<p>The engineering math requirements at the university where I will be transferring in the spring have Cal I-III, Engineering Mathematics, and one or two have Discrete Mathematics.</p>
<p>MATH 3321: Engineering Mathematics
Cr. 3. (3-0). Prerequisites: MATH 1432. Students may not receive credit for both MATH 3321 and MATH 3331. First order ordinary differential equations and initial value problems; higher order differential equations; vector spaces, matrices, determinants, eigenvectors and eigen-values; applications to systems of first order equations; Laplace transforms.</p>
<p>It's probably up to the university. Mine (Rose-Hulman) doesn't seem to require more than Calc I-III and ODE I-II (We are on the quarter system) and a statistics class for either ME's or EE's. Physics majors need those in addition to two math electives like Function of Complex Variable (whatever that is) and Vector Calc. I assume that in some classes, while having a background in some math class would be helpful it wouldn't be required. For one of my physics classes they recommend Boundary Value Problems since it can help, but I suppose they teach the rest of us enough to get by. <em>shrugs</em></p>
<p>A lot of physics majors are preparing for graduate school, so it's hard to say what's necessary for their undergraduate classes, and what's preparatory. Personally, I've run into a greater diversity of math in physics than in engineering. empiricism doesn't lend itself to intense math</p>
<p>The physics major asks "why did that Standard III missile knock the satellite off course?", whereas the engineering major asks "how do I get that Standard III up there to knock the satellite off course?". </p>
<p>Sorry, I just think anti-satellite technology is amazing.</p>
<p>OK... I meant that Physics coursework is constantly highly mathematical. Required math courses aren't a very good guide to what they'll need to know for classes, at least they weren't in my day. And I remember well the time we had a problem that resulted in a numerical answer rather than an expression.</p>
<p>I'm not saying that engineering isn't mathematical!</p>
<p>Panglossian has a point. Physicists and engineers have a different mindset.</p>
<p>I took an engineering course as an undergrad with some fellow physics students. The professor would state a concept or present an equation, but would never explain why it was that way or where it came from. It annoyed my physics friends and me that the presentation was so shallow.</p>
<p>Physics classes train us to always ask why, to take a concept back to first principles, and to not just accept something without understanding where it comes from. We want to know why. According to my boyfriend (an engineer), engineers don't necessarily care why, they just care that it works so they can apply it.</p>
<p>Although the math requirements for engineering and physics at my school are roughly the same (with physics majors taking one or two more math classes), I have heard physics students complain about how they have to learn random math stuff on their own. I think engineers hit all of the major math topics that physicists do, and then end up ignoring a lot of small detail that the physicists actually use... that would be the theoretical parts of math that most engineers don't like anyway.</p>
<p>In my opinion, physics is more fun while you're in college, and engineering is more fun when you're in the real world. Physics as a career requires major dedication, and incredible passion. If you love science for the sake of science then you're a physicist. If you could care less about how many dimensions there really are then you're probably more of an engineer.</p>
<p>It is not correct to say that engineers get a "dumbed down" version of physics, but rather a more applicable version of it. Engineers can't do what physicists can (they don't have the drive) and physicists can't do what engineers do (they don't even wanna touch it). Its not a matter of superiority but rather of choice. Realistically, if you can get through either one you are qualified to pursue either as a career. </p>
<p>You will learn a wider set of skills in engineering, and will probably find it harder in terms of work-load. Physics will give you skills to think in more abstract ways. Physicists will not be as good at design (without practice), and engineers won't have a lot of fun with making new theories about how stuff works (without practice). Once you get to graduate school, the line becomes blurry, and the major difference remains that engineers expand knowledge usually for their own sake (money, fame, solving a real problem they are facing) while physicists will explore things they find intriguing simply for the sake of science.</p>
<p>People in Physics can have a lucrative career too. Engineering is more application based, but depending on your graduate program of choice-- there are physics discipline that pay just as much if not more than some engineering fields.</p>