Undergrad Major and Grad School

Golden_Boy · April 27, 2006, 2:32pm

Hey all,

So I’ve been lurking in the forums for awhile now, but this is my first time actually posting. People here are usually quite nice and helpful so I decided to give it a shot.

I’m heading to Cal next year, and am somewhat torn on my major choice. The top four things I’m interested in/want to do are physics (or astrophysics), math, EECS, and nuclear engineering. Now the thing is, my ultimate career goal is to get doctorates in physics and math, and do research in theoretical aspects. I’m really interested in quantum physics in particular, and various aspects of abstract mathematics. However, I’m interested in engineering too, although I don’t necessarily see myself eventually becoming a full-time engineer. Plus, I think engineering would be a nice fallback degree. My question then is: what would be the best combination of concentrations during undergrad and grad school? I’ve been told that you don’t have to go to graduate school for the specific field you did in undergrad, indeed, that the two can be totally different. Is this accurate? Also, would doing engineering as a ugrad give me an advantage, say another way of thinking and being able to deal with engineering people/problems, when I’m doing research in grad school and beyond? And are the fields related enough to be relevant to each other (lots of math/science in both)?

At the moment I’m thinking of doing an EECS/math or nuclearE/math double at Berkeley with a minor in physics or astrophysics, and then going to grad school for math and physics. I wouldn’t mind doing a triple, and getting both the engineering degrees, but I’m not sure if thats allowed or possible at Cal? Anyone have any insight as to that?

Thanks a lot in advance. :P

NeedAdvice · April 27, 2006, 2:37pm

Ok, first question: are you a genius? Secondly, Physics is the most difficult major at Berkeley, so if you want good prep for graduate school, do Physics and mathematics, or Physics and Astrophysics combo.

Regarding two engineering degrees and doing math, that may be possible, but that seems crazy. If you were to choose an engineering, pick EECS because that’s supposedly the most challenging.

There is also something called “Engineering Physics” which you could major in. You could maybe do “Engineering Physics” and math double.

Anyway, good luck in Physics, esp. the upper divs.

Cheers.

ILoveLarkin · April 27, 2006, 3:57pm

yea i think you’re trying to do too much…but you could be a genius :O

CantSilenceTruth · April 27, 2006, 4:29pm

Well if you’re a genius and you’re in-state, you can’t beat the value of a cal education in the sciences. Even if you’re out of state Cal is a good value.

On a more subjective note, I heard physics is a good major because people are less cut-throat and there isn’t so much desperation over grades like in engineering.

momof2inca · April 27, 2006, 5:02pm

Well, I don’t know anything about these majors, but I wanted to wish you well at Cal. You sound ambitious and very smart!

DRab · April 27, 2006, 5:41pm

You might want to hear what harvardandBerkeley and sakky have to say on the topic.

Golden_Boy · April 27, 2006, 6:15pm

Hi again all,

Thanks for the replies so far.

DRab- yea, definately. If either of you (harvardandBerkeley and/or sakky) are here, would you be so kind as to give me your input? I’ve read both your posts and I agree with DRab that your advice would be really helpful.

momof2inca- Thank you! :D

CantSilenceTruth- Really, science at Cal even over Stanford and Caltech? hehe…actually I didn’t even apply to Stanford but I was rejected from Caltech…which perhaps answers NeedAdvice’s question about being a genius? :/

It’s good to hear physics is less competitive. Anyone know about research opportunities? It’s definately something I want to pursue as a ugrad.

Ok, so I guess my question comes down to: 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? 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? (I’m not exactly sure how grad school works, i.e. do you just retake harder classes and do research or what? so if anyone would care to enlighten me as to what it’s like t’would be much appreciated).

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?

Thanks again.

P.S. Could someone show me how to use the quote box? I looked on the forum FAQ’s and couldn’t find the answer. Is it just <quote> put stuff here </quote> ?

DRab · April 27, 2006, 6:17pm

[ quote ] TEXT [ / quote ]

But no spaces.

