/sci/ - Science & Math

As for postgrad prospects, I will leave you with this message from a professor in Physics.

http://physics.wustl.edu/katz/scientist.html

>>7341914
>studying only for muh job
>having no other interests
>wanting to stay in your field forever
>overidentifying with your studies
How to spot a freshman engineer.

The same thing happens with engineers: http://www.ospe.on.ca/news/211331/New-OSPE-report-on-the-crisis-of-underemployment-among-Ontarios-engineers.htm

All of STEM is fucked.

>>7341917
>Claiming to have an interest in science
>Studies a degree that doesn't allow him to work in science
>Actually wanting to be a high-school teacher or a code monkey
>Literally claiming he doesn't even want to stay in his interest

How to spot a freshman lib art major.

>>7341923
No one cares about some shitty state in canada, the national unemployment rate is 2%, those not working in engineering are in prestigious jobs like investment banking and consulting, rather than code monkey shit and high-school teachers:
http://www.usnews.com/education/best-graduate-schools/articles/2013/03/14/engineering-grads-enjoy-greater-job-prospects

Literally wish I had someone to talk to me like that, OP.

I have a BS/MS in Mathematics and I'm considering returning for my 2nd BS degree in MechE/EE in spring 2016 because of relatively difficult job prospects. I was admitted for an MS in MechE this fall and I hope to complete that by summer 2016. By summer 2017, I should have a BSME.

I was told, like many math majors before me, that studying math will lead to this-and-that in job/career prospects. Literally not the case at all.

>>7341925

Scratch what the other guy said I don't even think you're out of high school yet because lib arts majors complain all the time because they feel they're entitled to a job in their field and cry oppression when they don't get it.

It's funny because physics plebs continually shit on engineering on this board as if they know any more math or their degree is any harder.

>>7341917
>thinks studying your interests can only be done in college
How to spot a grade A retard.

>>7341941
Why would you need a BSME if you're already getting a MSME?

Also, I'm finishing up an engineering degree but I'm thinking of doing a MA in pure math, I can probably get funding and will probably go back to engineering afterwards. Is this a good/bad/stupid as shit idea?

>>7342014
Only bachelor degrees are accredited, you can't get professional licensure with a post-grad degree.

There's little reason to it in terms of getting a salary or career prospects bump unless you're aiming for a research career, only do it if you have real interest and want to stay cosy in academia for a while longer. M in control can give you a salary bump, but it's not worth the 2 years it takes where you aren't earning a salary, so again only do it if you have an interest.

>>7341914
>Don't be stupid, work harder to get an engineering bachelors and reap the benefits.

where you live it is easier to get a physics degree, then an engineers degree? xD That is the reason why physics is in the shit. xD

Bachelors in Physics? You can't do shit with that xD.

I am studying physics and it is common sense in my universaty that if you dont do a Masters, you might as well have dropped out in the 1st years.

Bachelors in physics is what highschool is for engineers xD. I believe that in any science u need to go deeper than bachelors.

In a bachelors you are just told how the universe works. When you do a masters you are told what you can do with that information (to become a theoretical or a experimental physicist)

Some greedy engineers will go like: "b-b-but in engineers you j-j-just need a bachelors" . In science you are not being trained to be a calculator. To see formulas and apply then as robots. You need time to become a scientist. This also applies to god tier engineers.

For exemple... A true scientist would not pick up a kindergarden graph that is meant for teens and would say word for word what it says. A scientist would see what kind of things are taught in a bachelors in physics. He would see what kind of colleges and universaties give colleges degrees. He would analyze how hard it is to get in a physics degree. He would analyze how hard it is to get it. And then he would come here and say what it had to said.

If you want money, dont find science boring and you are procrastinator that is all the time in 4chan, by all means got to engineering, and avoid the hard ones.

If you like physics, truly like physics, then come to physics or a god tier engineering. Dont be those dumbass that want a STEM but cant get in engineering and does not like math and decides to come to physics and once they get a bachelor's they get the fuck out xD

>>7342030
Found the freshman.

>>7342030
Shut the fuck up you physics freshman.

>>7342033
>>7342034
BTFO

>>7342030
Even a masters is useless. Nobody is impressed by that. Ever. A PhD could get you somewhere, but only if you're in the top 5%-10% of your field.

>>7341917
>it's literally impossible to pick up a physics textbook and read it on your own

OP are you that guy who always argues with me? If yes, you're a pleb.

>>7342030
>where you live it is easier to get a physics degree, then an engineers degree?
Yes, I live in the USA >>7341813. Entrance requirements are also higher and the degree is commonly recognized as easier http://www.thebestcolleges.org/top-10-easiest-and-hardest-college-degree-majors/ on top of having a lower courseload.

Just my conclusions from the information I receive.

But the point of my thread isn't to shit on any field or even the people in it, it's to shit on the degree that is the Bachelor of Science in Physics. Like others I was also told in undergrad about the wonders of the degree and how everyone will suck my dick to employ me, but this is simply not true. Another core point that even if you want to be a researcher and get a physics PhD it's still better to get an engineering bachelors over a pure physics B. because it is not only more attractive to R&D for being able to sign off on major work, but it also lets you negotiate for higher salary. In addition many B engineering holders are reporting jobs in R&D as a professional researcher (or working high tech on LHC, nuke reactors etc.), why should you not do a degree that already allows you to be a researcher with just a bachelors?

>I am studying physics and it is common sense in my universaty that if you dont do a Masters, you might as well have dropped out in the 1st years.
This right here, why should this be the case? Why would you study something where after 4 years you are treated as dirt and need to do another degree?
>I believe that in any science u need to go deeper than bachelors.
Should not be a degree if you are not recognized as competent upon graduation. The courseload should be higher and the difficulty should be standardized to the point of being a professional degree like engineering. A post grad should be to specialize you further, not still be teaching you how to do research which should be fundamentals.

Show universities this is unacceptable and let the physics bachelors die.

Engineering PhD ITT. As useless as it can be

>>7341947

dont think you know what lib arts is

>>7342021

In many states you can get licensed if you have a 2 year degree and 10 years of work under a licensed individual.

>>7342051
>>7342123

>>7341914
lel
Now let me pull out my chart that shows how people like you won't last in a STEM field, and so in the end you'll actually be worse off than those of us getting physics degrees.

Enjoy wasting you time at Uni

>>7341914

This applies to all sience. The stem shortage was all a lie to try to hide the problem of no or low paying jobs and to reduce the value of the degree.

The solution is a political one.

>>7342125
ABET also accredits engineering technologists (often just called "engineers") under the Sydney accord (http://www.ieagreements.org/sydney/)) and technicians under the Dublin accord (http://www.ieagreements.org/dublin/)) too, while this also requires a certain amount of years of experience this is different from a professional engineering license which under the Washington accord can only be granted to accredited 4 year bachelor holders (http://www.ieagreements.org/washington-accord/).).

I am certain you are thinking of engineering technologists, but it it really is true for a state it would not hold federally or internationally.

>>7342142

What I wrote is true.

>>7342134
>Now let me pull out my chart that shows how people like you won't last in a STEM field
Why haven't you?

>>7341914
>and have no respect or money LIKE REAL PEOPLE that age
-Deepak Chopra
-Holds a degree with excellent job prospects
-Rich
-Respected by millions of 'his' followers
-Complete moron and fraud

Some people study physics not for money or fame, but to understand the universe and its workings. This may not seem satisfying to you, but you are not them and they are not you. Plus we can scoff and snigger at plebs who can't buy brains with all their millions.

>>7342257
what is the point of knowing physics if you're poor?
Not getting a physics degree doesn't make someone deepak chopra. For someone who claims to be above plebs, you don't demonstrate it.

>>7342257
>Doing a sub-par degree because you can't manage your time to fit your intellectual interests in your spare time like everyone else.
>Thinking you have any right to post disdain.jpg's

>>7342276
>what is the point of knowing physics if you're poor?
You're right. And I will concede I was being a bit of an ass. But physicists don't use their own money. I mean, the Hubble Telescope and the LHC cost billions to build, but that was public money hehe. Why work for all that money when the public will pay for your science experiments? Some people want to buy giant yachts and drink expensive champagne. Others want a space telescope or giant collider. To each their own.

>>7342061
>http://www.thebestcolleges.org/top-10-easiest-and-hardest-college-degree-majors/

This study doesn't take into account important factors like the average work efficiency among students of a same major (what tells you life sciences major are on average capable to complete the same amount of work as Cs majors ?). Do engineer major drop out more because it's harder, or because the degree attract more undetermined people who got lured by the money and job prospects ?

