So You Want To Be A Physicist Discussion

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers around the article "So You Want To Be A Physicist," where the author, ZapperZ, seeks feedback to enhance the series and has begun a prequel aimed at high school students interested in physics. Participants express appreciation for the guidance provided, with some sharing their own experiences in pursuing physics degrees, particularly in the UK. Concerns about academic preparedness and the competitive nature of university applications are discussed, along with the importance of selecting the right institutions based on personal fit and academic goals. Suggestions for additional resources and advice on navigating the academic landscape are also shared. Overall, the thread serves as a supportive platform for aspiring physicists to gather insights and encouragement.
  • #151


Schrodu said:
I first came across this essay many years ago in high school, and I'm now in a big-name grad school in the US (at Parts X, XI of the essay). I've been coming back to the essay every couple of years or so, and each time I've found some meaningful advice there. I just wanted to thank ZapperZ for writing and maintaining this, and I expect to come back to it for many more years :smile:

You're very welcome. Glad it is of use to you.

And good luck with your grad school.

Zz.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #152


Thanks for the article! I'm still in secondary school but I'm already considering a career in physics (but of course a lot can change). My parents advice me against following the academic route after graduate school, since I'll have to do post-docs with very low salaries, and it's nearly impossible to get a permanent position. This article scared me even more:

http://wuphys.wustl.edu/~katz/scientist.html

The article was written in 1999 but judging from other forum posts the situation doesn't seem to be better nowadays.

I know money should not be the most important consideration when it comes to career choices, but it's still important! I want to earn enough to support my parents and not only myself after all they've invested in my education. If I follow the academic route it seems hard to do so. So, is it a bad idea to become a physicist in academia?

I considered being an engineer, but it just doesn't seem as exciting. It seems that engineers spend a lot of time doing things not directly science-related...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #153


titaniumpen said:
Thanks for the article! I'm still in secondary school but I'm already considering a career in physics (but of course a lot can change). My parents advice me against following the academic route after graduate school, since I'll have to do post-docs with very low salaries, and it's nearly impossible to get a permanent position. This article scared me even more:

http://wuphys.wustl.edu/~katz/scientist.html

The article was written in 1999 but judging from other forum posts the situation doesn't seem to be better nowadays.

I know money should not be the most important consideration when it comes to career choices, but it's still important! I want to earn enough to support my parents and not only myself after all they've invested in my education. If I follow the academic route it seems hard to do so. So, is it a bad idea to become a physicist in academia?

I considered being an engineer, but it just doesn't seem as exciting. It seems that engineers spend a lot of time doing things not directly science-related...

Please browse or search through this forum. That Katz article has been discussed to death already, and it shouldn't be discussed in THIS thread.

Zz.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #154
If you missed it, the IoP has published a handy author's guide in helping a first-time authors to published papers in physics journals. It has many overlap with my own guide in Part XIII of http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=df5w5j9q_5gj6wmt essay.

I would think that with both of them, you should get a very good idea on how to proceed. Still, it doesn't replace doing this a few times to get the hang of it.

Zz.
 
  • #155


Not sure if everyone is aware of this already, but there's a series of very useful webinars produced by the APS.

http://www.aps.org/careers/guidance/webinars/archive.cfm

You need to register just one time to view the webinars. These are very useful because the topics of discussion cover a large range, from how to do well in the GRE Physics exam to networking at the APS meetings.

Don't miss it.

Zz.
 
  • #156
The AIP has released the latest statistics on First Year physics graduate students in the US.

http://www.aip.org/statistics/trends/reports/1styeargrad.pdf

Zz.
 
  • #157


thanks 'tis amazin' and helpf'l :P
 
  • #158


^ZapperZ, why do you think that the percentage of first year grad students sudying applied physics was so low? Applied physics has always struck me as a such broad phrase; wouldn't many of the fields (condensed matter, particles and fields, optics, nuclear physics, biophysics etc) provide numerous instances in which it could be much more applied than theoretical?
 
