What to Do with Exceptional Physics and Above Average Calculus Skills

[Who Am I]

In my physics class I'm always exceptional when it comes to the conceptual aspects of a problem. I was very quick at solving problems in my physics class and was always helping everyone. However, in my calculus class I'm somewhere in the above average range, generally, generally making some errors.

The question basically comes down to three things: Theoretical, Observational and Applied.

Recap on skillset: Excellent conceptual ability, good math ability.

Please help me through this.

 

[Math Is Hard]

In my physics class I'm always exceptional when it comes to the conceptual aspects of a problem. I was very quick at solving problems in my physics class and was always helping everyone. However, in my calculus class I'm somewhere in the above average range, generally, generally making some errors.

The question basically comes down to three things: Theoretical, Observational and Applied.

Recap on skillset: Excellent conceptual ability, good math ability.

Please help me through this.

Help you through what?

 

[Who Am I]

Figuring about the best type of work to use my particular skillset for.

 

[Math Is Hard]

I thought you wanted to teach and do research at a university:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=388821

You've only been in college a couple of months. Isn't it kind of early to do career planning? Or are you looking for a job to help with expenses while you're finishing your undergrad?

 

[Who Am I]

No, now I've dropped the professorship idea as something that might happen if I'm successful in anyone of these three basic things.

I'm just trying to figure out the ratios between the abilities of conceptual thinking and mathematical calculations pan out among the theoretical and observational parts of science as well as how it pans out in the applied (engineering) part.

When I say conceptual, I mean I'm good at intuiting systems and ideas and putting them together into one picture, as well as matching the math to the ideas.

The problem is that I feel that if I go and do something theoretical, that intuitive ability might fall short when dealing with things that are impossible to intuitively grasp. So, therefore, I feel that I might fall short compared to someone who has a more outstanding ability with the raw math.

That's what leads me to ask just that type of question. Unless, of course, there are theoretical areas in which there is a lot of conceptualization involved in moving the whole idea forward.

My mathematical ability, as I said, is good, but not shining.

 

[fss]

To be successful in science and/or engineering, you generally have to be strong in all three areas, how they connect and interact with each other, and how to translate that into something useful for you or your subordinates to work with.

 

[Who Am I]

I am strong enough in the areas needed to be a good scientist/engineer. I'm stronger with the intuitive/conceptual area. I found concepts easy to grasp that other people (some of them better than me at math) struggled with. I also found myself finishing tests (with or without math) and worksheets in physics classes significantly faster than other people, and getting higher grades on the tests.

Again, I feel like there is a difference between the type of thinking that you do in higher level physics than in lower level physics, especially considering that higher level physics is usually stuff that is humanly impossible to comprehend intuitively.

That line of thinking lead me to engineering, in which you're still using that conceptual thinking to a very high degree. But engineering lacks the same appeal that I find in science.

Sorta get where I'm going?

Really what catches me is space, especially planetary science (exoplanets) and travel. All three of the areas I mentioned (observation, theory and application) have many roles.

 

[fss]

I am strong enough in the areas needed to be a good scientist/engineer.

How would you even know this? You are still in college...

Again, I feel like there is a difference between the type of thinking that you do in higher level physics than in lower level physics, especially considering that higher level physics is usually stuff that is humanly impossible to comprehend intuitively.

There is indeed quite a big difference, but I am confused by your statement below:

That line of thinking lead me to engineering, in which you're still using that conceptual thinking to a very high degree. But engineering lacks the same appeal that I find in science.

Sorta get where I'm going?

No, I really have no idea where you're going. Are you comparing the thought processes that go into engineering to those that go into introductory science?

 

[Who Am I]

I give up on asking here. I'll just talk to an advisor or something. Anyways, I'm a physics major at the moment, going to make it a double major, Physics and Astronomy here at U of Arizona, a major astronomy school...

 

[pom]

Someone is asking for help in a forum, but is getting none, and even kinda attacked. Let me try it:

I think you actually know what your skills are good for( experimental, observational, engineering). But if you really want to do theoretical work, because you think you'd like it than don't worry about some problems in math. you don't sound like you're bad at it, and if you work hard on it, read a few more books, practice a lot(!), then I'm sure you could overcome those difficulties.
Of course you should do something you're good at. What I'm saying is people are usually good at things the love and do passionately. So go for what you like, which fullfils you, as long as you are willing to do the work nessecary and deal with some frustration at the beginning.

Good luck with everything!

PS: Excuse me, if I made some grammatical mistakes. Englich is a foreign language to me.