Physics Physicists and physics majors, was it worth it?

[Andy Resnick]

(1) There are schools that offer a "general engineering" major and other broad-based, multi-disciplinary engineering degrees. (2) Physics is not a generic science degree by any means. E.g., you're overlooking at least the major branches of chemistry (and chemical sciences) and biology (and life sciences).

When a Physics major is primarily 'advertised' as "The math and problem-solving skills they pick up are great for the job market. Physics majors teach, work on Wall Street, and serve in the military. They also perform well on the admission tests for law and medical schools." or "One possibly appealing aspect of studying physics is the diversity of physics careers, which are not set in anyone direction. Physics graduates have skills that are in high demand in diverse sectors. These include skills relating to numeracy, problem-solving, data analysis and the communication of complex ideas, as well as a wider understanding of how the world works, on a scientific and human level.", that indicates to me that a Physics major isn't expected to become an expert in anything, but rather a jack-of-all trades.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

When a Physics major is primarily 'advertised' as "The math and problem-solving skills they pick up are great for the job market. Physics majors teach, work on Wall Street, and serve in the military. They also perform well on the admission tests for law and medical schools." or "One possibly appealing aspect of studying physics is the diversity of physics careers, which are not set in anyone direction. Physics graduates have skills that are in high demand in diverse sectors. These include skills relating to numeracy, problem-solving, data analysis and the communication of complex ideas, as well as a wider understanding of how the world works, on a scientific and human level.", that indicates to me that a Physics major isn't expected to become an expert in anything, but rather a jack-of-all trades.

I respectfully disagree. Strongly. If the department did their job, and the graduate availed themselves of the opportunity, the physics major is an expert in physics. The advertising language is just trying to explain that to an audience who does not really understand what physics is or why a physics major is valuable.

Breaking down what it means to be an expert in physics:

1. An expert in the scientific method, especially in quantitative areas.

This may be contrasted to other areas of science (biology, medicine, geology) which often tend to be more qualitative. This may also be contrasted with engineering which tends to be quantitatively strong, but scientifically weak. By that I mean, engineers tend to be strong enough at telling you what the equations mean, but tend to be weaker at questioning whether the equations are really true (and what the resulting uncertainty might be). If you want someone to design experiments to tell you how good the equations really are, you want a physicist. Engineers tend to believe equations based on authority (in a book or published paper) rather than demanding to see and understand the underlying data and the limitations on applicability.

2. An expert in quantitative problem solving.

A well trained physics major will be seeking to apply and solve at least one quantitative model. They often will try and apply multiple quantitative models that each apply for certain assumptions. They will consider limiting behaviors as well as how the solutions to different models compare with each other. They understand that the "true" answer of a complex problem is likely somewhere in the midst of the predictions of several simplified models.

3. An expert in skepticism and doubt.

The history of physics has many examples of long-established quantitative models eventually being found to be flawed. They tend to be waiting for "the other shoe to drop" as additional experimental evidence becomes available. On most teams (when teamed with engineers or scientists from other disciplines), the physics major will be most likely to be able to articulate concerns about why the consensus view may not be exactly right or as broadly applicable as hoped. The physicist may be first to come up with an "order of magnitude" estimate, but they'll also likely be the last to underestimate the error bars.

4. An expert in analogies

Feynman said, "The same equations have the same solutions." The physicist is the most likely to find a paradigm for a new problem similar to one they already know pretty well. And a good physics education provides a broad base of quantitative paradigms from which to draw. So the physicist can't just solve the equation once it gets picked, they likely have the broadest experience base to choose good candidates from which to try.

 

[Andy Resnick]

Breaking down what it means to be an expert in physics:

1. An expert in the scientific method, especially in quantitative areas.
2. An expert in quantitative problem solving.
3. An expert in skepticism and doubt.
4. An expert in analogies

None of that list is specific to Physics. That list isn't even specific to science majors. More broadly, I'm not sure what it means to be an 'expert in Physics'. Physics is too broad for that.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

None of that list is specific to Physics. That list isn't even specific to science majors. More broadly, I'm not sure what it means to be an 'expert in Physics'. Physics is too broad for that.

Other than physicists and physical chemists, I've met very few people who meet the all four criteria. So if I wanted to hire someone meeting all four criteria, physics graduates would be on the top of my list to interview.

 

[Andy Resnick]

So if I wanted to hire someone meeting all four criteria, physics graduates would be on the top of my list to interview.

But that's my point- I have *never* seen a job advertisement that mentions any of those, let alone all 4. Lastly, I know lots of people who meet all 4 of those criteria- economists, doctors, engineers, teachers, technicians, the list is nearly endless.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

But that's my point- I have *never* seen a job advertisement that mentions any of those, let alone all 4. Lastly, I know lots of people who meet all 4 of those criteria- economists, doctors, engineers, teachers, technicians, the list is nearly endless.

I don't think our experiences are really that much different, but I suspect my bar for defining an "expert" is much higher than yours.

 

[atyy]

A physics major is an expert jack of all trades.

 

[symbolipoint]

We are reading the experts argue:

None of that list is specific to Physics. That list isn't even specific to science majors. More broadly, I'm not sure what it means to be an 'expert in Physics'. Physics is too broad for that.

