Physics or Engineering Degree for Career Flexibility?

[Megasundato]

Hello. I'm currently a high school student interested in the field of physics/engineering. My thesis for this thread is a question about degree choices and the effects of them. It appears to me that the university I plan to go to is better fit for a physics degree than and engineering degree. As it stands, there is a 4-1 year program for physics( four years for BS at the university and one year at another for an MS) and a 3-2 year program for engineering( 3 year for physics BS and 2 for engineering BS)

My question is practically which is the better choice. In my mind, I see that one with a MS in physics could easily jump into engineering with a few years training, so the former option is my first response; though, I'm not sure if it is the wisest choice.

Does anyone have experience with this type of scenario? How rational is it for one with an MS in physics to go into engineering without having initially majored in it? What would it require? Are there any previous threads to help answer this?

Thanks for reading. I will appreciate any reply.

 

[fss]

If you want to do physics you should do physics. I do not understand spending (and paying for) 5 years of school for two bachelor's degrees. If you want to do engineering, the physics degree won't really help you- especially if you're in the US and every engineering opening is flooded with applications of engineers.

 

[Astronuc]

Hello. I'm currently a high school student interested in the field of physics/engineering. My thesis for this thread is a question about degree choices and the effects of them. It appears to me that the university I plan to go to is better fit for a physics degree than and engineering degree. As it stands, there is a 4-1 year program for physics( four years for BS at the university and one year at another for an MS) and a 3-2 year program for engineering( 3 year for physics BS and 2 for engineering BS).

What kind of engineering? Is it general engineering, or engineering physics, or some specialty e.g., mechanical or electrical engineering.

If I known then what I know now, then I would have done physics and nuclear engineering as an undergrad. I started in physics and migrated to nuclear engineering, and eventually took some EE, Mech Eng, Aerospace, and Materials Science. While I had a core program, I took a diverse set of courses.

One academic program would depend on one's professional goals.

 

[Studiot]

Yes a significant number of those who read physics to first degree level subsequently achieve career progression in engineering. Some are very good and very successful.
There is no hard and fast distinction.

Thoughts

Some physics courses are more applied than others.

Why not a physics first degree followed by an engineering Masters? This would be more acceptable in engineering.

In the UK, Engineering Institutions will give you credit for a physics degree towards Chartered Engineer status.

 

[brewnog]

I wouldn't recruit a physics graduate for an engineering role.

 

[Megasundato]

Thanks. This is all very helpful.
I plan mostly to work in aerospace; though of course everything may change. I'm not sure. Fss's response seems rational. Two BSs might seem to be fairly useless. In regards to Astronuc's post, I may ask a few questions. You say you should have done physics and nuclear engineering as an undergrad. How would that work? Would that be a double major? A major and minor situation? Or something different? In the field of aerospace, would you advise the same thing? On Studiot's post. I understand the idea of a BS in physics and an MS in engineering. I take this into consideration; though I'm not sure if it would be the more reasonable choice for my case.

The question on my mind at the moment is how would one with an MS in physics work in engineering? What steps must be taken for the field of aerospace. I see that the 4-1 program for physics would be a good choice due to the fairly short time frame needed to get an MS. At the moment, this will be my choice. It seems reasonable to me because just one extra year will be all that's needed to get a better degree. My main question is what would be some courses or trainings (generally speaking) I would need to take, being that the physics part of aerospace engineering would be covered my physics MS? Robotics courses Mechanics, etc.

I'm not sure if my question makes much sense, or if this subject is even plausible. Please ask if clarification if needed.

 

[Megasundato]

I wouldn't recruit a physics graduate for an engineering role.

This makes sense, being that physics would be the only thing he or she knew about. My question is what additional studies would make you want to recruit the physics graduate.

 

[brewnog]

This makes sense, being that physics would be the only thing he or she knew about. My question is what additional studies would make you want to recruit the physics graduate.

I don't dispute that there are transferrable skills, just that the engineering graduate already has a skill set apt for that vocation. I'd consider a physics grad if they also have an engineering degree, or some amazing (and relevant) work experience.

 

[Megasundato]

Would you say that a minor in engineering (if even possible) or specific courses of some kind could constitute for ample experience. I know this is treading in some gray areas, but generally speaking, for a career in aerospace what would be a wise decision to start with, or pick up after an MS for physics.

 

[Studiot]

I wouldn't recruit a physics graduate for an engineering role.

I am suprised and dismayed by this statement which I find contemptuous of physicists.

