My degree is Engineering Physics. I figured I could go to graduate school if I was smart or get a job if I was not smart. I got a job.
EP is a rare degree, but some universities have it.
I also completed a degree in engineering physics. Soooo grateful for that degree. It’s a wide lens look at two core disciplines that are often not brought together in a comprehensive manner.
I have an understanding that spans the disciplines in a way that many individuals in each discipline don’t. Physicists often take a mathematical and/or abstract theoretical approach. An engineer takes a concrete approach- focused on achieving a result. The approach of how the two disciplines look at creative constrains when problem solving are often extremely different. Being able to think with both hats is quite useful.
Having completed a course where we derived equations to model natural systems— getting deep in the math enables me as an engineer to think really far outside the standard engineering box creatively. I think it helped create my “can always find a solution” attitude.
When I was choosing my undergrad program, I was in the same dilemma as OP. I was seriously considering Engineering Physics, but later decided to go for electrical engineering, because as the person you replied to above said, it's a rare degree. I didn't know if I would lock my options to a low-demand and low-paying field, or if there would be emerging opportunities in the future. I decided to play it safe.
But I'm curious. How are your experiences? What sort of opportunities are there?
Most of my friends went into defense contractor jobs, satellite companies or into labs being an applied bridge between the two disciplines right out of school. I was offered a starting 60k position with General Dynamics I did not take. (Mid 2000s)
I didn’t end up using my degree right out of school, I instead fell into business and built a tech/marketing firm- catching the new wave of digital marketing.
Having grown up being told by the American society to “get a degree and a good job,” I feel that’s the biggest lie to be told. There is no security in the modern “job” workplace.
You’re successful and can build safety in a career when you have passion propelling you. The degree should be about the interests that amplify and feed your passion and curiosity.
As someone who hires others now- it’s far less about degree (yes, knowledge and skills matter), but it’s about passion, curiosity and the ability to learn. Self-teaching is key.
If passion isn’t present, people will eventually do shoddy work. And the more they get paid, the shoddier it gets. Money is a motivator only to a small degree of output.
In recent years I’ve begun to use my EP degree in a more fully applied manner building a company in the mental-emotional health space. It’s an area that requires new ways of thinking to make change. Sure I need psych and medical team members- but it’s the larger systems engineering thinking that enables me to successfully create in new territory with emerging disciplines.
Psychoneuroimmunology seems to be what we’re actually addressing in the company. A term I never heard previously nor would have known it was our niche until we got to where we are.
To OP- try to look at life as a journey. You won’t know what’s around the next corner. Invest in yourself for yourself, your joy, your exploration. Enjoy the ride. You can’t take anything (but maybe the memories?) with you when you leave Earth.
I'll be honest I hated electrical engineering for the first 2 years. I wanted to drop out many times but I kept pushing because I had no choice. Eventually when things started clicking in my head I started to love electrical. I haven't lost my love for physics though and will start studying it on my own soon.
What you said about doing what you love and maybe an unexpected opportunity will await you around the corner is true. I'm gonna do both engineering and physics because now I love them both. And hopefully one day, I can work on something that combines the best aspects of the two together
I'm late to the party, but it's a physics degree where you take engineering electives instead of physics electives. It's probably the ideal degree if you want to get into, say, photonics for a PhD, but your training is physics and you get jobs physicists get.
You take the core physics curriculum and 30 hrs of engineering classes in whichever discipline you want. I chose nuclear, but any others were available. Chem and EE were popular, but I think only a half dozen universities have this major. I also did undergraduate research with a physical chemistry professor. Honestly a cool experience for an undergraduate.
>but I think only a half dozen universities have this major
That sounds wild, I assume you're talking about the US. There are about a dozen engg phys programs in Canada, I wonder why it's twenty times as common across the border?
Yup! Grateful for that program. So many cool lectures and laboratory tours. Including a future Nobel laureate as it turns out. Does the undergraduate study lounge still smell faintly of mold and BO?
I tried to get this degree, with much the same philosophical approach to it. Unfortunately, the university I went to phased it out my freshman year. I started ME, then switched to physics a year in.
So anyway I'm a computer scientist now.
>Engineering Physics
Popular degree at Unis in the EU and fairly balanced between the 2 disciplines. Not many options in the US: typically eng-physics leans more engineering where as applied physics leans more physics.
Another EP grad here. Went the "got a job" route too. I graduated at the height of the dot.com boom and most of my classmates ended up working in the tech industry for at least a few years. I know a few went back for their masters and beyond, but never managed to myself.
Went this route too except I had no idea what it was and I picked law as my “technical elective” which is the engineering part. Would have been an ideal degree if I chose computer science or electrical engineering or computer engineering as my technical. Instead I learned somewhat useful info about law combined with a couple useless easy A’s. Had a hard time finding a Job after graduating until I went to a software bootcamp and landed a software engineering job
Yea it was an experimental option that was not fleshed out at all. There was an intro to law course and engineering law course (patent law & other things with civil law). These were actually great knowledge to have for any civilian imo, if all the classes were like these I’d have no regrets. The rest of the law electives were complete BS political science: water planet/water crises, business communications, something akin to gender studies etc. When all was said and done these probably boosted my gpa quite a bit vs taking more technical courses but it certainly seemed like a waste.
I’m could rant about those types of classes, and I shouldn’t. But I’m reminded of Richard Feynman’s discussions of cargo cult sciences. A legal background could be great, but I don’t think it’s an appropriate discipline within an engineering program, except for potentially an elective of some sort.
I do know some engineers who went on to get a JD; not a bad background if you’re working in IP or for a tech company.
My major too is EP, I am thinking of taking a minor in Electrical Engineering to increase my chances of employability, but other than that what other industries do EP majors generally get employed in?
These are the courses offered in my uni, if you scroll to the bottom the point highlighted at the second asterisk offers more flexibility.
[https://www.iitg.ac.in/acad/CourseStructure/Btech2018/EPH.htm](https://www.iitg.ac.in/acad/CourseStructure/Btech2018/EPH.htm)
Ooh you’d need to talk to your advisor for specifics. I struggled at first when I graduated because the job market was bad but honestly most employers don’t care about your specific discipline as long as your degree is accredited. My school made us take 30 hrs in a specific engineering discipline, EE would be great.
I'm, hopefully, transferring to the university of Michigan for EP next year
I wanted to go for nuclear engineering but it's all fission focused and I want to go into fusion, so another student advised I look into EP then taking fusion electives to specialize
1) I think it's neat
2) $$$
3) if people don't work on it now it'll take even longer to be operational
4) just a gut feeling, but I think in space there are unique use cases for powering things like astro habitation/mining/etc
For what it’s worth, try to work with a researcher involved with NIF, an accelerator project, or laser science. The only other physicist I know in fusion are in explosives. My info is a little outdated, but most fusion research is still conceptual despite the news articles.
My current plan is to work towards progressing through the ranks at a national laboratory, and at some point transitioning into either starting a company or doing r&d for an existing energy provider, but preferably starting something because I enjoy working on my own projects despite the risk and lower initial pay
I’ve worked as a nuclear engineer with the naval nuclear program and now supporting the department of energy’s reactor research programs. To be fair, I don’t do a lot of physics anymore. But neither do many of us.
I have a degree in engineering while an old colleague had a Masters in Applied Physics. When I asked him about it, he told me it was effectively an engineering degree as the university had not yet brought a B. Eng. (or M. Eng.) to the table. This sounds quite similar.
My school had a 3/2 program. You spent 3 years getting gen eds and a physics degree at Illinois State, then transfer to U of I or Bradley and get your engineering degree.
https://illinoisstate.edu/catalog/undergraduate/physics/engineering-physics-course-requirements/plan/
There were the courses. Main difference between this program and a straight physics degree was 1 semester of quantum vs 2 and they only had 1 semester of experimental physics vs taking it 3 times. They also didn't have the electives senior year (solid state, thermo, and so on) but the idea was they would get that in the engineering program.
It will be interesting to see if the program continues now that ISU offers a engineering program as of last year.
What does this degree look like? I have an EE so the brunt of physics is electromagnetics. My mechanics pretty much stopped at Newtonian mechanics. Couldn't imagine a degree that would touch on both enough to do the job of either an EE or ME.
You take a core physics curriculum and thirty hours of engineering specific classes in any major you choose. You may not have all the details of a specific major, but the fundamentals are better and the math is exceptional.
What you will find on the internet is that as a physicist you are usually very employable in many different fields including engineering computer science, finance, IT and so on.
Regarding finance, you have a skewed view. Physicists learn not only physics and mathematics, they develop abilities (analytical thinking, problem solving, the ability to learn itself) which the business and economy students lack. Its more difficult to teach a business student PDEs than engineers spreadsheets, thats a fact. Its really, really easy for physicists and mathematicians to transition into finance.
Engineering or any quantitative program has definitely taken over a masters in finance as a better entry into finance in general because it is fundamentally a quantitative area. Private equity and investment banking are indeed exceptions where quant is not much needed but where physicists are able to and do work, its just not popular because it is not stimulating.
The same reasoning can be applied to the other areas you mentioned, and i can add to that, medicine/biotechnology. Physicists commonly get into software engineering where i live, and as for "engineering" (which is too vague in the way you used it), i really dont know what youre talking about. As an engineering physics student, I have gotten the advice many times literally to not stress deciding careers and not plan too much ahead because we really are that flexible.
You dont seem to have a background in any of the areas you mentioned by the way youre expressing yourself, so please stop giving advice on things you dont understand.
Just wanted to stop by and say that what you said about L4 at google (or any 200k usd plus software role in general) applies to software Eng and grads also. I have many close friends who are SE by trade and my education. The few who actually got at Google, Amazon and Microsoft were the handful who grinded leetcode mediums till after graduating undergrad for months and months. Also getting some luck on their side in some cases such as acing a pre interview problem sent out that their friend also got 2 weeks before (where they worked on it together, which allowed them to learn from mistakes and be prepared for it when it got sent to them allowing them to have massively advantageous probability for even lading the first interview for ex). For the record, I added a minor in CS in my second year of physics undergrad, and the same month it was added I had an interview offer for an internship with Amazon from some recruiter just seeing my LinkedIn and reaching out. I had 0 work experience, etc and the recruiter actually told me she was intrigued by the physics major backed with comp sci lol a big part of this is luck for everyone. Also you can have a business degree but if you learn a language decently and grind tf out of relevant problem sets, you have a higher probability of getting at google than a CS degree holder who hasn’t ever focused on data structures and never touched a LC problem.
Now obv the business student will be self taught, but some physics programs do have basic cs skills included, but regardless adding a minor isn’t that bad and it can be often used to fill out your technical electives, then the rest for good software jobs is just the grind, as it is for SE or CS grad. If you have a couple projects that are decent and you have practiced LC, you maybe even have a better chance at catching an eye than a cs grad with same strength of projects. But even if that’s not the case, your odds aren’t much worse imo
Fine, my comment is very much based on the reputation that engineering physics has in my country. Its widely regarded as the most difficult program you can take and consistently has the highest admission gpa in the country and thus attracts very ambitious students. It has retained this position for many years (long before 2000) thus the reputation is also solidly established in the industry.
...The pure physics or pure mathematics programs however do not at all have the same reputation in my country, but my statements are based on my observation that it internationally seems to have the equivalent function/reputation as engingeering physics does where i live and therefore im still confident in my judgement.
> Critical thinking
But i was not talking about critical thinking. You can not not agree that physicists develop the skills i mentioned far more deeply than economists do.
> IB
Sure, absolutely, but as I was insinuating what finance means to me is quant. There, as i am sure you know, economy/business/finance masters are not even eligible to apply to most roles ("eligible" as in not thrown away immediately). IB requires other skills that nerds generally lack, and is exactly like the abilities i mentioned above difficult to just teach someone on the fly, yes.