Other than physicists and physical chemists, I've met very few people who meet the all four criteria. So if I wanted to hire someone meeting all four criteria, physics graduates would be on the top of my list to interview.

But that's my point- I have *never* seen a job advertisement that mentions any of those, let alone all 4. Lastly, I know lots of people who meet all 4 of those criteria- economists, doctors, engineers, teachers, technicians, the list is nearly endless.

I don't think our experiences are really that much different, but I suspect my bar for defining an "expert" is much higher than yours.

Will a resolution come of this?

 

[CrysPhys]

None of that list is specific to Physics. That list isn't even specific to science majors. More broadly, I'm not sure what it means to be an 'expert in Physics'. Physics is too broad for that.

(1) There are different levels of expertise in any field.

(2) The education and training required to reach a specific level of expertise varies with the field (and subfield).

(3) In an earlier post, you stated:

Engineers don't graduate with a generic engineering degree, they obtain degrees in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, etc. A physics degree is the liberal-arts version of a science degree.

To which I responded:

(1) There are schools that offer a "general engineering" major and other broad-based, multi-disciplinary engineering degrees. (2) Physics is not a generic science degree by any means. E.g., you're overlooking at least the major branches of chemistry (and chemical sciences) and biology (and life sciences).

To which you responded:

When a Physics major is primarily 'advertised' as "The math and problem-solving skills they pick up are great for the job market. Physics majors teach, work on Wall Street, and serve in the military. They also perform well on the admission tests for law and medical schools." or "One possibly appealing aspect of studying physics is the diversity of physics careers, which are not set in anyone direction. Physics graduates have skills that are in high demand in diverse sectors. These include skills relating to numeracy, problem-solving, data analysis and the communication of complex ideas, as well as a wider understanding of how the world works, on a scientific and human level.", that indicates to me that a Physics major isn't expected to become an expert in anything, but rather a jack-of-all trades.

(4) Let me highlight and expand some key points.

(a) Physics is not a general science degree. It does not include, e.g., chemical sciences and life sciences.

(b) There is a general engineering degree.

(c) At the undergrad (and grad) level, a student typically does have the option of getting a degree in a specific concentration of engineering (such as EE or ME). But even a major such as EE, e.g., has a broad scope. Typically one does not practice as a general EE: Further expertise in a subfield (such as data networking, semiconductor devices, or power systems) requires additional education (MS or PhD) or training.

(d) At the undergrad (and grad) level, a student typically does not have the option of getting a degree in a specific concentration of physics (such as solid-state or high-energy) [there are exceptions at some schools]. Typically one does not practice as a general physicist: Further expertise in a subfield requires additional education (typically PhD for physics) or training. Deep expertise is often acquired via the PhD thesis. But the initial required base expertise (broad background) is a major plus.

(e) The situation is similar in other fields, such as law or medicine. One achieves a base level of expertise with a JD or MD. Typically one does not practice as a general JD or MD: Further expertise in a subfield (such as patent law for a JD or neurosurgery for a MD) requires additional education or training.

 

[Andy Resnick]

(4) Let me highlight and expand some key points.

(a) Physics is not a general science degree. It does not include, e.g., chemical sciences and life sciences.

(b) There is a general engineering degree.

(c) At the undergrad (and grad) level, a student typically does have the option of getting a degree in a specific concentration of engineering (such as EE or ME). But even a major such as EE, e.g., has a broad scope. Typically one does not practice as a general EE: Further expertise in a subfield (such as data networking, semiconductor devices, or power systems) requires additional education (MS or PhD) or training.

(d) At the undergrad (and grad) level, a student typically does not have the option of getting a degree in a specific concentration of physics (such as solid-state or high-energy) [there are exceptions at some schools]. Typically one does not practice as a general physicist: Further expertise in a subfield requires additional education (typically PhD for physics) or training. Deep expertise is often acquired via the PhD thesis. But the initial required base expertise (broad background) is a major plus.

(e) The situation is similar in other fields, such as law or medicine. One achieves a base level of expertise with a JD or MD. Typically one does not practice as a general JD or MD: Further expertise in a subfield (such as patent law for a JD or neurosurgery for a MD) requires additional education or training.

Maybe this thread has wandered too far off track- I'm not exactly sure what you are getting at, in terms of "Physicists and physics majors, was it worth it?".

 

[Andy Resnick]

Will a resolution come of this?

I invoke Sayre's law :)

 

[CrysPhys]

Maybe this thread has wandered too far off track- I'm not exactly sure what you are getting at, in terms of "Physicists and physics majors, was it worth it?".

The impression (maybe mistaken) I got from your previous posts is that a physics major is so broad (compared to engineering) that it has less worth with respect to a career; in particular, a physicist is a jack-of-all trades (in a negative sense) and an expert at none. So what I tried to do is place the discussion of breadth and expertise in a proper context, as well as counter what I consider to be inaccurate statements.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

Will a resolution come of this?

