<p>As far as I understand, these mean the same at many colleges, and that these are broad engineering degrees with a greater focus on physics and on designing to further research.</p>
<p>Many colleges say that students with this degree can get jobs as Mechanical Engineers, Aeronautical Engineer, Electrical Engineers, or can even study theoretical physics, and research on it.</p>
<p>Is this major really that broad, and would finding good jobs with good money be a problem with this degree? I once read somewhere that most people with this degree decide to research on nanotechnology...while most university websites suggest otherwise.</p>
<p>I want to study engineering, but I'm not sure which one I would like to study the most. Theoretical physics is also really fun to me. So, I felt Engineering physics would be a good major to combine all my interests, while opening more doors than choosing Mechanical Engineering (which is what I had been considering for the past 3 years).</p>
<p>Are my assumptions about this particular major wrong? Any other comments/advice about this major?</p>
<p>Many colleges don’t even have engineering majors declare their specialization until after freshman or sophomore year. If you end up at a college that uses this ideology, then you don’t need to decide which type of engineering you are most interested in until you actually experience a lot of the basics of engineering. This would let you feel out which major is the best for you, so perhaps you should consider going somewhere that implements this method. Even if your school doesn’t necessarily offer this type of program, the first year courses for engineering majors can be broad enough that it would be easy to switch.</p>
<p>Personally, I would avoid “applied” degrees as they can sometimes be seen as an easier alternative to the actual degree.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Hmmm…</p>
<p>I wonder which candidate would be more marketable…the “pure” math major with 1 or 2 CS courses or the “applied” math major who has 6+ CS courses, a statistical data mining course and a course in queuing theory??</p>
<p>@VMadden Most colleges in the US are like how you described them, but in Canada/UK you have to select the engineering major beforehand.</p>
<p>GLOBALTRAVELER you are moving away from the point by offering your condescending interjection. OP was asking about applied physics and somehow you felt it necessary to come in and comment on applied math. Applied math may be better for the aspiring computer programmer, but why not just get a degree in CS then? With applied math, you lose the deeper proof based/theoretical background that that degree contains.</p>
<p>Now, to get back to the point of this thread, the applied physics degree would potentially not include some important physics courses, and that may make the degree seem easier to obtain. That, simply, is the point I was making, but I’m glad that you felt it necessary to waste my time by commenting on something totally unrelated.</p>
<p>1) An employer is not looking at “what one THINKS is easier”. The employer is looking at the set of skills (Physics and otherwise) that the candidate brings to the firm.</p>
<p>2) The term “easier” is very subjective…depends on the individual judging.</p>
<p>The are a TON of current engineers and scientists that have made a mark on their career and have used different paths (and variations) of the core science and engineering degrees. </p>
<p>Since I have been working in the industry, I have seen BA’s in Physics, BA’s in Math, MS/M.Eng in Engineering all hold prominent positions…and don’t get me started on the not-so-household names of the schools.</p>
<p>I apologize but I cannot help it when I see those “which is easier”, “which has prestige”, “which is harder”, “should I triple major” posts.</p>
<p>:-)</p>
<p>The idea of “which is easier/has more prestige/ is harder” is the only real way to try and quantify the complexities that go into choosing where and how you want to get your education. Since everything else that happens if highly subjective and case-specific, having this way of attempting to quantify things can help someone looking at the situation with no deep understanding of how it works. </p>
<p>Certainly, you can get a degree in the fine arts and end up teaching physics at a high school (I had a teacher in high school that did exactly that), but it certainly makes everything a lot easier if you have the physics degree in the first place. </p>
<p>It’s like the argument of whether or not a GPA is an appropriate gauge of one’s ability. Sure, in certain cases someone received a GPA that doesn’t reflect their ability, but without a GPA there would be no way of measuring one’s ability without having employers sitting in on every class that a student takes and watching how they perform. It’s not perfect but there isn’t much other choice.</p>
<p>You should probably assume that when people make these statements that they are speaking generally instead of definitively. I do see where you are coming from though because I see all of the time how people speak definitively about things that are meant to be a generalization, and it is annoying to deal with them if confronted.</p>
<p>I’ve read some about this degree too, and from my understanding engineering physics is mostly an undergraduate degree that prepares students for graduate school and research in engineering, whereas applied physics is offered at both the undergraduate and graduate level and is a bit more focused on physics. </p>
<p>If you’re only interested in getting a job straight out of undergraduate, it doesn’t seem like the best thing to major in. Check to see if the degree’s ABET accredited at your school and ask what kind of jobs graduates have gotten. It’s a fairly uncommon degree so it’s not always accredited, in which case it might be a bit more difficult to find a job. This isn’t because you know less about engineering, but because HR departments sometimes throw out resumes if they don’t meet a certain criteria. So if you just want to go into industry, you’re probably best off getting a standard degree.</p>
<p>If you want to get a job in advanced technology, cutting edge research, or academia, however, it’s a fairly good option. It gives you most of the preparation you need in engineering along with the theoretical physics you might have to use in more advanced studies. Often times you’ll get the degree with a concentration in a certain discipline of engineering, (EE, ME, CE etc) so you’re effectively doing 70% of an engineering B.S. and 60% of a physics B.S. If you still find you’re interested in theoretical physics after trying it out some, it’s mostly used in research, so this will probably be your field of interest. Unfortunately you often don’t take theoretical physics classes until you’re second-third year, but it’s always easier to switch out of engineering physics than in.</p>
<p>Not to get off the OP’s point too much, but engineering physics is certainly not an easier degree than standard engineering. If you look at the curriculum, you’re actually taking almost as many engineering classes, you just have fewer electives because they’re all replaced by advanced physics classes. In addition any electives you do have are often within your engineering concentration or physics, so you really won’t have any humanities or social science classes. In my opinion a quantum physics class is more difficult than a psych class, so I’d say the engineering physics degree is actually more difficult to obtain.</p>