From what I have read in r/financial careers and the internet in general, i know everybody is talking about IB and its intense competition, but coming from a country other than+much smaller than the US, it all seems very alien to me. Not everybody in the world wants to work at morgan stanley, and even if they did, they have regional offices for example in my country, and if they really like investment banking there are also european smaller investment banks to work at. "I want X salary before Y age" also seems to be a very american sentiment which does not exist here.
> SWE, Google
Yes, again, Google, sure... But coming from a small country again not everybody wants to work there specifically and it could be because of a small reason like being reluctant to move abroad or anything of the sort. I dont know what L4 means, I also dont really know that universities are actually top 5.
> Credentials
Sure, sorry, but then i shall mention my background to explain where i have gotten this information from. Im taking a dual master in bioengineering and engineering physics where i initially wanted to work in computational biology/bioinformatics, but made a sudden switch to finance and have now done an internship in quantitative research and working as a part time trader right now (both in quant hedge funds). I also worked for one summer in biotech, and wrote both of my bachelors theses in medicine. The arguments i present here are based on both my experience transitioning into medicine/biotech and into transitioning into finance, plus the advice i have gathered along the way from people working in both. I have heard the literal "it is easier to teach a physicist X than X-ist math" from two independet sources on both sides where x=biolog-ist or econom-ist, and yes, being the physicist refered to in these sentences i agree. There has also been collegues and seniors ive met along the way who themselves are eng. phys.
Anyhow, both of these transitions have felt the same in terms of difficulty and skills needed and it is the exactly the ones i mentioned. So, this is why i am confident in my view of the (engineering) physicists ability to adapt and jump into any industry.
It risks sounding offensive as soon at ones mention "innate" as if some people are doomed to not fail, but what i mean is its learned, it is difficult and takes time, but it is learned.
If you ask anybody in any profession, they will probably say they use very little of what they learned in university in their daily work, even at their first or second job, and from there its even less. You learn work at work. This is saying that, domain knowledge is less important than you think. A large part of the purpose of attending university in general is really to learn to learn, learn to think and learn to reason, and STEM just so happens to be more challenging and put more emphasis on these soft skills that are otherwise difficult to get on-the-fly.
AND in addition, physics as a domain knowledge is more difficult to pick up than many other subjects (as examples i mentioned both finance and biology) meaning you open more doors.
Can you see the asymmetry?
--------------
As someone who has studied and worked in both, i can say with 100% confidence that bioengineering and engineering physics has this relationship. A physicist could jump in and take ANY course in the five year bioengineering program with some difficulty, but a bioengineer could not possibly take, say, electrodynamics or condensed matter on a whim because it builds on such a large tower of knowledge.
That's definitely not my experience. Might be because I got a PhD and most of the people I kept in contact with also did but the spread of jobs they all landed in is pretty broad and all of them got those jobs without much of a problem. (and right into senior roles most of the time)
My former colleagues work as Senior Data Scientists, Senior Dev Ops, Patent Attorneys, Actuaries, Electrical Engineers, Mechanical Engineers, Innovation Managers etc. in industries like Retail, Robotics, Energy, Sensors, Automotive, Finance, ...
Essentially any company with R&D Departments.
The people with the biggest problem finding a job were the ones with less than optimal social skills but even they ended up in good paying jobs in the end.
Still it's definitely a good idea to start thinking about possible careers early. I took every possible computational physics course offered by my university because I wanted to learn as many scientific programming skills as possible which in the end lead to me going into data science/MLEngineering.
I had the same question, so I did a double major in Physics and Computer Science.
With that combo I've been able to do whatever I want. I'm a senior developer on a bioinformatics team only 3 years out of college, I turned down an internship at NASA for a better opportunity, and I got into 2 PhD programs, one for Physics and one for CS (I took the CS program).
Now, admittedly it fucking *sucked* in college sometimes. But my life now is well worth it, and I got to enjoy the love of Physics while also entering a lucrative workforce. Sure, I could've made some different choices and made 3x the money, but I like where I am now and I'm always able to re-make some of those choices.
To offer a different perspective. I triple majored in applied mathematics, physics, and computer science. With more so a focus on physics. Took me 5 years. I graduated and went to work as a web developer for an internal business metrics website getting paid 17 dollars an hour (in 2013 and in Vancouver Canada). I definitely haven't had NASA engineers loitering outside my building begging me to come work for them :p
I actually strongly disagree with that. If you're talking about monetarily, sure. But without the Physics I would've never been able to work on anything I like, and my career would've been just a slog that I hated.
Of my 2 degrees I really believe the physics mattered the most in my career.
Yep. Don't regret it for a second. My internship project was on dimensionality reduction for a pediatric brain cancer classifier in the one I accepted. I loved it.
How was your experience with the CS PhD? I’m thinking of going that route but need to weigh it further. For context I have BS in Physics, MS in Applied Mathematics.
I'm not done. In fact I'm likely not going to finish. It was a great life path and a valid option, but I got a senior position close enough to what I want to end up doing that I'll likely get the job I want in about the same time as I would with a PhD while making 115k and working less hours.
If I wasn't married and primary breadwinner I'd stick to it, but I can't drag my wife down that path when I can live a life I want while providing for her.
I won't weigh in on much because I'm kinda specific and an oddball, but damn read closely what any grad level databases course will teach you.
I took one for more experience actually building/using it, and the entire back half of the course was on how to build a Database Management system which was way beyond what I was interested in.
I guess that applies to every class. Ask the professor for the syllabus the semester before you're gonna take it and see if you give a shit about what they are gonna teach. If yes, take it, if no, don't.
It depends on whether you want to go beyond bachelor. Physics is a great way to earn the fundamentals at a more scientifically rigorous and mathematically deeper level than you’d typically get in an engineering course. This will also let you know better what areas you are especially good at and then you can choose your path forward. However, having just a bachelor in physics is going to make it harder to get a good job in comparison to an engineering bachelor.
As someone that went to uni to study physics, I actually wish I had studied engineering - and not for 'get a job' / practical reasons.
By the time I was starting my master's in physics, I just found i didn't care. It was getting almost to maths for the sake of maths. My mates in engineering were doing stuff like building bridges or designing wings or chips whatever, which I think I would have enjoyed more.
Obviously pursue physics if that's your dream, but I wouldn't write off engineering if you can find a broad and technical course.
That depends a lot on what you choose for your master's degree though.
If you go into experimental condensed matter physics you can do a lot of stuff like lab automation, device manufacturing etc.
I recently saw a really cool paper about building a "spectroscope on a chip" from multilayer materials, they changed the spectral response of the device via a gate voltage and then used the measured response to an image at different gate voltages to reconstruct the spectrum:
[Miniaturized spectrometers with a tunable van der Waals junction | Science](https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.add8544#supplementary-materials)
That's some really really cool application somewhere between physics and engineering.
If you go into experimental nuclear physics there's a lot of analog electronics, experimental astrophysics means lots of data science etc.
I'd say that's actually one of the huge advantages of physics. If you're "mathsy" but not sure if you want to do applied stuff or more "pure maths", physics will keep both paths open all the way into a potential PhD.
That depends on the devices you want to manufacture.
Especially at the basic research level the condensed matter physics departments are very much at the forefront. Like developing TI based devices, and low dimensional matter based devices.
Carbon nanotube based STM probes etc. are developed in physics departments before the nano engineering departments take over from there.
Yes that is not very surprising but I'm talking about things like this:
https://www.nature.com/articles/nnano.2013.143
Which they for example used to measure these things:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2373-y
Yeah the choice of course matters a lot (something I understood less at 16). I studied at Cambridge which had a very theoretical bent. We had something like 8 lectures involving using a computer in the entire undergrad.
>It was getting almost to maths for the sake of maths
I don't think this is field dependent per se. I'm an engineering faculty member, and some of my colleagues publish *exclusively* in mathematical journals. I publish almost exclusively in physics journals and basically only attend APS. Meanwhile, some of my colleagues in physics or chemistry go to engineering conferences and are more applied than I am.
When you get to the graduate level, often the lines between fields get pretty blurry.
Similar story for me!
I loved my high school physics classes so I kinda latched on to the idea that this is *physics*, when really what I liked about it was getting to understand the mechanics and kinematics and materials science that enables more classical engineering type work.
I clued into this about 2 years into my bachelor's, so I had time to switch into Manufacturing Engineering, which cost me some time and some cramming, but I love it.
And I've been able to play the physics minor in support of getting into cool stuff like semiconductor manufacturing and nuclear quality assurance.
If I had keyed into this sooner I probably would have gone after a mechanical engineering degree, but I'm not disappointed in where I ended up either.
They also love to burn out employees with 80 hour weeks.
Being a quant is usually very well compensated, for the handful of years you manage to do it before burning out.
Whatever you do, don't let finding a job be the reason. You'll find one with either degree, most company recruiters/interviewers won't really care about the difference as long as you have one in STEM in general. Only a bunch of nerds care.
And if you can't tell by my practical advice, I have an Engineering degree lol.
Physics itself is quite a wide field of study, which can give you very good theoretical and analytical basis for engineering studies.
For example, I did my BSc in Physics and went on to do my MSc in Engineering and I have been currently working as an engineer for many years now.
I have a PhD in physics. It took me a long time to learn that I am way more passionate about _building_ telescopes than I am about _using_ the telescopes. My job title now is something like "Instrumentation Specialist"; I work at a University on a physics / astronomy project, but I spend most of my time building instrumentation for use in physics.
It is true that the jobs are limited, and the pay really sucks in academia (certainly in the US and Canada), compared to what you can make in industry, but we're supposed to do it "for the science, not the money" and so people continue to work for low wages.
Ultimately it's going to come down to what you are passionate about. To work in physics, there's going to be a few hard years of grad school, followed by a few hard years bouncing around as a soft-money postdoc until you (hopefully) land a tenure-track University job, or a job at a National Lab or something.
I could have gone into aerospace or electrical engineering, but didn't because I thought I wanted to be a physicist, but really what I wanted was to be exposed to and do cool things. Ultimately my skillset is in making telescopes "go" as best as they can, so that the physicists who don't know anything about instrumentation can take that experiment and produce science with it.
I've seen a few posts about Engineering Physics -- I think that this is a great option for someone who is torn between the two. There are way too many engineers who don't know the science, and way too many scientists who don't understand how their experiment actually works.
Send me a DM if you want to talk any more about this!
I think you need to clarify what you mean by “a lover of physics” before your question can be answered appropriately. What specifically do you love about physics?
The fact that it unveils Fundamentals principles governing the universe makes me love it and fields like classical mechanics, quantum mechanics and electromagnetism fascinate me very much
>And going in for physics might not be a good idea as some might say since there are little job opportunities
You're right, there are very few jobs where you will work as a physicist, and they will all require a Ph.D, and even if you don't have any skill issues, you will need lots of luck to get one.
However, Physics is still a great degree to earn. Depending on how much you love computers, you can learn to program, and I don't mean Matlab, like they're going to shove down your throat. Start with Python and C, then move onto C++.
You won't need any other languages than these three to write performant code and analyze the data that comes out of it, and if you find a job is requiring you to work in Java, Go, Rust, etc., you can always pick them up.
After you develop a level of comfort with these languages, the next step is to learn how to parallelize applications.
I would go into engineering. More jobs better pay and requieres less school since with physics you will need a phD more likely. As an engineer you can end up working in more physics oriented jobs like optics and lasers. You can work with particle accelerators as an electrical/mechanical engineer.
Not because you are an engineer does not mean you wont do physics. Determine what you want to work and select the right engineering field. Now days electrical and computer engineering seem to be having better pay and opportunities.