Each student needs to decide what to major in and how to pursue that major. I am arguing that physics is a valuable major and that graduates of rigorous programs who demonstrate an excellent work ethic will graduate with a number of important skills and levels of expertise that will make them employable in most job markets, especially if they are not too tied to geographical constraints. For me, every time a student who is strongly drawn to the science of physics chooses to major in physics, I feel like I have "won." I also feel like I have won when these students major in engineering, chemistry, or math, but I regard these as lesser victories if the student's real passion is physics.

Each physics program needs to decide how to construct their physics major(s). I value the free market, so I am not greatly offended by programs with concentrations like engineering physics, applied physics, or teaching. But I prefer the more traditional physics programs that require 3 semesters of Calculus, 1 of diff eq, 1 of linear algebra, 1 of math methods, a semester of modern physics, a semester of thermo (stat mech), two semesters of quantum mechanics, two semesters of E&M, at least one semester of classical mechanics after the freshman sequence, as well as 1-2 semesters of advanced laboratories at the junior or senior level.

Physics does not have a degree approving or sanctioning body like the ACS has their approved chemistry programs. But most of the specialty Chemistry programs (Environmental Chemistry, Forensic Chemistry, Chemistry teaching, etc.) represent a significant dumbing down of the chemistry content compared with the ACS approved program. When I served as the Director of the Forensic Science program for a large university in the southern United States, I had a chance to visit a number of crime labs and speak with a number of hiring managers for the crime labs. What did they really want to hire? Graduates from a rigorous program who really knew their chemistry. The crime labs could teach how to apply chemistry to the various forensic issues they faced. They were less able and interested in teaching the chemistry to students who hadn't learned it, because their forensic chemistry program had substituted watered down "forensic science" for the real meat of a rigorous chemistry program.

I've kept this experience in mind when I consider what a physics major should look like. It is not a vocational program. It should be a rigorous physics version of the ACS approved chemistry major. A number of vocational skills can be included along the way, but it should not be emptied of the physics rigor in order to do that, and students need to take ownership of which vocational skills they pick up along the way, based on their future employment goals and interests.

 

[Andy Resnick]

The impression (maybe mistaken) I got from your previous posts is that a physics major is so broad (compared to engineering) that it has less worth with respect to a career; in particular, a physicist is a jack-of-all trades (in a negative sense) and an expert at none. So what I tried to do is place the discussion of breadth and expertise in a proper context, as well as counter what I consider to be inaccurate statements.

Ah. On the contrary, I believe a Physics degree has much value and not just in terms of employ-ability. When a Physics degree is paired with another degree (either as a double major or as a minor), it's even better. I simply take issue with the attitude that a baccalaureate degree is mere 'job training'.

 

[CrysPhys]

Ah. On the contrary, I believe a Physics degree has much value and not just in terms of employ-ability. When a Physics degree is paired with another degree (either as a double major or as a minor), it's even better. I simply take issue with the attitude that a baccalaureate degree is mere 'job training'.

I'm in full accord with this post.

 

[Rika]

Ah. On the contrary, I believe a Physics degree has much value and not just in terms of employ-ability. When a Physics degree is paired with another degree (either as a double major or as a minor), it's even better. I simply take issue with the attitude that a baccalaureate degree is mere 'job training'.

It's not mere job training but to some degree it should be. Otherwise why even bother spending extra years on education and then what? Back to square one? Spending another years for vocational training? That's why I believe engineering degree is better (when it's the only major and on Bsc level) it gives you both - mental and vocational training.

 

[symbolipoint]

It's not mere job training but to some degree it should be. Otherwise why even bother spending extra years on education and then what? Back to square one? Spending another years for vocational training? That's why I believe engineering degree is better (when it's the only major and on Bsc level) it gives you both - mental and vocational training.

Again, that is why I and others say, Physics degree (undergraduate) by itself is not enough, and that a student NEEDS more than the minimum to earn the degree; and why I said, some students NEED counseling and guidance as Physics major students.

 

[Andy Resnick]

It's not mere job training but to some degree it should be. Otherwise why even bother spending extra years on education and then what? Back to square one? Spending another years for vocational training? That's why I believe engineering degree is better (when it's the only major and on Bsc level) it gives you both - mental and vocational training.

It's clear that you think an engineering degree is better *for you*.

 

[Rika]

It's clear that you think an engineering degree is better *for you*.

I believe not only for me but for everyone who want to join workforce asap, be employable straight after Bsc and seek clear path of employment. Tell me then what kind od advantage could Bsc in physics have over engineering or cs degree?

 

[Dr. Courtney]

I believe not only for me but for everyone who want to join workforce asap, be employable straight after Bsc and seek clear path of employment. Tell me then what kind od advantage could Bsc in physics have over engineering or cs degree?

Most students don't really know what they want to do immediately after college when they are picking a major in their first or second year. I recommend students pick paths to keep as many options open as possible, and for students who love physics, a straight physics major keep open all the options after completing the BS: Masters programs, Medical Physics programs, PhD programs, med school, dental school, pharmacy school, lab technician jobs, engineering jobs, and teaching type jobs. Of course, most of these paths will be easier to pursue with some intentional effort along the way: programming skills, lab experience, teaching experience, organic chemistry (for med, dental, and pharmacy).