Some time ago I joined the graduate intake program of a large international civil engineering company.
Another on that program was a physics graduate from Cambridge. He was treated no differently and did just as well as 'proper' civils graduates.

My flatmate ( another physics graduate) at the time joined a similar program with another major construction firm and went on to become one of the important lights in the CIOM.
He was partnered with a geography graduate who is now one of the senior directors of yet another major firm.

Between them of these last two have been on the board of pretty well every major UK construction company.

So yes it is possible, just don't apply to BN for a job.

 

[Megasundato]

All very interesting. I assume that maybe this question has no easy answer. I'm also interested, studiot, in the type of training the physics graduate had. Though pretty much if you're even just the janitor at Cambridge you have a super collider in your garage so I wonder if that has something to do with it. ha
I think I've got my answer for the most part. Thanks for contributing.

 

[Astronuc]

In regards to Astronuc's post, I may ask a few questions. You say you should have done physics and nuclear engineering as an undergrad. How would that work? Would that be a double major? A major and minor situation? Or something different? In the field of aerospace, would you advise the same thing? On Studiot's post. I understand the idea of a BS in physics and an MS in engineering. I take this into consideration; though I'm not sure if it would be the more reasonable choice for my case

Whether or not to include physics with engineering depends on what type of engineering one would ulimately practice. It would have been possible to do a double major in my case, but I started at one institution and transferred to another.

At the first institution, I essentially placed out of first year and started my first year of university at the sophomore level. I did the physics program with options in nuclear and astrophysics.

Had I started at the second institution, I would have done a double major in physics and nuclear engineering.

It's not for everyone. The attrition rate in nuclear engineering was 90 - 95%. We could start with 100-200 students and end up with between 10 and 20 in the fourth year. My undergrad NE class was one of the largest in number graduating the same year.

One classmate went on the command a nuclear sub, and several others went on to senior management positions at various major companies in energy or defense as their careers progressed.

 

[Dr Lots-o'watts]

I wouldn't recruit a physics graduate for an engineering role.

If the physicist is willing to build up his engineering and practical skills, and let go of a bit of academic (exp. or theo.) work he's used to, I see no problem with that. As long as you choose the physicist who has an application-based mindset over the theorist who would rather not come near a screwdriver.

 

[Megasundato]

Thanks for the posts. I see more clearly the requirement for certain jobs and even the flexibility of some areas of study. Astronuc, I see how it works now in some cases. More importantly I realize how not completely vital some choices are. I guess though I should probably talk to someone at the university I plan to go to, so I could learn more about the specifics. On Dr. Lots-o'watts post, I agree with this, but it also leads me to wonder on how well-rounded one can be. I'm interested into the engineering side primarily; though almost equally, I'm interested into the theoretical side mostly with a creationist slant. In Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time, he mentions how specialized theoretical physicists have to be. However I'm wondering how many bridges can be tied. Wasn't Einstein also involved with some engineering? (Not saying I have that type of brain)

 

[Studiot]

Good engineering is about attention to detail and outcome.

Physics, especially theoretical, is more about the broader picture and the underlying input.

Engineering is about achieving a workable and acceptable balance between often conflicting service requirements, none of which can ever be fully met.

Physics is about identifying, separating and isolating these efffects.

 

[Megasundato]

I see. That's a great point.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I have a BS in physics and work mostly as an engineer. My experience has shown that it is much harder to market a physics degree than an engineering degree. In fact, in order to first get a job after college, I learned that I essentially needed to educate the prospective employers about the skills acquired as a physics student. Keep in mind that an engineer will probably be doing the hiring. By definition, an engineering grad doesn't know how physics students spend their time. Many won't even have a look. Once I started including specific information on my resume about the physics curriculum, the job offers went from nill to half a dozen.

On the up side, my training in physics has given me an edge in the real world. My reputation was made by solving problems that had stumped engineers [and a good number of times!]. A physics grad has a broader range of skills to offer than a typical engineering grad. In my case, this advantage was enhanced by a background in electronics. The strongest suits by far for a physics grad, compared to an engineering grad, are the math skills and the ability to address problems using first principles. While engineering students are acquiring practical knowledge, physics students are grinding out solutions from scratch using first principles.

 

[Megasundato]

Very interesting. That's pretty much the way I see it. Engineering is derived from physics.
I also say to people that engineering and physics go hand in hand. I know there is a lot of specifics, but I always thought that the physicist has a hand in engineering and vice versa, so I'm really searching for a way for me to be a physicist and an engineer.