Physics BS - is it even worth it?

[WannabeNewton]

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

Oh certainly. Now if only they weren't so hard to get amirite ?

 

[Arsenic&Lace]

Haha, I suppose, but hell, I know two friends who are grad students at my school who got jobs in finance right out of the door, and the school I go to is nowhere near Harvard or Cornell or what have you.

 

[WannabeNewton]

Haha, I suppose, but hell, I know two friends who are grad students at my school who got jobs in finance right out of the door, and the school I go to is nowhere near Harvard or Cornell or what have you.

The only thing is I'll have to sell my soul to the devil and work in a field I abhor. Ah well lol, you got to do what you got to do.

 

[micromass]

The only thing is I'll have to sell my soul to the devil and work in a field I abhor. Ah well lol, you got to do what you got to do.

You sold your soul to devil already once you stopped doing topology

 

[WannabeNewton]

You sold your soul to devil already once you stopped doing topology

Until I learn transfinite induction and finally prove that the long line is path connected and first countable but not second, I cannot go back. My self-esteem is at stake. Or you can construct the long line without using the axiom of choice and also prove the properties of the long line without using ordinals, in which case I will concede defeat and move onwards to CW complexes xP.

 

[micromass]

Until I learn transfinite induction and finally prove that the long line is path connected and first countable but not second, I cannot go back. My self-esteem is at stake. Or you can construct the long line without using the axiom of choice and also prove the properties of the long line without using ordinals in which case I will concede defeat and move onwards to CW complexes xP.

I never said that ordinals and transfinite induction were necessary for the problem. They just make it a lot easier It's still pretty difficult though.

 

[WannabeNewton]

I never said that ordinals and transfinite induction were necessary for the problem. They just make it a lot easier It's still pretty difficult though.

Lol I tried for like 5 days (i.e. I didn't forget about it an hour after starting it) and couldn't figure out how to do it without using ordinals. It's torturous .

 

[micromass]

Lol I tried for like 5 days (i.e. I didn't forget about it an hour after starting it) and couldn't figure out how to do it without using ordinals. It's torturous .

I can always give you the solution if you want... for a small price

 

[Arsenic&Lace]

uuuuuurgh topology is such a loathsome subject.

I can think of no course in my academic career which has caused me more trauma than point set topology, although taking it as a freshman with inadequate preparation may have been the source of my discomfort.

That, or Abstract Algebra.

 

[dustbin]

That, or Abstract Algebra.

Do not speak such words.

 

[NATURE.M]

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

As of now, I'm still largely undecided. I'm only entering into first year this upcoming fall, so I still have a fair amount of time to declare a major/specialist. Although, if I must say, I'm beginning to slightly favor applied mathematics, as it keeps a variety of options open including careers related to finance/business, statistics and even graduate school (whether that be in applied math research or even mathematical physics).

 

[Arsenic&Lace]

Nature.M, it is dangerous to select a major based upon pragmatism. The distinction between job opportunities for physics majors and applied mathematics majors is limited enough that you're better off choosing the major you enjoy the most, since either way you sound like a clever guy and you'll be fine.

Now, applied mathematics is a really neat field, a friend of mine who's a real pro at control theory was telling me about it and it was absolutely fascinating. So I can't imagine you'll hate applied mathematics... but if it's not what you like, be extremely careful about choosing it because of a perception that physics will provide you with fewer opportunities. I know several physics grad students in fields as diverse as biophysics and diffraction physics who wound up in finance; I think a physics degree is fine if that's what you're really interested in.

 

[Mépris]

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

But most jobs in finance aren't for PhDs! I'm talking about the analyst jobs that people with any bachelor's degree (ranging from art history to zoology) can be hired for. For those jobs, where you went to school matters so much more than what your degree is in.

