<p>My two cents:</p>
<p>You won’t go wrong with either B.S. eng. + M.S. eng. or B.S. Physics (or math or chemistry) + M.S. eng.</p>
<p>It’s true the basic sciences forsake the practical knowledge used in engineering. You will touch on thermal physics but you won’t do thermodynamics; you will touch on classical mechanics, but you won’t do the applied mechanics of fluids or materials; you will do inorganic chemistry but you won’t do the processing of materials covered in materials engineering; you will cover numerical methods in math, but you won’t do the applied finite element analysis or computational fluid dynamics of engineering. </p>
<p>But what you forsake in practical applied knowledge, you gain in foundational knowledge. As a physics graduate you will understand the true nature of heat much better than an engineer - you just won’t be anywhere near as good at analyzing heat transfer problems. You will understand the true nature of matter, and its particle/wave duality that leads to unbelievable phenomena like superconductivity and superfluidity - but you won’t be able to design a system that depends on mass transfer, chemical reaction, or the processing or superconductor materials for application in super-efficient electrical systems.</p>
<p>When employers hire, they want you to hit the ground running. That means they want you coming in with lots of practical knowledge. So if you plan on stopping at the B.S. level, think twice about pure science - although in this day and age, an M.S. is almost required for most cool engineering jobs anyway.</p>
<p>But if you are going to do an M.S. anyway, you’ll do great with a B.S. in Physics or any pure science. Matter of fact, you will not only have the practical engineering knowledge that make you attractive to employers, but also the much deeper foundational knowledge that belies all of engineering.</p>
<p>Another word: I’ve been on both sides, studying physics, and studying engineering. Here’s my impression: engineering students are driven by the idea of a successful and profitable career. Physics students are driven by the idea of learning about the world around them - knowing full well none of that knowledge is likely to ever come in handy in any job. One of the most impressive features of physics and mathematics students is that EVEN THOUGH they were almost certain to struggle with employment at graduation, they still chose to study some of the most challenging subjects around. And if you did well without the motivational idea of a fat salary, then I can be confident you will work even harder when I give you a paycheck. </p>
<p>Finally: engineering courses emphasize the application of equations to real problems, and dont’ spend much time deriving them - sometimes no time at all. In physics, chemistry, and math, all that foundational knowledge IS the emphasis. You WILL become good at deriving equations and model physical problems. An example: as an engineering student, my exams consisted of plugging in numbers into equations, and I was graded largely on my ability to choose the right equations, plug the right numbers, and get an accurate numerical result. As a physics student, my exams consisted of deriving equations, extracting physical insight from an equation, and explaining the general behavior of a physical system. In engineerin, if you plug in the wrong number by mistake, you may lose all credit; in physics, you will lose no credit, because numerical results are not the emphasis. In engineering, if you can’t derive an equation, that’s fine because you’re only supposed to use it; in physics, if you can’t derive an equation, you lose all credit.</p>