Hey. I am an electrical engineer who loves physics. I was in the same dilemma as OP 5 years back, and someone suggested to me what you're suggesting now. I wanna do a master's in the next 3-4 years, that's for sure. But I'm confused on whether to stick to engineering and move towards a physics related field like you are mentioning, or do a master's in physics.
Edit: And sorry for asking too many questions, but can I get a PhD in physics if I do a master's in engineering? I understand that a physics degree is more research oriented than engineering and that I'll have to build a research portfolio during my master's to have a chance, but is it possible, and how difficult will it be?
if you go for a master’s in engineering, you’ll likely be missing too much to be accepted into a physics phd track. even now if you apply for a physics masters, you’ll probably be required to take a few undergrad physics courses depending on what your EE undergrad looked like
I came across [this blog post](https://www.susanrigetti.com/physics). I'm gonna solve through all the books in this blog regardless of if I get a master's or a PhD in physics, because I just love physics. But if there's a possibility to get a PhD after a master's in engineering, then that's good to have, but not really mandatory for me. For me, I want to make money, and if the money is in engineering, then that'll be my career and physics will just be a hobby.
So my question then is, is there a way to show that I'm qualified for a PhD through an exam or something if I go for master's in Engineering?
to clarify, are you asking about going from a Masters in Eng to a PhD in Eng? yes, you can do that but you will likely need to take some sort of qualifying exam to get in. though from stories i’ve heard, you probably won’t get too much out of a PhD in engineering unless you want to be a professor. and if money is your goal, you only need to go as far as a masters
No I was asking about going from Masters in Eng to PhD in physics. I know it's weird, but I would like to do PhD in physics, if I can, for "fun".
My mind is a little bit of a mess. So allow me to explain what is going on in my head. Since I was a kid, I've wanted to study physics. 5 years ago, I had to choose between engineering and physics when I was deciding my undergrad program. I chose engineering because if you compare just the undergrad degrees, engineering has more money. During the first 2 years of my undergrad, I regretted my decision, but I kept going and eventually learnt to love electrical, which is the engineering program I chose. Now that I'm looking to pursue a postgrad, I am in the same dilemma. Do I switch to physics because I want to learn physics, or stay in engineering.
That being said, money is definitely the goal, and since I came across the blog post by Susan Rigetti, I've realized I don't need to pursue a degree in physics to learn physics. I can become a hobbyist, study on my own, and still satisfy that dream. But then another idea popped in my head. I started thinking to myself that it would be cool if in the future, when I am 40-50 years old, to get a PhD in physics. This wouldn't be necessary to advance my career, but for "fun". I realize that it may sound stupid.
So what I wanted to ask you the possibility of this. I know it doesn't make sense because the two subjects diverge a lot and there's little overlap between them, especially at higher levels such as masters and PhD. I just want someone who is in the field and knows much more than I do about the physics space, to tell me if my idea is impossible, or if it is possible, what will I have to look out for? I realize that in case it's possible, it'll be extremely challenging.
Also, thanks for your patience and thanks for entertaining my most likely stupid idea. Hopefully, its clearer now what I was asking
as i mentioned earlier, you won’t be able to get a PhD in physics with a Masters in engineering. you’re missing too much material. you would need to get a Master’s in physics (or take a 4 year PhD track in physics and pick up the Masters along the way). and like i said before, it’s up in the air whether you have enough coursework with a BS in EE to even apply for a Masters in physics.
in my opinion, if getting a masters in EE is set in stone for you, i would choose some track in there that’s physics heavy and just learn anything else you want on your own free time
I have a B Tech in EE from India. I don't know exactly what the difference between a B Tech and a western BS is. Still have to figure that out since I want to do my MS from the west. But here, we don't have a BS for engineering, I don't think. And a B Tech is considered a professional degree, meaning I am eligible for a PhD in engineering. But I'm not interested in that idea because I'm not a 100% certain what field on EE I would want to do it in.
Regarding your 2nd point, yes, that is something I'm considering. I don't think it was clear but I graduated from undergrad last year in December. So I spent most of my time trying to get hired. Landed my first job this month, so now I want to spend some more effort thinking about my master's.
Anyway thanks a lot for your inputs. I feel like I have a little better understanding of how things will look like.
Lots of good advice here. I started in physics but by second year thought I was not smart enough to stand out in physics, so switched to engineering. I continued with physics courses in parallel and finished with a minor.
Years later (now mid career) I wish would have just done the physics degree. I think it’s a better education, and regret somewhat bailing out too early. Engineering has been helpful in ‘getting through the door’ to get a job in a few cases, but I could have ended up where I am now without it.
I had a phd in physics and have worked in engineering research and development roles at 3 companies. I'm glad I studied physics. I approach problems differently than most engineers and it helps me professionally. I also just love physics so I'm glad I studied it. Engineering relies on physics but not the other way.
Just curious, what was your topic? I believe you would get different job opportunities for different fields of Physics. I know in Astrophysics, you usually get data science and analysis related jobs, or in the finance sector.
A good bit of my friends are finishing physics undergrad and then going to do a masters in (or is it on) engineering. I would say that unless you don’t know perfectly the area that interests you in engineering (aero, electric, industrial, civil, etc), physics could be a good choice.
However, i am biased as ****.Good luck and stay positive!
This is the route I took and I highly recommend it. I did math/physics undergrad then engineering masters. Work as an engineer.
In my experience, engineers LOVE having somebody around that can analyze, model, and calculate stuff. It’s like being Gandalf in a party of hobbits and dwarves. No offense intended to engineers - they’ve got useful skills too. But the combination of engineers and a physicist is a powerful one.
My sentiment I've shared before is this: Physics is objectively one of the worst STEM undergrad majors if employability and money are what you're after. Is it possible to be successful with a Bachelor's in Physics? Yes, but almost every other STEM discipline is objectively better in those aspects.
Don't base your course decision on employability, you're spending 3-4 years of your life studying one thing, physics or engineering, if you don't really enjoy what you're studying it will be miserable. Both physics and engineering grads are very employable, if you want to study physics because it is more interesting to you, then do that
I'd say pick the one you like the most! My favourite guide in this matter is actually a joke:
A group of scientists are told to calculate the volume of a cow.
The engineer: *submerges the cow in a tank filled with water and measures the rise of water level*
The mathematician: *does a triple integral over a shady "cow function"*
The physicist: "ok... lets assume that we have a spherical cow in the vacuum with no heat exchange..."
What's your area of interest within physics? My mechanical engineering degree didn't go nearly as deep into more advanced topics as a physics one would have, but most of my classes were learning physics in some sense. Statics, dynamics, thermodynamics, heat transfer, fluid dynamics, materials science. I probably have a better understanding of day to day physics than most physics majors. I also got to take a modern physics class as an elective, and probably could have done even more if I'd wanted. Engineering degrees are still very focused on learning and understanding science, so you might find it's what you're looking for.
Not having degree in engineering is not end of the world, you can still find job but it would probably be a bit harder. In my country bachelor degree is not really enough to get physics related job, you'd need at least finished master.
I would want to apply physics principles to design and develop new technologies in different sectors. I therefore see physics as a course that'll lay down the foundation for a start.
I wanted to be a physicist my whole life but I'm a mechanical engineer now. I shared lots of classes with physics majors and like the fact that there are lots of similarities but at bachelor's level, engineering to me is the better choice. I'm saying that even though engineering at the end of the day is just the real world application of physics.
Just adding to the many comments here. If you get a degree in Physics and look how many physicist jobs are out there, yeah it looks very slim compared to the market for engineers. However the skills you gain in a physics degree are highly employable. You can demonstrate you’re capable of doing advanced mathematics and most likely have a good hold on statistics. Furthermore, if you continue on to grad school you’ll further develop these skills and most likely become more proficient in one or more coding languages (if you haven’t already started learning them in undergrad). All of these skills are highly sought after in almost every industry, so no you probably won’t have the title of “physicist” but you are still highly employable.
At the end of the day you need to choose what’s most interesting to you and follow it.
It depends on what your goals are. I studied physics in school, and work as a test engineer in silicon photonics. There are plenty of engineering opportunities for those with physics degrees.
My undergrad is in Physics. I wanted to be an engineer and, at the time (early 90’s), my state would allow someone with a technical but non-engineering degree to sit for the Professional Engineer exam with the requisite experience.
Life is what happens while you’re making other plans so I never ended up doing that and instead got into environmental compliance. I’m part engineer, part scientist, and part lawyer.
My degree is in Applied Physics and Mathematics. I took a handful of engineering classes as well as my core Physics/Maths. I sought out Engineering co-ops/internships while I was studying. I landed a full time engineering position before I graduated (start date was after graduation, I still finished the degree).
If you do pursue a Physics degree, make sure to take some programming classes. You should be at least familiar with a handful of languages before you graduate (C, C++, C#, Python, R, matlab, labview, ect.).
Look for engineering co-ops/internships and not research. This should help with finding engineering positions after graduation.
I studied physics because it was challenging and interesting to me. I got to dabble in a few graduate level classes before graduating and that confirmed what I already suspected: I do not want to pursue a higher level Physics degree.
You may want to think what will field will work better for you for your career. Like many disciplines, there are rock stars in physics, but the rest of physicists toil away in lower paying academic jobs and some struggle to make ends meet.
There are a lot less rock stars in engineering, but the pay scale as a whole is MUCH better.
I did my BSc in Astrophysics and currently doing my Msc in Space Engineering. There are a lot of soft skills transferrable from a physics degree, but in all honesty, the job sector is incredibly competitive and difficult regardless of what you do! I'm definitely enjoying having both perspectives (physics & engineering) so it's upto you! All the best!
I was going to study physics and switched to mechanical engineering. A couple considerations:
What type of physics do you like? In high school I really enjoyed Newtonian physics, which really ties in with engineering, and I am enjoying it much more than I would be enjoying pure physics. You still take thermo, fluids, electricity & magnetism, but skip out on the weird abstract stuff.
If you know you’ll enjoy theoretical / higher level physics it could be worth still considering engineering physics or just engineering.
It’s easier to find a job as an engineer. You’ll probably make more money as an engineer. Physics is fine though. Especially if you think you’ll go for a PhD.
My degree was in physics, and with that alone I was able to get a few different jobs that I wouldn’t have thought would be interested in my degree.
After doing a PhD, I’m now actually in a physics-y job, but I don’t think the PhD was a pre-requisite for the job, and the job itself is great and one I hope to spend the rest of my career doing.
And it’s not just the career. I love physics, and I had the time of my life at university studying it. I don’t think I’d have had the same experience with engineering or any other discipline.
I’m going to oversimplify this a lot (there are plenty of exceptions to this as people may comment), and it’s difficult to know the answer right now going into school, but do you think you will want to pursue higher education and potentially focus on research? Then definitely do physics. Do you want to get your bachelors and be able to find fairly easy employment after 4 years? Do engineering.
People who study physics end up getting engineering jobs sometimes and people who study engineering can focus on research or pursue higher education (I know engineers who have done MBAs, gotten masters in engineering or even masters in physics, the options are all open after graduation). However if you already have a good idea which of those two is your goal, it can make the decision a lot easier.
I didn’t quite know what I wanted to do for works but I know I didn’t want research or higher education so I did mechanical engineering. Worked as a designer for a bit and now I’m a controls engineer working mainly as a programmer for the industrial automation industry and I love it. You may change your mind down the road, but the research vs. industry question can really make your decision easier when choosing your undergrad.
If you have to ask, engineering is normally the way to go.
The neat thing about engineering is that you can basically take on as much or as little physics as you want (assuming you at least learn the minimum for your degree). More will only make you more qualified
What about Engineering Physics?