Selection bias everywhere. Although I suppose I agree with you on the physics bachelor, it's a bit dishonest to call it a degree so people imagine you can do anything with it.

>>7341914
>40% go directly into the workforce
Where I'm from 95+% goes on to do a masters degree, you're worthless without

This just in: You need a PhD to do anything in physics

NO FUCKING WAY

>>7342061
Not even him, but:
>Life sciences
>Social/behavioral sciences
>Fucking Business

Those are not fucking hard fields. Anyone who states business is a hard degree is fucking retarded. The only thing that makes business seem 'hard' is the fact every shithead wants one, so elite (say top 50) Unis that have business schools usually make their students apply for them.

>>7342287
LHC and hubble were literally built by engineers you autistic fuck.

>>7342394
It's not actually that simple. Astronomy instrumentation and experimental particle physics are grey areas between engineering and physics. They are almost universally part of physics departments. Particle physics instrumentation is almost all physicists, astronomical instrumentation is about half people who studied physics or astronomy and half engineers.

>>7341914
If I'm going to do a PhD in physics right after my bachelor's then why does it even matter.

>face when I can transfer into my school's engineering program, which is top 10
>instead double majoring in physics/math and minoring in compsci
>self-learning shit like matlab, arduino, etc.
>I'm not bad with my social skills/teamwork

Majoring in "engineering" just feels so watered down. It's a literal trade degree. I guess that's fine for some though. I know I really want to focus on the theory behind the physics and math.

>>7342281
>>you can't manage your time to fit your intellectual interests in your spare time like everyone else

>not tailoring your career around your intelligence
>being this much of a plebeian

Engineers have been getting really riled up these last few months, wouldn't you say, physicsbros? What's the matter with them anyway? Are they mad that our courseload is much more intellectually demanding and the cutting edge of science lies on physics instead of their trade degrees?

I really don't know these days. Maybe it's just cock dry season or something, I don't know.

>>7342462
le kooky physics professor meme

>plays drums in celebration of making big fire like typical chimp

>>7342497
>This is the state of today's engineers

I'm glad I went the based pure route. I really would not want to end up like you people.

Daily reminder 3 engineers won last year's Nobel prize in physics.

>>7342499
Sorry I'm actually a physics student.

Obviously you've bought into the shilling a little too hard though, broskie.

>>7342499
There are 3 guys in my engineering class who are doing their second degree in engineering because they fucked up and majored in math or physics and now they can't find a job.

I look forward to being your control systems TA.

>>7342040
>A PhD could get you somewhere, but only if you're in the top 5%-10% of your field.

Someone post that news article of the physics PhD committing suicide after finding work at a call center.

>>7342504
What the fuck did they expect to do with just a bachelor of physics? That's literally just hitting the baseline necessary to move further in the field and actually start learning things necessary to work in it. Over here in Europe a bachelor of physics from a good uni gets you further than eng degree though, so there you go.

>>7342518
That was the one in the UK, right?

Also,
>not having connections
Come on man, a call center? There are so many shit colleges in the US and physics PhDs still teach at those. There's also a "backup" of software engineering.

>>7342518

>>7342521
>Over here in Europe a bachelor of physics from a good uni gets you further than eng degree though
If a PhD from Europe gets you a job working in a call center, I can't even imagine the type of job a bachelors will get you.

Also, nice job replying to the wrong post, ya dumb cuck.

>>7342527
What I've read indicates that the majority of such teaching positions, even at shit colleges, go to people who graduated from the top-whatever colleges.

>>7342504
They also gave a nobel prize to Obama, they are not worth much.

>>7342533
It's a general rule of thumb that the school you get a job at is one tier below where you did your PhD. A PhD from Harvard can get you a job at a second rate research school like Purdue. A PhD from Purdue can get you a job at a no name school. And a PhD from a no name school can do this >>7342530

>>7342535
Different prize, different committee, different criteria.

I thought you physics majors are supposed to be smart, at least that's the myth /sci/ perpetuates.

>>7342535
I'm in engineering.

>>7342533
I'm speaking from experience with professors at my old uni. They were mostly int'l graduates, like from Pakistan, Colombia, etc. or went to in-state unis. They somehow got hired.
I transferred to a top 20 uni afterwards and the physics profs here are indeed from top schools, but that seems expected.
There really are lots of tier 4 and community colleges out there. They don't soak up professors but it's not impossible to get hired.
>implying that's what physics PhDs want to do with their lives anyway
Still, a call center? I'm thinking that guy was just too much of an autist to ace his interviews. And the UK market is more ass than America's.

>>7342536
But then who goes on to get hired at Harvard/MIT/etc?

And this is true for academia, yes.

>>7342548
>But then who goes on to get hired at Harvard/MIT/etc?
The best of the best.

>>7342536
>It's a general rule of thumb that the school you get a job at is one tier below where you did your PhD

Yeah I found this out when I looked up the credentials of all my lecturers and realised literally all the ones under 40 were Cambridge or Oxford educated, with 1 or 2 Imperial.

Why are there so many engineers on /sci/ that post these regret threads? Are they literally this insecure that they have to dig around on the internet for news articles (lol) confirming their bad life choices and biases? Why do they not simply enjoy their own ignorance? It is comparable to mormons going by people's houses shoving their failed life choices down everyone's throat. Apparently, shoving things down ones throat is popular in engineering culture, but I digress. Do you seriously think your intelligence comes anywhere near as to even the dumbest of people in science and mathematics? If so, I can do little but laugh at your staggering inability to absorb relevant information, and I pity you, engineer, for your lack for intelligence in these matters. For if you were as intelligent as you claim to be, you would not have made the mistake of choosing a bums life, feeding off the crumbs we throw at you. No, you are not intelligent at all, and these threads are the proof you know this. You seek approval from those who loathe you. And in this, you look up at us, looking at us as your superiors. And we deny you.

>>7342549
Might be true, but I don't think they all come from Harvard/MIT. There are most likely zero from, say, UC Riverside, but I think some come from "lower ranked" unis.

>>7342544
>>implying that's what physics PhDs want to do with their lives anyway
Indeed.
Just finished 1st sem physics gonna abandon ship though.

>>7342556
Clearly my friend you have been injured by your own life choices and still bear the scars of your education. Truly psychological trauma is an insidious affliction, for it leaves no outward sign [other than turning the victim into a raging autist, of course].

>>7342557
The one person who came from the lower ranked uni took advantage of relative deprivation. This Malcolm Gladwell talk sums it up.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UEwbRWFZVc

Engineering is glorified vocational degree. You learn no theory.

>>7342556
I worry that the type of high schooler autistic enough to come to /sci/ actually buys into the crap you're saying and ends up wasting 4 years of his life because >muh master race pure science

>>7342574
Your post is funny because you're confirming the guy entirely.

>>7342560
>Just finished 1st sem physics gonna abandon ship though.
>1st semester physics
Nigga you weren't even on the ship to begin with

>>7342574
>high schooler autistic enough to come to /sci/ actually buys into the crap
Hey, that was me four years ago. It's true that a degree in physics alone isn't worth much though. I found that out through some research. You have to dual major or minor in math or computer science or something to be competitive.
I'm >>7342446 btw.

>>7342733
For this I can only count myself lucky.

>>7342750
Students remorse.

As a physics major, and someone who has been around graduates from that major, I can say you are all very ill-informed. Practically all physics majors who want to go into industry get good jobs right out off college, and more than that, can work in a wide array of fields. I have absolutely no clue where from people get the idea that it's hard to get a job as a physics major.

>>7341941
>I was told, like many math majors before me, that studying math will lead to this-and-that in job/career prospects

lol what

if you're not planning to go get your phd then get out of the department

>>7342462
>not tailoring your career around your intelligence
What career? Have you not read this thread? Physics B is the wrong move if you actually want a science career.

>>7342562
what is wrong with that?

>>7342843
Sounds like you're just not very intelligent

>>7342848
Vocational degrees are great if all you want is money.
You need the theory to do some real scientific work though.

>>7341914
>In the last ten years employment has dropped 10% down to 35%.
I suspect that is true across the market.

What's it like being jealous of someone else's degree?

>>7342562
> You learn no theory.
>>7342851
> Engineers don't do real scientific work though.
That's wrong though

>>7342889
Alright, I'm biased. Yes, there are a few types of scientific work (at least in physics): experimental vs. applied vs. theoretical. An engineer could be trained well enough to do the first two, but will be handicapped at the last. You guys work hard, but don't learn to work "smart." Engineering simply isn't about understanding and manipulating theory. It's about doing the scientific dirty work that other people have thought up already.

>>7342907
Yeah theoretical physicists, like Krauss, and Michio Kaku stand the fuck back.

