<p>Which major do you think is better in terms of employment and salary in the US?</p>
<p>electrical/comp eng.</p>
<p>Engineering tends to be better than the pure sciences in terms of both employment and salary. In engineering, engineers can work in industry right away upon getting a bachelor's. In many pure sciences you need a grad degree to have a chance at employment.</p>
<p>EE/CompE.</p>
<p>Electrical and Computer Engineering</p>
<p>It's quite clear that the answer is engineering. The fact is, if you're just talking about a bachelor's degree, then from a sheer marketability standpoint, it is almost always less marketable to have a science degree than to have the corresponding engineering degree. For example, bachelor's in chemical engineering degrees are significantly more marketable than are chemistry degrees, EE, CS, CompE, and ME degrees are more marketable than are physics degrees, BioE's/BiomedE's are more marketable than are biology degrees, and mining/petroleum engineering degrees are more marketable than are geology degrees. </p>
<p>But, as I've said before, if all you care about money, then forget about working as a scientist or engineer. Just get a job in investment banking, management consulting or related jobs.</p>
<p>
[quote]
But, as I've said before, if all you care about money, then forget about working as a scientist or engineer. Just get a job in investment banking, management consulting or related jobs.
[/quote]
Yes, I do care. How would I support myself if I didn't?</p>
<p>On the other hand, I just don't like the stuff like banking, management or consulting. It's absolutely boring and sorry if I offend somebody, this work is really less usefull for societies than science and engineering is. Secondly, I have been working really hard on physics for the last three years, so I am not gonna just drop everything one day and say: all right, from now on I'll be a manager. Plus I don't want to be a part of consumer society.</p>
<p>About studying: I really like studying the stuff I like -- phsyics, engineering, maths, chemistry.</p>
<p>Now one more question: when I read these forums there is an impression that there is an abundance of guys with engineering degrees in the US. Isn't it that the US is actually short of physicists?</p>
<p>Another path to consider if you are really into physics but are unhappy about its job prospects is to get into geophysics (using physics to solve geology problems), hydrology (branch of geology dealing with groundwater; installing wells) or dynamic meteorology (physics to study the atmosphere and climate). Geology/Geophysics/Hydrology in particular, like engineering, has a lot of employment at the BS level. You don't need a Phd in geology to start your career, unlike physics. </p>
<p>There is only one problem. None of the above fields pay quite as well as engineering.
The above also assumes, of course, that you would be interested in those fields, which you may not be.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Now one more question: when I read these forums there is an impression that there is an abundance of guys with engineering degrees in the US. Isn't it that the US is actually short of physicists?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>There are many more engineers than physicists for sure but there is also the industrial demand for engineers that keeps pace with their numbers. This is not so in physics. There is just no demand for physicists at the BS level unless you are talking about specialized fields indirectly related to physics-- geophysicists, meteorologists, hydrologists..etc. The reason why there is a demand for engineers, geophysicists, hydrologists, meteorologists and the like at the BS level is that their skills tend to be more application-oriented rather than research-oriented. In industry, they care more about applying technical skills to either build/design things or "run" things to maximize company profits.</p>
<p>The physics degree, OTOH, is a different beast altogether. It is a research degree and the skills learned by a physicist at the BS level have very little application to industry. This is why most physicists need a Phd and tend to do research at special agencies, labs, or become professors at universities. And the sad thing is that even then, many physicists with a Phd still won't be able to land a position! The far fewer positions available in the sciences and relatively large number of applicants means that job competition is much worse than in engineering.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It's absolutely boring and sorry if I offend somebody, this work is really less usefull for societies than science and engineering is.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't know about. To say that you don't like doing those sorts of things is fine. But to say that they are less useful for society - that I cannot countenance. The fact is, the reason why the US is so prosperous is largely due to a strong and dynamic financial system and to highly advanced managerial techniques. Physicists and engineers may be able to invent new technologies, but to bring those technologies to market requires capital, which is what a highly dynamic financial system can provide. It also requires good management techniques. Many companies win or lose in the market not through better or worse technology but through better or worse managerial decisions. </p>
<p>As a case in point - look at the Soviet Union. Soviet scientists and engineers created a plethora of highly advanced technologies such as the first spacecraft (Sputnik) and won a host of Nobel Prizes. Even to this day, science and technical education in the former Soviet Union is among the world's best. Yet the Soviet economy was in shambles. It's not enough to have good science and technology. You have to have a system that will convert them into things that will ultimately benefit the economy. Many of the discoveries of quantum mechanics of the late 1800's and early 1900's have been converted into advances in semiconductors. The microchip, and by extension, the computer and the Internet, are all based on quantum mechanics discoveries. But the commercialization of these technologies is ultimately based on business decisions, not technical decisions. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Secondly, I have been working really hard on physics for the last three years, so I am not gonna just drop everything one day and say: all right, from now on I'll be a manager.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Why not? Is that so unusual? Plenty of people do exactly that. 1/4 of all MIT EECS graduates do not take engineering jobs, but rather take jobs in consulting or banking. So these students are basically "dropping all" (and in particular, dropping 4 years of arguably the most rigorous EECS education in the world) to pursue something completely different. Heck, I've known people who have graduated with their PhD's from MIT and have decided to go immediately into consulting. </p>
<p>Check out these 2 guys who graduated with bachelor's degrees in physics from MIT. One went on to get a PhD in finance from Wharton, then became a banker at Smith Barney and now runs his own startup company. The other got his PhD in physics at Harvard...and then immediately joined Mckinsey.</p>