 

[Andy Resnick]

I believe not only for me but for everyone who want to join workforce asap, be employable straight after Bsc and seek clear path of employment. Tell me then what kind od advantage could Bsc in physics have over engineering or cs degree?

I could list about a dozen reasons why a physics degree was (and is) right for me and how my degree(s) gave me an advantage over my competitors. Since my reasons are similar to those provided by others on this thread and elsewhere, I see no reason to engage in a pointless argument with you.

 

[Rika]

Most students don't really know what they want to do immediately after college when they are picking a major in their first or second year. I recommend students pick paths to keep as many options open as possible, and for students who love physics, a straight physics major keep open all the options after completing the BS: Masters programs, Medical Physics programs, PhD programs, med school, dental school, pharmacy school, lab technician jobs, engineering jobs, and teaching type jobs. Of course, most of these paths will be easier to pursue with some intentional effort along the way: programming skills, lab experience, teaching experience, organic chemistry (for med, dental, and pharmacy).

Yeah but all of it it's viable only in US education system. Rest of the world is different - you choose major before you start university and it's hard to change afterwards, limited pool of electives and no electives outside of major. Once you are in, you are in until graduation. Probably that's the reason why in some countries science degrees are seen as 2nd tier degrees - for example if you study medicine right after high school (EU system) biology is treated as 2nd tier degree comparing to medicine because most of biology students are those who couldn't make into med/dental/vet major.

I could list about a dozen reasons why a physics degree was (and is) right for me and how my degree(s) gave me an advantage over my competitors. Since my reasons are similar to those provided by others on this thread and elsewhere, I see no reason to engage in a pointless argument with you.

I am not saying physics degree is bad for everyone. But it's not good for everyone either.

 

[Electric to be]

I think I would have loved to study pure physics, especially advanced quantum and theoretical particle. But I just didn't/don't see the opportunity for a assured job and the standard of living I desired. Instead I'm going to be finishing up my EE degree & pursuing a master's as well. I've found it to be at least a reasonable comprimise, where I can still do some physics in my undergraduate research in solid state electronics. Also minoring in physics, and while I would love to be able to take classes such as theoretical mechanics and QFT, I'm only going to be able to get through Honors Quantum. Hopefully I'm making the right choice.

 

[Dr Transport]

I think I would have loved to study pure physics, especially advanced quantum and theoretical particle. But I just didn't/don't see the opportunity for a assured job and the standard of living I desired. Instead I'm going to be finishing up my EE degree & pursuing a master's as well. I've found it to be at least a reasonable comprimise, where I can still do some physics in my undergraduate research in solid state electronics. Also minoring in physics, and while I would love to be able to take classes such as theoretical mechanics and QFT, I'm only going to be able to get through Honors Quantum. Hopefully I'm making the right choice.

You've made a wise choice grass hopper...

 

[Rika]

I think I would have loved to study pure physics, especially advanced quantum and theoretical particle. But I just didn't/don't see the opportunity for a assured job and the standard of living I desired. Instead I'm going to be finishing up my EE degree & pursuing a master's as well. I've found it to be at least a reasonable comprimise, where I can still do some physics in my undergraduate research in solid state electronics. Also minoring in physics, and while I would love to be able to take classes such as theoretical mechanics and QFT, I'm only going to be able to get through Honors Quantum. Hopefully I'm making the right choice.

It's wise choice because you can work in physics that way. I mean combining EE and physics + going in solid state electronics enhances your chances for work in both academia and industry. Solid state has more job openings/money/grants in academia and it's proper field in industry (in some countries) so you actually can work as "physicists". Studying pure, theoretical physics would get you nowhere. You would need to say "bye bye" to physics after PhD or postdoc anyway and go to IT/finance sector as everyone else.

 

[pi-r8]

I've perceived before what I would call an "expectations gap" with physics majors. As a BS in mechanical engineering, I expected and got a job with the title "mechanical engineer". I expect the majority of my classmates did too. Expectations matched reality.

Art history is one of the lower degree-matching-job majors out there. But what do people expect? I sure hope that your typical art history major is not expecting to get a job with the word "art" in the title. Same for English and history (and an awful lot of the humanities). If they don't expect to, maybe that's ok? Do they come away from school angry that their art curriculum didn't include classes in coffee making and answering phones?

If there is an expectations gap, that's a bad thing. But it doesn't necessarily mean it's the reality that's wrong. Indeed, I think it is more the expectation that is unreasonble. Personally, I would rather see college freshment of all types be educated on proper expectations than changing the majors to accommodate unrealistic expectations. I don't think replacing physics courses with economics courses would really be doing physics majors any favors. Similarly, I don't think changing the game just to get more fans in the seats is doing baseball any favors in the long run.

Sorry to bump this old thread but I have to say... *this*. This, so much, describes my issues with the physics major.

When I went to space camp as a kid, I understood that it wouldn't actually make me an astronaut. It was fun, and a chance to dream, and maybe some kids who go there actually do become astronauts. But I wasn't expecting it, so I made alternate plans. I also went to youth theater camp, and it was the same thing- I never expected to be a professional actor.