  • #159


camjohn said:
^ZapperZ, why do you think that the percentage of first year grad students sudying applied physics was so low? Applied physics has always struck me as a such broad phrase; wouldn't many of the fields (condensed matter, particles and fields, optics, nuclear physics, biophysics etc) provide numerous instances in which it could be much more applied than theoretical?

That last sentence doesn't make sense. "More applied than theoretical"? I don't know what that means. "Applied physics", such as condensed matter, etc. can have theoretical aspects. Phil Anderson and Bob Laughlin are theorists in condensed matter physics, and won Nobel Prizes!

So theoretical and applied are not mutually exclusive!

Zz.
 
  • #160


ZapperZ said:
That last sentence doesn't make sense. "More applied than theoretical"? I don't know what that means. "Applied physics", such as condensed matter, etc. can have theoretical aspects. Phil Anderson and Bob Laughlin are theorists in condensed matter physics, and won Nobel Prizes!

So theoretical and applied are not mutually exclusive!

Zz.

Are the job prospect in for example theoretical condensed matter physics, better than the job prospects in say theoretical astrophysics, i.e. is it easier to get a job as a theorist in a more "applied area", compared to a theorist in a not so applicable area?

EDIT: Also, how is the job situation in say plasma physics? (I'm thinking nuclear fusion and stuff like that...)
 
  • #161


YEah its my dream to be a physicist,, but it is not for me... i guess there are very few people in the world being given with exceptional intellect and understanding of the natural world..
 
  • #163


ZapperZ said:
Another periodic reminder that the full So You Want To Be A Physicist essay can be found at the link.

Zz.
mr Kaku had a go at is as well, but this is so much more insightfull !. It's a pain though to keep having to convert back to the european (mainland) system. So let's see, I've completed 'A-levels' again in order to enroll in 'undergraduate' physics, at 35. Hell yeah I want to become a physicist!
 
  • #164


Whoa, this was a really awesome read! I read this over the span of 3 days and I have to say, I'm pretty inspired! Your emphasis on making connections with faculty/students was probably the best takeaway I got from this and is something I'll try and apply when I start next Spring.
 
  • #165


OMGCarlos said:
Whoa, this was a really awesome read! I read this over the span of 3 days and I have to say, I'm pretty inspired! Your emphasis on making connections with faculty/students was probably the best takeaway I got from this and is something I'll try and apply when I start next Spring.

Thank you.

3 days, eh? Didn't realize it requires that long of a read to have it all sink it.

I'm hoping to add a couple more items to it, and then go back and revamp some of the old ones. There are new stuff to add.

Zz.
 
  • #166


Nice essay.Really an eyeopener.
Thanks ZapperZ.
 
  • #167


ZapperZ said:
Thank you.

3 days, eh? Didn't realize it requires that long of a read to have it all sink it.

I'm hoping to add a couple more items to it, and then go back and revamp some of the old ones. There are new stuff to add.

Zz.

great to hear, looking forward to the new content
yes, it is pretty long, much effort that you are thanked for :biggrin:
 
  • #168


Guys,
Physics totally fascinates me!
Sorry abt the long post,but i really need aome advice...
I really love thinking about Natural Phenomenon,building models and stuff ..!
But i really think i lack at math..i mean,most of the bio of great physicist mention ability to freely use mathematical functions and numbers,calculus algebra etc were like second language to them and stuff..and they all mention math as 'The language of science' and stuff...
I really want to know,Is it really possible to see the 'mathematical beauty' when we first study the subject??I mean like maht when i can think of it in terms of pictures,or some practical analogy i make up...i mean,i understand drevative mean slope,tracing out basic graphs,and usually do calculus from graphs as far as possible,unless it becomes tooooo complicated..
But is it possible to actually visualise or understand even the most complicated functions etc??Or is math just memorising and applying(in that case,i just won't get it :(..) i really want to understand math to and advanced level,if its going to help me go deeper into physics,and understanding...i like math for its sake itself..and want to know how to become Extremely comfortable with math! :(
 
  • #169


zacky_D said:
Is it really possible to see the 'mathematical beauty' when we first study the subject??
...
i like math for its sake itself..and want to know how to become Extremely comfortable with math! :(
I'd say that study hard (under pedagogically excellent professors of theoretial physics) and you probably will some day begin to see the mathematical beauty of physical theories.