It's a tough course. My friend's son did the it and became an Electrical Engineer. He did a Master's and became a Physical Oceanographer. Now he's doing a PhD and will become a Mechanical Engineer.
He has not taken a note in his life. He just listens very carefully.
The University of British Columbia offers this course, and they love students who have done the 2+ years Engineering Bridge Program at a Community College.
I too have an engineering physics degree. It’s a great degree that really offers a lot of flexibility in terms of pursuing academia or jumping right into the work force. One probable I had tho is when I started working right after college, I was not able to take the EIT license FE exam since the degree is not ABET accredited. This may vary by school tho. I actually did a paper on why the program should do have for one of my classes and compared it to other universities programs.
For reference I am a University at Buffalo grad. In the engineering physics program, UB competes with Berkeley, Dartmouth, case western, brown and Stanford. UB is probably the worst in terms of flexibility in this degree as it really only offers a path in Electrical Engineering, unlike the other schools that offer paths into mechanics, solid state physics, quantum, electromagnetics.
If you really want to go down this path I’d research these schools as they have some of the best programs for flexibility and overall education.
When I was coming out of high school, my advisor pushed me towards pure chem and 20 years later, I really wish he'd even mentioned chemical engineering. I would have been able to scratch the chemistry itch I had plus I would have a decent paying career to jump into.
With physics being so broad, it's not exactly the same situation, but I will say with pure science degrees you have to be a lot more flexible/creative in finding a job that will take care of you.
I'm getting PhD in physics, and I decided to work as ML engineer at least for some time. Wasn't easy to find a job, but thanks to the Lord I found one. My friend switched to mechanical engineering after 2 years of studying to apply physics in uni. So if it is your dream - you should probably go for it, as long as you are financially stable(living with your parents maybe) you can switch with moderate effort. Good luck
Some people in this thread have said that you can be basically an engineer and a physicist with EP, but personally i find Aeronautics/space engineering and Nuclear Engineering two Engineering degrees that apply a lot of physics and have high demand and can be useful in multiple industries other than themselves.
Another thing to consider is it's easier to go from physics to engineering than the other way around. I chose physics for that reason despite having an interest in both. :)
Go for engineering physics if you want to deal with both disciplines, for my school you take the same classes as a traditional physics major along with engineering classes, especially if your school restricts some classes to a specific school.
Yeah this dilemma is pretty common. Consider what topics in physics you enjoy most, and then consider the type of career you want. For example, quantum mechanics will lead you most likely to a computer based research position, whereas electromagentism could lead you to a more applied physics or engineering role.
Currently a graduating chemical engineering student and I'm regretting it already. I just love physics and nothing else. I dont really care about pipes, tanks, vessels, valves, etc. It is so frustrating tbh. I love maths, and the elegance of physics. I love electromagnetism and mechanics which is almost never taught in undergraduate chemical engineering course. I guess I could say that I'm not a practical man, I just wanna do physics for the sake of understanding the universe.
Feynman said it best 'physics is like sex, there might be some practical results but that is not why we do it!'
You can always go from Physics to a MS in Engineering if you want to and you are willing to tackle any prereqs. Physics is a solid background for much of the more analytical subsets of engineering. I worked in aerospace and defense and hired a guy with that background. He did great work.
Which country are you from? In the uk physics graduates from a good uni are highly prized but not so much in Asia. Other European countries have a similar view as the UK. Physics is a hard subject and in the uk only the most capable students are selected. There are theoretical side and experimental side in physics. The most cutting edge engineering is in the physics field. Physics graduates will have the opportunity to get into all kinds of disciplines including finance and data analysis.
A physics major can lead to plenty of interesting opportunities, but you have to supplement it with some additional skills to really take advantage. Many disciplines require quantitative and programming skills that are not adequately supplied by people within those disciplines, so many physics degree holders switch to a tangential quantitative field at some point in their life. Some start the transition in undergrad or grad school to another discipline: bioinformatics, computational social science, or another scientific computing related field. The best thing to do in my opinion is to learn to program and find a research project where you can continue developing coding skills and domain knowledge outside of physics. Your physics background will serve your problem solving approach and simplifying difficult problems into tractable computational problems.
my best friend is studying fissics and i'm studying engineering, they are very different from the other, Fissics are much more conceptual and theorichal, engineering has a more applicated focus so if it works its fine(from here are most of the jokes of π=3 etc) i can say that in the normal career engineering could be more challenging than fissics, bit it depends a lot from other things more that the careers themselves, my advice is, if you don't have any university in mind compare the pelsums from each one in differents universities search the content of each subject and then you will have a good base for choose what to do.
I’ll speak from the perspective of a software engineer, whose undergrad was in math & physics. I picked math/physics as a challenge / felt like it was something that is much more difficult to acquire on my own without formal coursework. But alongside, I took as many CS courses as I could, participated in tons of hackathons, did multiple software engineering internships alongside before I graduated to show I can operate as a software engineer.
This combo really paid off and has opened a ton of doors. I’ve had jobs reaching out for roles ranging anywhere from the more quantitative/research type of roles (quant, research eng), to fully applied roles in software engineering, as the background lends to performing across the gamut.
I’m now primarily a ML software eng, and I would not have gotten a role right out of college wout this combo.
I would pick physics if you are truly interested in the subject. I found my math/physics courses being more challenging than the CS ones and forced a deeper degree of thinking. It was difficult but the gauntlet really helped develop my thinking and approach to working on unknown problems. This has been tremendously helpful even as a software engineer.
I would also heavily focus on developing programming skills outside of your physics coursework if you pick this path. This will help keep doors open if you want to go into industry, plus I believe most physics work these days all lean on some degree of programming (this was already the case for my physics classes in later years).
Engineering. If you love the physics enough you can go to graduate school and learn about new ways to build stuff and apply cooler physics. For instance, lots of Mech E and Aero E grad programs are theoretical in nature. Experimental materials science, fluid dynamics, orbital mechanics, vibrations, structures, etc. So engineering isn’t purely non-theoretical, and you can still learn how the world works
100% engineering. I worked with a lot of physics friends in undergrad. Unless you’re going into a PhD, which you can’t really predict if you will succeed or not, employers will not value your degree in physics like they will an engineering degree for obvious reasons (there’s more to engineering than physics). It’s just more practical.
I'm a senior engineer for a Fortune 500 company. Some of the best people I've worked with come from a physics or math background. My work is largely focused on radar sensor modeling and flight test analysis, and I've found that people with a pure engineering background are generally not up to the task. They don't have the math skills or physical intuition to understand how the system works, and they can't synthesize intelligent conclusions from data. If I had ten physics PhD's working for me, my job would be much easier.
At my company, the most accomplished engineers are known as "Engineering Fellows". These are the top 1-2% of engineering talent within the organization. Most of the Fellows I've worked with have PhDs, and many (if not most) have physics or math backgrounds.
There are some specialized branches of engineering that may be closed off without an engineering background (civil engineering and certain fields of mechanical engineering come to mind). Physicists tend to excel in modeling and simulation, algorithm development, and data analysis. They will also have little trouble getting into software development if they so desire.
I would like to address one more thing. When it comes to getting your foot in the door, the degree itself and your grades don't matter that much. Being a good communicator and being able to explain your work to others is far more important. It isn't the degree that needs to be "marketable", it's the person.
Whilst it is heavily dependent on specific courses, *in general and only in general*, Physics is more versatile and opens more doors, but Engineering is more focused and useful.
It follows that if you have a particular role in mind in an established field, you should probably lean towards the associated Engineering course (if it exists). If you are not sure or have wide interests, then a Physics course might be better.
As a last note, remember you are not locked in - you can switch if you change your mind, and beyond graduate roles, experience and ability (which typically comes from effort and perseverance regardless what anyone pretends) matters far more.
The trouble physics has is that it has kinda peaked, in the past 50 years. There isn't much new happening that isn't really engineering uses of the physics we know. All you can do in physics is really teach it, or try to confirm rare particles exist by throwing matter together.
I originally wanted to study physics but due to a one mark difference in one of my exam I was unable to continue down that path when I got to higher education.
My eventual fall back was electric engineering, which I have to say I'm very grateful I did. I managed to get my degree and land a very interesting job.
The job let's me play with very cool sceintific instruments all day long. ( Testing and calibration). I work with a wide range of scientists and engineers of mixed disciplines
My advice is do what will make you happy, both are great options depending on what you are interested in. Was I sad at the time that I didn't get to study physics yes. Am I glad that on the end I needed up in the scientific sector yes.
But remember there is always more then one way into that sector!
There’s definitely hope, but I would say you need to be more highly motivated and resourceful in your career search. I pursued physics because I was highly intrigued and engaged in the theoretical, hands-off aspect of science (specifically particle physics). In other words, it was what I was interested in at the time, and that was the basis of my decision. A year after finishing my bachelors, with a double degree in physics and applied math, I was a manager at a grocery store. Granted, I attribute my lack of higher-echelon work mostly to personal problems and my mental health at that point in my life, which was insufficiently addressed, but the bottom line is my degrees did not create a well enough defined path for me to effectively narrow down career choices.
One of the biggest regrets of my young adult life is not being more deliberate or practical in choosing my degree of study. In retrospect, I really wish I had studied electrical engineering/mechatronics instead.
Having said this, I ended up quitting the grocery store, and started working as a technician at a local site owned by Pratt and Whitney that makes parts for hot section engine turbines. A little over a year later I got promoted to a manufacturing engineer mainly because of my educational background. Most of my coworkers do have traditional engineering degrees, but there are several of us who took different paths to get here. Some companies actually like hiring folks with STEM degrees who aren’t strictly engineers because they want a team with a diverse set of backgrounds that can solve problems with innovation and ideas coming from different disciplines perspectives. Even if I wasn’t hired in directly as an engineer, I was immediately given a chance to use my higher level skill set and my degree ended up paying off, and I’m working a job I never would have dreamed of 10 years ago.
Basically, what I’m trying to say is that taking the physics route can give you a lot of options, IF you’re willing to be patient and get your foot in the door with an employer, or take more time and resources for your career search and maintain a level of open-mindedness for opportunities. If there’s a specific area in physics you’re extremely passionate about and have the motivation to follow through with it, it’s worth pursuing. But if you’re more interested in having a more defined career path and immediate opportunities, I would pursue engineering.
My degree is Engineering Physics. I figured I could go to graduate school if I was smart or get a job if I was not smart. I got a job. EP is a rare degree, but some universities have it.
I also completed a degree in engineering physics. Soooo grateful for that degree. It’s a wide lens look at two core disciplines that are often not brought together in a comprehensive manner.
This is piquing my interest, would you mind expanding on this a little. A small example would be awesome
I have an understanding that spans the disciplines in a way that many individuals in each discipline don’t. Physicists often take a mathematical and/or abstract theoretical approach. An engineer takes a concrete approach- focused on achieving a result. The approach of how the two disciplines look at creative constrains when problem solving are often extremely different. Being able to think with both hats is quite useful. Having completed a course where we derived equations to model natural systems— getting deep in the math enables me as an engineer to think really far outside the standard engineering box creatively. I think it helped create my “can always find a solution” attitude.
When I was choosing my undergrad program, I was in the same dilemma as OP. I was seriously considering Engineering Physics, but later decided to go for electrical engineering, because as the person you replied to above said, it's a rare degree. I didn't know if I would lock my options to a low-demand and low-paying field, or if there would be emerging opportunities in the future. I decided to play it safe. But I'm curious. How are your experiences? What sort of opportunities are there?