As a physics major, I really did expect to have a job related to what I was studying. At first I thought I'd have something with the job title of "physicist". Then I learned that's not a real job title, or at least a very uncommon one, so I thought I'd become a professor of physics. And when I realized that wasn't in the cards for me I thought, OK, maybe as a fallback plan I'll become an engineer. Engineering is just applied physics, right?

Well, no. Turns out it's actually really hard to become an engineer! You're expected to know a whole lot of detailed, practical knowledge, not just a cursory overview of the basics. A lot of physics majors are just really arrogant and think that a little cramming plus general physics knowledge can turn them into a specialized engineer.

My impression is that students in liberal arts degrees at least *know* that they're studying something impractical. Sometimes they're just naive, but usually they'll also hustle to find something to do for a job after they graduate. As a physics major, I thought I was studying something *practical* so I just focused really hard on classes and research internships. I would have been better off putting *less* time into schoolwork and more time just thinking about what I wanted to do with my life.

We don't need to drastically change the physics major. But stop giving kids (I count 18 year olds as kids) the wrong impressions. It's not a super in-demand STEM major. It's not "generalized engineering". It "might" lead to an academic career, but it probably won't. It's intellectually interesting, but most likely, the studends will need to teach themselves job skills and find a job all on their own. Nothing wrong with that, but just be honest.

 

[sophiecentaur]

Well, no. Turns out it's actually really hard to become an engineer!

Absolutely. The level of knowledge and problem solving that's required for a good Engineer is the same as for a Medic. Even the responsibility of human safety can be similar. Good Engineering courses require very high funding but there's some idiotic principle that all Courses and Degrees should have the same status and similar funding.
An Engineering degree or diploma will maximise your opportunities of having a job under more or less all economic situations.

We don't need to drastically change the physics major. But stop giving kids (I count 18 year olds as kids) the wrong impressions. It's not a super in-demand STEM major. It's not "generalized engineering". It "might" lead to an academic career, but it probably won't. It's intellectually interesting, but most likely, the studends will need to teach themselves job skills and find a job all on their own. Nothing wrong with that, but just be honest.

Again, I totally agree. A Physics course can be much better fun but you need to be lucky to go into research or to convince a would-be employer that you would be suitable for an Engineering post. I was lucky and took my Physics into Engineering Research but I know that it took years before my level of usefulness was genuinely as high as colleagues with good Engineering degrees.

 

[Locrian]

We don't need to drastically change the physics major. But stop giving kids (I count 18 year olds as kids) the wrong impressions. It's not a super in-demand STEM major.

It could be though. This is a very specific, conscious decision by physics departments to ensure the learning results in comparatively weak employability. They wave hands and declare "not vocational!" and that makes it okay to offer an education that's less valuable than it could be.

And that's fine, and that's their perogative. That's why it's important we all work on those expectations, and try to ensure those going into the degree know what (and how little) they're in for.

 

[symbolipoint]

It could be though. This is a very specific, conscious decision by physics departments to ensure the learning results in comparatively weak employability. They wave hands and declare "not vocational!" and that makes it okay to offer an education that's less valuable than it could be.

And that's fine, and that's their perogative. That's why it's important we all work on those expectations, and try to ensure those going into the degree know what (and how little) they're in for.

Physics departments' trying to ensure weak employability or comparatively weak employability is not credible. The real intent is to help students and graduates achieve understanding and prepare them for research. This could mean that employability is not emphasised.

In some sense, you're right; Physics is NOT vocational. Physics people want to know how things are, like to understand, and to solve and predict. As engineering is vocational, engineering people want to know how to make things work (but also still interested to solve and predict) and to design items and processes.

I say this much which is not a great amount: Graduate with major in a different field but within physical sciences, some tough but required course-work from Physics makes one become very analytical in how to think, and make good very careful detailed use of basic Algebra, applicable in a real job in the real world. Physics was not a waste. Degree was in something else, but some part of studying Physics was extremely beneficial for the degree actually earned and for one of the resulting jobs found.

 

[sophiecentaur]

In some sense, you're right; Physics is NOT vocational.

Absolutely true. Many good Physics Graduates end up working as high flyers in the finance industry and elsewhere and are very successful. City firms favour Physics because of the very flexibility of thought that many Engineering courses do no encourage; too much course content to allow it.
But we are comparing Engineering and Physics in this thread and the differences are actually small for good graduates. Physics graduates are probably a bit more flexible and have plugged into highly paid city jobs with no problem
Due to massive specialised Engineering courses we can get: "I may have done all the relevant Maths but I am a Marine Engineer and not a Mining Engineer" attitude. The Physics graduate, although less informed, is probably more likely to reckon they could slot into any post.
But let's not get too bogged down in this discussion. Both are potentially winners. Consider the Arts / Humanities graduate for whom there is no obvious carrier path and whose dissertation on "The influence of the age of enlightenment on the religious artists of the time" may have been a stormer. What measure of their employability is there, except the Class of their Degree and their performance at interview.

 

[Andy Resnick]

We don't need to drastically change the physics major.

