Who's more well rounded, a physics major or a math major.

[Last chance U]

I've recently stumbled upon this thread and one of the replies says that physicist tend to be more smarter/well rounded then mathematicians.

In your opinion, who's more well rounded?

 

[UltrafastPED]

"Well rounded"? What does that mean?

Having been a math major, with graduate degrees in physics I can say that "it depends". For some work physics is more useful; for other work skill with mathematics is more appropriate.

I have a son who was a math major, and is now an actuary. He has no doubt which category is smarter, taller, and more handsome ... OTOH I know many people in both fields. I'd hesitate to guess; they are all pretty smart.

 

[Last chance U]

"Well rounded"? What does that mean?

Having been a math major, with graduate degrees in physics I can say that "it depends". For some work physics is more useful; for other work skill with mathematics is more appropriate.

I have a son who was a math major, and is now an actuary. He has no doubt which category is smarter, taller, and more handsome ... OTOH I know many people in both fields. I'd hesitate to guess; they are all pretty smart.

Physicists have to learn both math and physics but math majors only have to learn math, MAYBE that's my definition of well rounded. What do you guys think about this.

 

[Rick21383]

Physicists have to learn both math and physics but math majors only have to learn math, MAYBE that's my definition of well rounded. What do you guys think about this.

I would say that, in general, they might be a bit more well-rounded because of some of the more applied stuff they do but that doesn't necessarily mean smarter. In your first post you said "smarter/well rounded" but those are totally different categories.

Realize that even though a degree in Physics does require upper level math, a (theoretical) Math major is going to take some advanced pure math courses which the physics major will likely never touch.

 

[Hepth]

Depends on the category. An applied mathematician is more "well rounded" IMHO than a theoretical physicist. An applied physicist is more "well rounded" than a theoretical mathematician. Here I define "well rounded" as "most able to easily get, and keep, a career outside of their field of expertise".

Having said that, from my own observation albeit limited, I'd speculate that the majority of math PhD's, maybe 70/30, are focused on more theoretical work versus applied, while the majority of physics PhD's (80/20) are focused on either solid-state, medical physics, experimental particle, etc. versus just theoretical work. This means from a numbers perspective, physicists in general would be more "well rounded", as experimental work usually demands one to be able to use many programming languages, as well as a bit more hands-on experience.

Keep in mind all numbers presented are completely made up and arbitrary, based on a loose "feeling" I have of a sample size of two universities. I myself am a theoretical physicst PhD, but I have a bachelors in applied physics, and minors in computational and statistal mathematics, and most of my electives were in electrical engineering. Thus, from a practical perspective I consider myself "well rounded", but I do not believe I would have a chance at an engineering position when put up against an equally skilled applied mathematician or experimental physicist.

 

[Last chance U]

Thanks for sharing

 

[Pythagorean]

I think physics scholars tend to be well rounded in general (there's always exceptions). They're usually more grounded by experiments.

There are also exceptions where mathematics scholars can be very well rounded (polymaths).

 

[AlephZero]

I think physics scholars tend to be well rounded in general

That's what happens if they spend too long studying spherical cows.

But it was a mathematician who said (and proved) ""if [physics] experimenters have free will, then so do elementary particles." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Horton_Conway#Theoretical_physics

 

[D H]

That's what happens if they spend too long studying spherical cows.

Very nice.

 

[1MileCrash]

After switching from physics to math undergrad, I feel like I am in la-la land playing a fun game. I still talk to a lot of physics majors and they're always stressed out about solving these things called "problems."

 

[Ryan_m_b]

What does well rounded mean in this context? Where I'm from it means someone who has good general knowledge, is sociable and has a good temperament I.e. A nice person who is reasonably intelligent/knowledgable and never seems unbalanced.

 

[Last chance U]

By well rounded I mean one who is good at multiple subjects not just their own area of expertise. I think physics majors are more rounded because they not only have to learn physics but, also some high level math,engineering,programing and can visualize problems easier I think then math majors. Maybe engineering majors are more well rounded then physics and math majors?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I doubt you could make a fair case either way. A physics degree might involve more sub fields than a mathematics one but if it does then the education in each is going to be broad rather than deep. Not having done either I can't really say.

However it is important to remember that in science nowadays researchers are highly, highly specialised. Just because you have a physics degree doesn't mean you know physics, it means you've studied generally and later specialised in one tiny aspect.

 

[Pythagorean]

IHowever it is important to remember that in science nowadays researchers are highly, highly specialised.

That's really only on the official academic/professional level. On a personal level, different personalities just tend to be more interested in broader aspects of science, and tend to spend more of their free time studying them.

The question, then, is really about which disciplines tends to attract more of this kind of personality. I think, on the one hand, physics tend to attract more of these types, but I think on the other hand, math tends to enable these types more (particularly applied math).

 

[Nikitin]

This is a really stupid question.

Anyway, obviously engineers are the smartest, most well rounded, handsome and richest of those mentioned in this thread.

