<p>I'm interested in anything from Aerospace, Photonics, Nanotechnology, Atmospheric science and Bioscience. I understand that these fields are all very different but they would all have needs of computation which is where I want to fit in. </p>
<p>CS seems like the safest bet because it's mentioned in a lot of job postings. Although, I would like the option of maybe going to grad school for Physics if things work out nicely. Unfortunately, I can't count on that yet because I'm still an early undergrad. But I'd rather get a good job first then a couple years later enter a Grad program. This would be my reason for doing a "fallback" major of CS, and just take some Physics/Math classes along with it. But I also understand that there's only so much time in a day.</p>
<p>I can almost guarantee I won't double major but just have significant coursework in whatever I don't major in to keep me excited throughout my studies. I want to gain skills from the education route I chose, not just take classes. But on the flip side, I want to learn Physics/Math(some) for fun so whatever career I end up in I have some basics out of the way for self study.
Does anyone have any suggestions as how to choose when making decisions like this?</p>
<p>I know my interests would look like 1)Physics 2)Math 3)CS but the job market seems the opposite which is why this could end up being a very difficult decision. Thanks for any help.</p>
<p>Here's some of the curriculum of the programs I have to choose from:</p>
<p>And then the Physics program, which is standard. </p>
<p>Out of all the programs I think Applied Math is the most flexible in terms of electives. I'm not really a "CS" guy yet so most of the classes that are in the CS-Computational Science chart don't really mean much to me. It does stress computational skills though at least from how it's described. I'm curious though for the CS-Computational Science chart as to why there isn't any Calc 3 or Diff Eq.</p>
<p>As a computational guy myself, let me point out that there is no one route. Perhaps the easiest way to decide is to consider which you would rather do - use computational models to answer questions, or create computational models for other people to answer THEIR questions.</p>
<p>If you would prefer the first, then decide what questions (or field of questions) you want to answer, and then add computational coursework to suit. For example, if you want to study particle interactions or ocean currents, then study physics or oceanography. You may need assistance in the future to create your models, but at least you will be able to ensure that they are correct and will be able to interpret the results. As an example, my boss is not a programmer, but an EE who studied computational electromagnetics so as to be able to solve a particular set of problems.</p>
<p>If you would prefer the second, then go the CS route. You will not generally be able to interpret or validate the models, but you will be far more adept at creating them and will be in demand for that purpose. You will be more widely marketable, and will have an easier time getting a job, and will have the opportunity to sample a wide variety of fields, but will never study anything nearly as much as you do programming. When we build models at work we frequently bring in a few dedicated programmers who help us optimize, and while they do not understand the science behind our math, they are generally very good at making our models faster, more accurate, easier to use, and more understandable.</p>
<p>I am also surprised that the chart does not require more calc - I would heartily recomend it, as hardly anyone needs a computer to solve simple calculus problems and I would think it very difficult to accurately model what you do not understand.</p>
<p>I would say applied mathematics or a math-heavy computer science plus a minor in a natural science (I’m biased towards physics, but it could be biology or chemistry though I think physics would give you the best opportunities) or possibly another major, or even a major in a science and a minor in applied math or CS.</p>
<p>Usually in computational fields it’s not that scientists just hire ‘computationalists’ because that’s rather inefficient waste of time and resources. In most cases, the scientists are the ones doing the software engineering part of the job. For this reason, it’s a good idea to choose a field where you’re interested as well and see if you can find a subfield that requires some numerical simulations. There are many fields like this, and they can fit into a lot of different categories. Engineering relies heavily on computation in a wide range of disciplines (fluid dynamics, structural integrity, optimized circuits, these are just a few). Neuroscience is a field where biology/anatomy comes together with the artificial intelligence discipline in computer science. There is also a medical aspect of neuroscience that doesn’t have anything to do with CS, and in fact there are many fields that are applied to medicine that require simulations to solve problems. Physics is big on computation and there are a lot of fields that require it, for example astrophysics, condensed matter theory and fluid dynamics (probably different than how an engineer would study fluid dynamics though). Of course, if you’re going to try and apply this to a science, more than likely you’ll need a graduate degree. It also happens that usually people learn, say, physics and get a degree in it, go on to graduate school and probably somewhere along the way they’ve learned how to program and over time they become familiar with the best software/packages/algorithms to use in their field since research scientists are highly specialized. Hell, Wall St. even hires math and physics Ph.Ds as quants, and pays them big bucks (they like Ph.Ds because graduate school is notorious for making life difficult and for giving you impossible problems that no one has ever done before) for good reason.</p>
