Deciding on undergraduate major

<p>So, I'm trying to decide which career to go into. I've already taken a bunch of high-leveled theoretical math and physics classes, and I've enjoyed and done well in them so far. However, I'm not specifically interested in a specific area of math and physics, mostly interested in a diverse array of areas, so I'm not sure if a research career would be the optimal choice for me since I would have to go into a specific field.
Would it be viable for me to continue doing engineering physics while taking graduate math and physics classes? Does working as an engineer allow me to use the theoretical aspects of math and physics as well? Or am I better off doing math and physics and continuing down the research/phd path?</p>

<p>You’re right about grad school. It’s years of work on a very narrow field. One option would be to narrow things down a bit with a masters in one subject and narrow down to a specific field. </p>

<p>What are your interests? Someone might be able to give you some ideas for suitable careers.</p>

<p>I don’t really know what kind of career I would be interested right now. I’m interested in mathematics and physics, especially learning new things, which I found I have a penchant for understanding things quickly. As an idea of what I’ve done so far: in math, I’ve taken analysis I, II, linear algebra, abstract algebra, topology, differential geometry, and taking graduate linear algebra and analysis now and I’ve done research in math and physics before, but I don’t know if I would be interested in working in a specific field of research for a large part of my career. </p>

<p>I like problem solving and would be interested in a career heavily involved with math and physics. It would be better if my career drew from a wide range of knowledge, including theoretical areas of physics and math like general relativity and qm. I also have to decide on a major soon, which is why I’m starting to worry about this.</p>

<p>And in addition, I’ve heard from many people, engineering seems to be the easy alternative to mathematics and physics. And so, I feel like if I do engineering instead, I could have attained more recognition if I had done mathematics/physics instead, since I feel like I would be successful in it too. I know that this isn’t the right way to looking at finding a career, but I couldn’t help thinking about making the most out of what I could do.</p>

<p>What year are you? You’ve already taken about hextuple the amount of math needed for engineering.</p>

<p>I’m a first term sophomore. I originally planned on transferring to arts and sciences from engineering to major in math and physics, but I’m not sure about it now. So, I’ve also taken waves, qm, particle physics, stat mech, advanced EM, and GR I.</p>

<p>People with strong pure math/theoretical physics backgrounds who don’t go into academia tend to end up in finance, programming or cryptoanalysis rather than engineering.</p>

<p>Are you really taken with engineering, or you just want a concrete job prospect and it seemed handy?</p>

<p>I was originally interested in engineering but found math and physics theory more interesting. I just can’t see myself picking a specific field though rather than applying all that knowledge as a whole in my career</p>

<p>Is there no kind of career like that where I can apply all that theoretical knowledge without needing to specialize and research in a specific field?</p>

<p>Things like quantum mechanics and waves have a lot more general applicability than do topics like general relativity, and as you probably know, the two don’t overlap very well. If you were wanting to apply all of those fields, it seems to me that your only recourse would be to go into a physics PhD program and get yourself into a field like quantum gravity or any other that attempts to bring quantum mechanics and general relativity into alignment. But of course, that is research, and you apparently aren’t all that interested in research. You won’t likely find a way to apply all of those to an industry job. Some of the more high tech companies will be employing physicists working on one or more of those areas (e.g. Google, IBM, or Intel in working on quantum computing), but that will still largely be in research and development roles, which will require at least a master’s degree if not a PhD.</p>

<p>Basically, you aren’t going to have an easy time working on the cutting edge of these largely theoretical topics without diving head first into research. Like I said, you may have some luck looking at companies like semiconductor companies, but it isn’t going to be easy and still may require graduate work. Of course, just because you get into research doesn’t mean you have to abandon all use of the other topics in physics. You can always get into something interdisciplinary, such as quantum gravity like I mentioned before.</p>

<p>You may also think about looking into places like the national labs. They do a lot of research there but do hire a fair number of engineers and physicists with only bachelor’s degrees, which likely aren’t nearly as specialized as their PhD counterparts. It’s worth a shot.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>These “many people” are seemingly fairly ignorant, then. Engineering is certainly not easy, though I do think a lot of the people tend to overstate it’s difficulty. Ultimately, engineering is applied physics, and depending on the specialty within each field, can often involve just as much math and theory as physics (of course there are less math-heavy specialty areas in each field as well). In the end, though, engineers have just as much a chance at notoriety as do physicists. Sure you can point to people like Einstein or Oppenheimer, but at the same time, engineers like Tesla or Edison have a large degree of notoriety in their own right.</p>

<p>In the end, if you feel you would be prolific at either, it doesn’t matter which you do. Physicists can make a huge impact on peoples’ lives (though most of them don’t ever realize it) through furthering the understanding of the world around us. Engineers can make a huge impact (and often more visibly) by taking that understanding and making it work for us. Further, at the PhD/research level, the line between the two blurs and there is quite a bit of overlap.</p>

