What Are the Weaknesses of a Physicist?

[charbon]

I've been giving a lot of thought about how I would market myself to employers once I have finished my B. Sc in physics and I got stuck when I was thinking about weaknesses.

It seems a physicist is good at virtually everything. They are excellent problem solvers, the are team players (I'm sure we all ended up helping each other out on assignments), they are taught to communicate well, they work well under pressure, they are comfortable with complex tasks, they have an open mind, and the list goes on.

What CAN'T a physicist do effectively if anything?

 

[ecneicS]

Why does a physicist necessarily work well under pressure?

 

[charbon]

The assignments are hard and the deadlines are tight. I think this is a pretty good indicator that they can work under pressure.

 

[DrummingAtom]

I've been giving a lot of thought about how I would market myself to employers once I have finished my B. Sc in physics and I got stuck when I was thinking about weaknesses.

It seems a physicist is good at virtually everything. They are excellent problem solvers, the are team players (I'm sure we all ended up helping each other out on assignments), they are taught to communicate well, they work well under pressure, they are comfortable with complex tasks, they have an open mind, and the list goes on.

What CAN'T a physicist do effectively if anything?

Hmm, most of the physics and math majors I've met don't communicate well at all regardless of how smart they are. They might be good on paper I don't know but having a conversation with them is very awkward. They definitely don't strike me as "social butterflies" especially in comparison to engineering majors. I'm not saying one is better than the other but the engineering majors seem like technical business people while the math/physics majors are more introverted.

Just out of curiosity, why are you marketing your weaknesses? In my opinion, unless you're asked about your weaknesses I would never bring them up.

 

[Cuauhtemoc]

Hmm, most of the physics and math majors I've met don't communicate well at all regardless of how smart they are. They might be good on paper I don't know but having a conversation with them is very awkward. They definitely don't strike me as "social butterflies" especially in comparison to engineering majors. I'm not saying one is better than the other but the engineering majors seem like technical business people while the math/physics majors are more introverted.

I agree with that, maybe the original poster is good at communicating but in no way physicists are good at communicating as a general rule. Even if they were, the general public and probably your employer don't think so.

 

[wukunlin]

Hmm, most of the physics and math majors I've met don't communicate well at all regardless of how smart they are. They might be good on paper I don't know but having a conversation with them is very awkward. They definitely don't strike me as "social butterflies" especially in comparison to engineering majors. I'm not saying one is better than the other but the engineering majors seem like technical business people while the math/physics majors are more introverted.

Just out of curiosity, why are you marketing your weaknesses? In my opinion, unless you're asked about your weaknesses I would never bring them up.

that reminds me of the xmas lunch we had last year, I spent the whole trying to think of something to talk to the grad students and faculty staff. But the only thing I could think of that would interest them is "Hey have you heard of the progression of [insert research project related to the person's field]" which I thought would be inappropriate, but then from what I've overheard that is all they are talking about anyway (except grad student talking about how to avoid their advisors which was probably too early for me to join in as I was only a summer intern)

 

[Pengwuino]

I've been giving a lot of thought about how I would market myself to employers once I have finished my B. Sc in physics and I got stuck when I was thinking about weaknesses.

It seems a physicist is good at virtually everything. They are excellent problem solvers, the are team players (I'm sure we all ended up helping each other out on assignments), they are taught to communicate well, they work well under pressure, they are comfortable with complex tasks, they have an open mind, and the list goes on.

What CAN'T a physicist do effectively if anything?

This doesn't apply to even half of the people I know. Most of the people I know, physics majors, aren't good problem solvers let alone excellent problem solvers. Team players don't constitute "You do these problems, I'll do these and we copy off each other". They don't typically communicate well or have open minds. Where in the world did you get these nonsense dieas?

 

[Astro_Dude]

This doesn't apply to even half of the people I know. Most of the people I know, physics majors, aren't good problem solvers let alone excellent problem solvers. Team players don't constitute "You do these problems, I'll do these and we copy off each other". They don't typically communicate well or have open minds. Where in the world did you get these nonsense dieas?

It's actually remarkable how much you *think* you're good as problem solver as an undergrad only to find out how little you knew when you go through grad school. Hell, even looking at the young grads I feel like I was pretty dumb.

I'm sure post-docs feel the same about me.