 

[WannabeNewton]

My original plan was to dual major in physics and math (with most of the emphasis being on pure math-analysis,topology, and differential geometry in particular) simply because I loved (and still love) mathematical physics but it is looking less and less practical by the second. Some people have recommended I try a physics and computer science or physics and engineering double major just to remain "practical" and "employable" in the eyes of potential employers but it seems like doing a comp sci or eng double major with physics would be quite a monumental task that would take away substantially from my self-studying of physics and mathematics (which is honestly the biggest source of joy in my life at the moment). I mean does employ-ability in the above sense really rely so much on an extra major in a practical field? Can one not just learn programming without all the extra theory (not that the theory isn't interesting-far from it but a normal person like myself can only focus on learning so much at a given time)?

 

[micromass]

My original plan was to dual major in physics and math (with most of the emphasis being on pure math-analysis,topology, and differential geometry in particular) simply because I loved (and still love) mathematical physics but it is looking less and less practical by the second. Some people have recommended I try a physics and computer science or physics and engineering double major just to remain "practical" and "employable" in the eyes of potential employers but it seems like doing a comp sci or eng double major with physics would be quite a monumental task that would take away substantially from my self-studying of physics and mathematics (which is honestly the biggest source of joy in my life at the moment). I mean does employ-ability in the above sense really rely so much on an extra major in a practical field? Can one not just learn programming without all the extra theory (not that the theory isn't interesting-far from it but a normal person like myself can only focus on learning so much at a given time)?

How do you know you really like theoretical physics? Theoretical physics is not just reading popsci books about wormholes and time travel.

 

[WannabeNewton]

How do you know you really like theoretical physics? Theoretical physics is not just reading popsci books about wormholes and time travel.

Derp I like Stephen Hawkins and the string theory of Beethoven's 5th symphony as recited by Michio Kaku. On the other hand there are some nice textbooks out there on non-trivial global causal structures in general relativity and quotient space-times with interesting topological properties, non-time orientable space-times, and closed time-like curves so it isn't exactly a far fetched theoretical area of study.

 

[MisterX]

Some people have recommended I try a physics and computer science or physics and engineering double major just to remain "practical" and "employable" in the eyes of potential employers but it seems like doing a comp sci or eng double major with physics would be quite a monumental task that would take away substantially from my self-studying of physics and mathematics (which is honestly the biggest source of joy in my life at the moment). I mean does employ-ability in the above sense really rely so much on an extra major in a practical field? Can one not just learn programming without all the extra theory (not that the theory isn't interesting-far from it but a normal person like myself can only focus on learning so much at a given time)?

I don't think computer science would be the right thing for you to do. A dual degree in electrical engineering might be a better choice.

• Electronics, instrumentation, and data acquisition are part of physics laboratories, and this is the purview of electrical engineers
• I think EE is one of the more mathematically involved disciplines of engineering
• It ties in with physics more than CS – for example applied electromagnetism or semiconductors
• You may learn to program in a way that may leaves you more prepared to do numerical programs such as simulations, scientific computation, or D.S.P.

In my experience it was not super difficult overall. I don't know exactly how it is at Cornell, though. I'm not sure whether you should dual major at all, or in mathematics instead - but I think ECE would be better for you than CS.

 

[Physics_UG]

I double majored in EE and physics. It wasn't too bad but it took me 5 years. It's not a bad idea.

 

[DrummingAtom]

But most jobs in finance aren't for PhDs! I'm talking about the analyst jobs that people with any bachelor's degree (ranging from art history to zoology) can be hired for. For those jobs, where you went to school matters so much more than what your degree is in.

I really don't understand why people post things like this. One of my friends recently got an internship at a "big time" financial firm coincidentally as an analyst. I was curious as to what degrees they were looking for because I might try that route one day too. All the interns and coworkers in his department have technical degrees. Engineering, CS, Operations Research, Stats, Math, Physics, Finance, etc.

My question is how you know that what you're saying is true? Art history or zoology or ANY bachelor's degree -> financial analyst? That seems extremely far fetched.