How to become extremely comfortable with math: learn it, use it. Some basic mathematics can often be visualized with few dimensional figures.

But as you continue to study mathematics (notice: mathematics not mathematical methods) the stuff becomes more abstract and it will not be possible to visualize it (at least in same sense than basic calculus for example). However, you will learn new ways to comprehend mathematical structures.
 
  • #170


ZapperZ said:
It has often been said that a physics major sometime needs more mathematics than even a mathematics major. Mathematics is viewed as a ”tool” that physicists use in describing and analyzing physical phenomena. So one just never know what tools are needed for which job. This means that a physics major must have a wide ranging knowledge of different areas of mathematics, from differential equations, linear algebra, integral transforms, vector calculus, special functions, etc. These are the mathematics a physics major will encounter in courses in classical mechanics, electromagnetic fields, and quantum mechanics
Zz can you recommend some others books for Mathematics, I already done Mathematical Methods by Mary Boas.
 
  • #171


We are approaching 4 million posts on PF. So this is my contribution to that effort.

As a periodic reminder, the So You Want to Be A Physicist essay can be found at the link.

New chapter coming soon, hopefully.

Zz.
 
Last edited:
  • #172
So you want to be a Physicist?

Thank you very much, I greatly appreciate your effort to write this essay!
I live in Italy and I'd like to study physics at university. Now I'm attending my 4th year (out of 5) at high school and I'm on my way to gather information about the subject. I could report you differences and analogies that I may find out between US and Italian system, if you think this would be useful!
Paolo
 
  • #173
  • #174
Hum... I just realized that this thread has had a "name change" to match the "becoming an engineer" thread. Not sure if I like it.

Zz.
 
  • #175
If you haven't seen it yet, the AIP has released its latest statistics on recent physics PhD's (2009 and 2010) "http://www.aip.org/statistics/trends/reports/physdoctorates0910.pdf".

Considering that these graduating classes entered the job market at the height of the economic disaster, the satisfaction level of those who participated in the survey was optimistically high.

Zz.
 
  • #176
Do you think it would be wise to go for a PhD directly after acquiring one's bachelors degree?
 
  • #177
gigermaster said:
Do you think it would be wise to go for a PhD directly after acquiring one's bachelors degree?

Most students who entered graduate school for PhD in the US are doing just that. Whether it is "wise" or not depends on the individual situation.

Zz.
 
  • #178
At which point do you start feeling like a real physicist?

Thanks for the article, it is brilliant.
However a troubling thought that sometimes bothers me is that at which point do you feel like you're a true physicist who can do some stuff? right now I'm learning undergrad physics full speed ahead (classical, EM, QM), but the majority of my time is understanding the underlying principles, knowing when to apply them and knowing how to solve textbook style problems (though this is indeed fun). I don't see the connection between these principles (significance of space time symmetries, significance of lorentz transformation, or even the significance of Newton's laws being second order) nor am i able to come up with something sophisticated or deep and fundamental. Everything feels disjoint. At which point in the quest does one finally feel like "this is it, i am finally on a journey to uncover the truth"

i'm also in high school, is this too early to worry?
thanks

Bigerst
 
  • #179
I am 28. I did OK in school as in scraped through and that was only because I did no work. Quite literally never studied so everything was average I did well in English however. I ignored maths because when I was younger I was diagnosed with dyslexia, I am unaware of my IQ I think it was good at some parts of the exam but on others not so good. Ironically I did well in chemistry and physics the only reason I probably passed my double award science though if I am honest my mother is a science teacher who aided me greatly in this endeavour.