 

[Choppy]

You're speaking in very broad and general terms. Something that can really help you out in a job-search is getting very specific. On your CV or resume, make a statement and back it up with specific, tangible proof.

Simply having worked on group assignments won't differentiate you from anyone else who has gone to university or community college with respect to teamwork or communication skills. Have you been in a group that has won an award? Have you completed a workshop that specifically gives you communication training? Have you volunteered with an organisation such as a peer councilling centre that fosters and develops communication skills?

As you start to form tanglible examples that separate you from the pack, you'll begin to see just how critical it can be to get involved with extra-curricular activities.

 

[Locrian]

What Pengwuino said.

I stood out from my peers in grad school because of how well organized I was – everything from organizing the lab to organizing fellow students. Then I moved to business and my first performance evaluation could have read “absent minded professor”. I thought I got things done in grad school because I was organized and a good communicator. Now I realize I was a disaster, but it didn’t show because I was better than my peers. Now I see resumes from grad students who say they’re good communicators because they were TA’s and chuckle.

I talk to grad students interested in moving to business now and then. One thing I try to convey to them is that the reason they feel bulletproof (and they always do) is because some of the bars they've been jumping were set very, very low.

 

[EricVT]

Sounds like modesty might be one of those weaknesses.

 

[jeebs]

Why does a physicist necessarily work well under pressure?

if your physics degree doesn't put you under pressure you're studying at the wrong institution.

I've been giving a lot of thought about how I would market myself to employers once I have finished my B. Sc in physics and I got stuck when I was thinking about weaknesses.

It seems a physicist is good at virtually everything. They are excellent problem solvers, the are team players (I'm sure we all ended up helping each other out on assignments), they are taught to communicate well, they work well under pressure, they are comfortable with complex tasks, they have an open mind, and the list goes on.

What CAN'T a physicist do effectively if anything?

I think the major weakness of a physics graduate is the same as one of the strengths - it's such a broad subject that you cover so many areas to some extent, but you don't become really specialised in the way that say, some specific engineering discipline might.

 

[hadsed]

I think the major weakness of a physics graduate is the same as one of the strengths - it's such a broad subject that you cover so many areas to some extent, but you don't become really specialised in the way that say, some specific engineering discipline might.

This is an interesting point. If you're an engineer, it's very likely that you've been learning methods that have been created for the sole purpose of doing something that has already been conceived and labeled to have a purpose. If it weren't like this, there would be huge problems with building bridges, cars, large-scale fabrication of computer parts, etc. The physicist, however, is taught all the principles and theory, and is expected to conceive of these sort of methods or applications to some specific problems. This is mostly what research is, but I think that is one of the reasons why engineering firms get nervous when hiring physicists over engineers. Sure the physicist can figure it out, but the engineer already knows it because it's been drilled into him, and moreover companies would rather have drones that know how to do it right because that means less probability of disasters/lawsuits/crap employees.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

This doesn't apply to even half of the people I know. Most of the people I know, physics majors, aren't good problem solvers let alone excellent problem solvers.

I don't see how one can earn a physics degree without being an excellent problem solver. Your statement makes absolutely no sense, with one qualifier.

Team players don't constitute "You do these problems, I'll do these and we copy off each other".

And that would be the qualifier. If people are cheating their way through their degree, then no wonder they don't acquire any skills.

Perhaps I was lucky to go back as an older than average student. I didn't have access to advanced copies of tests, or copies of old tests, or homework solutions, or buddies willing to cheat on homework, or any means of cheating on tests [not that I would have done so even if there had been]. I had no idea how much of an advantage the younger students had until about the time I graduated. So much the loss for them. I earned my degree. It has also proven to be quite valuable and worth every minute of work that it required.

I took a minor in engineering [basically in fluid dynamics, which included some graduate courses] and found those classes to be far far less challenging than any physics class. In comparison, they were a piece of cake. EE is the only brand of engineering that I've found to be about as challenging as physics.

 

[jetwaterluffy]

or copies of old tests,

How are past papers cheating exactly? It's called practice.

 

[Physics Monkey]

I think its important to remember that there is a substantial distinction between the ability to solve problems which are presented to you in a relatively neat package and guaranteed to have a nice answer (much of undergrad) and the ability to solve real research (or real world) problems. The latter are often poorly formed (you must help formulate them), the scope poorly defined, and the ultimate answerability quite uncertain. Of course, physics undergrad may be relatively good preparation for this kind of work, but obtaining a physics degree does not, in my opinion, even approximately guarantee competence in the latter sort of messier problem solving.