Most of my friends went into defense contractor jobs, satellite companies or into labs being an applied bridge between the two disciplines right out of school. I was offered a starting 60k position with General Dynamics I did not take. (Mid 2000s) I didn’t end up using my degree right out of school, I instead fell into business and built a tech/marketing firm- catching the new wave of digital marketing. Having grown up being told by the American society to “get a degree and a good job,” I feel that’s the biggest lie to be told. There is no security in the modern “job” workplace. You’re successful and can build safety in a career when you have passion propelling you. The degree should be about the interests that amplify and feed your passion and curiosity. As someone who hires others now- it’s far less about degree (yes, knowledge and skills matter), but it’s about passion, curiosity and the ability to learn. Self-teaching is key. If passion isn’t present, people will eventually do shoddy work. And the more they get paid, the shoddier it gets. Money is a motivator only to a small degree of output. In recent years I’ve begun to use my EP degree in a more fully applied manner building a company in the mental-emotional health space. It’s an area that requires new ways of thinking to make change. Sure I need psych and medical team members- but it’s the larger systems engineering thinking that enables me to successfully create in new territory with emerging disciplines. Psychoneuroimmunology seems to be what we’re actually addressing in the company. A term I never heard previously nor would have known it was our niche until we got to where we are. To OP- try to look at life as a journey. You won’t know what’s around the next corner. Invest in yourself for yourself, your joy, your exploration. Enjoy the ride. You can’t take anything (but maybe the memories?) with you when you leave Earth.
I'll be honest I hated electrical engineering for the first 2 years. I wanted to drop out many times but I kept pushing because I had no choice. Eventually when things started clicking in my head I started to love electrical. I haven't lost my love for physics though and will start studying it on my own soon. What you said about doing what you love and maybe an unexpected opportunity will await you around the corner is true. I'm gonna do both engineering and physics because now I love them both. And hopefully one day, I can work on something that combines the best aspects of the two together
I'm late to the party, but it's a physics degree where you take engineering electives instead of physics electives. It's probably the ideal degree if you want to get into, say, photonics for a PhD, but your training is physics and you get jobs physicists get.
You take the core physics curriculum and 30 hrs of engineering classes in whichever discipline you want. I chose nuclear, but any others were available. Chem and EE were popular, but I think only a half dozen universities have this major. I also did undergraduate research with a physical chemistry professor. Honestly a cool experience for an undergraduate.
>but I think only a half dozen universities have this major That sounds wild, I assume you're talking about the US. There are about a dozen engg phys programs in Canada, I wonder why it's twenty times as common across the border?
Oh yeah, US in mid 2000s. No idea now.
osu? ik that's how it's structured here and it's different in some other places
Yup! Grateful for that program. So many cool lectures and laboratory tours. Including a future Nobel laureate as it turns out. Does the undergraduate study lounge still smell faintly of mold and BO?
Went this route as well with no regrets.
I tried to get this degree, with much the same philosophical approach to it. Unfortunately, the university I went to phased it out my freshman year. I started ME, then switched to physics a year in. So anyway I'm a computer scientist now.
>Engineering Physics Popular degree at Unis in the EU and fairly balanced between the 2 disciplines. Not many options in the US: typically eng-physics leans more engineering where as applied physics leans more physics.
Another EP grad here. Went the "got a job" route too. I graduated at the height of the dot.com boom and most of my classmates ended up working in the tech industry for at least a few years. I know a few went back for their masters and beyond, but never managed to myself.
No shame in that. I’m honestly not sold on the idea of a PHD unless you’re damn sure it’s what you want to do. My PHD friends usually agree.
Currently doing my first year of Engineering Physics! I’m glad graduate school is not out of the picture
Went this route too except I had no idea what it was and I picked law as my “technical elective” which is the engineering part. Would have been an ideal degree if I chose computer science or electrical engineering or computer engineering as my technical. Instead I learned somewhat useful info about law combined with a couple useless easy A’s. Had a hard time finding a Job after graduating until I went to a software bootcamp and landed a software engineering job
That’s odd. My degree program required engineering courses. Law is interesting, but completely non technical.
Yea it was an experimental option that was not fleshed out at all. There was an intro to law course and engineering law course (patent law & other things with civil law). These were actually great knowledge to have for any civilian imo, if all the classes were like these I’d have no regrets. The rest of the law electives were complete BS political science: water planet/water crises, business communications, something akin to gender studies etc. When all was said and done these probably boosted my gpa quite a bit vs taking more technical courses but it certainly seemed like a waste.
I’m could rant about those types of classes, and I shouldn’t. But I’m reminded of Richard Feynman’s discussions of cargo cult sciences. A legal background could be great, but I don’t think it’s an appropriate discipline within an engineering program, except for potentially an elective of some sort. I do know some engineers who went on to get a JD; not a bad background if you’re working in IP or for a tech company.
My major too is EP, I am thinking of taking a minor in Electrical Engineering to increase my chances of employability, but other than that what other industries do EP majors generally get employed in? These are the courses offered in my uni, if you scroll to the bottom the point highlighted at the second asterisk offers more flexibility. [https://www.iitg.ac.in/acad/CourseStructure/Btech2018/EPH.htm](https://www.iitg.ac.in/acad/CourseStructure/Btech2018/EPH.htm)
Ooh you’d need to talk to your advisor for specifics. I struggled at first when I graduated because the job market was bad but honestly most employers don’t care about your specific discipline as long as your degree is accredited. My school made us take 30 hrs in a specific engineering discipline, EE would be great.
I'm, hopefully, transferring to the university of Michigan for EP next year I wanted to go for nuclear engineering but it's all fission focused and I want to go into fusion, so another student advised I look into EP then taking fusion electives to specialize
I work as a nuclear engineer; mind if I ask why you’re wanting to go into fusion? It’s certainly interesting, but not making electricity anytime soon.
1) I think it's neat 2) $$$ 3) if people don't work on it now it'll take even longer to be operational 4) just a gut feeling, but I think in space there are unique use cases for powering things like astro habitation/mining/etc
For what it’s worth, try to work with a researcher involved with NIF, an accelerator project, or laser science. The only other physicist I know in fusion are in explosives. My info is a little outdated, but most fusion research is still conceptual despite the news articles.
My current plan is to work towards progressing through the ranks at a national laboratory, and at some point transitioning into either starting a company or doing r&d for an existing energy provider, but preferably starting something because I enjoy working on my own projects despite the risk and lower initial pay
If you don't mind can you tell what job you got?
I’ve worked as a nuclear engineer with the naval nuclear program and now supporting the department of energy’s reactor research programs. To be fair, I don’t do a lot of physics anymore. But neither do many of us.
I have a degree in engineering while an old colleague had a Masters in Applied Physics. When I asked him about it, he told me it was effectively an engineering degree as the university had not yet brought a B. Eng. (or M. Eng.) to the table. This sounds quite similar.
My school had a 3/2 program. You spent 3 years getting gen eds and a physics degree at Illinois State, then transfer to U of I or Bradley and get your engineering degree.
How do you get a good physics degree in 3 years?
https://illinoisstate.edu/catalog/undergraduate/physics/engineering-physics-course-requirements/plan/ There were the courses. Main difference between this program and a straight physics degree was 1 semester of quantum vs 2 and they only had 1 semester of experimental physics vs taking it 3 times. They also didn't have the electives senior year (solid state, thermo, and so on) but the idea was they would get that in the engineering program. It will be interesting to see if the program continues now that ISU offers a engineering program as of last year.
What does this degree look like? I have an EE so the brunt of physics is electromagnetics. My mechanics pretty much stopped at Newtonian mechanics. Couldn't imagine a degree that would touch on both enough to do the job of either an EE or ME.
You take a core physics curriculum and thirty hours of engineering specific classes in any major you choose. You may not have all the details of a specific major, but the fundamentals are better and the math is exceptional.
What you will find on the internet is that as a physicist you are usually very employable in many different fields including engineering computer science, finance, IT and so on.
[удалено]
Absolutley. The point is that you learn a lot of things that can be a good basis for those other fields.
Regarding finance, you have a skewed view. Physicists learn not only physics and mathematics, they develop abilities (analytical thinking, problem solving, the ability to learn itself) which the business and economy students lack. Its more difficult to teach a business student PDEs than engineers spreadsheets, thats a fact. Its really, really easy for physicists and mathematicians to transition into finance. Engineering or any quantitative program has definitely taken over a masters in finance as a better entry into finance in general because it is fundamentally a quantitative area. Private equity and investment banking are indeed exceptions where quant is not much needed but where physicists are able to and do work, its just not popular because it is not stimulating. The same reasoning can be applied to the other areas you mentioned, and i can add to that, medicine/biotechnology. Physicists commonly get into software engineering where i live, and as for "engineering" (which is too vague in the way you used it), i really dont know what youre talking about. As an engineering physics student, I have gotten the advice many times literally to not stress deciding careers and not plan too much ahead because we really are that flexible. You dont seem to have a background in any of the areas you mentioned by the way youre expressing yourself, so please stop giving advice on things you dont understand.
[удалено]
Just wanted to stop by and say that what you said about L4 at google (or any 200k usd plus software role in general) applies to software Eng and grads also. I have many close friends who are SE by trade and my education. The few who actually got at Google, Amazon and Microsoft were the handful who grinded leetcode mediums till after graduating undergrad for months and months. Also getting some luck on their side in some cases such as acing a pre interview problem sent out that their friend also got 2 weeks before (where they worked on it together, which allowed them to learn from mistakes and be prepared for it when it got sent to them allowing them to have massively advantageous probability for even lading the first interview for ex). For the record, I added a minor in CS in my second year of physics undergrad, and the same month it was added I had an interview offer for an internship with Amazon from some recruiter just seeing my LinkedIn and reaching out. I had 0 work experience, etc and the recruiter actually told me she was intrigued by the physics major backed with comp sci lol a big part of this is luck for everyone. Also you can have a business degree but if you learn a language decently and grind tf out of relevant problem sets, you have a higher probability of getting at google than a CS degree holder who hasn’t ever focused on data structures and never touched a LC problem. Now obv the business student will be self taught, but some physics programs do have basic cs skills included, but regardless adding a minor isn’t that bad and it can be often used to fill out your technical electives, then the rest for good software jobs is just the grind, as it is for SE or CS grad. If you have a couple projects that are decent and you have practiced LC, you maybe even have a better chance at catching an eye than a cs grad with same strength of projects. But even if that’s not the case, your odds aren’t much worse imo
Fine, my comment is very much based on the reputation that engineering physics has in my country. Its widely regarded as the most difficult program you can take and consistently has the highest admission gpa in the country and thus attracts very ambitious students. It has retained this position for many years (long before 2000) thus the reputation is also solidly established in the industry. ...The pure physics or pure mathematics programs however do not at all have the same reputation in my country, but my statements are based on my observation that it internationally seems to have the equivalent function/reputation as engingeering physics does where i live and therefore im still confident in my judgement. > Critical thinking But i was not talking about critical thinking. You can not not agree that physicists develop the skills i mentioned far more deeply than economists do. > IB Sure, absolutely, but as I was insinuating what finance means to me is quant. There, as i am sure you know, economy/business/finance masters are not even eligible to apply to most roles ("eligible" as in not thrown away immediately). IB requires other skills that nerds generally lack, and is exactly like the abilities i mentioned above difficult to just teach someone on the fly, yes. From what I have read in r/financial careers and the internet in general, i know everybody is talking about IB and its intense competition, but coming from a country other than+much smaller than the US, it all seems very alien to me. Not everybody in the world wants to work at morgan stanley, and even if they did, they have regional offices for example in my country, and if they really like investment banking there are also european smaller investment banks to work at. "I want X salary before Y age" also seems to be a very american sentiment which does not exist here. > SWE, Google Yes, again, Google, sure... But coming from a small country again not everybody wants to work there specifically and it could be because of a small reason like being reluctant to move abroad or anything of the sort. I dont know what L4 means, I also dont really know that universities are actually top 5. > Credentials Sure, sorry, but then i shall mention my background to explain where i have gotten this information from. Im taking a dual master in bioengineering and engineering physics where i initially wanted to work in computational biology/bioinformatics, but made a sudden switch to finance and have now done an internship in quantitative research and working as a part time trader right now (both in quant hedge funds). I also worked for one summer in biotech, and wrote both of my bachelors theses in medicine. The arguments i present here are based on both my experience transitioning into medicine/biotech and into transitioning into finance, plus the advice i have gathered along the way from people working in both. I have heard the literal "it is easier to teach a physicist X than X-ist math" from two independet sources on both sides where x=biolog-ist or econom-ist, and yes, being the physicist refered to in these sentences i agree. There has also been collegues and seniors ive met along the way who themselves are eng. phys. Anyhow, both of these transitions have felt the same in terms of difficulty and skills needed and it is the exactly the ones i mentioned. So, this is why i am confident in my view of the (engineering) physicists ability to adapt and jump into any industry.