However I sat a exam before entering my school and was put into the second highest maths class but due to my laziness and hatred I must confess of the subject at the time. I eventually made my way down to the lowest class. As a consequence of my laziness and putting absolutely no effort into the subject I failed. I went on to repeat it during my A-levels and did the same thing again. The A-levels I did was ICT and History I did ok in them too but didn't score the highest marks.

I entered the world of work mainly manual work on construction sites. Now strangely enough at this age I have become obsessed with the topics of physics and currently nurturing a healthy interest in mathematics. It is a subject I do have difficulty with but that seems to entice me further.

I am aware my interests in physics has been sparked due to problems I envision and goals I have that may be impossible or highly infeasible. Even dare I say controversial and unpopular within mainstream physics, however having said that I am aware of the cardinal immutable rules hence I ain't in cloud cuckoo land lol.

I've been reading up on everything I can get my hands on and been reading up on the greats both mathematicians and physicists. It was my research that brought me here. Currently I plan to do my maths again I am in for higher tier on November then I intend to do my A-levels maths then finally my A-level physics(what I really want to do). Books I intend to get my hands on shortly are Euclid's elements, critique of reason(I know this philosophy) and other texts I have seen posted in these forums.

I believe that effort and work can ofset natural ability. Knowledge can ofset IQ etc. I'd like to go against the grain and pursue this dream. My question to you is should I pack this in before I even start? Though to be honest I probably won't listen anyway I am quite stubborn. If I found it easy I would not want to do it.

JJ McKenna
 
  • #180
JayJohn85 said:
I believe that effort and work can ofset natural ability. Knowledge can ofset IQ etc. I'd like to go against the grain and pursue this dream. My question to you is should I pack this in before I even start? Though to be honest I probably won't listen anyway I am quite stubborn. If I found it easy I would not want to do it.

JJ McKenna

That really isn't the purpose of this thread. There are other threads already dealing with this issue, or start your own.

This thread details all the unwritten experiences one needs to know in the academic pursuit of becoming a physicist, mainly for someone in a US institution. You may use that to do your own self-evaluation if this is something you want to put yourself through.

Zz.
 
  • #181
  • Like
Likes Medicol
  • #182
Hi Everybody,

I currently live in South Africa and aspire to go to WITS next year, as I am in my final year of high school at the moment; however, I have a bit of an issue. You see, as my three Bsc courses I would like to take Physics, Computer Science and Math, but from my understanding applied math is needed in order to complete a physics course, or at the very least to follow it as a career. Is this true? If so, that would mean that I wouldn't be able to do computer science as I had wished correct? This may seem like a rather mundane issue, but I am unable to get proper advise from the university at this stage. Any and all assistance would be very much appreciated.

This seemed like the most appropriate thread to post this kind of thing, but I apologize if I have posted in the wrong one. Thank you for your time.
 
Last edited:
  • #183
Kumo said:
Hi Everybody,

I currently live in South Africa and aspire to go to WITS next year, as I am in my final year of high school at the moment; however, I have a bit of an issue. You see, as my three Bsc courses I would like to take Physics, Computer Science and Math, but from my understanding applied math is needed in order to complete a physics course, or at the very least to follow it as a career. Is this true? If so, that would mean that I wouldn't be able to do computer science as I had wished correct? This may seem like a rather mundane issue, but I am unable to get proper advise from the university at this stage. Any and all assistance would be very much appreciated.

This seemed like the most appropriate thread to post this kind of thing, but I apologize if I have posted in the wrong one. Thank you for your time.

You need to post in a new thread.

Zz.
 
  • #184
Thank you. I will make a thread.
 