Also, I resonate greatly with the sentiment that physics undergrads are not excellent communicators. I've sat through way too many terrible presentations to believe that physics undergrads or grads are excellent communicators on the whole. In my experience they generally tend to suffer from a blinding arrogance and a lack of understanding of the audience's distinct perspective, to mention just a few flaws.

Of course, I'm a physicist, so they must not all be bad

 

[Mépris]

I know people into physics and math who're excellent communicators and who get adapt into various kinds of social contexts. I also happen to know lots of "arts" people who perform the worse kind of oral excretion - social retards. Curiously, many of the "arts" people I know sound and act like they're from the TV show, The O.C or Gossip Girl (or any other crappy teenage soap) while many of the science dudes I know, are the "jocks". At my older school, most of the "cool guys" were doing maths and science.

Then again, maybe this is a biased view...:p

 

[mayonaise]

I think the major weakness of a physics graduate is the same as one of the strengths - it's such a broad subject that you cover so many areas to some extent, but you don't become really specialised in the way that say, some specific engineering discipline might.

I think the idea that physics is a "broad" subject is a misconception. When we finished undergrad, the CS people were our experts in software engineering; the EE people were our experts in ic design; the ME people were our experts in machine design; the physics people, as we all know, were experts in quantum physics. We were all experts in some discipline that others can't do well, and no education was "broad" enough to cover even the basics of everything.

It just so happens that the world does not need so many experts in quantum physics, but does need a lot of experts in software engineering. So we had to lie to ourselves that we got a "broader" education just to get even. At least I think it was a lie.

 

[mayonaise]

This is an interesting point. If you're an engineer, it's very likely that you've been learning methods that have been created for the sole purpose of doing something that has already been conceived and labeled to have a purpose. If it weren't like this, there would be huge problems with building bridges, cars, large-scale fabrication of computer parts, etc. The physicist, however, is taught all the principles and theory, and is expected to conceive of these sort of methods or applications to some specific problems.

I think there is a fallacy here. In a standard physics education, you're likely taught ever harder, simpler and deeper principles, the first principles. And then you're hinted that when you know Newtonian physics you know how to do mechanical engineering, and when you know Maxwell equations you know how to do electrical engineering. But in fact, there are a lot of things that when you try to derive from first principles, you'll either a) fail, or b) re-invent the wheel. I would urge you, if you think the "principles" are all mighty, to read "More Is Different" from P. W. Anderson
(http://www.andersonlocalization.com/pdf/more_is_different.pdf")

No car maker will allow you to derive the chassis stiffness from inter-atomic stiffness using electromagnetism.

 

[SophusLies]

Sure the physicist can figure it out, but the engineer already knows it because it's been drilled into him, and moreover companies would rather have drones that know how to do it right because that means less probability of disasters/lawsuits/crap employees.

Why would you use the word drones to describe engineers? How on Earth have you come to this conclusion?

-----
I fully agree with what mayonaise has said. I found out in my first year in industry that this quote is so incredibly true that it's almost scary:

“In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not.”

All the theory in the world can not help you when you're actually creating anything. Something throughout the creating process will not match up exactly with the theory and that's why an engineer is the best for these types of jobs. They can see past the theory, with their training, to get the job done. I would say though, if there is someone trained in physics that has dedicated time to refining engineering skills then that person has quite an advantage in terms of creating innovative things.

It's unfortunate to say but when there are physics kids who think reading through a physics book will give them the knowledge to engineer anything then they are flat out wrong. But if engineering isn't the goal, which for most physicists it isn't, then there's no problems. It just annoys me when physicists (and I am one in training) who go around thinking that engineering is trivial compared to doing physics. Each has their own unique set of skills, one is not "harder" or "better" than the other.

 

[G01]

I would say though, if there is someone trained in physics that has dedicated time to refining engineering skills then that person has quite an advantage in terms of creating innovative things.

That someone, is called an "experimentalist!"

This happens a lot on this forum. There is a general conversation about physics job prospects/ what physicists learn in school, and in reality it only apply to a select subset of fields that focus on analytical theory.

