

The engineering programs are more or less specialized and have demanding labs that train very specific skills.

If you want to become an engineer in Australia, get into any accredited engineering course. If you have an interest in physics, then do a double degree or self-study physics in your own time.

One thing I should point out is there is two kinds of engineering programs in Australia. The first is the conventional four year degree. In four years you take all the maths, physics, chemistry, and engineering specific projects in four years and do an internship for 12 weeks to get an accredited degree (in Australia).

The other kind takes five years. You do a three year degree in a science type degree and if you are eligible, you do a two year Masters course which at the end of the Masters, gets you the same accreditation that the four year course does.

If you just want to become an engineer I would do the four year course simply because it takes less time, less money, and has a stronger focus on engineering.

If you want more information about the five year program look at the University of Melbourne website. For any of the four year programs some include ANU, University of Sydney, University of New South Wales, and many other universities.

 

[elabed haidar]

Engineering programs here don't give much credit. You will probably get at the most credit for introductory maths, physics, chemistry and nothing else.

The engineering programs are more or less specialized and have demanding labs that train very specific skills.

If you want to become an engineer in Australia, get into any accredited engineering course. If you have an interest in physics, then do a double degree or self-study physics in your own time.

One thing I should point out is there is two kinds of engineering programs in Australia. The first is the conventional four year degree. In four years you take all the maths, physics, chemistry, and engineering specific projects in four years and do an internship for 12 weeks to get an accredited degree (in Australia).

The other kind takes five years. You do a three year degree in a science type degree and if you are eligible, you do a two year Masters course which at the end of the Masters, gets you the same accreditation that the four year course does.

If you just want to become an engineer I would do the four year course simply because it takes less time, less money, and has a stronger focus on engineering.

If you want more information about the five year program look at the University of Melbourne website. For any of the four year programs some include ANU, University of Sydney, University of New South Wales, and many other universities.

im talking about doing a master in professional engineer in university of sydney , and I've read if i do physics then i do three years master in professional engineer , ill have a master degree in professional engineer
but i have 3 questions :
1) which type of engineer is best these days and why??
2) how can i make sure that my degree in the lebanese university (government) can be accepted in australlia?
3) if i did pure physics , may i still become an engineer in telecommunication or its better to do in mechanical engineer which is also gd?

 

[Immanuel Can]

So 1 out of 10 physics PhDs acquire a professorship, which entails research. But how many physics PhDs out of 10, including the 1 the gets the professorship, actually end up with a job in their field? At research institutes, national labs, research positions at universities, etc... and not just some programming/IT/engineering/wall street job not really pertaining to physics research?

 

[Ryker]

How many? Zero, that's how many. The Chemistry Dept took over most of the jobs. Even for Electron Microscopy, they hire EE's or EP's.

OK, if your answer is zero, then it seems you're suggesting not even the professor gets a job in Physics, which is odd to say the least.

In fact, the so-called National labs really don't hire nationals at all. In the National Lab in my back yard, they are hiring based on countries expertise...eg. China for Chemistry, Russia for mathematical modeling, etc. Every university in the host country is discredited.

I don't think you get the point of a national lab.

 

[Inna]

Yet they have the gall to expect tuition payment for undergraduate Physics. It doesn't even serve the purpose of a filter outside of the field as corporations couldn't care less.

The concept of Physics serving as a filter reminds me of a joke that circulated in my grad school:

A graduate TA is teaching Physics to a bunch of pre-med students. In the middle, a student raises his hand:

"And why do we need to know all this?"

Without missing a beat, the TA replies: "Physics saves lives."

"Oh, yeah? How does Physics save lives?"

"It does not let idiots into medical school."

 

[twofish-quant]

not just some programming/IT/engineering/wall street job not really pertaining to physics research?

Ummmm... Wall Street, engineering, and software companies hire physics Ph.D.'s because the problems that they have pertain to physics research.

What is physics research? My definition is using math to explain the world. It turns out that my career has basically revolved around researching ways to solve one equation, that finds itself all over the place.

d_t phi = del^2 phi

In case you are interested in what that is.

 

[twofish-quant]

"And why do we need to know all this?"

Answer:

You don't.

 

[twofish-quant]

Yet they have the gall to expect tuition payment for undergraduate Physics.

Personally, I don't think they should. I was able to get my physics degree through heavy government subsidized loans and grants. The reason for this is that at some people in the late-1950's, someone figured it would be a bad thing if all of the physicists were Russian, and no one in the US could build bombs that worked. Billions of dollars followed.