>>7342928
>memeposting

>>7342907
But you don't know anything about engineering research.
> it's dirty work because I don't want to do it
pretty dumb reasoning imo

is it viable to get a bs in physics and then pursue a masters in engineering?

>>7342509
>There are 3 guys in my engineering class who are doing their second degree in engineering because they fucked up and majored in math or physics and now they can't find a job.
>I look forward to being your control systems TA.
kek, same here, I'm TAing one Physicists for the third time next year because he's stupid enough to think he can pass junior chemeng courses while working part time. I kind of feel bad for the guy to be honest, his bitch of a wife is getting ready to leave him for having a low paying job even though she only contributes minimum wage.

>mfw even feminists conveniently try to enforce the breadwinner stereotype like it's the fucking 30s.

>>7342521
If by "Europe" you mean Germany then sure. No one cares though, we're obviously talking about countries where the engineering profession actually exists as it's defined under international standards. Engineering doesn't mean the same everywhere as it does in the West.

>>7342556
Wow. Even in your own bait post you admit that you are jealous and bitter towards us.

>>7342257
Fuck Deepak Chopra

>>7341914
>work harder to get an engineering bachelors
>work harder
>for an engineering degree

>>7342803
Are you retarded?

This is taken straight from the American Institute of Physics' publication on careers, it's not OP's opinion, it's statistics from the AIP's data.

Learn to read.

>>7343773
>American Institute of blah blah
>implying America means shit in the world

>>7343762
Then why do you look up to scientists and mathematicians? You're proving his point by making yet more excuses.

>>7343322
No, that's probably the worst possible pathway you can take.

You can not get an engineering job without an accredited bachelors, engineering grad-school is only meant to specialize bachelors for a specific industry in a M. or to go the PhD route for a research career. A masters will mean literally nothing to you.

Honestly as a b. cheme holder I don't really see the point of engineering grad-school myself, personally I'm doing a Physics M. in solid state materials research then PhD for a materials R&D career (already have a job lined up; if you do grad-school always try to get private grants because they employ you if you do good work for them).


Either do Physics M. -> Physics PhD -> research career / post doc -> more academia,
or do an engineering B. -> industry -> more money/more grad school later in your career.

Maybe even do an MBA directly.

I've already realized that masters in theoretical physics was a terrible choice. I have come to conclusion that academic carrier offers you basically no benefits. The biggest problem for me right now is where to find motivation to study for finals....

I want to pursue carrier outside academia after I finish. Luckily, it is not impossible where I live.

>>7341914
>>7341879
>be faggot first year chemical engineer
>sperg it up on a thread about which major would be the best in a post apocalyptic world
>get blown the FUCK out by 5 people
>spend three days autistically compiling stats about a degree unrelated to what people were saying
>claim not to be butthurt

>>7343760
>germany is not in the west
where do you live bro? Also, we germans are some of the best engeres in the worlds, so fuck off murica fanboy

>>7344340
The German word for engineer is different form US, UK/Commonwealth, France, Russia, Japan, Korea etc.

They're technicians. The German bachelor in engineering is not accredited under the Washington accord and they are one of the few EU countries who's engineering degrees do not have international accreditation and recognition.


I'm not a yank fanboy, I'm a German citizen studying in the US, German engineering schools do not exist, I would've studied Physics if I was forced to study in Germany.

>>7343846
This guy? >>7339897

>>7342907
Fuck off. A degree doesn't define you. Thinking an engineer in a top graduate school can't understand theory is meme tier.

>>7343782
America probably has the best market for physicists. The rest of the world is much worse.

>>7342562
I switched to engineering and never looked back. pure science is full of autists that shit on your ideas unless you have 5 PhDs engineering anyone is willing to give your ideas a shot and if they're not just do it yourself, make money from your design and watch the hateful autists cry. With pure science if the autistic establishment doesn't like your ideas then it is all over for you. Look at Frank Whittle, if he was a physicist his turbojet idea would have been thrown into the trash and left there but because he was an engineer, when the RAF trashed it he simply built it and made them eat their words.

>>7344453
Well in the UK only about 6% of graduates are unemployed, the important point to remember is it doesn't say <span class="math"> why [/spoiler] those 6% are unemployed.

>>7344581
>I switched to engineering because I wasn't good enough

>>7341914
Honestly OP, I had to choose between studying engineering and physics. What made me choose the latter was the fact that in the end a physicist can get accredited and employed as an engineer, but an engineer can't as easily get employed as a physicist. I guess I prefer versatility over security.

>>7344594
>the opinions of some poorfag professors is relevant to an engineer on 300k starting

>>7344609
>What made me choose the latter was the fact that in the end a physicist can get accredited and employed as an engineer, but an engineer can't as easily get employed as a physicist. I guess I prefer versatility over security.


In case you are not trolling that's literally the opposite of the truth. Refer to the Washington Accord, I'm not sure who tricked you with this bullshit, but it's a complete lie the exact opposite is true because only engineering bachelors can get professional licensure while Physics is a generally a research career which doesn't have any oversight or licensure on a personal level.

>>7344586
They almost never work in a field that requires a physics degree, or even a degree at all. Physics graduate are smart people that can find employment, there is no denying that.

>>7344619
>prioritizing money
Oh that's right, I almost forgot that's why vocational schools exist in the first place.

>>7344629
Holy fuck OPs stupid pie chart actually shows that 1/3 of physicists work in an engineering sector.

>>7344641
1) That's 11.2%.
2) Actually read the OP they're all doing technician jobs.
3) Thinking they can actually get professional engineering licensure is like thinking a biologists -not even a nurse- can get a license to be a medical doctor.

>>7344629
>only engineering bachelors can get professional licensure
That's only in some states.

From what I've read, studying physics is not the secure option (as I've said), you have to sell yourself to the guy hiring you. Know the software they use and have the relevant skills, whether you learned them in school or not. If I have to learn how to use proprietary software in school I'd feel like a tard. That's one thing that turns me off from a degree in engineering. Skipping the theory is another.

Honestly I always thought of an engineering degree as "lower" than physics. But maybe this isn't the case at top schools? Do engineering majors at top schools still do theory?

>>7343787
Thank for the advice. Just to further fuck myself, would it make an difference if I had an engineering masters from somewhere like Berkeley or UCLA? I've already gotten accepted to both as an undergrad but I'm choosing to study Physics at UCSB

>>7344654
>Thinking they can actually get professional engineering licensure is like thinking a biologists -not even a nurse- can get a license to be a medical doctor.

In the UK, one of the first signatories to your Washington accord, the designation of charted engineer is given out by the Institute of Physics. You either have to have an Meng or prove yourself competent by filling out a technical report, which certainly sounds like something a few physicist could do.

>>7341914
Guys I am so unsure of what I want to do. For my bachelor's, if physics is so worthless, should I go into eng'ing even if it's for something niche like nuclear? Would that even help?

>>7344654
Here scientists can pass exams to get an engineering licence. Not saying that they don't have to study for it, but it's not impossible.

>>7344711
if you choose to stay with physics, then the onus is on you to make yourself marketable. you have to work harder "behind the scenes"to pick up relevant skills.

>>7344717
Is that such a bad thing?
My dad doesn't even have a college degree but he knows a lot of shit and gets tech jobs all the time. He's kind of inspiring, but I know he's prohibited from getting certain jobs that require a degree. From what people say in this thread, it seems like a physics degree will also get me "stuck" and unable to enter engineering jobs.
I think I want to go into industry for research. But what do engineers even do versus R&D?

>>7343846
FUCKING KEK

ChemE, EVERYONE

>>7344674
>That's only in some states.
No. It's federal law, states don't actually have a say, that's from the IEA, there's no such thing as state specific licensure (other for things like technicians and "engineering" technologists), it's not a real Pr.Eng. degree because only ABET -a national institution- can award that directly.


>From what I've read
Where? A departmental brochure? A soccermom's online article about how her physics degree can get her a tech job which she confuses as professional engineering? It's grade A bullshit. Link me the article so I can report it.


>Honestly I always thought of an engineering degree as "lower" than physics. But maybe this isn't the case at top schools? Do engineering majors at top schools still do theory?
Because you browse /sci/ too much, the opposite is true in terms of your professional career, most American unis learn for example classical theory in more detail, the difference comes in the type of theory wherein physics learns more modern physics theory such as QM etc. and the fact that science has a lower courseload and more elective credits. It's like how biology covers a lot of wide theory on a superficial level, but no detailed physiology for example. Which is why grad-school is also needed to specialize them before they can do research.

