<p>I might be of some help. I'm an Engineering Physics major, so I have my feet in many puddles.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It's good to hear physics is less competitive. Anyone know about research opportunities?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>word on the street is that physics classes are harder, but less annoying than engineering ones. (engineering classes often have you do projects or long calculations; with physics, you can get stuck on a concept or math trick for a long time without getting anywhere, but once you get it, it's relatively fast.) also, a few mean people (who for whatever reason tend to be EECS) give the rest of engineering a bad name--most engineers I've met are friendly people. physics/math/EECS tend to have a lot more uber nerds than chem and the other engineering majors.</p>
<p>it should be relatively easy to get a job in research if you're qualified (usually means being a junior or at least a soph). some of my dorm friends do research in URAP/URO.</p>
<p>
[quote]
would it be to my advantage in any way to be a scientist who also knows engineering? Would majoring in engineering as an undergrad and going on to grad school for theoretical physics and mathematics be feasible/desirable?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>word on the street is that it's useful to have engineering experience to understand the instrumentation you use, and to make new instrumentation. if you want to be an experimental physicist, engineering is very helpful, not so much if you want to do theroy (math is king for theory). theory is also really hard and doesn't make any sense. ("oh, so nothing actually makes intuitive sense and everything we've been taught in school up to this point is wrong?")</p>
<p>
[quote]
Also, just as important, do you think doing engineering instead of hard science as a ugrad will adequately prepare me for hardcore research/study into theoretical physics/math in grad school and beyond...or will I be at a disadvantage relative to those who've already had a strong education in pure math and physics?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>i actually was talking to my advisor about something related to this the other day. see, i can choose between taking E115 (engineering thermo) and physics 112 (statistical and thermal physics). my advisor said that if i wanted to do grad school in physics or applied physics, i should do the physics class because it teaches stuff from a more fundamental perspective (everything in physics is microscopic, while in engineering stuff tends to be macroscopic; E115 teaches about refrigerators and heat engines, which are important if you want to make stuff, while phys 112 teaches kinetic theory, which is important if you want to understand stuff). so if you want to go to a phd program in physics or math, it's a good idea to take some heavy-duty theory classes while in undergrad. they usually can count as tech electives for engineers.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Finally, how different are physics/astrophysics really? Is astrophysics basically just astronomy with more math and hard physics thrown in or what? I know some schools don't even offer the astro major, so I'm just wondering what would physics vs. astro argument look like?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>i don't know much about astro. i think i've met like... one astronomy major here. i bet it's hard--astro has lots of GR, which is really hard. i recommend looking up the department web sites and comparing.</p>
<p>you've got plenty of time to decide about majors and classes. have fun.</p>
<p>(Also, i have some friends [these guys are very smart cookies--smarter than me for sure] at harvard in math/physics, and believe you me, harvard math/physics is no walk in the park. don't believe everything you hear.)</p>