 

[rhombusjr]

In fact, the so-called National labs really don't hire nationals at all. In the National Lab in my back yard, they are hiring based on countries expertise...eg. China for Chemistry, Russia for mathematical modeling, etc. Every university in the host country is discredited.

This can't be true (if you're US). A US citizenship is required to work at National Laboratories. I know a Russian professor at my school who can't work at a National Laboratory because he is not a US citizen.

How do you know the hiring practices of that lab? Do you work in their HR department?

 

[Vanadium 50]

A US citizenship is required to work at National Laboratories.

Not true. It may be required to work in certain parts of National Labs, such as X division at LANL. There are hundreds, if not thousands of counter-examples.

 

[Crashhh]

I figured I might as well post here rather than create a new thread.

I don't particularly think that my degree will be "worthless" - I love physics and if I did my degree again I would still do a lot of it (though not as much as I did this time around... just for the sake of learning something else).

I go to the University of Toronto and I do fairly well in my classes, but nowhere near the people at the very top (I'm probably in the 85th~90th percentile or so). I'm about to enter my last year in the program and I'm probably going to apply for Masters programs just to top off my education because it's interesting (it's also pretty much free, unless you take opportunity cost into account >_>).

I'm sure I could do reasonably well in life if I knew what to do, but the problem is - I don't. I know what I want, but I'm not sure how to get there.

One thing I want is a suitable amount of money. I'd say a 50k+ starting salary out of undergrad would make me happy...

Research is interesting at times but most of the time it is quite grueling (as I've learned over my past two summers or so). It also has fairly low pay and I'm not the most motivated student out there, so going towards PhD/academia would be disastrous for me.

Management consulting sounds particularly interesting. The high workload and hours doesn't seem too appealing but I'm still young and I'd love to challenge myself and travel a lot. However, it's quite hard to get a job in this field especially if you're aiming for the more prestigious firms like MBB so I shouldn't bet all my hopes on this.

Teaching high school is also an option I have though I'm not sure how much opportunity there is for advancement. However, I wouldn't mind going down this path after I've settled down and such with a family.

The thing is, what else is out there? Are there any other high-paying jobs that I could potentially go to upon completing my undergrad/master's studies? I'm willing to put effort into learning more about computers if need be...

 

[EntropicLove]

The concept of Physics serving as a filter reminds me of a joke that circulated in my grad school:

A graduate TA is teaching Physics to a bunch of pre-med students. In the middle, a student raises his hand:

"And why do we need to know all this?"

Without missing a beat, the TA replies: "Physics saves lives."

"Oh, yeah? How does Physics save lives?"

"It does not let idiots into medical school."

That's great I'm going to have to use that one haha.

 

[elabed haidar]

so let me get this straight , having a physics degree will be good only for teaching in high school ?? that's hard to accept

 

[Vanadium 50]

Reread the thread, please.

 

[Inna]

so let me get this straight , having a physics degree will be good only for teaching in high school ?? that's hard to accept

I think a better way to sum up the discussion would be this: Physics degree does not provide direct training for any career, except academic. If you are not interested in that, you must be prepared to study/train more on top of your degree.

 

[elabed haidar]

thanks inna so much and vanadium i didnt know why you didnt like answer like our fellow inna ?

 

[Ryker]

thanks inna so much and vanadium i didnt know why you didnt like answer like our fellow inna ?

Probably because one can only take so much. Just a guess, though.

 

[Vanadium 50]

vanadium i didnt know why you didnt like answer like our fellow inna ?

If you're not willing to put in the effort to read what has already been written, why should I bother to type it in again?

 

[AVReidy]

Go for engineering. Unless, of course, you are not a very bright individual who has only the ability to memorize formulas and teach high school students physics. Physics is absolutely useless when not applied, and it isn't cool when it's not applied either.

I guess this would be fine if you want to live a simple life and enjoy thinking about physics, though. You could be a teacher, they deserve more pay than they receive.

If you want a good mix of traditional physics and engineering (and good pay), learn C/C++ and go work for Microsoft on the physics engine of their flight simulators or something.

 

[lifeson22]

Some would argue the first thing a degree should do for you is allow you to pay it back. You know, a job. Forget about a high-paying one, or a cool one. Just a job. Period. To pay back your fvcking debt.

High salaries and coolness of work can come later. But you ought to be able to pay your degree back. Don't you agree?

 

[lifeson22]

I'll point out one more thing. Physics is employable, but not as desirable in industry. You will get a job, but it *will* take a while (to be kind) and you will have to get creative.

First, you might recognize that well-established industries like Aerospace don't exactly have an appreciation for physics graduates. Don't ask me why, it's just the way it is. Maybe it's because engineering tasks are well defined, and they'd rather hire someone that can hit the ground running.