> you have to sell yourself to the guy hiring you.
All the selling yourself in the world can't magically give your signature legal power to sign off on reactors, bridges etc. You will never work on anything more than very basic drudgery like manufacturing/process in-line sub-problems or maintaining control systems that someone else designed. Anything that could either put people's lives in danger or products that are large volume or highly technical and you'll have to work under a professional engineer or your boss will need to keep paying consultants to sign off your work.

If you're doing physics and don't get into a top 10 for your PhD you should probably just change to Engineering, get an MS, and be done with it. Your chances of getting a job doing actual research in Physics are basically zero unless you went to Harvard, MIT, etc.

>>7344700

You are thinking about his:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chartered_Physicist

Which is now known as an CSci or CPhys degree,

Which is not the same as this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chartered_Engineer_%28UK%29

Which specifically requires an MEng degree. The former is a worthless trophy title for researchers because for example a Chemical engineer can't commission a bridge while a Civil engineer can't commission a reactor. There are very strict laws in place about what each specific discipline can do. For example signing off on a lab often requires as much as 3 different disciplines to get everything signed off on. There's also other worthless tiles like Chartered Scientist (CSci) and Chartered Environmentalist (CEnv) that is granted by engineering institutions and no one bothers with those. CEng in a specific discipline is the only thing that holds any legal power which is where the money is.

For a list of the different institutions which regulate the different industries see this link and see the individual requirements for each.

http://www.engc.org.uk/about-us/our-partners/professional-engineering-institutions/

>>7344750
>From what I've read
>Where?
physicsforums, multiple threads.
It's a question that comes up a lot.

>the fact that science has a lower courseload and more elective credits
>Which is why grad-school is also needed to specialize them before they can do research
I did sort of notice this, and I don't like it.

>signature legal power to sign off on reactors, bridges etc.
I'm not sure I really care about this. I don't want to do management, I want to do research. Still not sure in what, though. I don't think I care too much for particle physics or something, but I do like things heavy in math/theory.

>>7344751
We're talking about the BSc.
The thing is though, I do want to get into a top 10 for my PhD. It could be in physics.
Is it literally the same shit if I do my BSc in engineering, though?

>>7344755
No I'm thinking of this:

http://www.iop.org/membership/char-sta/chartership/ceng/page_38083.html

>"The benchmark for CEng is an accredited MEng degree...If you do not hold an accredited MEng degree, then the basic requirements are that you have a degree in physics or a related subject and demonstrate the missing engineering parts of your degree through a MEng equivalence report; this is a technical project which is undertaken in the 4th year of an MEng degree and should demonstrate the depth and breadth of your engineering knowledge in application."

Also see:
http://www.iop.org/membership/char-sta/chartership/ceng/file_38084.pdf

>"Non-standard route (Technical Report Option)
You demonstrate that you have knowledge equivalent to an accredited engineering degree through completion of the CEng technical report – the template can be found as part of the online application form. It is unusual for the Institute to receive applications from people with engineering degrees. But nevertheless, we are very used to guiding people with physics degrees towards Chartered Engineer (CEng)."

>>7344767
>physicsforums, multiple threads.
Even worse.

>I want to do research.
Then get a Physics PhD like has been said countless times in this thread.

>>7344713
There's tons of things ABET accredit that is not engineering, I can't show you where to find institutional specific requirements (the shit literally on the application forums) because you need to be a member, but for example see this:

http://www.abet.org/accreditation/accreditation-criteria/accreditation-policy-and-procedure-manual-appm-2015-2016/#criteria
II.E.3.a. Applied Science Accreditation Commission (ASAC) – Programs accredited by ASAC are those leading to professional practice utilizing science and mathematics along with engineering concepts as a foundation for discipline-specific practice, including the recognition, prevention, and solution of problems critical to society. ASAC accredits a program at the associate, baccalaureate, or masters degree level.

II.E.3.b. Computing Accreditation Commission (CAC) – Programs accredited by CAC are those leading to professional practice across the broad spectrum of computing, computational, information, and informatics disciplines. CAC accredits a program at the baccalaureate degree level.

II.E.3.c. Engineering Accreditation Commission (EAC) – Programs accredited by EAC are those leading to the professional practice of engineering. EAC accredits a program at the baccalaureate or master’s degree level.

>II.E.3.c.(1) EAC – All engineering program names must include the word “engineering” (with the exception of naval architecture programs accredited prior to 1984).

II.E.3.d. Engineering Technology Accreditation Commission (ETAC) – Baccalaureate programs accredited by ETAC are those leading to the professional practice of engineering technology. Associate degree programs prepare graduates for careers as engineering technicians. ETAC accredits a program at the associate or baccalaureate degree level.


Only EAC can grant a PEng which is usually done through a discipline specific institution and always requires an engineering degree as per II.E.3.c.(1). ASAC for example is for researchers.

Why would you stop at a bs in physics? If you're gonna go into the field you typically get a masters.

>>7344767
Please link me these Physics forum threads. They're bullshitting or really delusional.

Your programme literary has to include the word engineering. ABET says it in black in white >>7344794. You can't even apply without an engineering degree and years of experience.

>>7344800
>Please link me these Physics forum threads
Just do a Google search on "can a physicist be an engineer." The threads are kind of old, though.

So would you say the wisest choice for research is a bachelor's in engineering and physics PhD?

>>7344800
>ABET

And what about all the other countries with their own boards, taking ABET rules as gospel like you're doing is beyond retarded. Clearly an engineer.

I'm browsing PF right now and they are all saying the same shit we are.

This guys specifically refers to the study OP references too
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/b-s-in-physics-doomed.657250/#post-4187251

In this thread they also specifically mention you can't get ABET and PEng jobs.
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/careers-in-physics-other-than-teaching-or-research.818670/

It turns PF isn't retarded, you guys just can't read.

>>7344815
We have a very much similiar thing here with the IET mate

Also
> I graduated one year ago with a B.S. in Physics. I work at Target.

Jesus fucking christ...

>As my advisers used to say, it's among the most difficult of undergrad degrees, to the tune of several sigma. I've been turned down so many times for really easy jobs just because my degree didn't officially contain the words "engineering" or "chemistry" or "business." Is there any good way to find jobs that would accept me? Can anyone offer me any final advise? Thanks in advance.

Reference https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/b-s-in-physics-doomed.657250/#post-4187251


Whelp you can't say /sci/ didn't warn you. Just because the degree is "among the most difficult of undergrad degrees" doesn't make it on the same level as engineering.

>>7344823
Except that it's the Engineering Council that are responsible for things like CEng certification, and their rules are less strict than ABET.

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/physics-bs-grad-undecided-about-career-and-grad-school-help.816915/
.
Wow, all these PF threads reaffirming the OP like a motherfucker. Literally "I have a Physics BS and I wish I made the smarter decision when I was young to do engineering" on that 3rd poster.

>>7344830
EC is actually seen as more strict and requires more years of training (even though it doesn't have an FET examination in some cases). In any case to apply for CEng your degree also has to have "engineering" in the name. I know this because I've actually seen the application criteria in my professional institution's membership area.

>>7344829
That's the thing, the high schoolers on this board will never heed that warning. This is what they're probably thinking.
>I'm really smart and hard working
>I'm going to do a PhD at a top school and work on the LHC
>I won't end up like that pleb

>>7344837
See
>>7344772

Having an MEng is one possible route, but you can also go for it if you have a physics (or related subject) degree along with the relevant experience. I know this because it was posted in the thread earlier and because I know someone with an MMath who was working towards getting certified.

>>7344846
That guy got a job after his physics bachelor's. That was the mistake. I always knew it was guaranteed you had to apply to grad school right after.
Alright guys, I'm convinced. Now my concern is:
>I'm going to do a PhD at a top school and work on the LHC
Is this possible with a bachelor's in engineering?

>>7344819
>>7344829

This as already been said. A BS in Physics is worthless. And someone who stops at the BS, did not know what he was getting in.

PhD is need if you want theoratical Physics, MS/Phd if experimental Physics, MS if Medical Physics.

Talking about a physics BS would be the same of talking about a BS in Medicine (if it exists it is worthless). You only do a BS in Physics if you are thinking about doing another BS.

If you want physics you need to do MS atleast. AND YES This is A WARNING.

>>7342556
>feeling a false sense of superiority over something that will very likely ruin your life
If you post on 4chan, it's very unlikely you have what it takes to make it to the top 5% of any of these fields.

You "pure math and pure science only" sperglords are more delusional than drug addicts.

>>7344855
>Is this possible with a bachelor's in engineering?
Yes.
>Starting in 1996, Brookhaven scientists and engineers designed and constructed 20 of the total 1,200 superconducting magnets for the LHC.
http://www0.bnl.gov/atlas/design.php

>>7344865
You're right. Your job prospects get much better after a PhD.