  • #185
This article in The Guardian is meant for those entering universities in the UK. But many aspects of the advice are definitely applicable for those here in the US needing to write a personal statement for admission into US universities.

Here is something you should be aware of:

Many admissions tutors look for two things in a personal statement: genuine enthusiasm for physics and signs of maturity.

Some statements border almost on the philosophical, which is absolutely fine, says Barker. "I like to think that there's a person out there who lies awake at night worrying about these things."

Demonstrating engagement with the subject is not difficult but do remember that some admissions tutors are looking for a richer knowledge of the subject than you get on prime-time TV.

"By all means mention what hooked you in the beginning, but do also mention what you are doing now to deepen your understanding," says Anton Machacek, a physics teacher who graduated from Trinity College, Oxford.

"Popular science programmes rarely develop your thinking skills in the way universities will want. In this sense, I would say that the influence of Nina and her Nefarious Neurons on you as a toddler might count more in your favour than Prof Brian Cox at age 16."

The one thing to keep in mind is how you can make your personal statement, and thus, your application, stand out, and stand out in a GOOD way. That is why being specific in describing your interest is important. You don't have to feel that by being that explicit in your interest that you are going to be pigeon-holed into that area of study. Nothing of that sort will happen. You still have a long way to go before you decide what area of physics you will specialize in. However, by making your description more specific, you show a depth of knowledge and interest in something, and it goes beyond just some superficial description that can be rather generic.

I will also say that as someone who had to select applicants for a few internship programs, I tend to look favorably upon applications that do not regurgitate such generic "interest" statements. The more specific such statements can be, the more interesting I find the applicants to be.

Zz.
 
  • Like
Likes Maddie1609, Malachi Nalik and Medicol
  • #186
This is an article every physics student should read, especially if you intend to, or are already majoring in, particle physics.

http://sciencecareers.sciencemag.or...s_issues/articles/2013_08_29/caredit.a1300185

In particular, pay attention to this part, which I've been trumpeting all along on here:

Today's mega-experiments rely on armies of graduate students and postdocs to do the nuts and bolts work, Asaadi says. That's fine, he says, so long as everybody understands the situation from the beginning. "When you're starting graduate school, is your advisor telling you, 'Look, you get this great skill set that will be transferable to other things outside of academic physics'?" Asaadi says. "Or are you being told, 'Just work hard and there will be something or other [in physics] in the end'? It seems like it's more of the latter." He adds, "This is where we got some pushback from advisors—it was seen as whining."

Others question whether such straight-talk will do any good. Young particle physicists are driven by a passion for the science, so such admonitions may fall on deaf ears, says Elizabeth Worcester, 37, a postdoc at Brookhaven National Laboratory in Upton, New York. "Suppose that one in 10 postdocs will get a tenure-track job," she says. "You'll still think you're going to be that one—or else you wouldn't be here." Elliot Lipeles, 40, an assistant professor at the University of Pennsylvania (Penn) says his graduate advisor had such a talk with him, "but I didn't take it seriously."

Anyone who has paid attention to what I've tried to convey on this forum would have seen that I've tried, many times, to give this "straight talk" whenever I see students who are oblivious to such realities. See this thread, for example:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=705331

Sometime, it works. Other times, not so much.

Zz.
 
Last edited:
  • #188
I'm alright for not having an academic job - I want to develop skills that can be applied to businesses or companies, perhaps developing new products. I wonder what nanotechnology holds.. Or medical physics, or all sorts of stuff. ^_^ Speaking from the viewpoint of a senior in high school, I'm excited to go into Physics! Whether it be at CERN or working for SAIC, I'm definitely wanting to be a Physicist.
 
  • #189
ModestyKing said:
I'm excited to go into Physics! Whether it be at CERN or working for SAIC, I'm definitely wanting to be a Physicist.

Love the enthusiasm. Good luck!
 