But. Industries reliant on high-tech like physics graduates. I figure this is because many of the people doing the hiring are full-fledged physicists themselves - or deal with full-fledged physicists. They tend to have a better appreciation for your capabilities - other than "you can teach physics".

The best example is the Semiconductor industry. Of course, during the height of the great recession of 2008, this industry hid in a cave for two full years before coming back out into the sun. I mean they didn't hire for a long time. But now they are hiring quite a bit.

The semiconductor industry is interesting in a few ways. Everything they do is high tech. First to market means everything in this industry, and you have to be the first to make the next chip. Processes change very fast, and the entire industry is in a state of experimentation. Engineers have their place, but the industry needs people that have a broad scientific background - the very definition of physics - and quick learners - again, the definition of physics.

The semiconductor liked me. Matter of fact, they are the ONLY industry that consistently liked me. They account for 70% of all calls I've received - which were not many, but good.

Of course, I didn't sit still during the recession. That would have been suicide. I started graduate studies, and took courses in materials science. Those helped. A LOT. So if you're stuck with physics, unemployed, it hurts but go back to school. If you do materials the semiconductor industry will like you a lot. If you do chemical engineering, the semiconductor industry will also like you a lot - because electrochemical methods and vapor deposition reactors are very important. If you do signals and controls systems the radar industry might like you a lot - although I only contemplated that path, never actually tried it. But I can imagine it would be very successful. Or you could try computer science, which is in tremendous demand - they seem to like programmers with strong quantitative skills. Heck physicists are hired on wall street as quantitative analysts to predict what the market will do. Of course they never predict ****, but they beat the market, which counts. Don't let me mislead you though - quant analyst jobs are demanding, and competitive. Everybody wants them because they have a physics Ph.D., are unemployed, and quant analysts are some of the highest paid jobs you could find (well well into the 6 figure starting salaries, sometimes as high as $500,000). But you would have to convince them you're a mathematical genius.

Not all calls were good. Some were crappy. Others were ok. But a few were pretty encouraging.

In no particular order, I've gotten calls from:
1. Axcelis Technologies, final test engineer, $23/hr (I turned it down)
2. Radiation Monitoring Devices, crystal growth technician, $45K/yr (I turned it down)
3. IBM, semiconductor process engineer, $62K/yr - under consideration
4. Veeco, technical support engineer, $63-65K/yr - under consideration
5. MathWorks, technical writer, $60K/yr - turned it down

The thing is - all these calls are recent, meaning within the last year. Nay, within the last three months. I spent 9 months looking for *anything* after finishing my B.S. Physics. And even over the past year, I heard mostly crickets.

The funny thing is, when they're hiring, they're all hiring. When they're not hiring, nobody's hiring. I've gone through 5 months without a meaningful call (other than the occasional $12/hr temporary offer), only to receive a small bundle of calls within a period of a few days - only to go another 2 months without a chirp.

It helps to know it works that way. It keeps you from convincing yourself that nobody calls you because you suck, and that nobody will ever call you because if they were going to they would have called by now. It's cruel, but it can be a year before somebody considers you for an attractive position.

The thing to remember is, don't let it go to your head when you do. It's easy to figure "oh, I'm good enough for this position, I'm sure good enough for somehting even better". You might pass on pretty good opportunities because they weren't perfect, only to spend the next two months regretting it. It can help to bypass this lesson and accept a pretty good offer when someone extends one to you.

But yeah, you'll do alright with Physics, and you'll be considered for engineering positions. It's just that you won't be considered for traditional engineering roles, and most of the demand will be in rapidly evolving high tech industries (personal experience). And you will definitely want to consider graduate studies - even if it's not a degree but just a few useful courses. Electrochemistry was single-handedly the most marketable course I've ever taken. I've gotten a handful of calls strictly because of that course. A course in signal analysis might be very marketable (although I haven't tried it, that's on a different end of the spectrum that I didn't pursue).

And it might be a while, depending on whether you graduated during a recession -this one or some future recession for the kiddies of, I don't know, 2018? Let's hope not.

 

[Inna]

5. MathWorks, technical writer, $60K/yr - turned it down


What did this job entail that they were willing to pay that much?

 

[whyee]

Actually, a physics graduate qualifies for most of the same jobs electrical engineering graduates do as well. They have a similar skill set.

I thought physicists have a hard time getting engineering jobs because they can't be licensed as a Professional Engineer?