Besides taking classes in physics theory, I have learned how to do maintenance on laser systems, work with optics, do maintenance on industrial compressed air systems and refrigeration units. I've also spent a ton of time coding in MATLAB and a little bit of time coding in C++ and Java. I've learned how to interface devices and use Full-Wave E&M simulation software to design devices. I also have learned how to machine parts and have made parts on a mill and lathe.

I've always said that a physics degree is what you make it, and you have to be able to sell yourself. Engineers have it easy in the sense that employers know what they're getting. An employer may not know what they're getting into if they hire a physicist. What does this guy know? What does he bring to the table that others don't? In my opinion a physicist brings with him a unique method of thinking about problems that you don't always learn in an engineering program. Unlike previous posters, I don't think that the physics way of looking at problems is a hindrance. I think it offers a useful, and rare perspective that helps in many problems. I also think that anyone with a physics degree should be used to being thrown head first into a new situation and be able to adapt their method of thinking to solve whatever problems are thrown at them.

In my opinion, the weakness most physicists have is that they just want jobs thrown at them because they know quantum mechanics. Moreover, they want the job to involve only physics and only the branch of physics they like best. It's not the way the world works.

I think most physics programs would benefit academic advising that focuses on picking the right electives for your career path and from a senior level seminar class that teaches students how to effectively market their degree and themselves once they graduate.

 

[elkement]

I also agree with mayonaise, SophusLies and G01!

I am an experimental physicist (having worked with similar stuff as G01 a while back) and self-studied IT security engineer. Now I am also going for another engineering degree, so I think I am able to compare "physics culture" and "engineering culture". Both have their merits - and I try to utilize both of them depending on the problem to be solved.

So - yes, my physics training might help me to think out of the box and be "innovative"- if this is required. But often you need to get a job done without much truly innovative aspects. Then it is more efficient to look-up a semi-empirical formula and resist trying to derive or validate it for the sake of efficiency. Sometimes also standards and legal / economic constraints enforce a specific way of problem solving. Nevertheless, these jobs are challenging and interesting.

I can also relate to what Locrian said earlier: Though I was also an efficient and organized student I still had to improve / change my style of working in industry a lot and apply a "good enough approach" versus the perfectionism that I rather associate my academic training with.

 

[swowannabe]

My quick 2 cents.

A physicist's weakness is the perception of society that somehow, if you studied physics, you're a genius. Everyone either has ridiculously high expectations of you, or is too afraid to challenge you at all thereby giving you almost no expectations so they don't upset the status quo. Physics disciplines MUST be some of the smartest people in the world, clearly!

This also tends to lead to the physicist's second weakness: arrogance. You've heard the gasps and awes and dropping glasses and saw everyone faint when you walked into the room and announced you have a degree in physics. You can calculate the surface tension of that small body of water and manipulate the laws that govern the universe to allow yourself to WALK across that said body of water (I personally recommend freezing it). This usually means you don't play well with others. Especially other arrogant people. Doubly so for stupid arrogant people, because you have a lot more to lose when you knock heads with them. Wear a helmet.

 

[SophusLies]

G01, you're absolutely right. I was only going off the OP's info of having a B.S. and questioning hadsed's comment. Experimentalists seem to be able to do it all, which is why I'm still considering doing experimental research even though I'm kind of a theory junky. Exactly what area do you do research in G01?

I have the utmost respect for physicists (and mathematicians) that do not look down upon other disciplines. Most professionals do not look down upon other disciplines because they are aware that science relies on each other. I wonder how many engineers (and technicians!) are needed to get a large experiment at CERN operational. Because as everyone knows they are searching for the "most fundamental" parts of physics so they wouldn't need any dumb engineers to mess it up, right? Well, I've met technicians that make physicists look plain dumb. That might go against some people's thinking but not mine. Everyone has a different set of skills; one is not above the other.

By the way, G01, that is a great idea of having better advising for physics programs. I am fortunate because my undergrad school did have great advising, in my sophomore year I was already thinking about what careers would fit me and tailored my degree so. From what I hear from my fellow grad students many of them did not have good advising, and in most cases terrible.

 

[Pythagorean]

I think the idea that physics is a "broad" subject is a misconception. When we finished undergrad, the CS people were our experts in software engineering; the EE people were our experts in ic design; the ME people were our experts in machine design; the physics people, as we all know, were experts in quantum physics. We were all experts in some discipline that others can't do well, and no education was "broad" enough to cover even the basics of everything.

