Xcron

Hello,

I have just had my first semester at a community college and I was planning on doing ME as my primary major. I took an intro to engineering class, as well as an engineering design class. I had been doing a lot of research on my interests in engineering and science throughout the entire semester. At the beginning, I had thought that I would be majoring in Physics but decided, after a few weeks of school, that I would instead pursue ME because I was more interested in Engineering than Physics. A recent source of several interviews, history, descriptions, and a little more research brought me to another stage in my decision because I was still unsure about which major I wanted to pursue.

The latest source showed me that mathematics and computation, in general, was not necessarily a large part of an engineer's work. There was some telephoning, a lot of presentation, consultation, etc. I began to realize that it was not the reason why I had liked Engineering. Afterwards, I realized that the entire Engineering curriculum was not a mirror image of what professional Engineering was like, which was what I was seeking. I then did more research about Physicists and Astronomers and realized that their work was actually very interesting, and mathematics was quite in quite a large part of the research that these scientists do. I began to take a like towards being a researcher and exploring the universe, while still having the ability to do a bit of engineering with a knowledge of physics that would allow me to create different kinds of useful devices.

I still have not had a physics course that is based on calculus, and will have it during this upcoming winter session at my college. I will not finalize my decision upon my major until I have experienced enough of my physics class to be able to decide upon my interests.

I also thought that majoring in Physics would make my required amount of work much easier. I will be applying to schools like CalTech, UCLA, UCB, and UCSD once I am ready to transfer. Engineering is a very impacted major and it seems that I must have a GPA of around 3.8 just to have a good shot at UCLA. Majoring in Physics would allow me to complete the GE reqs (IGETC), it would allow me to complete the Scholars program and have TAP, and I would only need a GPA that is around 3.5 for a good shot. This would help my chances at every school because Engineering is an impacted major everywhere.

I thought that I would also have the option of doing Engineering work with a Physics degree because I saw that graduates from certain schools were hired into various jobs, including Engineering. I also thought that I would still have a chance of being able to pursue an Engineering major as my double once I transfer, though it is somewhat unlikely.

Would anyone have any advice/comments for me?

somethingsmellsfunny

I wish I could help, but I'm in a very similar scenario. I'm applying to engineering programs right now, but I might switch to physics after freshman year. I think physics, specifically particle physics and astrophysics, has much more interesting subject matter, but the idea of being a researcher in a lab for life is what makes me want to step back and take another look. Not too keen on all the math - a physicist personally told me you don't need to be excellent at math, but you can understand why I'm hesitant to believe that - either.

There's always Applied and Engineering Physics, but I think I'd personally be happier in either straight physics or some other field of eng. Probably something you'd be more interested in than me. It's not an incredibly common major, and I'm not familiar with all those California schools, but 40% of the schools I'm applying to do offer it. If it's something that sonuds interesting, I'm sure there's at least one (probably at the big engineering schools - maybe UCB?) place in that state that has it. Anyway, in the same jam as you, that's all I can offer.

Anybody else have input?

Xcron

somethingsmellsfunny, you can't even begin to consider how alike our situations are. You thought that we were in the same position, but you have no idea lol.

See, you mentioned that particle physics and astrophysics has much more interesting subject matter and I am agreeing with that wholeheartedly because those are the two areas that I thought I would concentrate on as a Physicist (an Experimental one at that, hopefully..). The same idea of being a researcher for my entire life is also what made me think twice about doing Physics in the first place, until I realized how little professional Engineering had to do with actual mathematics because it is so focused on projects, design, etc.

Perhaps the Physicist you spoke with was right because you really don't need to be excellent at math...you only need to be good at it...obviously more competent than most people...but not necessarily excellent, perhaps..

I am in contact with a Physicist and an Astrophysicist (and several engineers) and they both told me that a Physics major is so broad that they have had many friends who have gone on to do Engineering and work for any companies ranging from Boeing to the Air Force.

One other thing that makes our situations even more similar is that I had the same opinion about majoring in general Physics rather than sacrificing some potential knowledge to branch out into Applied/Engineering Physics. It also is a very uncommon major, to tell you the truth. There are only a handful of them at most schools that offer the major and others like it (Applied Math, Applied Physics, etc.).

My whole idea was to pick up Physics so that I would have an extremely easy time with transferring since from what I have gathered I would be able to be almost guaranteed a spot at UCLA and may be rather likely to be admitted to UCB. Then after I would have been admitted, I would petition/apply for a double major in ME and a minor in EECS. I rather like computer programming and these two engineering fields are the ones that I am most fond of. I know of a poster that has been around on the UCB board that goes by the screenname mosharma??? and he is majoring in ChemE + NukeE and minoring in EECS. He seems to be handling it quite well and I would think that I would be just as fine, obviously with a lot of hard work, with my idea for what I would like to study.

Hopefully I will be able to base my decision from my experiences in my upcoming Physics class...*sigh*...

Slorg

Can I jump on the bandwagon? I'm in the same boat. One question: is it a wagon or a boat?

MR_JR

but don't forget, you can become an engineer within 4 years (and theses are the sorts that you have taken to describing), but to become a professional physicist of the nature you describe, you'll definiteley need a Phd. I suspect (not sure) that with an engineering Phd you can avoid doing unrelated stuff a bit more and concentrate on research. But, even as a researcher into physics, a lot of your time will be spent persuading people for funding etc. so don't think that there's none of that involved..
i don't know if any of that actually makes sense but w/e...

drusba

If you are just freshman, you should look at this as a problem you need not solve for a while because, in the first two years, the courses required to become a physics major are very similar to the courses required to become an engineer. Before deciding physics is it, you may want to wait to get through the first three to four calculus based physics courses -- mechanics, electrical and magnetic, quantum, and thermal, and math courses including first two to three calculus courses and differential equations. The reason -- a lot of people may be real excited about physics until they get to the calculus based electrial and magnetic course and the quantum course and to differential equations, and after taking those they never want see another physics or math course for the rest of thier lives.