  • #190
I'm just curious what it really means to have a "rigorous" grasp of math in physics. I guess it's not so much about being able to prove and calculate all the derivations of math stuff but more akin to having a large well of mathematical knowledge and tools beyond the basics of calculus, linear algebra, differentials etc and knowing when and why to apply them to physics problems (Pretty much what's taught in "Mathematical Methods in the Physical Sciences")?

I love the idea of engineering, designing practical things that can have an immediate impact on the world but I also enjoy the idea of doing physics and being in touch with the edge of physics as a field. I think I'd like to go to grad school to do research in something like condensed matter physics/nanotechnology or biophysics but with more of an engineer's cap on, trying to figure out ways to apply the cutting edge of research to practical worldly problems. I think I would study something like engineering physics in undergrad and apply to grad school for either EE or physics in a multidisciplinary field of research. Is this a reasonable and specific goal to aspire to?
 
  • #193
It's interesting how strongly that correlates with the overall economy. R^2 between the official unemployment rate and the physical sciences rate is 0.92. (And only 0.80 for the overall SEH, which means it's probably close to 0.6 for non-physical science SEH)

To a very good approximation, the physical sciences unemployment rate is 40% of the overall rate.
 
  • #194
Hi ZapperZ,
should I take physics 101 in my first semester?
it's calculus based, and I'm not familiar with it.
I'll take Calculus 1 this upcoming semester, but is it wise to take physics concurrently?
or should I wait up until the second semester?
Thanks in advance
 
  • #195
This is a very useful article. It is full of guidelines and suggestions on how to make your personal statements more relevant when applying for admission into grad school.

http://sciencecareers.sciencemag.or...s_issues/articles/2014_10_08/caredit.a1400252

We get questions on writing such statements frequently on here, so this article should be a must-read for a lot of people, especially if you are in the process of applying to grad school.

Zz.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Choppy, Medicol and Greg Bernhardt
  • #196
ZapperZ said:
This is a very useful article. It is full of guidelines and suggestions on how to make your personal statements more relevant when applying for admission into grad school.

http://sciencecareers.sciencemag.or...s_issues/articles/2014_10_08/caredit.a1400252

We get questions on writing such statements frequently on here, so this article should be a must-read for a lot of people, especially if you are in the process of applying to grad school.

Zz.

That's a great article and very consistent with my own experience.

One thing I might add about tailoring your personal statement to the particular program is that it really pays to spend some time investigating the program. Visit the campus if possible. Talk with current graduate students. Talk with professors. These conversations will give students tangible things to identify in the statement about the program so that they can talk intelligently about it and back up their statements with real examples.
 
  • Like
Likes Medicol
  • #197
SHOULD I DO PHYSICS OR ENGINEERING?

I decided to write something on this topic because I see this question being asked on here multiple times. I've responded in several threads, but I'm getting tired of repeating the same thing each time this question is asked. So I'm going to put my thoughts and response in this post.

The issue here is that students who are either still in high school, or starting their undergraduate years are asking which area of study should they pursue. In fact, I've seen cases where students ask whether they should do "theoretical physics" or "engineering", as if there is nothing in between those two extremes!

My response has always been consistent. I ask them why can't they have their cake and eat it too?

This question often arises out of ignorance of what physics really encompasses. Many people, especially high school students, still think of physics as being this esoteric subject matter, dealing with elementary particles, cosmology, wave-particle duality, etc.. etc., things that they don't see involving everyday stuff. On the other hand, engineering involves things that they use and deal with everyday, where the product are often found around them. So obviously, with such an impression, those two areas of study are very different and very separate.

I try to tackle such a question by correcting their misleading understanding of what physics is and what a lot of physicists do. I tell them that physics isn't just the LHC or the Big Bang. It is also your iPhone, your medical x-ray, your MRI, your hard drive, your silicon chips, etc. In fact, the largest percentage of practicing physicists are in the field of condensed matter physics/material science, an area of physics that study the basic properties of materials, the same ones that are used in modern electronics. I point to them many of the Nobel Prize in physics that were awarded to condensed matter physicists or for invention of practical items (graphene, lasers, LEDs, etc.). So already, the idea of having to choose between doing physics, and doing something "practical and useful" may not be mutually exclusive.