It just so happens that the world does not need so many experts in quantum physics, but does need a lot of experts in software engineering. So we had to lie to ourselves that we got a "broader" education just to get even. At least I think it was a lie.

QM is NOT what all physicists do...

In my school, our CS pool sucked. Most of them haven't matured the mathematical skills necessary to do anything useful for scientific software. We write our own software in my physics department. I also write GUI's for biologists because I know the quantitative aspects and caveats of real-world data analysis.

We have some people in the physics department that are more into machine design, and we design our own exhibits for outreach programs (to teach science to the kiddies). I've built my own sailboat and sailed it on the lakes locally (I was raised a commercial fisherman).

To tell you the truth though, this thread is just a bunch of stereotypical crap. I have three friends who, besides myself, are interested (and skilled) in several avenues. One is me (physics/neuroscience), the other is a civil engineer, then an electrical engineer, and finally another physicist (who was raised as a carpenter).

Only about half of us (the two physicists actually) have decent social skills, though... hrm, we were also the only two raised by blue-collar workers. But I'm also a father of two. You begin to understand a lot more about human nature when you see it all develop from birth.

So I guess my point is, it really depends on the person. We're not defined by our majors.

 

[mayonaise]

QM is NOT what all physicists do...

Describing a person as expert in X does not imply he only does X.

In my school, our CS pool sucked. Most of them haven't matured the mathematical skills necessary to do anything useful for scientific software. We write our own software in my physics department. I also write GUI's for biologists because I know the quantitative aspects and caveats of real-world data analysis.

We have some people in the physics department that are more into machine design, and we design our own exhibits for outreach programs (to teach science to the kiddies). I've built my own sailboat and sailed it on the lakes locally (I was raised a commercial fisherman).

To tell you the truth though, this thread is just a bunch of stereotypical crap. I have three friends who, besides myself, are interested (and skilled) in several avenues. One is me (physics/neuroscience), the other is a civil engineer, then an electrical engineer, and finally another physicist (who was raised as a carpenter).

The thing is, it is exactly the stereotypical crap I want to get rid of. These crap include that the average physicist can do anything an average engineer can do, has a broader education, is an excellent communicator... A physicist trained by a physics program is not automatically better or worse than engineers in problem solving or team working.

In a discussion named "a physicist's weakness", I expect to talk about stereotypes and generalities instead of specific personalities.

Only about half of us (the two physicists actually) have decent social skills, though... hrm, we were also the only two raised by blue-collar workers. But I'm also a father of two. You begin to understand a lot more about human nature when you see it all develop from birth.

So I guess my point is, it really depends on the person. We're not defined by our majors.

Although we're by no means defined by our majors, our majors take us anywhere from 4 to 10 years to complete. And being in an environment, academic physics in this case, for many years especially during our youth, we tend to be influenced by it. It also makes the physicist vs mathematician vs engineer jokes so much funnier.

 

[Pythagorean]

Describing a person as expert in X does not imply he only does X.

I am not an expert in QM at all. I took two semesters of it compared to 8+ semesters of classical mechanics, electrodynamics, thermodynamics, solid state, and optics and computational physics.

I'm an expert in neural systems because it's what I eat, breathe, sleep all day, into the evening. My physics education prepared me to go down any path, yes, but it doesn't allow me to go down all paths at once.

The thing is, it is exactly the stereotypical crap I want to get rid of. These crap include that the average physicist can do anything an average engineer can do, has a broader education, is an excellent communicator... A physicist trained by a physics program is not automatically better or worse than engineers in problem solving or team working.

But the one thing that's true on there (which is what I'm supporting) is that they do actually have a broader education. Physics is at the root of many disciplines. This is a weakness and a strength, as it was already brought up.

The strength is that we have generalized and theoretical knowledge (not just of QM, of things that ME's, EE's, chemists, and biologists study.. matter, energy, and information in general). This doesn't mean they can perform any technical tasks or are intimate with every detail of every subject.

The weakness is that the generalities we think in don't always apply in the cases where several overlapping assumptions conflict. If we want to have an engineer's knowledge without taking the classes, we have to rederive it from first principles. Possible, yes, but not very probable, since it was a lot of stumbling around in the dark that got us that knowledge in the first place.

So yes, physicists do have a broader education, but it also means they sacrifice depth for that breadth.

This assumes the same area function of knowledge of course; in reality, different people also have different sized area functions covering the knowledge map, so Johnny could have more breadth and depth than Roger because of a higher quality nutrition in early developmental years and a higher quality social program in later developmental years.