That's a subject of some debate for many programs, typically driven by an ongoing long-term pattern of low enrollment (meaning low numbers of graduating majors). While we may agree (and I tend to agree) that an undergraduate physics degree is not really a vocational program, it's undeniable that there are external pressures on institutions to make baccalaureate degrees "job preparation", and that necessarily requires substantive changes to the canonical physics program. This is roughly balanced by the perceived need for a physics BS to serve as preparation for physics graduate programs.

I suppose it depends on what you mean by 'drastic' changes. Replacing some required courses? Requiring either an internship or research experience? Some sort of dual-major program that more fully integrates other disciplines (think chemical physics or engineering physics)? Many departments are already experimenting with these adjustments.

 

[StatGuy2000]

That's a subject of some debate for many programs, typically driven by an ongoing long-term pattern of low enrollment (meaning low numbers of graduating majors). While we may agree (and I tend to agree) that an undergraduate physics degree is not really a vocational program, it's undeniable that there are external pressures on institutions to make baccalaureate degrees "job preparation", and that necessarily requires substantive changes to the canonical physics program. This is roughly balanced by the perceived need for a physics BS to serve as preparation for physics graduate programs.

I suppose it depends on what you mean by 'drastic' changes. Replacing some required courses? Requiring either an internship or research experience? Some sort of dual-major program that more fully integrates other disciplines (think chemical physics or engineering physics)? Many departments are already experimenting with these adjustments.

One approach would be for the physics department to offer multiple degrees, including one "practical" (or "applied") track for undergraduates who are looking toward completing their degree in preparation for employment in industry upon graduation (with course work in computing, select engineering courses, etc. to supplement their physics education), and an "academic" track for those intending to pursue further graduate studies in physics. I am aware of a number of programs experimenting with this approach, so I don't see why more departments may not want to consider this.

 

[sophiecentaur]

That's a subject of some debate for many programs, typically driven by an ongoing long-term pattern of low enrollment (meaning low numbers of graduating majors). While we may agree (and I tend to agree) that an undergraduate physics degree is not really a vocational program, it's undeniable that there are external pressures on institutions to make baccalaureate degrees "job preparation", and that necessarily requires substantive changes to the canonical physics program. This is roughly balanced by the perceived need for a physics BS to serve as preparation for physics graduate programs.

It goes against the grain for politicians to dare to suggest that some sort of 'elite' education is desirable for the country as a whole at the expense of perceived 'failure' of the majority of students. But, one way or another, it has to be supported. Nowadays, when so many students are awarded (and expect) First Class Honours, that is no longer a selection criterion; most of them just move on into the Workplace. So the extra 'Masters' year is often the only way to make it into prestigious Post Graduate places. That's another years worth of loans to take on board.
Shame the Universities were not allowed just to get on with it.

 

[Andy Resnick]

One approach would be for the physics department to offer multiple degrees, including one "practical" (or "applied") track for undergraduates who are looking toward completing their degree in preparation for employment in industry upon graduation (with course work in computing, select engineering courses, etc. to supplement their physics education), and an "academic" track for those intending to pursue further graduate studies in physics. I am aware of a number of programs experimenting with this approach, so I don't see why more departments may not want to consider this.

We sort of do something like that: a BA degree and a BS degree. Again, when total enrollment is low, there is administrative pressure to reduce the 'overhead' associated with multiple programs, and one danger is that most students will gravitate toward one degree, creating additional pressure to simply eliminate the 'less desirable' program, especially when that program has required courses that only count as electives for the other (say, E&M II).

We've started discussing this dual-track approach with our MS program, but the bottom line remains that when overall enrollment is low, dividing up incoming cohorts results in even lower course enrollment.

 

[Andy Resnick]

It goes against the grain for politicians to dare to suggest that some sort of 'elite' education is desirable for the country as a whole at the expense of perceived 'failure' of the majority of students.

Which is one advantage private universities have over public universities.

 

[StatGuy2000]

We sort of do something like that: a BA degree and a BS degree. Again, when total enrollment is low, there is administrative pressure to reduce the 'overhead' associated with multiple programs, and one danger is that most students will gravitate toward one degree, creating additional pressure to simply eliminate the 'less desirable' program, especially when that program has required courses that only count as electives for the other (say, E&M II).

We've started discussing this dual-track approach with our MS program, but the bottom line remains that when overall enrollment is low, dividing up incoming cohorts results in even lower course enrollment.

I hear you about low enrollment. I suppose my thought was that a more employable "practical" or "applied" option within physics will (with sufficient "marketing" -- I deliberately used that word in quotes) lead to higher enrollment, thus justifying having the additional program. Further, the increased enrollment will thus provide sufficient financial backing to maintain the more traditional "pure" physics program.

