<p>Hey guys, I am interested in taking physical chemistry / chemical physics at graduate level. I am considering research in the area of microfluidics and nanotechnology. Should I be taking Physics or Chemistry or Chemical Engineering for my undergraduate course? Which of these courses provides the best foundation for further studies in p chem / chem physics? Thanks for your help.</p>
<p>Go with chemE. Microfluidics fits right into current chemE research. So does nano. However, you didn't specify if u wanted a science or engineering basis or what ur career plans are. The topics in grad school are not covered much in undergrad.</p>
<p>I am primarily interested in using nanotechnology to create novel devices and stuff. I also interested in the area of microfluidics, specifically the fluid mechanics at the micro level and also the creation of microfluidic devices. </p>
<p>I am considering Chemistry, Physics or Chemical Engineering as my major. I am just wondering if one of these majors provides a better foundation for 1. chemical physics and also 2. nanotechnology and microfluidics.</p>
<p>looks like chemE is the way to go. esp with ur interest in microfluidic devices and nanotech. much of chemE is basically p-chemistry, kinetics, thermo, fluids, etc.</p>
<p>I would strongly advise against chemical engineering since I think it is a field in perpetual decline. I think physics and maths with come computing is best option of those presented.</p>
<p>IMO I would disagree with Toronto_Guy. Take what you read on here with a grain of salt (unless you know the person posting's credentials.)</p>
<p>Thanks for the caveat, aswat12389. toronto_guy, can you please justify your statement?</p>
<p>
[quote]
I would strongly advise against chemical engineering since I think it is a field in perpetual decline.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>With oil being $70 a barrel, I vehemently disagree. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I think physics and maths with come computing is best option of those presented
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I can't disagree with computing, because I too believe this is a field on the rise. But physics and math? Come on. Chemical engineering is just applied physics and math. So if ChemE is on the decline, then physics and math must also be on the decline.</p>
<p>chem e is on the decline because there are excess graduates for the market. obtaining an operations position in a big firm is far from simple. in other words, there is a huge oversupply of engineers on the market.</p>
<p>I doubt that situation happens to everyone.</p>
<p>I do not what stage you are at. Let me tell you it is very sobering to graduate from chemical engineering and not land an operations job. I do not know what your expectations are or were, but when I went through chemical engineering I was led to believe (via the faculty) that operations work with the big firms (Big Oil, Dupont, Carbide, etc...) was for the taking for a candidate from a good school with a good profile. I soon learned that the grads by far far outnumbered the positions of what could be called the standard chemical engineering profile.</p>
<p>I said it before, I'll say it again, toronto_guy. You have to be willing to move to where the jobs are. If you expect to be able to stay in Toronto and find a ChemE job, I agree you may be disappointed, just like a guy who wants to stay in Wyoming and expects to find an investment banking job will likely be disappointed. </p>
<p>
[quote]
chem e is on the decline because there are excess graduates for the market. obtaining an operations position in a big firm is far from simple. in other words, there is a huge oversupply of engineers on the market.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It is actually exceedingly simple to get a job if you are willing to move. For example, the job market in Texas for anybody having anything to do with oil is white-hot. That's what happens when oil hits $70 a barrel. Same in Alberta.</p>
<p>What I gather is that you just don't want to move to where the jobs are. Hey, that's fine if you don't want to move there. But I think you should admit that that's what the real problem is. </p>
<p>You also talk about an oversupply of ChemE's relative to the demand? But then how do you go about justifying the study of physics and math? There little demand for people with just bachelor's degrees in physics and math. After all, how many physicist and mathematician jobs are available for people with just bacheor's degrees? Practically all of them have to find jobs in other fields. Some are able to, like those who are able to get into finance/banking. But many are unable. </p>
<p>Trust me, I know plenty of physics and math grads who can't find decent jobs. Many of them have expressed that they wished they had majored in engineering instead. So I don't see how you can complain about ChemE's not being able to find operations jobs, but then turn around and recommend physics/math, when those grads REALLY can't find operations jobs (because there is no such thing in those majors). </p>
<p>Look, if you were to have said that you would recommend that people major in EE or CS instead of ChemE because of the versatility of the degree and the growth of the field, I probably wouldn't object because that's a fairly defensible position. I do think that EECS (especially CS) has better overall job potential and versatility than ChemE. But when you go around recommending physics or math for the job potential, that's where you go right off the rails. ChemE (and all engineering for that matter) is just applied physics and applied math. Hence, ChemE is a more marketable degree just BY DEFINITION. The whole idea behind engineering is that you are applying science and math concepts to something the market wants.</p>
<p>I'm a 15 year chemical engineer who's worked in Houston and Louisiana. Toronto is dead wrong on everything....all the others are right on the money. If you want a job in chem engr all you have to do is be willing to move. Houston is so hot right now they are hiring engineers from Louisiana that made $80k and paying them $110k. The markets do ebb and flow, but I have yet to see the day when a chem engr couldn't get a job if he was willing to move to a reasonable market base for engineers. If you go Math or Physics, you better make it into grad school or you'll in the unemployment line.</p>
<p>By analogy, saying, "there was an oversupply of chem engineers in the market" versus not having one in physicists and mathematicians is like saying there's an oversupply of human doctors and an undersupply of canine nurses. There may or may not be a surplus, but at least they have marketable value.</p>
<p>Many schools have a major in math and engineering physics that allows one to avoid some of the more gruntish engineering requirements.</p>