<p>The only people who claim that one of the two fields (engineering or physics/mathematics) are better are those that have some kind of inferiority complex or a bad case of hubris or both. My advice is to ignore those people and do what is right for you.</p>

<p>Thanks for the very useful input. I was actually bound on pursuing a PhD and doing research. I’ve done research in the past, and have enjoyed it. Is there a way that I can similarly do mathematics as well as physics. Is there some kind of way I can do an interdisciplinary field such as quantum gravity and at the same time do an interdisciplinary field in mathematics. I guess I might consider ending up continuing with math and physics then.
On a side note, many people have also told me to do engineering because it’s relatively harder to gain recognition and “climb up the ladder” and be a top physicist/mathematician, unless you start out early as a prodigy of some sort or otherwise. Isn’t it similarly hard to win awards for the engineer? Of course, one should simply do it because one loves the field, but just out of curiosity, I wonder if it is almost impossible to become a physicist/mathematician.</p>

<p>I think you have to realize that it is all sort of a hierarchy. Much like engineering being essentially applied physics, physics is applied mathematics (and so, to is engineering, then). Especially if you are getting into the PhD level of any of these fields (physics or engineering), it is likely going to be very mathematically intense. Some engineering fields are more mathematical than others, and some specialty areas are more mathematical than others within a larger engineering field. The same thing goes for physics, though it seems that in an average sense, physics is a bit more math-heavy than engineering (though I’d never know it; I chose a very math-heavy engineering specialty).</p>

<p>I’d say that you could probably find what you are looking for anywhere from applied mathematics, physics, or some branches of engineering and each will have a slightly different flavor to it. Which one is right for you I can’t really say. The fun part is that if you were to do any of those, you would have a pretty good shot at going to graduate school in any of the others if you decided to go that route later, so it isn’t like what you do now is going to set in stone what you eventually research in case your interests change (assuming of course that you actually continue to be interested in a PhD, which is not a given).</p>

<p>Yeah, in the beginning I was just worried that I’d have to specialize in a specific field, whereas I would much rather enjoy doing many different areas in physics and mathematics. I’ve seen that hierarchy used around a lot, actually, but I’m referring more to the pure mathematics areas of research like algebra, analysis, or topology, which are extremely proof-heavy. So, I was referring more to, for instance, getting a PhD in math and physics and doing research in, say quantum gravity, and some other field that encompasses a wide range of subjects in pure mathematics. Or if there, some field that embraces both these fields together, maybe mathematical physics. </p>

<p>I might be wrong about this, but I feel like engineering, unless at the PhD level, is not exactly the same as one might research in theoretical physics or pure math. And at that level, it seems more academia oriented than industry, even though many go to work at r&d firms. </p>

<p>Any comments on my second paragraph in the last post? It is sort of irrelevant, but I was just wondering out of curiosity even though it shouldn’t matter.</p>

<p>It sounds like applied mathematics may be a solid path for you, to be honest. It will deal with all the heavy math but with a focus on application, and you could certainly use that for anything from theoretical physics research to computer architecture. That would give you a lot of freedom to pursue a variety of “applied” research interests, all from a very mathematical perspective. I [had</a> a professor](<a href=“http://www.math.upenn.edu/~ghrist/research.html]had”>robert ghrist home page) like that as an undergraduate. It seemed like a very interesting and very mathematical approach to some otherwise very practical problems. You can find other applied mathematicians working on problems throughout a variety of fields, too.</p>

<p>As for that second question, it is difficult to gain any kind of widespread notoriety in any technical field. Most of the people who do, though, do seem to be engineers simply because their work is closer to the end user. Within your chosen field though, I don’t really think there is much difference in terms of trying to reach the pinnacle in the eyes of your colleagues. It is difficult either way.</p>

<p>First of all, you are not specializing as an undergraduate. Whatever Bachelor’s degree you choose, if you have taken enough math and physics, you can choose a graduate degree that interests you later on. From what you have said, it sounds like you are pretty far advanced in your courses as a sophomore. </p>

<p>Take the time you have left in college to get involved in research in physics or math or both to get a better idea of what might interest you. Apply for a bunch of REU programs this February and get away from your university to see what it is like in other schools. Speak to your professors and learn what their careers are like. This will help you make a decision when the time comes.</p>

<p>If you are not convinced about doing engineering, don’t do it. It sounds like you are more attracted to theoretical physics or applied math (some might argue they are the same). however, make sure you get a bit of experience in experimental physics too. A theoretician who knows nothing about experiment is not a good thing in general.</p>

<p>Now a word about long term careers. Most successful physicists whom I know personally have not stayed in a narrow field for all their careers. They are inquisitive, want to learn new things and see new and different challenges as stimulating. You are not destined to follow your Ph.D. research with more of the same for your entire life. This has been my experience as a physics faculty member for the past 30 years. Over the course of this time, I have changed the field of my research 4 times at least. I never give old things up but I do add new ones pretty regularly. There are a lot of interesting problems.</p>