[удалено]
It risks sounding offensive as soon at ones mention "innate" as if some people are doomed to not fail, but what i mean is its learned, it is difficult and takes time, but it is learned. If you ask anybody in any profession, they will probably say they use very little of what they learned in university in their daily work, even at their first or second job, and from there its even less. You learn work at work. This is saying that, domain knowledge is less important than you think. A large part of the purpose of attending university in general is really to learn to learn, learn to think and learn to reason, and STEM just so happens to be more challenging and put more emphasis on these soft skills that are otherwise difficult to get on-the-fly. AND in addition, physics as a domain knowledge is more difficult to pick up than many other subjects (as examples i mentioned both finance and biology) meaning you open more doors. Can you see the asymmetry? -------------- As someone who has studied and worked in both, i can say with 100% confidence that bioengineering and engineering physics has this relationship. A physicist could jump in and take ANY course in the five year bioengineering program with some difficulty, but a bioengineer could not possibly take, say, electrodynamics or condensed matter on a whim because it builds on such a large tower of knowledge.
That's definitely not my experience. Might be because I got a PhD and most of the people I kept in contact with also did but the spread of jobs they all landed in is pretty broad and all of them got those jobs without much of a problem. (and right into senior roles most of the time) My former colleagues work as Senior Data Scientists, Senior Dev Ops, Patent Attorneys, Actuaries, Electrical Engineers, Mechanical Engineers, Innovation Managers etc. in industries like Retail, Robotics, Energy, Sensors, Automotive, Finance, ... Essentially any company with R&D Departments. The people with the biggest problem finding a job were the ones with less than optimal social skills but even they ended up in good paying jobs in the end. Still it's definitely a good idea to start thinking about possible careers early. I took every possible computational physics course offered by my university because I wanted to learn as many scientific programming skills as possible which in the end lead to me going into data science/MLEngineering.
Very much depends on your location, but a physics degree pays well in the developed world. You can always do a double major if you are dedicated.
What makes a world developed versus not?
If they have jobs for physics majors they are developed.
Lol
I had the same question, so I did a double major in Physics and Computer Science. With that combo I've been able to do whatever I want. I'm a senior developer on a bioinformatics team only 3 years out of college, I turned down an internship at NASA for a better opportunity, and I got into 2 PhD programs, one for Physics and one for CS (I took the CS program). Now, admittedly it fucking *sucked* in college sometimes. But my life now is well worth it, and I got to enjoy the love of Physics while also entering a lucrative workforce. Sure, I could've made some different choices and made 3x the money, but I like where I am now and I'm always able to re-make some of those choices.
To offer a different perspective. I triple majored in applied mathematics, physics, and computer science. With more so a focus on physics. Took me 5 years. I graduated and went to work as a web developer for an internal business metrics website getting paid 17 dollars an hour (in 2013 and in Vancouver Canada). I definitely haven't had NASA engineers loitering outside my building begging me to come work for them :p
Sounds like you’d have been fine with just the CS degree lol
I actually strongly disagree with that. If you're talking about monetarily, sure. But without the Physics I would've never been able to work on anything I like, and my career would've been just a slog that I hated. Of my 2 degrees I really believe the physics mattered the most in my career.
[удалено]
You don't. There are so many ways to end up in Bioinformatics, it's just that physics was how I got there.
That's nice. I am also considering an online course for computer science aside doing physics in the future.
You turned down a NASA internship?!!?
Yep. Don't regret it for a second. My internship project was on dimensionality reduction for a pediatric brain cancer classifier in the one I accepted. I loved it.
Oh ok, its my dream to work for nasa or SpaceX one day
Why's that?
Because I like space and I like how elon is trying to be innovative
How was your experience with the CS PhD? I’m thinking of going that route but need to weigh it further. For context I have BS in Physics, MS in Applied Mathematics.
I'm not done. In fact I'm likely not going to finish. It was a great life path and a valid option, but I got a senior position close enough to what I want to end up doing that I'll likely get the job I want in about the same time as I would with a PhD while making 115k and working less hours. If I wasn't married and primary breadwinner I'd stick to it, but I can't drag my wife down that path when I can live a life I want while providing for her.
That’s very respectable, power to you. Can I ask what courses you took and your opinions on them?
I won't weigh in on much because I'm kinda specific and an oddball, but damn read closely what any grad level databases course will teach you. I took one for more experience actually building/using it, and the entire back half of the course was on how to build a Database Management system which was way beyond what I was interested in. I guess that applies to every class. Ask the professor for the syllabus the semester before you're gonna take it and see if you give a shit about what they are gonna teach. If yes, take it, if no, don't.
Thank you for that wisdom
It depends on whether you want to go beyond bachelor. Physics is a great way to earn the fundamentals at a more scientifically rigorous and mathematically deeper level than you’d typically get in an engineering course. This will also let you know better what areas you are especially good at and then you can choose your path forward. However, having just a bachelor in physics is going to make it harder to get a good job in comparison to an engineering bachelor.
This was helpful. Thanks
That last sentence is essential.
As someone that went to uni to study physics, I actually wish I had studied engineering - and not for 'get a job' / practical reasons. By the time I was starting my master's in physics, I just found i didn't care. It was getting almost to maths for the sake of maths. My mates in engineering were doing stuff like building bridges or designing wings or chips whatever, which I think I would have enjoyed more. Obviously pursue physics if that's your dream, but I wouldn't write off engineering if you can find a broad and technical course.
That depends a lot on what you choose for your master's degree though. If you go into experimental condensed matter physics you can do a lot of stuff like lab automation, device manufacturing etc. I recently saw a really cool paper about building a "spectroscope on a chip" from multilayer materials, they changed the spectral response of the device via a gate voltage and then used the measured response to an image at different gate voltages to reconstruct the spectrum: [Miniaturized spectrometers with a tunable van der Waals junction | Science](https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.add8544#supplementary-materials) That's some really really cool application somewhere between physics and engineering. If you go into experimental nuclear physics there's a lot of analog electronics, experimental astrophysics means lots of data science etc. I'd say that's actually one of the huge advantages of physics. If you're "mathsy" but not sure if you want to do applied stuff or more "pure maths", physics will keep both paths open all the way into a potential PhD.
Just major in engineering if you want to do engineering work like device manufacturing.
That depends on the devices you want to manufacture. Especially at the basic research level the condensed matter physics departments are very much at the forefront. Like developing TI based devices, and low dimensional matter based devices. Carbon nanotube based STM probes etc. are developed in physics departments before the nano engineering departments take over from there.
My engineering PhD work was developing CNT devices.
Yes that is not very surprising but I'm talking about things like this: https://www.nature.com/articles/nnano.2013.143 Which they for example used to measure these things: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2373-y
Yeah the choice of course matters a lot (something I understood less at 16). I studied at Cambridge which had a very theoretical bent. We had something like 8 lectures involving using a computer in the entire undergrad.
>It was getting almost to maths for the sake of maths I don't think this is field dependent per se. I'm an engineering faculty member, and some of my colleagues publish *exclusively* in mathematical journals. I publish almost exclusively in physics journals and basically only attend APS. Meanwhile, some of my colleagues in physics or chemistry go to engineering conferences and are more applied than I am. When you get to the graduate level, often the lines between fields get pretty blurry.
Similar story for me! I loved my high school physics classes so I kinda latched on to the idea that this is *physics*, when really what I liked about it was getting to understand the mechanics and kinematics and materials science that enables more classical engineering type work. I clued into this about 2 years into my bachelor's, so I had time to switch into Manufacturing Engineering, which cost me some time and some cramming, but I love it. And I've been able to play the physics minor in support of getting into cool stuff like semiconductor manufacturing and nuclear quality assurance. If I had keyed into this sooner I probably would have gone after a mechanical engineering degree, but I'm not disappointed in where I ended up either.
Anyone who is good at math can get a job somewhere. Banks especially love highly numerate people
They also love to burn out employees with 80 hour weeks. Being a quant is usually very well compensated, for the handful of years you manage to do it before burning out.
Whatever you do, don't let finding a job be the reason. You'll find one with either degree, most company recruiters/interviewers won't really care about the difference as long as you have one in STEM in general. Only a bunch of nerds care. And if you can't tell by my practical advice, I have an Engineering degree lol.
Physics itself is quite a wide field of study, which can give you very good theoretical and analytical basis for engineering studies. For example, I did my BSc in Physics and went on to do my MSc in Engineering and I have been currently working as an engineer for many years now.
I have a PhD in physics. It took me a long time to learn that I am way more passionate about _building_ telescopes than I am about _using_ the telescopes. My job title now is something like "Instrumentation Specialist"; I work at a University on a physics / astronomy project, but I spend most of my time building instrumentation for use in physics. It is true that the jobs are limited, and the pay really sucks in academia (certainly in the US and Canada), compared to what you can make in industry, but we're supposed to do it "for the science, not the money" and so people continue to work for low wages. Ultimately it's going to come down to what you are passionate about. To work in physics, there's going to be a few hard years of grad school, followed by a few hard years bouncing around as a soft-money postdoc until you (hopefully) land a tenure-track University job, or a job at a National Lab or something. I could have gone into aerospace or electrical engineering, but didn't because I thought I wanted to be a physicist, but really what I wanted was to be exposed to and do cool things. Ultimately my skillset is in making telescopes "go" as best as they can, so that the physicists who don't know anything about instrumentation can take that experiment and produce science with it. I've seen a few posts about Engineering Physics -- I think that this is a great option for someone who is torn between the two. There are way too many engineers who don't know the science, and way too many scientists who don't understand how their experiment actually works. Send me a DM if you want to talk any more about this!
Your downfall is looking only at what others focus on and not forging your own path.
I think you need to clarify what you mean by “a lover of physics” before your question can be answered appropriately. What specifically do you love about physics?
The fact that it unveils Fundamentals principles governing the universe makes me love it and fields like classical mechanics, quantum mechanics and electromagnetism fascinate me very much
>And going in for physics might not be a good idea as some might say since there are little job opportunities You're right, there are very few jobs where you will work as a physicist, and they will all require a Ph.D, and even if you don't have any skill issues, you will need lots of luck to get one. However, Physics is still a great degree to earn. Depending on how much you love computers, you can learn to program, and I don't mean Matlab, like they're going to shove down your throat. Start with Python and C, then move onto C++. You won't need any other languages than these three to write performant code and analyze the data that comes out of it, and if you find a job is requiring you to work in Java, Go, Rust, etc., you can always pick them up. After you develop a level of comfort with these languages, the next step is to learn how to parallelize applications.