 

[D H]

My original plan was to dual major in physics and math

Go to a mathematics forum that is akin to this site. You'll inevitably find threads along the lines of "Mathematics BA - is it even worth it?" You could add astronomy to your list to create a triple major in what are probably the three technical disciplines where employability with only a bachelors degree is toughest.

Some people have recommended I try a physics and computer science or physics and engineering double major just to remain "practical" and "employable" in the eyes of potential employers but it seems like doing a comp sci or eng double major with physics would be quite a monumental task that would take away substantially from my self-studying of physics and mathematics (which is honestly the biggest source of joy in my life at the moment).

A physics / engineering double major would be a significant undertaking at Cornell for the simple reason that physics (I'm assuming you're a physics major, not an A&EP major) is in the College of Arts and Sciences while engineering degrees are offered by the College of Engineering. That the two colleges have somewhat orthogonal core requirements is going to make this a rather tough task. Comp sci will be less problematic in this regard because it lives in both colleges. It still won't be easy, and it most likely will add an extra year to your undergrad career.

A much less laborious route would be to minor in one of those other topics. Math would be easy; you're going to come close to the minor requirements for math just by taking the math courses required of a physics major. A minor in some engineering degree might be useful as a backup plan to graduate work in physics, but you're going to be competing with people who majored in that field. Many prospective employers in an engineering field will take the easy way out and put your resume in the circular file.

On the other hand, a comp sci minor would open the door to a slew of technical jobs where the ability to program is an essential but nonetheless secondary job requirement. First and foremost is the ability to reason mathematically and physically. As a side benefit, a comp sci minor could also be of aid should you decide to continue in physics at the graduate level. There are quite a few physics disciplines that require programming as an essential but nonetheless secondary skill.You asked "Can one not just learn programming without all the extra theory?" The answer is yes. You can readily learn to program badly without all the extra theory. I occasionally (with much grimacing) have to look at code written by aerospace engineering or astronomy grad students. It's usually quite atrocious. Unreadable. Unmaintainable. Untestable. Detestable. They learned how to program without any of the extra theory.

Let's flip your question around. "Can one not just learn physics without all the extra theory?" Not really. The same applies to some extent to computer science.

Because programming is a secondary skill in those analytical jobs and in computational physics, you don't need to go whole hog and do a double major in physics and comp sci. Secondary = minor, not major.

 

[WannabeNewton]

Go to a mathematics forum that is akin to this site. You'll inevitably find threads along the lines of "Mathematics BA - is it even worth it?" You could add astronomy to your list to create a triple major in what are probably the three technical disciplines where employability with only a bachelors degree is toughest.

Yeah I had the interest of doing physics + math before I started to give a good hard look on what my future prospects would be after college, unfortunate adamancy on my part.

A physics / engineering double major would be a significant undertaking at Cornell for the simple reason that physics (I'm assuming you're a physics major, not an A&EP major) is in the College of Arts and Sciences while engineering degrees are offered by the College of Engineering. That the two colleges have somewhat orthogonal core requirements is going to make this a rather tough task. Comp sci will be less problematic in this regard because it lives in both colleges. It still won't be easy, and it most likely will add an extra year to your undergrad career.

Yeah an extra year won't be the most ideal thing that''s for sure. Physics + Eng does indeed look quite scary/hard to manage especially since, as you mentioned, they are across different schools for me (and yes I'm in the arts and sciences physics major).

A much less laborious route would be to minor in one of those other topics. Math would be easy; you're going to come close to the minor requirements for math just by taking the math courses required of a physics major. A minor in some engineering degree might be useful as a backup plan to graduate work in physics, but you're going to be competing with people who majored in that field. Many prospective employers in an engineering field will take the easy way out and put your resume in the circular file.

I see, well that's definitely good to know beforehand (regarding the engineering minor).

