<p>But I dont want to spend my life in a blizzard of equations and theory, I don't want to do research (forever and ever), I don't want to ever become an investment banker or a financial consultant, and I don't want my future career options limited to fighting for tenure at some no-name university. I do, however like designing things and building things and watching things fly. So essentially, I want to be an engineer and not a physicist.</p>
<p>But. And here's the big but. I hate my engineering classes and I love my physics classes. No no, I'm not struggling in engineering, it's just really boring to learn and clearly the more engineering classes I take the fewer physics classes, and I've heard and said myself that undergrad is a chance to learn what you want to learn, but then again, going into engineering grad without an engineering undergrad degree is pretty much unheard of. So I have an idea of what I want to do with my life (scary thought) but I don't like what I have to do to get there. </p>
<p>I guess I'm looking for you to either refute me and say "NAW, there's tons of crazy cool and not totally lame things you can do with a theoretical physics degree!" or tell me "Yeah, physics is useless, it's great fun to learn but suck it up and push through engineering, you won't regret it." or really anything else you want to sling at me. Maybe some people are going through the same thing. Yeah, I'm posting a thread about it, this has kept me up at night.</p>
<p>Some background information if you care: right now I'm double majoring in physics and aero/astro at MIT. Physics with a concentration in cosmology and astro-physics (yeah, I know, very functional). Yeah, I could keep on doing both, but it stresses me out a bit the risk I suffer being mediocre in both fields. Also, it stresses me out a bit as well taking so many god awful classes. </p>
<p>Basically, you have it in your mind that you have to do engineering undergrad to go to engineering grad. This is quite silly. It is quite easy to get an undergraduate degree in physics and go to graduate school in engineering. How do I know this? My school has had a fair number of physics graduates go onto graduate school in engineering and do just fine. Go with the physics major, making sure to take what you think may help for engineering.</p>
<p>What year are you? The first couple of years of engineering can be boring. That is because at at point you are still learning the fundamentals, which for the most part bear no resemblance to real world applications. However, often by the 3rd year, pieces start to come together, and you begin to see how what you've learned fit into the big picture and see how they relate to real applications. That's what attracted most people to go into engineering in the first place. I think you should stick with it.</p>
<p>Follow your instincts and your heart. They will lead you to where you belong. Enjoy the journey. You may be headed down a path taking you to things that don't even exist yet. How exciting is that!</p>
<p>Well, I'm asking about a more short-term thing in terms of taking classes and such. Sure, in the long run I'll probably be able to do some combination of physics and engineering in my work but for now I'm just trying to get a bachelor's degree. Also, MIT doesn't have engineering physics, but I wouldn't want to do that anyways simply because I'm precisely the most worried about doing things that are neither here nor there. Which is what I'm doing right now.</p>
<p>I don't know that much about it but to me it seems that this particular major doesn't quite go into enough physics theory and then doesn't quite give enough of the practicality of engineering. It'd be more integrated than the double major I'm building for myself right now but not more in depth. I think this particular crisis of mine is hinged on the fear of being mediocre at two disciplines instead of really great at one. </p>
<p>Either way, Engineering Physics isn't an option at MIT</p>
<p>Well, the engineering math and physics (EMP) courses are obviously there such that this educational path is an option, even if there is no formal program.</p>
<p>The idea here is that one decides what he wants to go to grad school in, and then takes the engineering, math and physics that support that goal. </p>
<p>By choosing an EMP path, one gives up some batchelors degree employability in exchange for getting a jump on the first year of grad school. You would be specializing in "pre-engineering-grad" (analogously to pre-law). </p>
<p>But, your choice is the same one that 1000's have to make every year - fun, sexy physics or practical, get a job, engineeering. For some, EMP is a third way.</p>
<p>My guess is that even people in Physics (or Engineering, for that matter) end up specializing in subfields. They get to be really great in their specialties, but "mediocre", as you would put it, in the other subfields. That does not appear to be a problem.</p>
<p>So the question is whether Engineering Physics, or Applied Physics, or (in MIT's case) Physics with Flexible Option, is truly a discipline in itself, with its own subfields of specialization that can lead to great depth and richness, so that unfavorable comparisons against physicists or engineers are irrelevant, or is it just a poorly thought-out slapping together of two disciplines without bothering to create something new or doing justice to either, as you fear?</p>
<p>8-B (physics-flexible) is structured so as to allow for flexibility in coursework, it is not much of a discipline in and of itself. It has really very few requirements and expect you to take a minimum of three (I think) classes in a certain "specialization" beyond them. It's known for its very forgiving graduation requirements and is pretty open to self-design. In essence it is as hard as you want to make it. Right now I am 8-B along with Aero/astro. The trouble is, if I were to fulfill the requirements for Aero/Astro, I'd have VERY few slots left for electives in physics. I'd be stuck to pretty much doing the bare minimum of physics and the bare minimum of Aero/Astro, the thought of which is making me very unhappy as I don't want so much degrees as a good solid understanding.</p>
<p>Are you essentially suggesting that I drop Aero/Astro altogether and just go for a degree in 8b? I'm actually getting really excited about that idea right now since then I'll be able to take all the math classes I've wanted to take and cannot fit into my schedule as is. A potential problem in pursuing only 8b would be that I can't then get into any lab classes for Aero/Astro (there's such a thing called Unified Engineering - a full year course which I've now complete only half of - that is pretty much a prereq for everything after it in Aero).</p>
<p>Gee, I don't want to caught practicing college advising without a license ... I am just exploring the topic along with you.</p>
<p>I agree with you that it is not very good to go down two distinct paths because then you may not be good enough at either. The point I was trying to convey is that a not all fields with hyphenated names necessarily ask you to be good in two things (and fail). Some -- perhaps Engineering Physics is one of them -- are bona fide fields in themselves, and ask you to be very good in one thing, much like you would in an established field.</p>
<p>So for example if you are interested in optical physics or condensed matter physics, Engineering Physics or Applied Physics (or a suitable arrangement of 8b) may be the best way to go. Flight and physics don't seem to play well together, I agree, so maybe one of them will have to go. How's college advising at MIT?</p>
<p>Actually, didn't you work in biology and/or medicine previously?</p>
<p>Nope, never had any interest really in biology :/</p>
<p>Advising isn't bad, and I plan to talk to my advisor, but an engineering professor isn't going to be the most unbiased source of information in the world.</p>
<p>Let's search for the answer that the OP already has in his mind that he wants us to validate for him.</p>
<p>Is this it? "Take whatever you want. Get A's in it. Your're at *******ing MIT, for God's sake. Go to grad school in something vaguely related to what you studied. You'll be fine."</p>
<p>I wish you hadn't made that comment cause that kind of made me want to stab you in the face.</p>
<p>I mean, did I say something wrong? Is it somehow not okay to ask for advice on an engineering major in an engineering forum?? I don't think I was hostile in any way shape or form, so why the hostility from you? I'm very rarely serious on this forum but I'm serious now, like this is really important to me (I mean picking a major is a pretty big commitment, everyone does it, sure, but everyone isn't the same) and I just wanted to hear it from people who knew more than I did. What does that have to do with me going or not going to MIT? Beyond the possible limitations of course offerings and major paths, what does choosing between two majors have to do with MIT?</p>
<p>Truthfully you aren't the worst offender at this. But there is a class of posters that know what they want to hear and knock down every suggestion until they get the "right" one.</p>
<p>I think that there is a chance, at least, that you are looking for validation for a decision that you have already made. </p>
<p>Again, truthfully, most of the time whenever ANY of us asks for advice, that is what we are looking for, validation.</p>