Like being a bus driver
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/finished-phd-for-one-year-and-cant-find-a-job.668437/

If I have a MA in economics and a BS or MS in physics, will I get a job guys?

>>7344855
Most people that work on the LHC are engineers. Most people would also tell you that basing years of studies on such a specific goal is silly.

>Physics PhD
>Job

Photo related.

>>7344884
>Reading University

>>7344750

Some states give engineering licenses if you have a two year degree + 10 years experience. Stop saying otherwise.

>>7341914
>2nd year in BSc Physics here
>Got job interview for Apple, Harvard Research Assistant, some laser telecom company and 2 national labs
>mfw this thread
Statistics have shown that physics majors tend to be the most well-rounded individuals. And I have seen salary data which show no difference between the mid career salary between engineers and physics majors, although the starting salary is lower in the latter.
In the end I don't think its about the degree, but rather being able to show your skillset and abilities.

>>7344903
So you only need 12 years to achieve what engineers do in 4 years.

Also, there are already more engineering graduates than new positions. Unless your the boss's son, you're not getting an engineering job without the degree.

>>7344853
>>7344772
You are literally going back to school for engineering. I don't understand what you're even trying to say.

Do you even understand what an MEng is? If you're coming in from a Physics BS you have to catch up the engineering undergrad coursework before you can start your postgrad coursework. The only benefit is that you already have credits for maths intro physics. At my university science stream has to take two years of undergrad courses, they let you skip intro statics etc. but this tends to make it harder to pass based on how poorly the students in my department from those streams are doing.

As for your second point the IOP doesn't have the power to grant CEng anymore so this point is moot it clearly says, also in the publication clearly says "Unfortunately, a PhD or MSc in physics or engineering does not automatically fulfil this requirement.", the intention is obviously for chartered applied scientist.

If you want to work as a Civil or Mechanical engineering you need to apply through the ICE and the IMechE respectively. IMechE licensees do not apply ICE and vice versa, just like only INucE can allow you to work on nuclear nuclear reactors.

It's an extremely dated practice supplement degree accreditation, I can't imagine this will last even for the meaningless degree the IOP provides.

>>7344904
What school do you go to? And
>Got job interview
Did any of them take you?
I'm a physics major here and I'm getting pretty pessimistic.
I know I don't want to go into acadaemia. Maybe I should just do engineering then.

>>7344903
See >>7344794

They don't and you're retarded. Just because you keep repeating your delusions do not make them true.

>>7344912
Hang on there bro.
Im not sure if I should unveil my university. But we are offering co-op so 1 term study + 1 term job.
Will be going to national lab and work on accelerators next term

>>7344910
Literally everything you just posted is wrong. Except maybe:

>If you want to work as a Civil or Mechanical engineering you need to apply through the ICE and the IMechE respectively. IMechE licensees do not apply ICE and vice versa, just like only INucE can allow you to work on nuclear nuclear reactors.

I'll take your word on that.

>>7344919
I was just curious if your college was one of the "good" ones.
Co-op sounds like an engineering thing.
Aw shit, I was planning on doing some nat'l lab or theory REUs next summer, but if I do engineering I'd have to do internships. Being undecided sucks.

>>7344920
Why do you need to take my word on that, do you really believe an industrial engineer is allowed to sign off on a nuclear plant?

>>7344931
An industrial engineer is barely qualified to tie his own shoelaces.

>>7344913

See this is why engineers are viewed as stupid.

California doesn't require a degree to get a PE license, it requires 6 years of experience and then you can take the exams. It depends on the state.

>>7344931
Considering the rest of your post was utter shit, at this point if you told me the sky was blue I'd still check.

>>7344372
Yeah that's the guy.

He probably should have gone into proctology to deal with these levels of anal annihilation

>>7344868
And somewhere there is a overqualified engineer doing so shit job. My mother had a Ms in Chem Eng and had to spend 1 year doing shit jobs until finding a proper job for her.

When I ask around the universaty there are good and bad stories, being good the majoraty. We do not deny that there are exemples that make us piss our fucking pants. And the same happens in engineering.

The only problem i see in here is that some engineers talk to much about money and job security. You guys only focus on the beautiful stuff of engeneering.

These guys do not talk about the people who go to engineering for the money and end up doing shit jobs they hate for shit money couse they are shit at what they do.

These guys do not talk about the market saturation in some Engineerings. There are already developed countries that are filled with some engineerings. And one buy one they start saying a word that some engineers fake to not know "NO".

Yours sincerely
Physics Engineer

>>7344920
>>7344938
I just checked my departmental postgrad brochure and you can't actually register for an MEng at all if you have a BSc undergrad degree. It specifically states that you need a BEng and that non-BEng holders such as BSc and BTech registers for the MSc (Applied Science), if you do material science you can generally get your MSc (Applied Science) without needing to take any undergrad courses, but for things like control engineering it also requires you to register certain courses from the BEng programme for non-degree purposes (which is why I thought all needed to do it in my previous post as my friends from BSc here need to do that; I was wrong about that). My university accreditation allows for application to both CEng and the PE.

It also states
>An equivalent qualification is regarded as one which is regarded as acceptable for registration as Candidate Engineer and for eventual registration as Professional Engineer.
>Students who earned a degree in Engineering at a university which has not been accredited, or which was not granted by an institution that is a co-signatory of the Washington Accord, will be allowed to register for the MSc (App.Sci )-degree

The coursework in both the MEng and MSc (Applied Science) is exactly the same as far as I cant tell. Maybe it works differently at your university, but I really, really doubt it considering how much specific accreditation drudgery and professionalism courses you need to take to complete a BEng. Like I said engineering postgrad is for specialization and/or research careers, not for professional engineering career purposes.

In any case unless I see it won't with my own eyes I'm not going to believe (and I would love to report it to the institution, because I can't imagine it will slide).

I just don't see why anyone would want to do a B Physics if they can get an engineering undergrad, even if you decide to do a research career later you are unnecessarily limiting your options.

>>7344855
Why do people think working on the LHC is so prestigious? Most people working there only do so because they live close by like that engineer from PHD comics who only works there because he moved to Switzerland with his girlfriend and "needed a job".

>>7344995
http://www.iop.org/membership/char-sta/chartership/ceng/file_38084.pdf

It says it plain as day under section 2.1, read the damn thing and you'll see that it's perfectly plausible for a physicist to become a chartered engineer.

>>7345010
Not sure. Just because it's famous?
Working on the LHC was just used as a placeholder for "highly regarded physics-related job," as opposed to being some lab technician as your upper limit.

>>7345011
I have read it and I've tried explained to why the IOP is full of shit and/or irrelevant.

Check your engineering department's brochure or better yet go talk to the HOD/dean of an engineering department and ask him how it works yourself instead of relying in internet misinformation.

>>7345042
The IOP is full of shit and/or irrelevent? The institute of physics, the professional body for physicists in the UK. Well that confirmed you as a retard.

>>7345042
Delusional engicuck detected. Have fun dropping out.

>>7345056
Because CPhys is a prestige title for researcher professionals not an authoritative one professional engineers, what I really mean is you're full of shit if you think doing a CEng through the IOP is meaningful. And whether they will actually accept such a report is dubious if it happens at all, which I highly doubt and have never heard of anything like it from other professional institutions.

Again though, go ask your local engineering department.

>>7345059
Going to be hard to drop out considering I already graduated. Be a faggot all you want, just don't let me catch you bitching on PF and /sci/ 3 years from now.

>>7345068
>what I really mean is you're full of shit if you think doing a CEng through the IOP is meaningful

You're retarded, in britain you apply for a CEng though your professional body. Said body then forwards your application on, after you've completed the equivalence requirement detailed in that link earlier, to the Engineering council who then decide on weather to award you a CEng.

Just so you know, this is how it would work with engineers as well.

My route is Math BS-> Medical school

What's this bullshit in this thread that engineers don't do research? I mean they don't have to... engineering is usually broad.
Yes, BSc in engineering doesn't teach you that much theory as a Physics BSc. The reason for that again is that engineering is broad. A BSc 3-3.5 years here in Europe. There isn't enough time to study both theory and it's applications in the same depth.In engineering you can pretty much go from one sub-field to another which requires quite different skills, knowledge.
However looking at the recommended reading for courses, half of the books are either physics or applied physics books, rather than engineering books, which usually talk about actual construction, modeling, etc., assuming the reader knows the necessary theory to understand it. So you can read them at home.
You can skip lot of theory at school then go get experience (3-5 years) where you will learn the necessary theory (at some depth) for that narrow field you want to work in and be pretty much done with it. If you want to do anything serious then that won't work, especially design and/or R&D. This is the point of this entire thread engineers can do a wider range of jobs.

explain this

http://www.payscale.com/college-salary-report/majors-that-pay-you-back/bachelors

>Physics Bachelor's is #11 highest paying degree
>Above Computer Science and Mechanical Engineering

/thread

With an engineering degree, you have shitty chances at going to grad school for theoretical physics. With a physics bachelor's, you have a shitty chance of falling back on good jobs, much less actual engineering jobs. How to choose one? I guess I have to decide now whether I'd like to work in engineering or theory research?
Ideally I'd want to do heavily theory-based R&D in industry. Wtf do I do?