 

[Carpe Physicum]

Thought I'd give you guys a different perspective. I live near Fermilab, and a few years ago myself, my wife, and my teenage son had a nice personal tour for my sons benefit of course. The person we knew who was our tour guide was a low level administrator, I don't think anything to do with the big stuff. He had a degree in physics, and that's where he landed. Of course he was happy with his job, just being around the big stuff. But he didn't really have an input into it. Part of the tour was to show us the monitoring room where the big colliders and whatnot are monitored. Several guys were sitting around in jeans basically keeping an eye on the screens that were everywhere. Honestly looked like they could be security guards at a mall...just bigger screens and more important stuff obviously. I figured they were guys with some low level tech degree because they didn't do much, other than report things to others. Again nothing anywhere near the big stuff. We asked how you get a job like that, thinking a good tech school would be the answer. Nope. Physics degree bare minimum, grad degree preferred. That was to sit in front of monitors. Of course it was a foot in the door, and maybe paid the bills to get bigger degrees, but still. And the pay was dismal as well compared to my own pay as a corporate programmer (who wasn't smart enough to ever go into physics and didn't even have a programming degree...got into it as a hobby!)

So from the perspective of a parent looking to encourage a certain path for his kid, it was actually pretty discouraging especially since physics, as we can see from this forum, is the place where wonderers and thinkers and dreamers go. And to end up in a finance position, ugh that must hurt.

 

[sophiecentaur]

I live near Fermilab,

The glamour of working in a prestigious establishment means that they will often have the pick of graduates even for humble jobs on site. After a few years work at Fermi Labs (Cern / NASA) they can move on with a useful CV entry. Also, there can be many opportunities to make significant contributions to solve problems in maintenance and modifications and that can call for more than you average ability. We are talking Science Show Biz, here.
"As a parent", one has a real problem with choices for ones children because things are changing so fast and there's no way of predicting what will turn out to be the best choice. At least the modern system of Portfolio Careers means that there is always the possibility of changing, later in life.

 

[analogdesign]

Thought I'd give you guys a different perspective. I live near Fermilab, and a few years ago myself, my wife, and my teenage son had a nice personal tour for my sons benefit of course. The person we knew who was our tour guide was a low level administrator, I don't think anything to do with the big stuff. He had a degree in physics, and that's where he landed. Of course he was happy with his job, just being around the big stuff. But he didn't really have an input into it. Part of the tour was to show us the monitoring room where the big colliders and whatnot are monitored. Several guys were sitting around in jeans basically keeping an eye on the screens that were everywhere. Honestly looked like they could be security guards at a mall...just bigger screens and more important stuff obviously. I figured they were guys with some low level tech degree because they didn't do much, other than report things to others. Again nothing anywhere near the big stuff. We asked how you get a job like that, thinking a good tech school would be the answer. Nope. Physics degree bare minimum, grad degree preferred. That was to sit in front of monitors. Of course it was a foot in the door, and maybe paid the bills to get bigger degrees, but still. And the pay was dismal as well compared to my own pay as a corporate programmer (who wasn't smart enough to ever go into physics and didn't even have a programming degree...got into it as a hobby!)

Maybe your "low level administrator" tour guide didn't know much about what Accelerator Operators do, but let me assure you, their job is not to "sit in front of monitors". I guess you could say the guys that program AI for Google also sit in front of monitors. Operators need specific understanding and experience with the machine they are operating. They assist in identifying and debugging problems, help users set up their experiments to make best use of their beam time, approve and assist with experiment plans from users (most accelerators are user facilities so you have novices from Universities and Industry showing up all the time). Where I work, most of the operators are hard-working, represented professionals and it is not a "foot in the door" but rather a vital position in facility operations. I worked with one senior operator in particular who was the single most knowledgeable person about the facility (more so that any of the engineers).

I think you misunderstood what the operators were doing. I think operating a multi-million dollar machine would qualify as "the big stuff". A good operator knows the machine intimately and can spot problems brewing before automated systems, thereby increasing facility uptime and saving the government money.

Indeed, the pay is dismal compared to what you could get in industry (the pay for most jobs at a place like Fermilab is dismal compared to what the same skillset can command in industry). However, I don't think people work at Fermilab for the money.

 

[pi-r8]

That's a subject of some debate for many programs, typically driven by an ongoing long-term pattern of low enrollment (meaning low numbers of graduating majors). While we may agree (and I tend to agree) that an undergraduate physics degree is not really a vocational program, it's undeniable that there are external pressures on institutions to make baccalaureate degrees "job preparation", and that necessarily requires substantive changes to the canonical physics program. This is roughly balanced by the perceived need for a physics BS to serve as preparation for physics graduate programs.

I suppose it depends on what you mean by 'drastic' changes. Replacing some required courses? Requiring either an internship or research experience? Some sort of dual-major program that more fully integrates other disciplines (think chemical physics or engineering physics)? Many departments are already experimenting with these adjustments.

Job preparation for what job though? It's not like there's some broad class of jobs in industry with the title of "physicist," doing pencil-and-paper calculations with traditional classical, quantum, and E&M. Maybe in the past there was- I think when engineering was less advanced there would have been a place for that.

Other sciences don't seem to have this problem. You can work as a chemist directly with the knowledge you leant in core chemistry classes, or work as a geologist for mining companies, or do biotech lab work with a biology degree. I don't see any physics equivalent of those jobs is, at least not without a phd in a specific niche. Instead you have to be "flexible" and "entrepreneurial" and "learn to code" just like they tell the liberal arts students. So to me it fits better as a liberal arts degree than as a STEM degree.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Other sciences don't seem to have this problem. You can work as a chemist directly with the knowledge you leant in core chemistry classes

Funny you should use that example. Take a look at chemistry boards. A lot of wailing and moaning and gnashing of teeth about how hard it is to get a good job and how other sciences like physics have it so easy.