 

[gravenewworld]

There are many things in lab that you simply can not learn in a textbook, especially when it comes to instrumentation and technique. You have to learn it through experience or by having someone else teach it to you with hands on work. I studied math as and undergrad, did chemistry for a living until I became unemployed, and now do engineering. There's so much you can't learn from a textbook which is how you can learn a lot of math.

You can have all the elaborate mathematical models you want, but many times they fall apart in the real world because you have to make many outrageous assumptions. Our quantum/theoretical chemist always used to run virtual libraries for us to screen for molecules that were supposed to be "good" molecules against our target according to theoretical calculations utilizing extremely powerful quantum software. Many times though the best molecules according to the virtual screen were the worst in terms of potency when we tested the molecules in real life, and sometimes the best molecules we screened against a target were supposed to be the worst molecules according to virtual screens. Sometimes manipulating nature to do what you want it to do requires experimental finesse that is simply extremely difficult to mathematically model or can't be modeled at all.

 

[1MileCrash]

This is a really stupid question.

Anyway, obviously engineers are the smartest, most well rounded, handsome and richest of those mentioned in this thread.

lol, in no interpretation of the question can that be considered true. From my experience, roughly half of engineers know the order of operations, and about 1% know that "derive" doesn't mean "take a derivative."

 

[Last chance U]

I've recently stumbled upon this thread and one of the replies says that physicist tend to be more smarter/well rounded then mathematicians.

In your opinion, who's more well rounded?

By this thread I mean

http://www.quora.com/Smart-People/Whos-smarter-math-folks-or-physics-folks

 

[WannabeNewton]

lol, in no interpretation of the question can that be considered true. From my experience, roughly half of engineers know the order of operations, and about 1% know that "derive" doesn't mean "take a derivative."

He's clearly just mocking the ridiculous question posed by the OP...

 

[Cyril141795]

The engineers are the most well-rounded, because they study many other disciplines like management, economics along with mathematics, physics and topics in math and physics are more applied. But, of course, they don't know physics like physicists. For example, they aren't taught special relativity or group theory at all. I think that a narrow area of specialization is better because in order to solve a problem one must work hard only on it (but there are exceptions).

lol, in no interpretation of the question can that be considered true. From my experience, roughly half of engineers know the order of operations, and about 1% know that "derive" doesn't mean "take a derivative."

I've already noticed that mathematicians, physicsts dislike engineers, like physicsts dislike mathematicians and vice versa. And everybody (mathematicians, engineers etc.) dislike scholars.

 

[WannabeNewton]

I've already noticed that mathematicians, physicsts dislike engineers, like physicsts dislike mathematicians and vice versa. And everybody (mathematicians, engineers etc.) dislike scholars.

And don't forget pre-meds!

 

[Caveat]

That's what happens if they spend too long studying spherical cows.

lol wow this was quote of the thread

nice one

 

[jgens]

I am just going to echo Irving Segal's sentiment that if you are smart, then you do mathematics, and if you lack the brains to hack it at math, then you do physics

I've already noticed that mathematicians, physicsts dislike engineers, like physicsts dislike mathematicians and vice versa. And everybody (mathematicians, engineers etc.) dislike scholars.

Honestly I have never met a mathematician who actually disliked physicists. In my experience most of them hold physicists in high esteem. I am sure the same goes for physicists feelings about mathematicians as well. The whole math hates physics thing is just perpetuated by a bunch of stuck-up undergrads who need to get their heads out of their asses.

 

[ZapperZ]

I don't know why there is such a long argument on this topic when the answer is quite easy. The one that is most well-rounded is the one that ate the most cheescake!

Zz.

 

[lisab]

I don't know why there is such a long argument on this topic when the answer is quite easy. The one that is most well-rounded is the one that ate the most cheescake!

Zz.

 

[Ash L]

I have pondered about this question before. If we only look at the courses that they have to take outside their major at the college undergrad level, a physics major takes a bigger variety of courses. For example at my school, a physics major would have to take the Calculus sequence, the some lower division Chemistry classes outside of the physics classes.

However, the math major only takes an introductory physics class and an introductory computer science class. Therefore, the math major only has knowledge applicable to mathematics as nearly all of their classes are from the math department.

 

[jgens]

If we only look at the courses that they have to take outside their major at the college undergrad level...

Not sure if you realize this or not, but these sorts of requirements vary pretty wildly between universities.

 

[dipole]

If I had to do it all again, I'd do an undergrad in math/computer science and then a PhD in physics, rather than just a bachelor's in physics.

 

[1MileCrash]

I've already noticed that mathematicians, physicsts dislike engineers, like physicsts dislike mathematicians and vice versa. And everybody (mathematicians, engineers etc.) dislike scholars.

After trying both and now being a math major, I think physics is much harder and that anyone that can do well in physics courses after introductory mechanics and E&M could just do the rest math curriculum not covered by physics in their spare time while they were bored. I only have a few classes left to take for my math degree and they are just two electives, and I haven't taken anything as hard as my second physics class yet. But that's just my opinion, everyone is different.

When I think of engineering majors, I think of bud light and halo 3.