Secondly, I point to different areas of physics in which physics and engineering smoothly intermingle. I've mentioned earlier about the field of accelerator physics, in which you see both physics and engineering come into play. In fact, in this field, you have both physicists and electrical engineers, and they often do the same thing. The same can be said about those in instrumentation/device physics. In fact, I have also seen many high energy physics graduate students who work on detectors for particle colliders who looked more like electronics engineers than physicists! So for those working in this field, the line between doing physics and doing engineering is sufficiently blurred. You can do exactly what you want, leaning as heavily towards the physics side or engineering side as much as you want, or straddle exactly in the middle. And you can approach these fields either from a physics major or an electrical engineering major. The point here is that there are areas of study in which you can do BOTH physics and engineering!

Finally, the reason why you don't have to choose to major in either physics or engineering is because there are many schools that offer a major in BOTH! My alma mater, the University of Wisconsin-Madison (Go Badgers!) has a major called AMEP - Applied Mathematics, Engineering, and Physics - where with your advisor, you can tailor a major that straddles two of more of the areas in math, physics, and engineering. There are other schools that offer majors in Engineering Physics or something similar. In other words, you don't have to choose between physics or engineering. You can just do BOTH!

Zz.
 
  • Like
Likes Malachi Nalik
  • #198
ZapperZ said:
SHOULD I DO PHYSICS OR ENGINEERING?

I decided to write something on this topic because I see this question being asked on here multiple times. I've responded in several threads, but I'm getting tired of repeating the same thing each time this question is asked. So I'm going to put my thoughts and response in this post.

The issue here is that students who are either still in high school, or starting their undergraduate years are asking which area of study should they pursue. In fact, I've seen cases where students ask whether they should do "theoretical physics" or "engineering", as if there is nothing in between those two extremes!

My response has always been consistent. I ask them why can't they have their cake and eat it too?

This question often arises out of ignorance of what physics really encompasses. Many people, especially high school students, still think of physics as being this esoteric subject matter, dealing with elementary particles, cosmology, wave-particle duality, etc.. etc., things that they don't see involving everyday stuff. On the other hand, engineering involves things that they use and deal with everyday, where the product are often found around them. So obviously, with such an impression, those two areas of study are very different and very separate.

I try to tackle such a question by correcting their misleading understanding of what physics is and what a lot of physicists do. I tell them that physics isn't just the LHC or the Big Bang. It is also your iPhone, your medical x-ray, your MRI, your hard drive, your silicon chips, etc. In fact, the largest percentage of practicing physicists are in the field of condensed matter physics/material science, an area of physics that study the basic properties of materials, the same ones that are used in modern electronics. I point to them many of the Nobel Prize in physics that were awarded to condensed matter physicists or for invention of practical items (graphene, lasers, LEDs, etc.). So already, the idea of having to choose between doing physics, and doing something "practical and useful" may not be mutually exclusive.

Secondly, I point to different areas of physics in which physics and engineering smoothly intermingle. I've mentioned earlier about the field of accelerator physics, in which you see both physics and engineering come into play. In fact, in this field, you have both physicists and electrical engineers, and they often do the same thing. The same can be said about those in instrumentation/device physics. In fact, I have also seen many high energy physics graduate students who work on detectors for particle colliders who looked more like electronics engineers than physicists! So for those working in this field, the line between doing physics and doing engineering is sufficiently blurred. You can do exactly what you want, leaning as heavily towards the physics side or engineering side as much as you want, or straddle exactly in the middle. And you can approach these fields either from a physics major or an electrical engineering major. The point here is that there are areas of study in which you can do BOTH physics and engineering!