<p>However, if you’re interested more on the approach to solving a generalized problem or trying to make a certain problem more efficient, you wouldn’t need to go into a science. What you would be looking at here is a career in applied math or computer science, specifically algorithms. These are the guys who make up the best algorithms and give them off to the evolutionary biologist or astrophysicist to apply to their specified problems. In this case, you would want to get a degree in [applied] mathematics or computer science, with an emphasis on numerical modeling.</p>
<p>Of course, all of these require advanced degrees. The only field that I could see someone easily doing computational work with only a BS is engineering, though I could be wrong on this. I’m not particularly sure how many BS computer science degree holders can get jobs doing simulational work; that is to say that I simply don’t know about it, not that I think they may not exist (I would say that they do exist, if I had to guess).</p>
<p>Thanks for the replies, cosmicfish and hadsed.</p>
<p>All the Physics professors I’ve talked to say “major in Physics, you can do anything with Physics!” I am hesitant to follow that advice because none of them have worked in Industry. And obviously if there’s no kids majoring in Physics they’ll lose their jobs, so I understand their motive. They also expect everyone in Physics is gonna go to grad school which isn’t my plan yet. </p>
<p>The problem is I’m 29 years old and can’t be dicking around in school too long. I’ll be like 40 when I enter the job market if I wanted to go straight through to a PhD. And concerning the PhD, I would <em>never</em> want to be an academic. Which is why in any case I’m trying to pick the most applied route possible. </p>
<p>cosmicfish: </p>
<p>I would prefer the first one because my interests are in science itself but I know, as hadsed pointed out, I would need graduate degrees to get those types of jobs. cosmicfish, in your experience, do you think there would be a lot of flexibility once I get into software to change to science? Or would I forever be stuck in software? How about engineering? Is it realistic to think I can go get a job with software/engineering then pursue a Master’s or maybe even a PhD part time and transition later?</p>
<p>I just want something for now that will keep the science-y stuff a couple doors down. Literally. If I can find a company or a field that borders on Science/Engineering then I’ll pick that and figure out the quickest way in. The reason I listed Aerospace, Photonics, Nanotechnology, Atmospheric science and Bioscience is because these fields are popular in my state. They also sound like that borderline Science/Engineering field I want. I have a funny feeling too, that once you’re in industry a engineer and a physicist/scientist start becoming interchangeable. What I mean is only their initial training was different but their actual job is very similar. </p>
<p>hadsed: </p>
<p>My goal is definitely science but if I have to tolerate another field for a short time then I’ll do it. But if engineering can keep me close enough to science until I’m ready to strike then I’ll check it out. </p>
<p>To both, would it be strange to email or call companies and ask to shadow various engineer/CS disciplines? I can’t seem to figure out what these guys do on a day to day basis. I would really be trying to find out if their jobs are even close to anything technical. Like I don’t even know the difference between a “System Analyst” or a “Application Software Engineer.”</p>
<p>P.S. - I think I should renamed this thread because it’s changing pretty quickly to “Science vs Engineering major for Industry” =)</p>
Barring a miracle or years of very focused work, you would be forever stuck in software.</p>
<p>
Probably not, but perhaps if (a) you have great grades, (b) you take a lot of upper-level science courses, and (c) are willing to spend forever going this route.</p>
<p>
Yes and no. We have engineers working as scientists and scientists working as engineers, but mostly in those areas where the fields overlap or where the team is so large that significant specializations become valuable.</p>
<p>
Yes, and they are unlikely to let some random person slow down their employees when there is nothing in it for them. This is one of the reasons people do internships - to see what the job is really like!</p>
<p>I think you should try some sort of engineering. It will keep you close enough, as you mentioned, to science in case you feel like you want to do a graduate degree and will also allow you to get a job in industry fairly easily. Depending on your field, it may also utilize lots of numerical simulation skills (like the fields I mentioned earlier), though I’m not an engineer or even an engineering student so I’m not completely sure on the specifics of this. There are others here that can probably help to point these out better than I could.</p>