<p>None of that is to say that you should do something you don't like to do. I'm just pointing out that this notion of changing careers has been done by many other people. Surely you must agree that anybody who gets a PhD in physics must have REALLY been working hard on it, yet that doesn't stop them from choosing some other career. It's not THAT unusual.</p>
<p>Sakky,</p>
<p>I admit on having been too assertive when I said that physics and engineering is more useful than banking, management and finances. But I still disagree with you about the USSR. I was born there and have witnesssed the whole soviet reality and while you're totally correct saying that managers, bankers and financers are better in the US, it's not just about finances, what made that empire less advanced than the US. In my opinon, soviet ideology and planned economy were also largely to blame. </p>
<p>Secondly, now I live in an xUSSR country, which is a part of NATO and EU. I have been taking courses of physics for high school kids in the best university of my homecountry. I have also received an offer of admission from the faculty of physics. However, this fall I am going to study in the US. Don't you think that there is actually something wrong with our educational system, which made me cram for SATs, take TOEFL and sacrifice my holidays for writing essays and filling in college applications?</p>
<p>All right, one more question: what kind of career can an electrical/computer engineer expect?</p>
<p>
[quote]
it's not just about finances, what made that empire less advanced than the US. In my opinon, soviet ideology and planned economy were also largely to blame.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well yeah, but that inherently has to do with finance. It is through a deep and flexible financial system in which investments can be directed to optimal parts of the economy. As a simple example, Internet companies like Google and Yahoo, and in fact, the Internet economy at large, would be only a tiny fraction of what it is today were it not for a highly flexible financial system that has directed capital to Internet companies. If Google and Yahoo were forced to grow only through their own retained earnings and cash flow, they would still be tiny little companies. They are powerhouses because the financial community has infused them with huge investments, first in the form of venture capital and then recently through the public equity markets. </p>
<p>In contrast, the major problem with the Soviet system was that centralized planning cannot quickly and dynamically adjust for changes in the economy the way that a flexible capitalistic financial system can. Nomenklatura's simply do not have all of the information that they need to redirect and fine-tune resources as a complex economy requires. What a strong financial system allows you to do is to shift investment capital from less productive areas of the economy to more productive areas in a fine-tuned manner. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I have also received an offer of admission from the faculty of physics. However, this fall I am going to study in the US. Don't you think that there is actually something wrong with our educational system, which made me cram for SATs, take TOEFL and sacrifice my holidays for writing essays and filling in college applications?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, yes, but the truth is, this is something that most people in the world have to face. Sadly, most people in the world do not even get the chance to obtain a high education. There are billions of people in Africa, Asia, and South America who are consigned by simple bad luck to eke out lives of subsistence. Even China, which has managed to dynamically thrust about 300 million people out of poverty, still has about a billion people left in the poor countryside. The vast majority of the people in India are dirt poor. </p>
<p>
[quote]
All right, one more question: what kind of career can an electrical/computer engineer expect?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Simply put, be an engineer. That is to say, working for a technology company as an engineer designing and building new computers or new microchips or whatever it is. For example, you could go work for Intel, Dell, HP, IBM, Cisco, Siemens, etc. Most modern machinery have important electrical components, as well as computerization. So you could easily go work for Toyota, Boeing, Airbus, Fiat, Daimler-Chrysler, etc.</p>
<p>
because you obviously can't support yourself on the meager (expected) starting salary of $51k :rolleyes:</p>
<p>not to be the idealist here, but have you ever heard the saying "Get a job you love, and never work a day in your life"? maybe you should consider that...if the sciences interest you, then don't fret over a getting a financially superlative job. i'm not saying don't worry about money, especially since it's hard to be happy if you're struggling to pay things off, but maybe there's something more to life than just what salary you make...</p>
<p>and to answer your question, applied sciences usually have the greatest chance at employment over pure sciences.</p>
<p>engineering where my heart it is..</p>
<p>physics. engineering has too much biotch work. i love the concept of engineering but i think i am going to create my own major here at hmc and be an engineering physics (applied physics) major.</p>
<p>bring on the heat.</p>
<p>
[quote]
not to be the idealist here, but have you ever heard the saying "Get a job you love, and never work a day in your life"? maybe you should consider that...if the sciences interest you, then don't fret over a getting a financially superlative job. i'm not saying don't worry about money, especially since it's hard to be happy if you're struggling to pay things off, but maybe there's something more to life than just what salary you make...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Great, I agree with you completely. But there is a problem: I know that I like physics, but I still haven't tried myself at engineering. How can I know that I am not going to like engineering more than physics?</p>
<p>Secondly, I am probably going to Lafayette, which has a far better engineering program than that of physics.</p>
<p>Not to hijack this thread, but are the prospects any different for an Applied & Engineering Physics major? I am going to Cornell next year, and got in with ECE as my intended major, but I also really like physics, and they supposedly have the #1 program in engineering physics. I'm almost positive I'd like to one day work in the high tech computer/electronics market, but would an AEP BS with an ECE minor give me a broader base for pursuing whatever I want? Do you guys think that would give me similar job prospects to a straight ECE major?</p>
<p>Just in case you don't know, Cornell only has the #1 program because many other top science schools offer physics and engineering majors but not engineering physics. Also, if you are sure you want to end up in the high tech computer/electronics market, ECE seems like a better choice to me.</p>
<p>
i'm sure a good deal of students going into college for engineering have had little direct experience with it. engineering really just seems like the practical application of all the sciences we all know and love, and most especially physics...just my opinion, but i find the application of theory more interesting and exciting than just seeing theory as it is.</p>