Xcron

Sadly, I cannot wait any longer than just past this upcoming Winter session at my college. This is because I am at a community college and I need to follow a strict outline of courses if I am to be an Engineering major. The courses I will be taking as a Physics major would be different because a few of the Engineering courses would obviously not be included. This would devastate my progress if I ended up as an Engineering major and if I didn't take those classes in the Spring. This is why I must decide rather soon, though it seems to me that I am coming to a pretty good plan for majoring in Physics...so I would think that if I do enjoy my first calculus-based physics class, then I will have the determination and motivation to continue to work hard in all other physics courses. Another drawback is that I just had Calculus I, will have Physics I (w/ calc - mechanics) this Winter, Calculus II (along with Linear Algebra) and Physics II(waves, grav, thermo) this Spring, Calculus III in the Summer, Diff Equations and Physics III (elec and magn) next Fall, and right before I transfer I will have Physics IV (modern phys, relativ, atom and nuc phys). This is a sad schedule because I do not have the opportunity to experience these courses before I am able to decide my major, due to the circumstances of transferring requirements.

So you are saying that Diff Eqs and the last couple physics courses are usually the deciding factor to what most students base their decision of a major on?

Also, I realize that I will have to get a PhD before I am able to become a professional physicist but that is fine with me, because I will be doing the kind of work that I desire. The funding thing is unavoidable and there are many things that I will not be wanting that will be included in my work as a professional physicist...

I will hopefully have a quick mindset after this first physics class..

rtkysg

No Stanford ???

monydad

The physicists I know personally are all brilliant.

IMO: If you are objectively among the most intelligent people you've ever met, and are truly passionate about physics as a science, rather than its applications, then by all means consider it. Though the employment situation bears further investigation.

Otherwise, suggest welcome to planet earth; major in engineering.

Xcron

I'll see if I truly am passionate about Physics as a science once I take some of the courses...heh...and I haven't met many people either.

Stanford has an extremely low admit rate for transfers...something like 5%, but if I feel that I am very well prepared and have the stats to back it up after these two years at community college, then I may apply.

I don't need to major in engineering in order to get a job in engineering, though that would obviously be the most direct and guaranteed way towards entering the field.

pebbles

me too. me to.

4thfloor

How important for employment is it to receive a bachelor's degree from an ABET-certified undergraduate program if one also completes an Engineering master's degree?

This may happen, for example, if one completes a BS in Physics, then gets an MS in Electrical Engineering.

rtkysg

I don't know if Caltech has better transfer rate. But if you're an eligible candidate for Caltech, you should be too as well for Stanford. Give it a shot.

johnM

I find myself in a similar predicament. Have you thought of Engineering Physics? I see it as a good compromise, and I think that's where I'm heading myself.

Just make sure it is an ABET certified EP program!

sakky

Personally, I don't think accreditation in general is all that important, whether you are trying to get an engineering master's degree or whether you want to work straight after graduation. Accreditation is sometimes required for certain kinds of government work or perhaps if you want to go into business for yourself (i.e. as an engineering consultant). Accreditation is also often times a requirement if you ever want to attain Professsional Engineer (PE) status, although you can usually substitute work experience for that requirement.

However, the truth is, for the vast majority of engineering jobs, nobody is really going to care about accreditation. What they want are good engineers, not necessarily accredited engineers. And these 2 designations are not necessarily congruent. There are certain extremely prestigious programs that are not accredited and there are plenty of scrub no-name programs that are accredited.

As a case in point, very few graduate engineering degrees programs are accredited in any formal sense. For example, name any top-ranked engineering school like MIT, Caltech, Stanford, Berkeley, etc. Few if any of their graduate programs are accredited. So let's think about the situation you proposed. Let's say that you got an unaccredited engineering bachelor's degree and then got an engineering master's degree. You would then still be "unaccredited", technically speaking.

As a case in point, I know a guy who has a Physics bachelor's from Virginia and is now pursuing a Master's of Science in Materials Science and Engineering (MS&E) from MIT. After he completes it, he will still be, technically speaking, an unaccredited engineer because none of his degrees will be accredited engineering degrees. However, I think it's fairly safe to say that few if any employers are going to question his engineering ability. So what if he's unaccredited? Who knows more about engineering, this 'unaccredited' guy with a engineering master's degree from MIT, or a guy with an accredited bachelor's degree from a no-name school?

Even if we were to restrict the discussion to undergraduate programs only, many elite programs are unaccredited. Materials Science at Stanford and Berkeley, for example, is unaccredited, however MatSci is accredited at Arizona State. Bioengineering at MIT and Berkeley is unaccredited, although it is accredited at the University of Toledo. Engineering Physics is unaccredited at Berkeley, although it is accredited at SouthEast Missouri State University, Wright State, and the University of Wisconsin at Platteville (no, UW-Madison, this is UW-Platteville) . Look it up if you don't believe me. I don't know about you, but I'd rather have an unaccredited Engineering Physics degree from Berkeley than have an accredited Engineering Physics degree from SE Missouri State, just like I'd rather have an unaccredited Bioengineering degree from MIT than have an accredited one from the University of Toledo.

See above. Like I said, I'd rather have an unaccredited degree from a top school than have an accredited degree from a no-name school. The guy from UW-Platteville might have an accredited EP degree, but honestly, so what? Does that mean he's really going to be better off than the guy from Berkeley with an unaccredited EP degree, or the guy with just a normal Physics degree from MIT or Caltech?