On the other hand, a comp sci minor would open the door to a slew of technical jobs where the ability to program is an essential but nonetheless secondary job requirement. First and foremost is the ability to reason mathematically and physically. As a side benefit, a comp sci minor could also be of aid should you decide to continue in physics at the graduate level. There are quite a few physics disciplines that require programming as an essential but nonetheless secondary skill.

Yeah another person advised me to take the comp sci minor as well. I guess the biggest advantage is that it has the potential not to tack on a whole extra year of undergrad.

You asked "Can one not just learn programming without all the extra theory?" The answer is yes. You can readily learn to program badly without all the extra theory. I occasionally (with much grimacing) have to look at code written by aerospace engineering or astronomy grad students. It's usually quite atrocious. Unreadable. Unmaintainable. Untestable. Detestable. They learned how to program without any of the extra theory.

Let's flip your question around. "Can one not just learn physics without all the extra theory?" Not really. The same applies to some extent to computer science.

Because programming is a secondary skill in those analytical jobs and in computational physics, you don't need to go whole hog and do a double major in physics and comp sci. Secondary = minor, not major.

I don't have any qualms against learning theory in fact if possible I would love to learn the theory. I was just afraid of the time constraints with regards to the 4-year degree and if I could actually fit in all that theory + the usual physics courses. However it seems like with a minor this would be much more manageable as you said.

Thanks for the advice D H, I really appreciate it. I spoke to my parents by the way and they suggested that if I'm actually having these kinds of doubts then I should play it safe and make sure I have something to fall back on. Since many of their relatives were successful with comp sci in one way or another they naturally suggested I try to have comp sci as a secondary as well.

 

[Arsenic&Lace]

Yeah a lot of people are interested in that stuff. Again, physics bachelors get hired all over the place; it depends upon the robustness of the economy and your ability to network and put yourself out there, so if you have a physics bachelors in addition to a phd in something esoteric I think you're in decent shape. Also math departments tend to be enormous because of the sheer volume of students they need to teach, so finding an academic position with heavier teaching requirements is probably less challenging than one would think; I've heard that engineering phd's can get hired into academic positions ASAP due to the huge demand teaching wise (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong); likewise, my impression is the same for the math department.

 

[WannabeNewton]

I don't think computer science would be the right thing for you to do. A dual degree in electrical engineering might be a better choice.

While EE is an extremely interesting subject in it's own right and all the points you brought up about it are enticing, as D H said at Cornell it is quite difficult to do the physics + eng dual major; I'm trying to avoid tacking on a extra year. Thanks for the information

 

[Group_Complex]

If you need to ask then the answer is no.

 

[micromass]

If you need to ask then the answer is no.

Very helpful.

 

[Group_Complex]

Very helpful.

Physics is something you need to have passion above all else for to pursue. If you are questioning the career than the passion is probably not there. Paul Halmos said a very similar thing about mathematics.

 

[AnTiFreeze3]

Physics is something you need to have passion above all else for to pursue. If you are questioning the career than the passion is probably not there. Paul Halmos said a very similar thing about mathematics.

Inquiring about future job perspectives does not equate to a lack of passion for a subject.

 

[WannabeNewton]

Physics is something you need to have passion above all else for to pursue. If you are questioning the career than the passion is probably not there. Paul Halmos said a very similar thing about mathematics.

Yeah I certainly have no passion for physics. Anyone who uses this forum regularly will tell you that I find physics monotonous and banal. Thank you for your brilliant insight I will definitely take it into consideration.

 

[Group_Complex]

Yeah I certainly have no passion for physics. Anyone who uses this forum regularly will tell you that I find physics monotonous and banal. Thank you for your brilliant insight I will definitely take it into consideration.

The question is not if you have passion, rather do you have ENOUGH passion?

 

[micromass]

The question is not if you have passion, rather do you have ENOUGH passion?

So the only people with enough passion are the people who start doing physics and who don't think about job prospects? I don't call that "a lot of passion", I call that "stupid".