Physics BS - is it even worth it?

[WannabeNewton]

Not really. From personal experience, it is not about prestige when applying to top grad schools. It's about who you know really.

And why is going to a top school mutually independent from knowing prominent people? I would think to some extent it is the opposite - the opportunities to meet and collaborate with prominent people would be more abundant. (I am not saying this to be adversarial towards you or anything by the way, I'm just fleshing out as much information for both me and any other student in the same situation)

Once you are done with undergrad stuff, no one stops you from taking grad level classes.

Graduate level courses aren't replacements for rigorous introductory courses though.

 

[PhysicsGente]

And why are those two mutually independent?

Because the experiment collaborations are not only made of top college's groups.

Graduate level courses aren't replacements for rigorous introductory courses though.

In my opinion, you make the course as rigorous as you want. Besides, in the U.S graduate classes are just more rigorous undergrad courses.

 

[martinlematre]

not unless you really want to specialize in it. If you're smart and can network a physics degree can get you most anywhere, but if your primary concern is an easy job over working hard and networking for one then go right into engineering or something

 

[WannabeNewton]

In my opinion, you make the course as rigorous as you want. Besides, in the U.S graduate classes are just more rigorous undergrad courses.

I don't disagree with your first point but I do disagree with your second point. There is no substitute for e.g. a Kleppner or Purcell based class, especially since such courses are not offered in grad school. Of course a person can always self-study but sometimes you just need a classroom to get things done right at the undergraduate level. If you get things done rigorously at the undergraduate level then it is only natural that you will be more prepared for graduate level courses. This is certainly a selling point. I don't know how many schools offer GR at the undergraduate level but from what I've seen it is much more common amongst the "upper tier" schools to do so. Of course it would only help ,and not hurt, to have the opportunity to take GR at the undergraduate level before taking a graduate level GR class. (I'm refraining from using Caltech as an example for anything related to this because their undergraduate curriculum is essentially a graduate curriculum at most other universities)

 

[PhysicsGente]

I don't disagree with your first point but I do disagree with your second point. There is no substitute for e.g. a Kleppner or Purcell based class, especially since such courses are not offered in grad school. Of course a person can always self-study but sometimes you just need a classroom to get things done right at the undergraduate level. If you get things done rigorously at the undergraduate level then it is only natural that you will be more prepared for graduate level courses. This is certainly a selling point. I don't know how many schools offer GR at the undergraduate level but from what I've seen it is much more common amongst the "upper tier" schools to do so. Of course it would only help ,and not hurt, to have the opportunity to take GR at the undergraduate level before taking a graduate level GR class.

My friend, please tell me how is learning from Purcell different from learning from Griffiths.
I agree that Purcell's EM textbook is great, but the physics does not change. At the end, it's all the same.

 

[WannabeNewton]

My friend, please tell me how is learning from Purcell different from learning from Griffiths.
I agree that Purcell's EM textbook is great, but the physics does not change. At the end, it's all the same.

Well first, Purcell is meant as a freshman year text not sophomore year like Griffiths. Secondly, wherever there is overlap with regards to problem sets, Griffiths is measurably easier than Purcell. Third, Purcell is one of the few texts that from the start develops magnetism and the field of moving charges using special relativity. There is a reason why Purcell based classes are advertised for physics major wanting a "deeper" understanding of electromagnetism. You won't get anything close in a Halliday based introductory class and Griffiths doesn't do special relativity in EM till the very last chapter. Regardless, this is getting too specific, and the point is that there is a clear advantage to having more rigorous courses as an undergrad, both on paper and in preparation for higher level physics - to deny this would be irrational.

 

[deluks917]

Assuming the school has a good grad program (aprox stoney brook level) and grad classes are avialable to undergrads I do not see the real issue with just taking mostly grad classes startign in your junior year or so. It is not exactly the same as having a purcell/apostal/etc type class. But it does not seem like a huge issue to me. Plenty of people have attained a dep uderstanding of say general relativity after being introduced to it seriosuly for the first time in grad school. This sort of concern does not seem like something I would worry about anyway.

 

[Bipolarity]

What happened to the idea of switching into EE? I've noticed that a lot of math/physics people tend to steer clear from EE out of fear that it's not theoretical enough for them. While some EE courses (especially at my school) will you have you build large circuits, most are as fairly theoretical as their math/physics counterparts. If you open any book on DSP or control systems you will see that its layout is very much similar to that of physics/math textbooks (definitions/propositions/problem sets), only its a tad bit more useful in industry.

The thing about EE courses though is that a lot of stuff needs to be taken for granted. Often your textbooks will use results from math, but not prove them. A simple example is the fact that any piece-wise continuous function has a Fourier series which converges to it at points of continuity. This result from Fourier analysis is proven by mathematicians, but engineers don't care for the proof: they use it as an indispensable tool in signal processing though! If you really like math, you will take those courses alongside and it may or may not help you in signals. A lot of EE is also an "art" and there are not well-developed algorithmic ways of doing many things, which may annoy you if you are not at heart a mathematician, like I was.