<p>Good Luck!</p>

<p>Thanks. His research field looks very interesting actually. I’ll probably just major in math and physics, and minor in applied math, since it is only offered as a minor in the undergraduate program as of now. If I were to be interested in pure math though, and not necessarily applications of it, just researching the theory, I would probably be just researching quantum gravity and some other interdisciplinary mathematics field (hopefully there is an interdisciplinary field that embraces the main pillars of mathematics like quantum gravity does for physics) simultaneously though right? Or I could just spend my career researching different topics one after another, maybe similar to how Terence Tao delves into multiple fields. Applied mathematics certainly sound interesting though, and I’ll definitely think about it during my graduate study.
For graduate school, I probably couldn’t get a PhD in both mathematics and physics, so I’d have to decide on one by that time.
And yeah, it’s probably going to be that I’ll have to have both a great passion and interest and spend a lot of time on whatever field I’m working in to have a chance at gaining widespread recognition. Hopefully, though, my research in multiple fields, instead of a focus in a single one, won’t be a detriment to that.</p>

<p>You could get two PhDs, but you would be incredibly silly to do it. At that point, you don’t need a degree to tell you what direction to take your research. Just get one. Which one you should get should be much more apparent by the time you actually have to decide.</p>

<p>Also, there is really no advantage to double majoring unless you are doing simply for your own enrichment, in which case that is a whole lot of work and good luck.</p>

<p>Yes that’s true. I plan to graduate in three years, and I think I will have completed requirements for both majors by then, so I think I would be fine. If I plan to do research in both theoretical physics and pure mathematics though, it would make more sense to do a doctorate in something like applied math though. </p>

<p>The only question regarding the career as a physicist or mathematician that I have, is does rising the ranks or promotion work the same way as most other careers? From what I’ve heard, it seems a lot harder to be able to call oneself successful as a scientist more than any other career. Hopefully, with enough work and focus and interest, I can call myself successful and gain the recognition I hope to receive in the future.</p>

<p>Even though it shouldn’t be a significant aspect, but I would not be satisfied having become a physicist/mathematician, and not having done enough significant work to impact the field. I would rather go with a field where I can definitely be successful given the amount of work I put in. </p>

<p>@xraymancs
Thanks for the advice. I participated in the math REU program last term, but in my home college. I’ll probably try doing it in a different university next summer.
I’m actually interested in both theoretical physics and pure mathematics, not necessarily just applied math, even though it does seems interesting as well now that I look more into it.</p>

<p>The promotion path in a career for a physicist depends on whether you are in academia, a government lab or in industry. The system in academia or a government lab is more or less the same with the difference that most universities offer tenure and the labs don’t really. In industry the process is somewhat different and since I have never pursued that path, i can’t say too much about it.</p>

<p>Yes, it is a long road in academia. You would need to do at least one postdoctoral stint, possibly two as a theoretical physicist. Then once you get a faculty position there is a probationary period of about 6 years before you get tenure (if you have published enough and gotten enough funding). After that, it is a question if whether your research has developed a strong reputation outside your institution and country before you can be promoted to full Professor.</p>

<p>As you can see it is a long road and the pay is significantly less than industry. You have to want to do it… You can also see why getting 2 Ph.D. degrees, each of which could take over 4 years is somewhat absurd. With a the training you get during the Ph.D. you should be albe to apply your skills and experience to fields wider than the one you worked on during graduate school.</p>

<p>What exactly is the difference between working in academia and in national laboratories? I see the salary for physicists and professors, when you look it up, are different. If your primary interest is research, is there a point in becoming a professor at a university?</p>

<p>What would be your advice, if after completing my undergraduate studies, I were still as interested in doing full-fledged research in both theoretical physics and pure mathematics? </p>

<p>And yes, I see that this particular path is hard and I would need to be genuinely passionate and interested in the subject. I guess that’s a strong pre-requisite in starting to try to become successful in this field and why engineering is a more popular choice.
Thank-you.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Let’s not say things we know nothing about. These qualities are equally important for becoming good research scientist in engineering as they are in mathematics and physics.</p>

<p>At any rate, xraymancs may be able to add further insight, but the major differences between working in academia versus a national lab are teaching and the degree of freedom you have with your research.</p>

<p>National lab employees don’t have to teach; professors do. That doesn’t just mean teaching courses. This includes mentoring graduate students (though there are some graduate students that get mentored by national lab scientists if I recall correctly).</p>

<p>National lab employees have some freedom in what they research but it is all within the scope of the mission of that lab and it is often classified information. It makes it more difficult to publish your results in public journals when your work has been deemed necessary to national security. Of course, funding is easy to come by because you are working essentially for the government on problems already deemed critical, and if your preferred project doesn’t get funding, there are many more in which you can take part that are likely related. On the other hand, professors can research basically anything they want so long as they can convince someone to fund it. Of course, that means a large part of the job is writing grants and searching for money.</p>

<p>Other than that, both types of positions will often research the same sorts of problems and can include plenty of fundamental studies (as opposed to industry, where research tends to be more applied).</p>