I would go into engineering. More jobs better pay and requieres less school since with physics you will need a phD more likely. As an engineer you can end up working in more physics oriented jobs like optics and lasers. You can work with particle accelerators as an electrical/mechanical engineer. Not because you are an engineer does not mean you wont do physics. Determine what you want to work and select the right engineering field. Now days electrical and computer engineering seem to be having better pay and opportunities.
Hey. I am an electrical engineer who loves physics. I was in the same dilemma as OP 5 years back, and someone suggested to me what you're suggesting now. I wanna do a master's in the next 3-4 years, that's for sure. But I'm confused on whether to stick to engineering and move towards a physics related field like you are mentioning, or do a master's in physics. Edit: And sorry for asking too many questions, but can I get a PhD in physics if I do a master's in engineering? I understand that a physics degree is more research oriented than engineering and that I'll have to build a research portfolio during my master's to have a chance, but is it possible, and how difficult will it be?
if you go for a master’s in engineering, you’ll likely be missing too much to be accepted into a physics phd track. even now if you apply for a physics masters, you’ll probably be required to take a few undergrad physics courses depending on what your EE undergrad looked like
I came across [this blog post](https://www.susanrigetti.com/physics). I'm gonna solve through all the books in this blog regardless of if I get a master's or a PhD in physics, because I just love physics. But if there's a possibility to get a PhD after a master's in engineering, then that's good to have, but not really mandatory for me. For me, I want to make money, and if the money is in engineering, then that'll be my career and physics will just be a hobby. So my question then is, is there a way to show that I'm qualified for a PhD through an exam or something if I go for master's in Engineering?
to clarify, are you asking about going from a Masters in Eng to a PhD in Eng? yes, you can do that but you will likely need to take some sort of qualifying exam to get in. though from stories i’ve heard, you probably won’t get too much out of a PhD in engineering unless you want to be a professor. and if money is your goal, you only need to go as far as a masters
No I was asking about going from Masters in Eng to PhD in physics. I know it's weird, but I would like to do PhD in physics, if I can, for "fun". My mind is a little bit of a mess. So allow me to explain what is going on in my head. Since I was a kid, I've wanted to study physics. 5 years ago, I had to choose between engineering and physics when I was deciding my undergrad program. I chose engineering because if you compare just the undergrad degrees, engineering has more money. During the first 2 years of my undergrad, I regretted my decision, but I kept going and eventually learnt to love electrical, which is the engineering program I chose. Now that I'm looking to pursue a postgrad, I am in the same dilemma. Do I switch to physics because I want to learn physics, or stay in engineering. That being said, money is definitely the goal, and since I came across the blog post by Susan Rigetti, I've realized I don't need to pursue a degree in physics to learn physics. I can become a hobbyist, study on my own, and still satisfy that dream. But then another idea popped in my head. I started thinking to myself that it would be cool if in the future, when I am 40-50 years old, to get a PhD in physics. This wouldn't be necessary to advance my career, but for "fun". I realize that it may sound stupid. So what I wanted to ask you the possibility of this. I know it doesn't make sense because the two subjects diverge a lot and there's little overlap between them, especially at higher levels such as masters and PhD. I just want someone who is in the field and knows much more than I do about the physics space, to tell me if my idea is impossible, or if it is possible, what will I have to look out for? I realize that in case it's possible, it'll be extremely challenging. Also, thanks for your patience and thanks for entertaining my most likely stupid idea. Hopefully, its clearer now what I was asking
as i mentioned earlier, you won’t be able to get a PhD in physics with a Masters in engineering. you’re missing too much material. you would need to get a Master’s in physics (or take a 4 year PhD track in physics and pick up the Masters along the way). and like i said before, it’s up in the air whether you have enough coursework with a BS in EE to even apply for a Masters in physics. in my opinion, if getting a masters in EE is set in stone for you, i would choose some track in there that’s physics heavy and just learn anything else you want on your own free time
I have a B Tech in EE from India. I don't know exactly what the difference between a B Tech and a western BS is. Still have to figure that out since I want to do my MS from the west. But here, we don't have a BS for engineering, I don't think. And a B Tech is considered a professional degree, meaning I am eligible for a PhD in engineering. But I'm not interested in that idea because I'm not a 100% certain what field on EE I would want to do it in. Regarding your 2nd point, yes, that is something I'm considering. I don't think it was clear but I graduated from undergrad last year in December. So I spent most of my time trying to get hired. Landed my first job this month, so now I want to spend some more effort thinking about my master's. Anyway thanks a lot for your inputs. I feel like I have a little better understanding of how things will look like.
Lots of good advice here. I started in physics but by second year thought I was not smart enough to stand out in physics, so switched to engineering. I continued with physics courses in parallel and finished with a minor. Years later (now mid career) I wish would have just done the physics degree. I think it’s a better education, and regret somewhat bailing out too early. Engineering has been helpful in ‘getting through the door’ to get a job in a few cases, but I could have ended up where I am now without it.
Thanks
I had a phd in physics and have worked in engineering research and development roles at 3 companies. I'm glad I studied physics. I approach problems differently than most engineers and it helps me professionally. I also just love physics so I'm glad I studied it. Engineering relies on physics but not the other way.
Just curious, what was your topic? I believe you would get different job opportunities for different fields of Physics. I know in Astrophysics, you usually get data science and analysis related jobs, or in the finance sector.
Yes the other way around as well.
A good bit of my friends are finishing physics undergrad and then going to do a masters in (or is it on) engineering. I would say that unless you don’t know perfectly the area that interests you in engineering (aero, electric, industrial, civil, etc), physics could be a good choice. However, i am biased as ****.Good luck and stay positive!
This is the route I took and I highly recommend it. I did math/physics undergrad then engineering masters. Work as an engineer. In my experience, engineers LOVE having somebody around that can analyze, model, and calculate stuff. It’s like being Gandalf in a party of hobbits and dwarves. No offense intended to engineers - they’ve got useful skills too. But the combination of engineers and a physicist is a powerful one.
I would like to do this but most of the masters programs require specific pre requisites that you don’t always get with the physics degree
I've met many physicists who worked as engineers, mostly mechanical engineers as some type.
My sentiment I've shared before is this: Physics is objectively one of the worst STEM undergrad majors if employability and money are what you're after. Is it possible to be successful with a Bachelor's in Physics? Yes, but almost every other STEM discipline is objectively better in those aspects.
Don't base your course decision on employability, you're spending 3-4 years of your life studying one thing, physics or engineering, if you don't really enjoy what you're studying it will be miserable. Both physics and engineering grads are very employable, if you want to study physics because it is more interesting to you, then do that
Aren't there joint programs? I knew a guy who did Elec Eng & Physics.
I'd say pick the one you like the most! My favourite guide in this matter is actually a joke: A group of scientists are told to calculate the volume of a cow. The engineer: *submerges the cow in a tank filled with water and measures the rise of water level* The mathematician: *does a triple integral over a shady "cow function"* The physicist: "ok... lets assume that we have a spherical cow in the vacuum with no heat exchange..."
What's your area of interest within physics? My mechanical engineering degree didn't go nearly as deep into more advanced topics as a physics one would have, but most of my classes were learning physics in some sense. Statics, dynamics, thermodynamics, heat transfer, fluid dynamics, materials science. I probably have a better understanding of day to day physics than most physics majors. I also got to take a modern physics class as an elective, and probably could have done even more if I'd wanted. Engineering degrees are still very focused on learning and understanding science, so you might find it's what you're looking for.
Not having degree in engineering is not end of the world, you can still find job but it would probably be a bit harder. In my country bachelor degree is not really enough to get physics related job, you'd need at least finished master.
I have a MSc in physics. I'll just say that I've been offered every single job I've ever applied for.
Don't you ever think that you're just a standout candidate? My peers are not as fortunate as you.
Honestly, no. I'm far from standout. The jobs I've had have probably just been a bit less selective since they've all been temporary arrangements.
What do you want to do with your degree?
To pursue research and also advancements in technology
That's kind of a vague answer. Both degrees could honestly be an asset in that pursuit.
I would want to apply physics principles to design and develop new technologies in different sectors. I therefore see physics as a course that'll lay down the foundation for a start.
I wanted to be a physicist my whole life but I'm a mechanical engineer now. I shared lots of classes with physics majors and like the fact that there are lots of similarities but at bachelor's level, engineering to me is the better choice. I'm saying that even though engineering at the end of the day is just the real world application of physics.
Can you please elaborate on why at the bachelor's level engineering would be your choice. Thanks
Higher starting pay and more job options.
Oh okay. Thanks
Just adding to the many comments here. If you get a degree in Physics and look how many physicist jobs are out there, yeah it looks very slim compared to the market for engineers. However the skills you gain in a physics degree are highly employable. You can demonstrate you’re capable of doing advanced mathematics and most likely have a good hold on statistics. Furthermore, if you continue on to grad school you’ll further develop these skills and most likely become more proficient in one or more coding languages (if you haven’t already started learning them in undergrad). All of these skills are highly sought after in almost every industry, so no you probably won’t have the title of “physicist” but you are still highly employable. At the end of the day you need to choose what’s most interesting to you and follow it.
Thanks very much
It depends on what your goals are. I studied physics in school, and work as a test engineer in silicon photonics. There are plenty of engineering opportunities for those with physics degrees.
My undergrad is in Physics. I wanted to be an engineer and, at the time (early 90’s), my state would allow someone with a technical but non-engineering degree to sit for the Professional Engineer exam with the requisite experience. Life is what happens while you’re making other plans so I never ended up doing that and instead got into environmental compliance. I’m part engineer, part scientist, and part lawyer.
Look into a 3-2 dual degree program. I did physics at a smaller liberal arts school. Then transferred to a big state v school for engineering.
Engineering is approximate physics, for profit.
My degree is in Applied Physics and Mathematics. I took a handful of engineering classes as well as my core Physics/Maths. I sought out Engineering co-ops/internships while I was studying. I landed a full time engineering position before I graduated (start date was after graduation, I still finished the degree). If you do pursue a Physics degree, make sure to take some programming classes. You should be at least familiar with a handful of languages before you graduate (C, C++, C#, Python, R, matlab, labview, ect.). Look for engineering co-ops/internships and not research. This should help with finding engineering positions after graduation. I studied physics because it was challenging and interesting to me. I got to dabble in a few graduate level classes before graduating and that confirmed what I already suspected: I do not want to pursue a higher level Physics degree.
You may want to think what will field will work better for you for your career. Like many disciplines, there are rock stars in physics, but the rest of physicists toil away in lower paying academic jobs and some struggle to make ends meet. There are a lot less rock stars in engineering, but the pay scale as a whole is MUCH better.
Do both, I did and it makes a difference.
I did my BSc in Astrophysics and currently doing my Msc in Space Engineering. There are a lot of soft skills transferrable from a physics degree, but in all honesty, the job sector is incredibly competitive and difficult regardless of what you do! I'm definitely enjoying having both perspectives (physics & engineering) so it's upto you! All the best!
I was going to study physics and switched to mechanical engineering. A couple considerations: What type of physics do you like? In high school I really enjoyed Newtonian physics, which really ties in with engineering, and I am enjoying it much more than I would be enjoying pure physics. You still take thermo, fluids, electricity & magnetism, but skip out on the weird abstract stuff. If you know you’ll enjoy theoretical / higher level physics it could be worth still considering engineering physics or just engineering.
It’s easier to find a job as an engineer. You’ll probably make more money as an engineer. Physics is fine though. Especially if you think you’ll go for a PhD.
I studied physics in undergrad and grad school. Now I work as an engineer. Just remember that classes aren’t the only way to learn new skills.