Finally, the reason why you don't have to choose to major in either physics or engineering is because there are many schools that offer a major in BOTH! My alma mater, the University of Wisconsin-Madison (Go Badgers!) has a major called AMEP - Applied Mathematics, Engineering, and Physics - where with your advisor, you can tailor a major that straddles two of more of the areas in math, physics, and engineering. There are other schools that offer majors in Engineering Physics or something similar. In other words, you don't have to choose between physics or engineering. You can just do BOTH!

Zz.

ZapperZ, you make an important point about how practical and varied a physics degree can be, and to clarifying that the distinction between physics and engineering programs may not be as vast as is commonly believed. However, you ignore a key issue -- that is, out of those physics graduates, including those who specialized in condensed matter physics/materials science (where, as you say, the majority of current practicing physicists now work in), what is the realistic likelihood that the graduate will find a job that is related to his/her area of study, whether in academia or in industry?

The link you pointed to with respect to unemployment of STEM PhDs, combined with numerous posts here at PF, at least suggest that the likelihood of finding such employment is actually quite low, compared to engineering (even though unemployment among engineering PhDs are also quite high). Furthermore, an engineering major can conceivably find employment after earning just a bachelor's degree or a masters degree, whereas a physics major will need to pursue all the way up to a PhD level to find similar such employment.
 
  • #199
StatGuy2000 said:
ZapperZ, you make an important point about how practical and varied a physics degree can be, and to clarifying that the distinction between physics and engineering programs may not be as vast as is commonly believed. However, you ignore a key issue -- that is, out of those physics graduates, including those who specialized in condensed matter physics/materials science (where, as you say, the majority of current practicing physicists now work in), what is the realistic likelihood that the graduate will find a job that is related to his/her area of study, whether in academia or in industry?

I didn't ignore that, because that isn't the point I was trying to make! I was trying to let the student know that it isn't either or, it can be both!

If a student, say, wants to do accelerator science, for example, and asks me if he/she should approach this from a physics or EE major, I would most likely recommend the EE approach, simply because that route presents a wider employment field than simply due to its "name". I can have a physics and EE major going through the identical upper-level graduate classes (as what they would do if they take the same courses in a particle accelerator school), and yet most employees needed that type of skill will tend favor the EE major.

The link you pointed to with respect to unemployment of STEM PhDs, combined with numerous posts here at PF, at least suggest that the likelihood of finding such employment is actually quite low, compared to engineering (even though unemployment among engineering PhDs are also quite high). Furthermore, an engineering major can conceivably find employment after earning just a bachelor's degree or a masters degree, whereas a physics major will need to pursue all the way up to a PhD level to find similar such employment.

See above.

Also note that in many of my previous posts, it is more comparing with OTHER areas of physics, rather than other subject areas. Even so, if someone has a degree in "Enginering physics" or "AMES", how do you categorize that person?

Again, this is not a topic on "employment".

Zz.
 
  • #200
Currently, I'm a Physics and Computer Science major. Programming has been my passion since I was 14, and can't imagine having a better job than programming. But I want to learn about more subjects in physics. I'm not looking for the popular science explanations of the subject matter. I'd like to understand it and not just know it. Knowing something is different from understanding to me. Physics didn't rear it's head into my interest pool until about the semester I started college. I can't necessarily tell you why it is I want to study Physics, other than I just want to know more of it. The problem solving aspect of it is very rewarding to me, yet frustrating. It's almost like I'm debugging a program, it's frustrating as hell, but once I finally solve it... it feels amazing. I'm definitely committed to receiving my Bachelor's in both CS and Physics, but I don't know if I should be going farther than that. I definitely want to knowledge, and I have the drive. The issue is that whether or not it's be a good choice financially. By no means do I come from a wealthy family, but I'm not on the streets. If anyone can just sort of give some insight that'd be great.
 
Back
Top