 

[G01]

Exactly what area do you do research in G01?

I'm a PhD student and I do terahertz time domain spectroscopy. We generate Terahertz radiation using photo conductive antennas illuminated with a pulsed IR laser (hence the work with lasers).

My personal area of interest is designing and studying metamaterials in the terahertz region. It's a cool field in the sense that you really get to spend a lot of time thinking about E&M, which was one of my favorite subjects. So, I actually get to spend a lot of time thinking about E&M theory, applied and fundamental, while getting my hands dirty in a lab. It's a great mix, because I would go insane just sitting in front of a computer all day.

My time is split about 50/50 between lab work/maintenance and numerical simulations and MATLAB coding.

By the way, G01, that is a great idea of having better advising for physics programs. I am fortunate because my undergrad school did have great advising, in my sophomore year I was already thinking about what careers would fit me and tailored my degree so. From what I hear from my fellow grad students many of them did not have good advising, and in most cases terrible.

I had some bad advising in the past, and basically figured out what I needed to do to get into grad school from PF.

It's great to do physics for the sake of physics, but eventually, I think students need some direction regarding possible careers. Many professors immediately assume every physics student will end up going to grad school, but for many reasons that just won't happen. So, students should be informed about what courses they should take to make their degree more marketable in the real world.(This is actually true at every level, B.S. M.S. and Ph.D.)

I also had no real good advice on how to find REU's and internships, which is seriously important for a competitive resume. Once again, good thing PF is here!

 

[atyy]

Physicists tend to be evil.

 

[hadsed]

I think there is a fallacy here. In a standard physics education, you're likely taught ever harder, simpler and deeper principles, the first principles. And then you're hinted that when you know Newtonian physics you know how to do mechanical engineering, and when you know Maxwell equations you know how to do electrical engineering. But in fact, there are a lot of things that when you try to derive from first principles, you'll either a) fail, or b) re-invent the wheel. I would urge you, if you think the "principles" are all mighty, to read "More Is Different" from P. W. Anderson
(http://www.andersonlocalization.com/pdf/more_is_different.pdf")

No car maker will allow you to derive the chassis stiffness from inter-atomic stiffness using electromagnetism.

Why would you use the word drones to describe engineers? How on Earth have you come to this conclusion?

-----
I fully agree with what mayonaise has said. I found out in my first year in industry that this quote is so incredibly true that it's almost scary:

“In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not.”

All the theory in the world can not help you when you're actually creating anything. Something throughout the creating process will not match up exactly with the theory and that's why an engineer is the best for these types of jobs. They can see past the theory, with their training, to get the job done. I would say though, if there is someone trained in physics that has dedicated time to refining engineering skills then that person has quite an advantage in terms of creating innovative things.

It's unfortunate to say but when there are physics kids who think reading through a physics book will give them the knowledge to engineer anything then they are flat out wrong. But if engineering isn't the goal, which for most physicists it isn't, then there's no problems. It just annoys me when physicists (and I am one in training) who go around thinking that engineering is trivial compared to doing physics. Each has their own unique set of skills, one is not "harder" or "better" than the other.

I think you guys misunderstood; I am agreeing with you. No one would hire a physicist to derive the chassis of a car (or whatever silly analogy one of you just made). I agree with this, and I'm saying this is a bad thing if you're a physicist trying to be an engineer. It's great that physicists are great problem solvers and if you have a Ph.D it's pretty obvious that an employer can throw some books at you and tell you to solve some problem, and you'll be able to do it. Most of the time, jobs don't consist of this. There is just too much that needs to be done in a very specific way (especially in engineering) because of standards in regards to efficiency or safety or whatever.

Anyway, learning methods makes you more drone-like. I'm not backing down on this terminology, because that is the very simple truth. Getting into semantics about word usage is best left to left-wing liberal nuts and I don't really care about it. My point was that engineering work is less fundamental than theoretical physics, and to be able to have the skills of an engineer you can't possibly do both in the same amount of time... so as an engineer, you end up learning a lot of methods that have been conceived already. There's nothing wrong with this, because most of the time this kind of happens in theoretical physics research as well. Still, recognizing the degree with which this happens in engineering will be helpful to any physicist who wonders why engineering firms don't want to hire him over a newly-minted B.S. engineer.