Physics BS - is it even worth it?

[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.

 

[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 teh 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".