>>7345256
>BS Physics
>4 recorded salaries
>BS CS
>141 recorded salaries

>>7345280
keep denying it

http://www.bankrate.com/finance/personal-finance/high-paying-college-majors-4.aspx

http://www.thinkadvisor.com/2015/05/12/30-best-paying-college-majors-2015?page_all=1

>>7345274
>I'd want to do heavily theory-based R&D in industry. Wtf do I do?
You make it sound like 70-80% of engineering isn't theory when you try to design something new.
I don't know what you should do, but you should try and search some PhD topics in engineering fields. Plus take a look at some already complete PhD dissertations by engineers. See if that kind of research fits you.

>>7345274
>>7345372
I.. the point I wanted to make is that there are PhDs in various engineering fields. Try to look at what engineers with a PhD produce in engineering that may give you a idea about what kind of research you can do there.

We need the smart fucks to develope their knowledge, you know? Physics is very important for averyone of us, so let them follow their dreams and study for us all. Peace.

>>7342125
>10 work
While you aren't licensed? Are you daft or just autistic?

>>7342507
yeah right troll, you're a shitposter in /sci/ - you don't have a degree.

>>7343846
>>7344372
>>7344940
>>7344372

I don't see the need for this caustic tone. I just want to help people make the right life decisions by showing them how some autists objectively made the wrong one and putting an end to their embittered shilling.

You don't need to shoot the messenger when all my arguments are fact based, go whine to AIP who compiled facts if you really want to sperg out.

>>7341914
This isn't to do with the fact that physics degrees are bad for employment, it has everything to do with the fact that 90% of people studying straight physics are nerd wastemen who are too socially inept and lazy to go jobhunting or applying themselves in any way to any extra curricular stuff while at uni

>>7346393
I was thinking the same thing.
Study physics, pick up a bit of knowledge on good software and programming languages on your own time (play around with them for fun), market yourself effectively later on. It takes a special type of person to study physics intensely while still being social, funny, etc, though. E.g. Feynman
Crippling autists will be better served with an "engineering" label on their degree.

>>7341914
>going to university for employment
Dirty, miserable capitalists.

>>7346648
Not everyone can be a trustfund child

>>7346461
Another butthurt guy.
>E.g. Feynman
Very few people compare to Feynman.
>Study physics, pick up a bit of knowledge on good software and programming languages on your own time
Some people want to do physics and not programming with a physics degree. Even if you get job where you work close with engineers you can't actually take their jobs due to regulations, so the only job for you will be where your high level physics modeling skills or math skills are required in the industry. Apart from this individuals with a physics background are also wanted by financial firms.
Instead of taking excerpts from your post, but viewing it as one: you describe an individual which can pretty much do anything he is interested in or wants to do. For a person like that it certainly wouldn't be hard to get a job with a physics degree, because that wouldn't really matter that much. While your last sentence implies that somehow someone with an engineering degree is not just inferior, but an autist. Although someone with the previously mentioned talents would easily succeed with an engineering degree and probably would easily match an average physics student if he wants.
All in all you produced an average bait, full of memes instead of using clever logic. Moderate in every way. 5/10 or even 4/10.

>>7346812
>Even if you get job where you work close with engineers you can't actually take their jobs due to regulations,

Keep telling yourself that, as has been demonstrated several times in this thread it's a fairly trivial matter for a physicist to become an accredited engineer.

>>7346815
The exact opposite has been proven >>7344794.

>>7346815
>fairly trivial matter for a physicist
How is it trivial? Physics degrees usually don't cover most of the (practical) engineering courses.
The bigger question is does a physicist want to become an engineer?
Because this thread is pretty much about whether a physicist can take a job which is not his main profile. I'm not sure that using your degree to get a job fairly unrelated to the original purpose of your degree is what someone wants when he chooses physics as his main study.
Also, personal experience that I witnessed students in labs (basic electronics) which both physics and engineering students attend that many physicists can't really show the attitude and skillset required to do engineering work. For example they aren't really effective in building and debugging circuits in labs or designing them, yet some of these guys are already in research groups while still being BSc students. So they're not stupid. For someone talented in physics a physics degree should give him access to physics. That's the point.

>>7346838
>The US is the only country on earth

>>7346840
>Also, personal experience that I witnessed students in labs (basic electronics) which both physics and engineering students attend that many physicists can't really show the attitude and skillset required to do engineering work.

Physicists are literally only good for being lab techs and technicians which is what AIP's report says as well. It's because they aren't trained to use creative problem solving on open problems, the degree is about memorizing and regurgitation from archaic textbooks rather than any professional practice. At my university they're usually unpublished upon graduation too, in stark contrast to most engineering students, some who even post in very theoretical journals.

>>7346844
The only important one yes, it has the most competitive salaries. Only thing that comes close is petroleum engineering salaries in the ME.


I can't believe europoors actually think they're relevant compared to the US. Ridiculous.

>>7346840
>How is it trivial?
It really depends where you are, in the UK you have to prove that you have the equivalent knowledge to someone that's done an MEng, there's a link somewhere else in this thread detailing how a physicist can go about acquiring CEng status.

>The bigger question is does a physicist want to become an engineer?

This is a better question, and I'd disagree about the main point of this thread as far as I can be it's been about physicists being able to become recognised engineers. I've got to say I think the skill sets of physicists and engineers overlap quite a bit, that said I always thought engineers to be more applied and physicists more theoretical.

>>7346849
>It's because they aren't trained to use creative problem solving on open problems

Well in that case could you help a lowly physicist out? A question on my last classical mechanics exam has been bugging me, I did quite well on the exam over (81%) but I know that I got this one problem wrong:

"Assume that the earth consists of a core of uniform density <span class="math">\rho_c[/spoiler] surrounded by a mantel of uniform density <span class="math"> \rho_m[/spoiler], and that the boundary between the two surfaces is of a similar shape to the outer surface, but with a surface only three-fifths as large. Find what ratio of densities is required to explain the observe quadrupole moment"

Remember you need full working to get full credit. This should be pretty easy for you.

>>7346853
But then there's also applied and experimental physics.
Meanwhile, if you get an education in the department of engineering at your school, you will learn teamwork, certain types of software, public safety, shortcuts in your field, etc. More marketable skills for actual employment. It is a trade degree, albeit one that does require a good amount of intelligence, hard work, and creative thinking.
A physicist CAN go into engineering, though, but only if he plays his cards right. And yes, many states won't allow PE accreditation to one without a bachelor's...but it's management shit, and because of concern for public safety. If you really wanted to potentially pursue that sort of thing seriously, then yeah, engineering is the only way to go. (I know I don't give a flip.)
But there are lots of "applied physics" creative design problems that physicists are hired for. Just have to have the skillset the employer is looking for. (Many people get hired with majors in physics, chem, AND engineering just because they know some obscure software like comsol or some shit, it's really surprising but it's true.)

>>7346853
>It really depends where you are
Yeah, that complicates it a little bit.
>This is a better question, and I'd disagree about the main point of this thread as far as I can be it's been about physicists being able to become recognised engineers.
I agree, unfortunately he entire thread talks about everything else instead of solving the problem that why is this the case with a physics degree and what could be done to change it.
> skill sets of physicists and engineers overlap quite a bit
True. Though I think it really depends on what you do, especially for engineers.
>engineers to be more applied and physicists more theoretical
More or less. That's why I think that someone who applies for a physics degree should be able to work on problems closely related to physics and not simply getting a degree which he needs to "convert" to another or take a totally unrelated position. Especially because many people who do a physics degree don't really want to become engineers imho. They don't even have to be good at engineering.

>>7346882
I agree entirely with this comment, and it maybe the only reasonable post in this entire thread.

>>7346853
>really depends where you are, in the UK you have to prove that you have the equivalent knowledge to someone that's done an MEng,

Right, so you have to learn engineering anyway, it's pretty much "you already got a physics postgrad degree so we trust you're smart enough to not need someone to hold your dick as you read through a textbook", but regardless you're still doing equivalent work needed to do the degree only your older and more experienced so it will be faster, but you're still missing out on professional early salary and accreditation so if that's what you wanted in the first place then what's the point of getting the theory degree?