In any case, Cornell's EE department is superb.

BiP

 

[WannabeNewton]

What happened to the idea of switching into EE? I've noticed that a lot of math/physics people tend to steer clear from EE out of fear that it's not theoretical enough for them. While some EE courses (especially at my school) will you have you build large circuits, most are as fairly theoretical as their math/physics counterparts. If you open any book on DSP or control systems you will see that its layout is very much similar to that of physics/math textbooks (definitions/propositions/problem sets), only its a tad bit more useful in industry.
BiP

Hey Bip (jesus christ I haven't heard from you in ages! Last I talked to you, you were like a 10th grader in high school!). Yes I am aware that EE is quite theoretical and heavy on electrodynamics which is why I put it on the table (and it is still on the table by the way, it is one of my choices that is high up there along with transferring to a cheaper school).

 

[Integral]

That's facetious isn't it (saying you 'used' it for your whole life, that's saying philosophy degrees are 'used' all the time since we're always thinking about ideas and philosophy is the analysis of ideas).
I mean yeah supposedly for the OP military could be on the table for him in terms of payment. Physics degrees (at least mine), don't by themselves account for a lot of the technical skills myself and my fellows have (I have an electrical engineering degree as well which accounts for those skills, my fellow physics majors did work outside of the classroom to get similar skills).
A good paying job is not being rich, this is a faulty and extreme view taken by lots of posters here when discussions of money come into the picture.

Not even a little bit facetious, my knowledge of physics has changed how I see the world, that is using my knowledge. Do not think that the only way to use knowledge is at work.

 

[WannabeNewton]

The thing about EE courses though is that a lot of stuff needs to be taken for granted. Often your textbooks will use results from math, but not prove them. A simple example is the fact that any piece-wise continuous function has a Fourier series which converges to it at points of continuity. This result from Fourier analysis is proven by mathematicians, but engineers don't care for the proof: they use it as an indispensable tool in signal processing though! If you really like math, you will take those courses alongside and it may or may not help you in signals. A lot of EE is also an "art" and there are not well-developed algorithmic ways of doing many things, which may annoy you if you are not at heart a mathematician, like I was.

BiP

You are definitely more of a mathematician than I. After doing some physics, I have come to terms with the fact that expecting the kind of mathematical rigor you would see in mathematics text is not a practical thing to expect from physics texts at the undergraduate or early graduate level. I have been spoiled, you could say, because the physics book I have used more than any other (save for Kleppner) is Wald's "General Relativity" and this book is quite precise as far as proper mathematics is concerned so I have the bad habit of using it as a reference to gauge the level of mathematics of other first year graduate texts with.

Eventually I came to terms with the fact that not all physics book will be that mathematically rigorous but they can still be very rigorous and difficult as far as physics is concerned (and by physics texts I don't mean mathematical physics texts such as the ones published under the Cambridge Monograph series because these can be extremely mathematical, especially books on gauge theory). I'm sure EE is the same way, in which case I wouldn't have any grievances.

 

[Arsenic&Lace]

Wannabe, how much serious research experience do you have?

 

[WannabeNewton]

Wannabe, how much serious research experience do you have?

I did numerical relativity projects with a professor for the entirety of the recently finished spring semester but not much other than that. Most of the research spots were filled by upperclassmen, who had already taken advanced lab classes. I, being a freshman, wasn't really allowed to do much outside of the theoretical work that I was lucky to get time with. I figure since I have 3 years left, I can start working on that once the spring semester of sophomore year starts at which point I'll have taken an advanced lab class.

 

[Arsenic&Lace]

Well, ok, so this will help me to illustrate the following point. While I agree that increased rigor is good, its value is highly overrated; learning from Young and Freeman or Halloway and Resnick in your first year actually makes far less difference than you'd think.

You'll figure this out in research, since the pace at which you must learn things on your own makes what you learn in the context of a class vastly less important than it seems; what you did in an intro class has waaaaay less effect than what kind of stuff you're teaching yourself and working on in grad school.

 

[WannabeNewton]

That is the same thing jorriss told me as well. I'll keep that in mind, thank you very much Arsenic! Although personally I have a hard time giving up opportunities to take rigorous courses, the kind of insight and challenge such courses provide are things I find to be of great utility.

 

[Bipolarity]

WBN, you seem to be extremely knowledgeable in physics for a rising sophomore. Is this the norm at Cornell? Or would you say you are in the upper quartile of your year, as far as physics is concerned?