<p>There’s two ways to look at this. If you’re like me then you’d want to do exactly what you like the most. If you’re not like that and you don’t mind what sort of job you get as long as its somewhat related to what you’re interested in and you get paid and such, then that’s different. If it’s the latter, I’d say stick with an engineering degree since you seem to be in a bit of a rush since you’re a bit older (which, I think, shouldn’t be a good enough reason but I’m not aware of your circumstances so I’m not qualified to make that judgement). If you’re like me, however, it will drive you crazy and you will start to regret it the more you think about it. In that case, you ought to find what interests you the most and then do that. If it happens that you don’t know what you’d like to get into, engineering still seems like a good bet. Of course, being a software engineer isn’t all bad, so getting into CS might not be too bad either. The problem with getting an applied maths or CS degree is that you won’t be able to get a masters or Ph.D in any sciences or engineering (barring systems engineering and things related to only software/networking/systems/etc.) since you won’t have the proper fundamentals. If you’re worried about this, get a double major or do a minor. I’ve heard of plenty of math BS holders get into physics programs because they took physics classes and then made up the upper level classes in graduate level classes at their graduate schools.</p>
<p>There is a guy who frequents these forums named GLOBALTRAVELLER and he did his undergraduate work in CS/math and got a masters in systems engineering. This might be something that you may be interested in because it guarantees you a job since systems engineers are needed all over the place to design databases, networks, babysit supercomputers, etc. Also, on the topic of shadowing employees to learn more about the profession: you can learn all you need from the internet. You can try searching these forums as they’re full of valuable information and you can try searching some other websites (like physicsforums.com, which, if it wasn’t obvious, is frequented by physicists and mathematicians (or students of those disciplines) but also some engineers as well). Read read read, and talk to some professors at your school and maybe some upperclassmen if you know any since all of these people are more than happy to help (usually).</p>
<p>What the Physics professors really meant to say was “major in Electrical and Computer Engineering - you can do anything with an ECE degree” … (chuckle) … learning how to do serious STEM analysis is up to the individual more than the major.</p>
<p>I worked for several years in modeling and simulation, and got selected for the job because I combined a particular operational expertise (I was in the military) with that engineering background. What I found is there are few things in life where you have to actually do everything, or to know how in absolute detail, since there is usually a team involved to some degree, but that a STEM based understanding of analyzing ‘how things really work in detail’ in a system is invaluable. We build models because we want to understand how something will probably work once we build that something, or how something that exists does work so that we can build a better version, and it straddles the traditional definition of science vs engineering, but I believe lies more in the engineering camp since the objective is understanding for the purpose of making, vice strictly understanding, but that said I think it doesn’t matter if you do solid work.</p>
<p>In particular in studying Nanotech, for example, look at Eric Drexler’s degree (try Wikipedia). His undergraduate in Interdisciplinary Science gave him a broader understanding that wouldn’t have served as well to do something in depth right away, but probably did serve well for his follow-on MS in Astro and self-created PhD in Nanotech. Then there’s Robert Freitas, who (literally) wrote the near-future books on Nanomedicine, and has a BS in Physics/Psychology, but got his PhD in Law. He partnered with Ralph Merkle to do a nanotech study, a man with an undergraduate in Computer Science and PhD from Stanford in Electrical Engineering (for the win).</p>
<p>All these guys have ‘sciencey’ backgrounds, but disparate specializations. It’s their ability to analyze and study cross domain as needed that makes them standout in their fields. If I could start over I’d try to study Engineering Physics (a major offered at Stanford for example - I’m familiar as my daughter was trying to go there), or traditional Electrical Engineering, as I really am partial to that even now, and then look at what their Institute for Computation and Mathematical Engineering offers for higher degrees. If I couldn’t got there I’d try to study similarly somewhere else.</p>
<p>What and where matter less than how well, IMO.</p>
<p>Thanks for all the replies. I would like to major in Physics but it just seems so academia based. Like if you don’t go to grad school for Physics, what’s the point of even majoring in it? Even though, it would give me a strong base for many disciplines it just seems risky as far as jobs are concerned. </p>
<p>I know this is a strange question but would Applied Math help me with the “sciency” side of things or would it just help me gain some random skills to then apply to science?</p>
<p>Colorado is a good program. If you pick up the right skills there you could look at employment at national labs, local startups in Boulder, Google, etc.</p>
<p>I don’t think it really matters which field you enter specifically. The important thing is that you pick up strong computational skills along the way. I would say a reasonable goal is to become reasonably competent at coding in FORTRAN/C/MATLAB, and to take a few classes in numerical linear algebra (essential, because this is the lingua franca of computational science). Take an HPC course or two (i.e with Tufo/Jessup/Siek). Learning parallel computing— MPI or OpenMP— practically guarantees you an internship or job at some national lab.</p>