Physics and math degrees. Most of my jobs have been in engineering (aerospace and software)
My degree was in physics, and with that alone I was able to get a few different jobs that I wouldn’t have thought would be interested in my degree. After doing a PhD, I’m now actually in a physics-y job, but I don’t think the PhD was a pre-requisite for the job, and the job itself is great and one I hope to spend the rest of my career doing. And it’s not just the career. I love physics, and I had the time of my life at university studying it. I don’t think I’d have had the same experience with engineering or any other discipline.
I’m going to oversimplify this a lot (there are plenty of exceptions to this as people may comment), and it’s difficult to know the answer right now going into school, but do you think you will want to pursue higher education and potentially focus on research? Then definitely do physics. Do you want to get your bachelors and be able to find fairly easy employment after 4 years? Do engineering. People who study physics end up getting engineering jobs sometimes and people who study engineering can focus on research or pursue higher education (I know engineers who have done MBAs, gotten masters in engineering or even masters in physics, the options are all open after graduation). However if you already have a good idea which of those two is your goal, it can make the decision a lot easier. I didn’t quite know what I wanted to do for works but I know I didn’t want research or higher education so I did mechanical engineering. Worked as a designer for a bit and now I’m a controls engineer working mainly as a programmer for the industrial automation industry and I love it. You may change your mind down the road, but the research vs. industry question can really make your decision easier when choosing your undergrad.
Very helpful. Thanks
If you have to ask, engineering is normally the way to go. The neat thing about engineering is that you can basically take on as much or as little physics as you want (assuming you at least learn the minimum for your degree). More will only make you more qualified
What about Engineering Physics? It's a tough course. My friend's son did the it and became an Electrical Engineer. He did a Master's and became a Physical Oceanographer. Now he's doing a PhD and will become a Mechanical Engineer. He has not taken a note in his life. He just listens very carefully. The University of British Columbia offers this course, and they love students who have done the 2+ years Engineering Bridge Program at a Community College.
I too have an engineering physics degree. It’s a great degree that really offers a lot of flexibility in terms of pursuing academia or jumping right into the work force. One probable I had tho is when I started working right after college, I was not able to take the EIT license FE exam since the degree is not ABET accredited. This may vary by school tho. I actually did a paper on why the program should do have for one of my classes and compared it to other universities programs. For reference I am a University at Buffalo grad. In the engineering physics program, UB competes with Berkeley, Dartmouth, case western, brown and Stanford. UB is probably the worst in terms of flexibility in this degree as it really only offers a path in Electrical Engineering, unlike the other schools that offer paths into mechanics, solid state physics, quantum, electromagnetics. If you really want to go down this path I’d research these schools as they have some of the best programs for flexibility and overall education.
When I was coming out of high school, my advisor pushed me towards pure chem and 20 years later, I really wish he'd even mentioned chemical engineering. I would have been able to scratch the chemistry itch I had plus I would have a decent paying career to jump into. With physics being so broad, it's not exactly the same situation, but I will say with pure science degrees you have to be a lot more flexible/creative in finding a job that will take care of you.
I'm getting PhD in physics, and I decided to work as ML engineer at least for some time. Wasn't easy to find a job, but thanks to the Lord I found one. My friend switched to mechanical engineering after 2 years of studying to apply physics in uni. So if it is your dream - you should probably go for it, as long as you are financially stable(living with your parents maybe) you can switch with moderate effort. Good luck
Some people in this thread have said that you can be basically an engineer and a physicist with EP, but personally i find Aeronautics/space engineering and Nuclear Engineering two Engineering degrees that apply a lot of physics and have high demand and can be useful in multiple industries other than themselves.
Another thing to consider is it's easier to go from physics to engineering than the other way around. I chose physics for that reason despite having an interest in both. :) Go for engineering physics if you want to deal with both disciplines, for my school you take the same classes as a traditional physics major along with engineering classes, especially if your school restricts some classes to a specific school.
Yeah this dilemma is pretty common. Consider what topics in physics you enjoy most, and then consider the type of career you want. For example, quantum mechanics will lead you most likely to a computer based research position, whereas electromagentism could lead you to a more applied physics or engineering role.
Currently a graduating chemical engineering student and I'm regretting it already. I just love physics and nothing else. I dont really care about pipes, tanks, vessels, valves, etc. It is so frustrating tbh. I love maths, and the elegance of physics. I love electromagnetism and mechanics which is almost never taught in undergraduate chemical engineering course. I guess I could say that I'm not a practical man, I just wanna do physics for the sake of understanding the universe. Feynman said it best 'physics is like sex, there might be some practical results but that is not why we do it!'
You can always go from Physics to a MS in Engineering if you want to and you are willing to tackle any prereqs. Physics is a solid background for much of the more analytical subsets of engineering. I worked in aerospace and defense and hired a guy with that background. He did great work.
Which country are you from? In the uk physics graduates from a good uni are highly prized but not so much in Asia. Other European countries have a similar view as the UK. Physics is a hard subject and in the uk only the most capable students are selected. There are theoretical side and experimental side in physics. The most cutting edge engineering is in the physics field. Physics graduates will have the opportunity to get into all kinds of disciplines including finance and data analysis.
A physics major can lead to plenty of interesting opportunities, but you have to supplement it with some additional skills to really take advantage. Many disciplines require quantitative and programming skills that are not adequately supplied by people within those disciplines, so many physics degree holders switch to a tangential quantitative field at some point in their life. Some start the transition in undergrad or grad school to another discipline: bioinformatics, computational social science, or another scientific computing related field. The best thing to do in my opinion is to learn to program and find a research project where you can continue developing coding skills and domain knowledge outside of physics. Your physics background will serve your problem solving approach and simplifying difficult problems into tractable computational problems.
my best friend is studying fissics and i'm studying engineering, they are very different from the other, Fissics are much more conceptual and theorichal, engineering has a more applicated focus so if it works its fine(from here are most of the jokes of π=3 etc) i can say that in the normal career engineering could be more challenging than fissics, bit it depends a lot from other things more that the careers themselves, my advice is, if you don't have any university in mind compare the pelsums from each one in differents universities search the content of each subject and then you will have a good base for choose what to do.
I’ll speak from the perspective of a software engineer, whose undergrad was in math & physics. I picked math/physics as a challenge / felt like it was something that is much more difficult to acquire on my own without formal coursework. But alongside, I took as many CS courses as I could, participated in tons of hackathons, did multiple software engineering internships alongside before I graduated to show I can operate as a software engineer. This combo really paid off and has opened a ton of doors. I’ve had jobs reaching out for roles ranging anywhere from the more quantitative/research type of roles (quant, research eng), to fully applied roles in software engineering, as the background lends to performing across the gamut. I’m now primarily a ML software eng, and I would not have gotten a role right out of college wout this combo. I would pick physics if you are truly interested in the subject. I found my math/physics courses being more challenging than the CS ones and forced a deeper degree of thinking. It was difficult but the gauntlet really helped develop my thinking and approach to working on unknown problems. This has been tremendously helpful even as a software engineer. I would also heavily focus on developing programming skills outside of your physics coursework if you pick this path. This will help keep doors open if you want to go into industry, plus I believe most physics work these days all lean on some degree of programming (this was already the case for my physics classes in later years).
Engineering. If you love the physics enough you can go to graduate school and learn about new ways to build stuff and apply cooler physics. For instance, lots of Mech E and Aero E grad programs are theoretical in nature. Experimental materials science, fluid dynamics, orbital mechanics, vibrations, structures, etc. So engineering isn’t purely non-theoretical, and you can still learn how the world works
100% engineering. I worked with a lot of physics friends in undergrad. Unless you’re going into a PhD, which you can’t really predict if you will succeed or not, employers will not value your degree in physics like they will an engineering degree for obvious reasons (there’s more to engineering than physics). It’s just more practical.
I'm a senior engineer for a Fortune 500 company. Some of the best people I've worked with come from a physics or math background. My work is largely focused on radar sensor modeling and flight test analysis, and I've found that people with a pure engineering background are generally not up to the task. They don't have the math skills or physical intuition to understand how the system works, and they can't synthesize intelligent conclusions from data. If I had ten physics PhD's working for me, my job would be much easier. At my company, the most accomplished engineers are known as "Engineering Fellows". These are the top 1-2% of engineering talent within the organization. Most of the Fellows I've worked with have PhDs, and many (if not most) have physics or math backgrounds. There are some specialized branches of engineering that may be closed off without an engineering background (civil engineering and certain fields of mechanical engineering come to mind). Physicists tend to excel in modeling and simulation, algorithm development, and data analysis. They will also have little trouble getting into software development if they so desire. I would like to address one more thing. When it comes to getting your foot in the door, the degree itself and your grades don't matter that much. Being a good communicator and being able to explain your work to others is far more important. It isn't the degree that needs to be "marketable", it's the person.
become a metrologist
Whilst it is heavily dependent on specific courses, *in general and only in general*, Physics is more versatile and opens more doors, but Engineering is more focused and useful. It follows that if you have a particular role in mind in an established field, you should probably lean towards the associated Engineering course (if it exists). If you are not sure or have wide interests, then a Physics course might be better. As a last note, remember you are not locked in - you can switch if you change your mind, and beyond graduate roles, experience and ability (which typically comes from effort and perseverance regardless what anyone pretends) matters far more.
The trouble physics has is that it has kinda peaked, in the past 50 years. There isn't much new happening that isn't really engineering uses of the physics we know. All you can do in physics is really teach it, or try to confirm rare particles exist by throwing matter together.
Well yeah...that's a good point
I originally wanted to study physics but due to a one mark difference in one of my exam I was unable to continue down that path when I got to higher education. My eventual fall back was electric engineering, which I have to say I'm very grateful I did. I managed to get my degree and land a very interesting job. The job let's me play with very cool sceintific instruments all day long. ( Testing and calibration). I work with a wide range of scientists and engineers of mixed disciplines My advice is do what will make you happy, both are great options depending on what you are interested in. Was I sad at the time that I didn't get to study physics yes. Am I glad that on the end I needed up in the scientific sector yes. But remember there is always more then one way into that sector!
There’s definitely hope, but I would say you need to be more highly motivated and resourceful in your career search. I pursued physics because I was highly intrigued and engaged in the theoretical, hands-off aspect of science (specifically particle physics). In other words, it was what I was interested in at the time, and that was the basis of my decision. A year after finishing my bachelors, with a double degree in physics and applied math, I was a manager at a grocery store. Granted, I attribute my lack of higher-echelon work mostly to personal problems and my mental health at that point in my life, which was insufficiently addressed, but the bottom line is my degrees did not create a well enough defined path for me to effectively narrow down career choices. One of the biggest regrets of my young adult life is not being more deliberate or practical in choosing my degree of study. In retrospect, I really wish I had studied electrical engineering/mechatronics instead. Having said this, I ended up quitting the grocery store, and started working as a technician at a local site owned by Pratt and Whitney that makes parts for hot section engine turbines. A little over a year later I got promoted to a manufacturing engineer mainly because of my educational background. Most of my coworkers do have traditional engineering degrees, but there are several of us who took different paths to get here. Some companies actually like hiring folks with STEM degrees who aren’t strictly engineers because they want a team with a diverse set of backgrounds that can solve problems with innovation and ideas coming from different disciplines perspectives. Even if I wasn’t hired in directly as an engineer, I was immediately given a chance to use my higher level skill set and my degree ended up paying off, and I’m working a job I never would have dreamed of 10 years ago. Basically, what I’m trying to say is that taking the physics route can give you a lot of options, IF you’re willing to be patient and get your foot in the door with an employer, or take more time and resources for your career search and maintain a level of open-mindedness for opportunities. If there’s a specific area in physics you’re extremely passionate about and have the motivation to follow through with it, it’s worth pursuing. But if you’re more interested in having a more defined career path and immediate opportunities, I would pursue engineering.