BiP

 

[Arsenic&Lace]

Well, according to some who have seen both worlds (top 10 and less than that) the levels of rigor are not significantly different, especially in upper division classes), which was one of the more important points I was trying to make.

Looking back on my last two years of undergrad, I'd say I wish I'd have spent less time on rigorous courses and more time on research and focusing myself into a narrow niche. Freshman year I took lots of hard upper division/graduate math classes alongside physics and did ok; the whole thing was a humungous effort! When you do actual physics or mathematics research, you get so specialized into your own little niche that really being a jack of all trades is useless. And an army of rigorous undergrad courses makes you a jack of all trades. Fine, maybe you did Goldstein in your undergrad course (some do!), but that was a lot of extra work over say, Fowles, and you'll probably never use it.

Of course, if you want to be approach hardcore Landau or Feynman level theorist kinda skill you probably need to dig deeply into that stuff... but you can do that just fine in graduate school or junior/senior year, which you do whether you're at MIT or Somewhere Else U.

 

[WannabeNewton]

Well, according to some who have seen both worlds (top 10 and less than that) the levels of rigor are not significantly different, especially in upper division classes), which was one of the more important points I was trying to make.

I understand, and I don't disagree. I appreciate your points.

Looking back on my last two years of undergrad, I'd say I wish I'd have spent less time on rigorous courses and more time on research and focusing myself into a narrow niche.

Thanks, I'll definitely have to try and focus more on research in the coming future regardless of if I stay at Cornell or go elsewhere. It would only look better in the face of grad school admissions, it would seem. Plus, your point is important to me for a bigger reason: more experience with research will tell me if I actually want to do physics research in grad school. Let's be honest, learning physics and taking physics courses is nothing like actual research and can be a bad representative of what is in store as far as grad school research goes. Getting acquainted with anything remotely close to such research would only help gauge if grad school is actually right for me, before I devote all that time.

Of course, if you want to be approach hardcore Landau or Feynman level theorist kinda skill you probably need to dig deeply into that stuff... but you can do that just fine in graduate school or junior/senior year, which you do whether you're at MIT or Somewhere Else U.

Does Somewhere Else U offer free cookies ?

WBN, you seem to be extremely knowledgeable in physics for a rising sophomore. Is this the norm at Cornell? Or would you say you are in the upper quartile of your year, as far as physics is concerned?

BiP

You're far more knowledgeable than me BiP, if I recall. As for my peers, I don't know too many but the ones whom I do know are very bright. I can't gauge where I stand amongst them myself, not at the moment anyways.

 

[Bipolarity]

You're far more knowledgeable than me BiP, if I recall. As far as my peers at Cornell, I don't know too many but the ones I do know are very bright. I can't gauge where I stand amongst them myself, not at the moment anyways.

Lol WBN, I think you're just being modest... anyway do consider EE.

Perhaps Cornell offers a double major in EE and physics in which case you can have the best of both worlds. You could major in EE and take those physics course which specifically interest you. If you major in physics, I'm guessing there'll be some courses you don't find very interesting which you might be required to take?

What particularly fascinates you about physics? Its fundamental nature? The math? The people in the field? EE is very similar to physics; both are highly abstract, very mathematical, but EE people often get less attention than their physics counterparts. People still talk of famous physics personalities today; but in EE you won't see celebrities. Yet the CEOs of most tech companies tend to be engineers at heart, so if you have somewhat of an entrepreneurial spirit, go for EE. Engineering tends to be less fundamental at explaining the universe though, but it drives straight into the nail when it comes to explaining the technique of design which is itself also a very elegant science.
BiP

 

[jasonRF]

Lol WBN, I think you're just being modest... anyway do consider EE.

Perhaps Cornell offers a double major in EE and physics in which case you can have the best of both worlds. You could major in EE and take those physics course which specifically interest you. If you major in physics, I'm guessing there'll be some courses you don't find very interesting which you might be required to take?

What particularly fascinates you about physics? Its fundamental nature? The math? The people in the field? EE is very similar to physics; both are highly abstract, very mathematical, but EE people often get less attention than their physics counterparts. People still talk of famous physics personalities today; but in EE you won't see celebrities. Yet the CEOs of most tech companies tend to be engineers at heart, so if you have somewhat of an entrepreneurial spirit, go for EE. Engineering tends to be less fundamental at explaining the universe though, but it drives straight into the nail when it comes to explaining the technique of design which is itself also a very elegant science.



BiP

I am a Cornell Alum - a quick look at the website shows that it is still all but impossible to do that double major there. When I was there minors didn't even exist, so at least Cornell took a step in the right direction with that one. The EE department currently offers WAY fewer EM courses than they did when I was there. The plasma group is also dwindling, as profs pass away or retire they are not being replaced.