>>7346869
>Surface areas to relate r_c and r_s (assume spherical):
A_c[*] = 3/5 A_s[**] (1)

>Mass funcs:
Mass_c(r_c) = V_c[*](r_c) \times \rho_c (2)
Mass_s(r_s) = V_s[**](r_s) \times \rho_c (3) with V again assuming spherical relation holds

>observe quadrupole moment func:
Q = Mass (func(r)) where Mass is equal (2) at r < r_c and (3) at r < r_s and func(r) is from the system's quadrupole moment

* <span class="math">= f(r_c) [/spoiler]
** <span class="math">= f(r_s - r_c) [/spoiler] with r the position vector/scalar depending on whether you reduce the tensor function or not.

DoF = 4 vars - 4 equations - 0 params = 0 => System is fixed, find ratio. Number crunching is for faggots


Sage because this thread is retarded and you're all knocking important shit off the front page.

>>7346890
>why is this the case with a physics degree and what could be done to change it.

Because it's not standardized. Someone could be earning a Physics degree at ICL and then there's also some grandma from gransville who can get a degree at a shitty CC/other shit school.

The degree not only needs standardization, but also professionalism, communication and design/team work courses like engineering/law to make it more employable and to stamp out the aspies.

>>7341914
You sound like a butthurt engineer who got his job taken by a physicist.

>>7346849
Nice bait.
Were you at least the one who made this answer? >>7346912

>>7341914
what if, studying pure physics is someones passion, and the amount of money they make does not matter so long as they get to learn what they love?

>>7342509
I know two people who got their Bachelors in Math

One was fired from her car wash because she was a woman (literal email from boss to supervisor). She went back for CNC/machine shop work, because she could make like $50k+ after two years.

The other guy failed an accounting certificate like 4 times, and was a single dad. Last time I saw him he was buying toys at the Dollar Tree for his son. Pretty depressing actually.

>>7342907
>talk about how engineering is "not theory" and "trade" shit
>to even get my Engineering and Applied Science AS from a CC we had to take DifEq, Calc III, Physics 3 w/ calc, Statics, Dynamics, Circuits (intro, but still)
>tfw other majors will boast about their Calc prowess or how they shouldn't have to learn algebra
What is it like choosing a dumb major where you just write papers. Ironically we do like 1/10th the work other majors do and people still fuck it up.

>>7347185
That's basically my case.

I want to just get into higher education because I enjoy it. If i succeed, I succeed. If i fail, i fail. Doesn't mean i'll stop pursuing my passion.

>>7341914

I'll let you in on a little realized fact. For people that are on the verge of dying, not pursuing the things that they were passionate about in life are almost invariably one of their deepest regrets, if not the deepest. You can research this if you want. You'll find plenty of healthcare workers saying as much. I have absolutely no problem with people that crave stability in their lives, and decide that physics/math/whatever isn't for them. For you or anyone to look down on people that pursue their dreams, however, is a joke. That "muh salary" shit only really gets you so far in terms of fulfillment.

>>7347131
It is bait, but deep down I also believe it. Most Physics exams I've seen from friends, even the seniors, all have textbook-like problems with zero degrees of freedom rather than open problems.

Not that they are easy questions, but if the mathematical manipulations is the most difficult part of the question, then it's a shitty question. Are you testing Physics knowledge or the ability of the student to move symbols around for which we have software anyways? They are all questions that you could work out by hand if you had your textbooks in front of you and adequate time or that you could do in 10 minutes if your exam also allowed you to bring in your laptop with Sage/Mathematica installed.

>>7348248
What's an example of an open problem?
And I think it's been said before, but if you go to school and only do what the curriculum requires of you, you'll be better off with engineering than physics. If you're self-motivated enough to go above and beyond then it's not so bad to major in physics. You could self-learn Sage/Mathematica and realize the same thing, but also be prepared enough for physics grad school.

>>7341914
from your pdf:
>Underdeveloped interpersonal communication skills may be a barrier to students in the job search
lel

>>7347325
It does mean you'll have spent a large sum of money and time for no benefit though.

>>7348378
>What's an example of an open problem?
-Design problems.

-Smaller test problems where you need to develop your own your own model from first principles (such as mass, momentum and energy conservation laws) and the most accurate model possible is usually unsolvable. You need to know how the dynamics behave so that if for example it is justifiable to reduce a PDE to a lumped variable ODE you need to know and justify if you're retaining enough accuracy. You will almost never have enough time to quantifiably analyze the dynamics so an intuitive understanding becomes very important.

-There are also many problems with extra degrees of freedom that are technically "unsolvable", for example in heat transfer where parameters are dependent on variables, there are countless ways to solve unsolvable problems such as in the case of HT have reasonable point estimates based on the fact that heat must always transfer on a temperature gradient so your point estimates are intermediate of extremes, then you can keep iterating your solutions until you have solved it to a reasonable accuracy.

Problems like these truly test your understanding of the principles taught by the material and your ability to employ creative problem solving to come up with your own solutions rather than testing your knowledge of solved techniques.

>>7348378
>And I think it's been said before, but if you go to school and only do what the curriculum requires of you, you'll be better off with engineering than physics.

That's not really true, if you don't work outside the curriculum as an engineer you will probably end up in shitty jobs.

>>7348423
Better than ending up in no jobs.

>>7348419
See, here's the thing. This actually sounds fun. I might want this sort of job (or even hobby).
I can probably do these problems on my own if I know the physics/math/computation, though. I'm hesitant about attending school for a watered down vocational curriculum.

>>7348427
>See, here's the thing. This actually sounds fun. I might want this sort of job (or even hobby).
Yes, most people in engineering -who are, in fact, generally passionate about their work and not "in it for the money"- feel the same way.

>I can probably do these problems on my own if I know the physics/math/computation, though.
Yes, but of course your experience and background matters a lot to how good you are in open problems. You wake up and you decide you want to build a drone, unless most DIY dads you know the physical and engineering principles behind it can model it to any accuracy you want, simulate and do the optimizations you want to for whatever applications, program a PID controller using that model, build your own instrumentation etc. Now how good this drone you just built will be all up to you, some engineers will only vaguely know how to simulate it because they never bothered to get good at programming, some physics students might not know anything about control engineering and others might suck too much at modelling to even get started, others (in both disciplines) will know exactly what to do because they put effort in to learn the skills.

[cont.]

>>7341914
A lot of the info from this publication is really a no brainer to anyone who's researched available options after considering the physics degree.
Yes, if you're only stopping at a bachelor's, just do engineering.
>implying I want to get employed after a bachelor's
>implying I'm not one of those 35% dead set on continuing in physics grad school
Even if things go wrong or if I don't get into my top choices and have to seek employment, a 32% rate of temporary engineering employment or even 21% computer/info science isn't bad. You're making it sound like it's flipping burgers or nothing.

>>7348453

>I'm hesitant about attending school for a watered down vocational curriculum.
Right, but see the thing is it works both ways, you can study the bare minimum in an engineering degree and you'll be shittier compared to the guy who spent his summers studying physics and analysis in more detail, the former gets a job yelling at process line workers, the latter might go on to do some designs on very interesting things or R&D career etc. If you're physics/math and do the bare minimum you'll also be shitty, if you spent your summers developing your problem solving skills on research, fun hobbies where you design shit or internships etc. you will be better for it. STEM in general is not something that guarantees you a good job just because you got good grades, you need to develop far more skills than the bare minimum you developed in undergrad.

If think the point OP was making is if you're going to do both anyway why not get the degree that gives you professional recognition first? It's all fine and dandy if you think your mature 18 year old brain is most definitely going to enjoy going into theory research and win a nobel prize etc., but for most people that is a mistake because it turns out they hate research and you don't need a physics degree to delve into theory research later anyway; Gibbs studied meche before revolutionizing thermodynamics, Linus Pauling studied ChemE before getting into theory research, last year's nobel laureates studied EE etc.

As we've just said how good you at what you do isn't really dependent on your curriculum as much as how hard you work outside it, why not get a degree that's worth more to start your career in whatever direction you intend to go (which most people can't possibly know about until they've actually had exposure to the material), clearly one of these pieces of paper is worth more (to society) than the other.

>Better than ending up in no jobs.
And also having a fall back that isn't IT or teaching high-school?

>>7348454
>You're making it sound like it's flipping burgers or nothing.
I don't think you quite comprehend the job titles in that second pic. Those are tech jobs and lab/code monkey drudgery, it is flipping burgers, the salary for those types of jobs are usually in the 30-60k range for a 40 hour work week doing shit that is very low skill.