What's interesting is that I've noticed that a large UK based energy company http://www.centrica.com/index.asp?pageid=957" the degrees that each successful applicant to their summer internship programme studied, and it pretty much confirms what I've observed empirically: that technical roles are almost exclusively comprised of engineering students/graduates, and that physics and maths students are only recruited for management, finance and IT positions. What's even more interesting is that, apart from the specific technical positions, is that engineering students were to be found in every area of the business. I don't think this example is too atypical at all.

Just looked at that site, and yea... no one with a physics degree works in an engineering position:
http://www.centrica.com/index.asp?pageid=957#table
though, it is a small sample. Are most companies like this? From what I've read that seems to be the case. Oh well...I'll just have to prepare myself to work in finance or some programming job.

 

[mayonaise]

I guess this would be fine if you want to live a simple life and enjoy thinking about physics, though. You could be a teacher, they deserve more pay than they receive.

Whenever I hear, from more than one person, "xxx should be paid more" about some xxx job, I know quite certain that xxx job is so under-appreciated and is going to remain so for a while.

If you want a good mix of traditional physics and engineering (and good pay), learn C/C++ and go work for Microsoft on the physics engine of their flight simulators or something.

Microsoft closed ACE Studio, who made the FS series, in 2009. The serious flight-sim makers are mostly based in Russia now (Oleg Maddox and Eagle Dynamics and Gaijin Entertainment). I had wanted to be a flight-sim maker, but the level of physics required for it is actually quite low. The greatest tech challenge would be loading/rendering terrain for the entire Earth, and rendering forests.

Generally, the physics required for game-related software is quite easy. And the greatest challenges in physics engines are in modelling 1000000 rigid bodies with acceptable accuracy (that is, numbers do not blow up) in real time. So CS people are just so much better at making physics engines than physicists.

 

[mayonaise]

The best example is the Semiconductor industry. Of course, during the height of the great recession of 2008, this industry hid in a cave for two full years before coming back out into the sun. I mean they didn't hire for a long time. But now they are hiring quite a bit.

The semiconductor industry is interesting in a few ways. Everything they do is high tech. First to market means everything in this industry, and you have to be the first to make the next chip. Processes change very fast, and the entire industry is in a state of experimentation. Engineers have their place, but the industry needs people that have a broad scientific background - the very definition of physics - and quick learners - again, the definition of physics.

The semiconductor liked me. Matter of fact, they are the ONLY industry that consistently liked me. They account for 70% of all calls I've received - which were not many, but good.

The semiconductor industry is huge, but an ordinary physics student that followed only the physics coursework can only work in a very narrow part.

In this simple illustration:
http://abstrusegoose.com/307"
A physicist can only work from the gate/transistor level and down, while an electrical engineer might cover all parts. And indeed, the only people consistently asking our department for interns/recent grad are Intel. And they hire physicists to their wafer plants as process engineers. They also hire EE, Chem E, Chem, ME, Material E... basically all. So a physicist hasn't much advantage there, either.

Something about wafer plants... They are high-cost, high-pollution, high-energy/water-consumption factories. You don't find them in nice beautiful big cities. And the biggest silicon wafer plants are TSMC in Taiwan. In US you're pretty much stuck with Intel or maybe IBM. But if you're imagining some high-tech semiconductor engineering job in Silicon Valley, then forget it. A pure physicist simply does not have the education to do IC design or write drivers for it or write some systems that run on it. That is the territory of CS/EE people.

Oh, one of the major reason for Intel to maintain a sizable silicon manufacturing is to avoid being entirely controlled by TSMC. Same with AMD and GlobalFoundries. US has outsourced a large amount of manufacturing. Semiconductors is no exception.

 

[twofish-quant]

Heck physicists are hired on wall street as quantitative analysts to predict what the market will do. Of course they never predict ****, but they beat the market, which counts.

That's not what quants do. In fact it's usually the opposite. In most situations, you assume that the markets are efficient and unpredictable, and then you figure out the mathematical consequences of that assumption.

Don't let me mislead you though - quant analyst jobs are demanding, and competitive.

For physics Ph.D.'s they aren't *that* competitive.

Everybody wants them because they have a physics Ph.D., are unemployed, and quant analysts are some of the highest paid jobs you could find (well well into the 6 figure starting salaries, sometimes as high as $500,000). But you would have to convince them you're a mathematical genius.

There are people that make $500K, but they aren't typical. $150K to $200K is a more reasonable salary expectation. Also, the interviews are tough, but not as bad as most dissertation defenses.

 

[twofish-quant]

I thought physicists have a hard time getting engineering jobs because they can't be licensed as a Professional Engineer?

For EE/CS the PE qualification is pretty much irrelevant.

 

[wukunlin]

@lifeson22, mayonaise

may I just say your info with regards to the semiconductor industry is something I have been looking for ages. I find them very informative, thanks