Anyway, EEs typically are:
1) people who really want to do electrical engineering
2) people who really like applied math or applied physics and want the EE label on their degree
3) people who like pure math/physics but do EE for emplyment reasons (right or wrong...)
4) people who want a reasonable job, so that they can afford to pursue their own interests on their own time.

I used to be in 3), but am now strongly in 1). I knew an engineer in 4) who worked only part time so that she had many hours to do music (I think she played semi-pro). Many excellent engineers also are from 2) and never leave. Indeed, many solid state workers, or communications folks (especially information theory) NEED to be in 2. I always hesitate to tell people what to major in. It is a personal decision. I also do not know the emplyment statistcs so will not conjecture.

jason

 

[Aryianna]

A B.S. degree will open the door for technical positions at places like NASA and other similar research institutions, however it may take many years for you to pay off the $120K debt. (I used to live in Ithaca, by the way, and still have friends there.) You seem like a very intelligent person. Have you considered grad school? Most PhD programs are endowed at the graduate level, and a PhD position will most definitely pay better. I understand you're concerns about paying your loan. Have you considered financial aid or scholarships?

 

[Aryianna]

Also, UC Berkeley has a good Physics program. Did you consider that university? It's public, and I'm not sure, but I think after the first year, you qualify for resident tuition fee (that is assuming you're not a Californian).

 

[WannabeNewton]

Hi Ariyanna. Thanks for responding. The state of California doesn't give residency that easily unfortunately (and for good reason). I'm also not keen on going to UC schools at the moment because the state is horribly broke. It's unfortunate really because UC Berkeley not only has a "good" physics program, it has one of the best in the world. I would personally place it above Cornell by far not to mention Berkeley is also one of the best graduate locations for topology, which is pretty awesome.

Financial aid is something that is given immediately and the tuition I listed is after that is taken into account. As for scholarships, others mentioned that route and I will definitely take a detailed look into what scholarships I can get. If I go the Physics BS route then I will have to get a PhD, or at least a masters, so that job prospects become more favorable (with regards to me that is). Whether or not I seem like an intelligent person won't really matter (intelligence is also quite relative so it is not exactly the best gauge of future success in areas such as physics where every other person is terrifyingly brilliant), I would say, because getting a PhD is hard for just about anyone and intelligence can't account for all the different ways a person can fail to get a PhD (not to mention I have no idea what I would actually want to focus on in grad school) so it is quite a big risk but one I will have to take if I go the physics route. Thanks again for the comments.

 

[BH Wiz]

Honestly, I don't know much about colleges but here's my suggestion(i only read the first page :P):
-Go to the "cheap" university.. i believe it was Stony Brooks or something.
-Get a relatively cheap education which u might be able to afford.
-Excel while getting your BS in physics
-And get a scholarship to a stronger university for your graduate school.
P.S: It happened to my brother (not in the USA). He graduated from school in 2006 and wanted to go for ME in the american university in our country but his grades did not earn him a scholarship(we can't afford the tuition) so he went to a university (still good) and made the best out of himself. And now he is in his masters in the american university on a full scholarship.
Hope anything i wrote helped and Best of luck

 

[ilmareofthemai]

If I could go back, I would have done my BS in engineering instead of physics.

 

[Nunchi]

I have no experience though I'm personally going to get a degree in engineering physics in a program where it's all the same classes as physics + 2-3 more classes for engineering. Can't see any reason why I wouldn't do that, but who knows.

 

[Mépris]

I don't think this has been mentioned as of yet, but Cornell is a target school for investment banks and consulting firms. "Haters going to hate", but it's an avenue worth looking into.

That said, do ask around at school, as I get the impression that unlike at other target schools (say, MIT, Princeton or Harvard), recruiters tend to come for the Applied Economics and Management majors. Then again, I could be wrong as I don't attend Cornell, but I read about that when I considered applying.

At any rate, ask around. I do know that at Harvard (saw it somewhere on the physics dept's page actually!), there are physics majors who end up doing those jobs. Heck, they even get interview prep at school.

Or you do something radically different...like Paul Janka, who makes money with his seduction advice/etc. Harvard Physics grad.

 

[NATURE.M]

I'm facing similar issues when deciding to either follow my heart and pursue a BS in physics/mathematics, or to focus more primarily on obtaining a degree in applied mathematics, which would seem to offer better job prospects.

 

[WannabeNewton]

I'm facing similar issues when deciding to either follow my heart and pursue a BS in physics/mathematics, or to focus more primarily on obtaining a degree in applied mathematics, which would seem to offer better job prospects.

And what are your thoughts on the matter thus far? Any luck deciding or leaning towards one side more than the other?

Thanks for all the new responses. I'll see if Cornell has anything similar Mepris. Not sure I should be the one giving seduction advice for a living though

 

[Arsenic&Lace]

My impression is that if you are a physics major, your opportunities in finance are quite a bit better with a Phd.