 

[pi-r8]

Funny you should use that example. Take a look at chemistry boards. A lot of wailing and moaning and gnashing of teeth about how hard it is to get a good job and how other sciences like physics have it so easy.

Oh, I know. I'm not saying it's easy- even in CS, arguably *the* hot major these days, lots of students have trouble getting their first job. I've also heard that from recent law school grads. But those programs all have a direct school->job path available, where there's an obvious job that directly uses what they learned in class, that I don't see in physics.

 

[Dr Transport]

Oh, I know. I'm not saying it's easy- even in CS, arguably *the* hot major these days, lots of students have trouble getting their first job. I've also heard that from recent law school grads. But those programs all have a direct school->job path available, where there's an obvious job that directly uses what they learned in class, that I don't see in physics.

I agree, any new hire I have with a physics degree takes more training. My boss insists that we look at physics majors and we do, but in my niche area of computational electromagnetics a knowledge of Jackson or Griffiths isn't going to cut it. Sure, you have the basics and can learn it, but all of the people who work for me have to have a working knowledge of Ballanis and Harington and there are things in those texts which a physicist never learns in school.

Frankly, after all the years I have been in physics, whether in industry or government, a BS in physics probably won't get you in the door working for me. Can I say a physics degree isn't worth it, no, that is a question everyone needs to answer for themselves. I know I had to learn a h*** of a lot of engineering after my physics PhD to stay employed, not to mention multiple coding languages and operating systems.

 

[Crass_Oscillator]

I switched to electrical engineering for grad school and am loving it. I'm doing applied physics. You can do the same with an aerospace degree; best of both worlds, and better pay!

The only thing special about being an academic physicist is the chance to work in rarefied environments on bourgeois, vanity problems, or do applied physics while being paid less.

 

[pi-r8]

I switched to electrical engineering for grad school and am loving it. I'm doing applied physics. You can do the same with an aerospace degree; best of both worlds, and better pay!

The only thing special about being an academic physicist is the chance to work in rarefied environments on bourgeois, vanity problems, or do applied physics while being paid less.

How did you manage the transition into EE grad school? Doesn't the program assume that you've already taken all the bachelor's level EE classes?

 

[Crass_Oscillator]

I just dove into some grad level circuits classes and killed them. The bureaucrats were satisfied, although I had to work 80+ hours a week.

 

[sophiecentaur]

This thread demonstrates that there is a difference between Education and Training, which is a distinction that is often not acknowledged. Physics education will probably put a graduate in a better position to take training in almost any field. Engineering education may not, because it is already more specialised. But how relevant is that for someone who just wants to rely on having a well paid job in their late twenties? A half competent Engineering or Physics graduate who is able to present themselves well is more likely to be earning reasonable money than the equivalent Arts or Humanities graduate. And there is a lot of satisfaction when they connect up their circuits and the lamp actually turns on.

 

[Rika]

I don't see any physics equivalent of those jobs is, at least not without a phd in a specific niche. Instead you have to be "flexible" and "entrepreneurial" and "learn to code" just like they tell the liberal arts students. So to me it fits better as a liberal arts degree than as a STEM degree.

That's it. That's exactly it. I think everyone need to accept fact that there will be low enrollment in physics because it's not very marketable by nature. If it will be then it's not physics anymore. In my country there is "computational physics" degree which is more or less double major in physics and computer science. It's marketable because of computer science part not because of physics. But engineering physics is not working as a degree because you need more advanced knowledge for engineering positions.

A half competent Engineering or Physics graduate who is able to present themselves well is more likely to be earning reasonable money than the equivalent Arts or Humanities graduate. And there is a lot of satisfaction when they connect up their circuits and the lamp actually turns on.

Do not look down on arts/humanities degrees. Lots of those can prepare you for jobs in marketing, hr, project management or translations. To be honest they can be much more marketable than physics - big companies love if you have a degree in chinese or scandinavian studies + soft skills and you are done. But for technical positions you need specific "hard" skillset. That being said when you decide to study art history or archaeology you know you won't get a job afterwards. But it's different with physics. And you need to learn to code from scratch. Be it humanities or physics.

 

[sophiecentaur]

Langauge qualifications are essential Training - as far as employers are concerned. It’s Vocational in most cases. It can be very desirable to have several languages - but native English speakers tend to be very lazy about that.
Non Science grads who I know have mostly not gone into modestly paid jobs. Physics and Engineering grads tend to end up with comfortable but not flashy paid jobs.

 

[Locrian]

That's exactly it. I think everyone need to accept fact that there will be low enrollment in physics because it's not very marketable by nature.

Disagree - the general public has a very high view of those capable of getting the degree. It's just hard to actually employ them because they are missing critical skills necessary for operating in the 21st century.

Admittedly, it's hard to tell. Most Physics BS programs are stuck in the 1960's (at best). My contention is that if they updated their curriculum we would see a different outcome, but since most of them seem to take an unusual pride in how backwards the education there is, it's tough to know.