It's depressing.

>>7348459
What do you do with an eeng bachelors straight out of undegrad?
I'm not interested in management at all.

>>7348463
Depends, there's too many different pathways to bother generalizing in a single post.

One thing I can assure is it isn't all candy and roses either, some people work in shit unrelated to STEM like banking, especially those with <3.0 GPAs.

>>7348456
>clearly one of these pieces of paper is worth more (to society) than the other
I can see that. Will top grad schools for physics judge me for it, though? I plan to apply right after undergrad anyway.

>>7348482
Probably if only for the reason that it will be harder to make connections and have letters of rec. from connected profs. I know a lot of people on this board disagree with me that research experience relevant to the department you're applying to is the most important, but in any case planning to get into a top physics grad school by just getting a good undergrad physics GPA is a bad idea for several reasons. Honestly though in my experience the advisers at top grad schools will generally look at letters of rec. from prominent researchers in their field and publications to judge student quality, research proposals are also obviously important to PhD programmes. GPA and degree type is mainly only for admin admission purposes and once your past the minimum (~3.7-4.0 for top schools) they're virtually irrelevant. The important point here is that making the minimum does not guarantee admission.

It's kind of laughable to hear students still taking calculus talk about how they're going to apply to X and Y grad-school, it's almost always schools they perceive as prestigious rather departments they have an actual research interest in.

Does school rank matter in engineering?
I'm doing physics at a top 15 school, just realized certain engineering disciplines are top 5 here lol
I heard engineering was pretty much the same everywhere though.

>>7348456
I dunno man. I was in engineering for a year and a half. If i stayed in it I would've been a shitty engineer because I don't give a fuck about engineering. I would've had a much lower GPA and I wouldn't have had the enthusiasm whatsoever for whatever shitty work I'd have to go through to begin a decent career. The coursework made me unhappy and looking forward to being an engineer made me depressed (there was no looking forward, more like, what the fuck am I doing?). I went into engineering first because I loved math and science and used the logic you just displayed but engineering didn't have any of the essence I hoped for.

Being in math I'm much happier and am willing to work a lot harder to advance my skills in the subject (I remember shit from my engineering courses but retained a large amount of the math courses). I'm practicing proof writing, improving my programming skills and enjoying it. I didn't give a fuck about making stuff.

Math isn't physics (service Canada considers a math major to be as strong as engineering) but man, there is a huge fucking difference between studying engineering and something you actually love (unless you love engineering or really want to be an engineer).

>mfw there are physics majors calling themselves engineers in this thread

Hows it feel that legally you can never become a practicing professional engineer?

"To use the PE seal, engineers must complete several steps to ensure their competency.

Earn a four-year degree in engineering from an accredited engineering program
Pass the Fundamentals of Engineering (FE) exam
Complete four years of progressive engineering experience under a PE
Pass the Principles and Practice of Engineering (PE) exam
- See more at: http://www.nspe.org/resources/licensure/what-pe#sthash.HM1gWIXy.dpuf"

>Earn a four-year degree in engineering from an accredited engineering program

>>7349318
>an ethics and quality assurance certification
>implying I care

If I cared then yeah I would get an engineering degree. But alas, I do not, I only want to solve cool problems.

>>7349345

>those sour grapes

You can gt a PE license with a physics degree; you just need more experience (8 years vs 4)

https://engineers.texas.gov/lic_basic.htm

>>7349360
I am serious. I'm in the middle of undergrad, considering switching from phys to engineering. I give no shits about public projects and being ethical and "eco-friendly" though.

>>7349369
Only in certain states I think

>>7349369

That only applies to texas and one or two other states. Everywhere else you need a bachelors of engineering.

>>7349369

Then go into an engineering field that doesn't do public projects. Unless you want to go as graduate school/PhD levels of education an engineering degree is a better investment. Even then, the consulting firm I work at will pay for my masters degree.

>>7349381
>Unless you want to go as graduate school/PhD levels of education
This I do. But I want to get into a top 10 grad, if I fail to the first year and have to try again next year, I don't want to be stuck working at Target.

Philosophically the same can be said for any non-engineering degree since none are vocational while engineering is essentially a 4 year technical program whose jobs have an entrance requirement wall(ABET).

Physics isn't a bad degree, it's just that job inflation/outsourcing/surplus labor hasn't caught up to engineering yet(but it will with the huge number of engineering graduates).

I'm doing math for my BS since it is the fastest way for me to graduate and I will probably continue to an MS, then decide what I want to do after. I know a math BS won't get me a specific job(but neither will most degrees).

Stats would provide me the most money but I haven't done a statistics course in a long time and I don't know if I like the field. A PhD in economics is another option, the place I looked at actually requires almost an MS in math but again I don't know...

>>7341925
>Claiming to have an interest in science
do you actually have no interest in science and just do it for some extra money? thats the saddest thing ive ever heard.

>>7349299
No offense, but you don't even what engineering is if you studied it for less that 2 years, the first two years are pure science electives, baby math, programming, professionalism etc. You don't really start engineering until your 6th semester.

>>7349369
"non-accredited degree" refers to non-accredited engineering degree, not "everything goes, do english lit. for all we care.

>>7342530
>Daily Mail

>>7349422
>(but it will with the huge number of engineering graduates)

Engineering graduation rates have actually been steady for the last 30 years and even been declining drastically in some disciplines (EE is down to 16k from 24k), this is opposed to science degrees which have more than doubled (and has always been more than double engineering graduates), especially degrees such as Astronomy etc.

I suspect this is because of the lack of standardization in science, whereas in engineering the dropout rates have increase more in science disciplines the graduation rates increase.

>>7350284
>Engineering graduation rates have actually been steady for the last 30 years

Meanwhile in reality:
>Engineering bachelor’s degrees grew by 5.6 percent during 2011

>Master’s degrees reached another all-time high of 46,940 in 2011, up 8 percent over the previous year

>Doctoral degrees increased by more than 6 percent from 2010, the first noteworthy increase since 2005
Source:

http://www.asee.org/papers-and-publications/publications/college-profiles/2011-profile-engineering-statistics.pdf

>>7350308
That would still not put it over the historic high for most disciplines, considering the comparison to the population growth the percentage of people who hold engineering degrees are far lower today than it was in 1989.

>>7350308
Also what the fuck
>Growth in bachelor enrollment was sustained in many fields, with increases of around 10 percent posted this year in biological and agricultural engineering, biomedical engineering, computer science (inside engineering)
Apparently the biggest increase was in meme engineering and CS.

>>7350310
>Shifting the goalposts

>>7350316
I'm not shifting jack, there's no proof of an increase in saturation, CS and biomed has also had a legitimate demand growth.

>>7350319
You said that, or someone said that, graduation rates had been constant over the past 30 years, but they grew over the course of a year. Therefore not steady. Increase in saturation is a different issue.

>>7350323
Are you truly autistic enough to think I meant baseline steady with zero shift, it ebbs and flows by much more than 5% as the historic data shows, it's probably going to increase more before it starts declining again.

>>7350326
>I can't tell the difference between a 5% increase and a 5% year on year increase.

Yep engineer.

Why is OP so mad? Sometimes spending 3 years learning something makes your realise going into that field specifically isn't for you, but you have soft skills you pick up that makes you useful in other roles.

>>7350341
>Why is OP so mad?

A physicist stole his girl, his job and murdered his family.

>>7350332
>Can't into basic math

16k(1.05)^5 = 20k which is less than 24k.


Fucking retard, go be butthurt about your shitty degree somewhere else.

>>7350402
>Damage control

>>7350411
>Damage control

>>7342556
kek

>>7350310

The number of engineers needed per population decreases as population grows. Ironically the need for teachers grows linearly.

And it needs to be noted that engineering is not science or math, the most math engineers do are some integrals and solid works fea. A job in engineering means doing algebra and trig all day, or learning a specific protocol which is all you work on, for example usb.

I wouldn't classify these as science or math jobs.

>>7341914
Well I'm pretty sure the applied physicist are the ones getting more job offers.
Theoretical is best for academia and most people aren't as passionate as they think; these people teach at high schools instead of universities as research profs

>>7344846
See, as someone who will be a freshman physics major come fall, I realized pretty early on that I really don't want a theoretical job. If I get a job in industry, cool. If not, I'll teach. I have no problems with that.

>>7350994
My first engineering internships at a private R&D lab I analytically decoupled and linearized a system of non-linear PDEs. Nice job displaying your tremendous amount of butthurt and jealousy though.

Mathematicians actually do far less applied math than engineers, mathfags aren't good at DOING math they're only good at studying it.

>>7351304
People don't specialize in undergrad you fucking retard.