CantSilenceTruth · April 27, 2006, 8:23pm

Berkeley’s sciences classes are much more rigorously graded than its humanities classes as has been pointed out before. 30-40% fail out in all the science/math weeder classes. Caltech is very rigorous as well but Stanford and Harvard and whatnot are known for having easier curves and thus aren’t as knowledgable coming out. They have self-selection for the very smartest so they still churn out smart people but the best at Berkeley can match the other schools elsewhere. Most of my problems were actually in humanities classes. I only had a problem with 2 science classes, one which was suppose to be a weedere class but didn’t create a normal enough distribution IMO to be fair. Another one was with a very smart prof who did not know how to teach or test adequately. This is likely a problem you will have at any research institution and IMO is probably gonna nudge your gpa down by about .1 to .15 points.

My room-mate is actually a Cal grad student and very knowledgable about Berkeley’s sciences. He says that there are no Stanford students in his engineering/chem department and no harvard students either. I’ve also heard through the grapevine Stanford students are generally among the worst students in Berkeley’s grad schools.

Don’t get me wrong, Physics is graded on the same curve and is difficult but from what I’ve heard, people are still very collaborative and willing to help each other out because they love physics so much. Sakky can probably answer your questions or a professor at the school can (and your enthusiasm will likely give you brownie points with them).

DRab · April 28, 2006, 12:46am

Do you have documentation for that? Maybe its accurate, but do you have any proof? Even professorial or GSI hearsay?

Which humanities classes are you talking about? Id like you to say because I think many of them are actually social science classes, as youve made it clear before you arent sure about the distinction between the social sciences and the humanities.

Golden_Boy · April 28, 2006, 3:46am

bump… (char)

mrniphty · April 28, 2006, 8:10pm

I might be of some help. I’m an Engineering Physics major, so I have my feet in many puddles.

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.

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.

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?”)

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.

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.

you’ve got plenty of time to decide about majors and classes. have fun.

(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.)

sakky · April 28, 2006, 8:32pm

Nah, if you’re OOS, I have to give the science edge to MIT, Stanford, Caltech, or Harvard. Berkeley is definitely a great place to go for graduate science, arguably the best, but for undergrad, I would probably take one of other 4 unless money is the problem.

That’s interesting because I seem to strongly remember how the grad-student ranks in thesciences at Cal used to be STRONGLY dominated by Harvard and Stanford grads (and also MIT and Caltech). Interesting. Maybe things have changed.

Yes, this is accurate. I know one guy who did Bio undergrad at Harvard and is now getting his master’s degree in Civil Engineering at MIT.

Obviously this is an extreme case. But it does happen.

If you are truly hell-bent on being a theoretician, then you might as well major in either physics or math.

However, if it was up to me, I’d do EECS if, for no other reason, than like you said, for the career safety. If you happen to not get into a decent PhD physics or math program, then you can just simply work as an engineer.

A double-major could work out too, but personally I think it’s a bit of a waste of time. You are probably better off spending that time to get a master’s degree in your subject.

Golden_Boy · April 29, 2006, 4:31am

How do you like it? What kind of study exactly does that entail? And what kinds of careers are you looking at?

Sounds good.

Which brings me to…is it more difficult to be accepted to a top graduate program if you don’t have ugrad degrees in the field?

Haha…hard to tell online, but do you have a lesser opinion of theoreticians? :P

From the Berkeley Undergrad NucE website: “Many students devote a fifth year to earning a master’s degree. Students interested in careers in scientific research or in college teaching go on to complete the doctorate.”

Does this mean there is a program where ugrads can get a masters automatically in another year…or do you still have to apply to Berkeley grad program…or how does that work? And is it just for NucE or any engineering discipline?

sakky · April 29, 2006, 5:19pm

There are some such programs. They are, however, certainly not ‘automatic’. You still have to apply. But the application process is generally highly expedited, i.e. you can usually forgo the GRE and you can avoid paying an app fee. It is furthermore, only available for certain majors.

Here is the program in EECS and CS (hence, can get a BS/MS or a BA/MS)

<a href=“http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/FiveYearMS/[/url]”>http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/FiveYearMS/</a>

Obviously not having such a degree will elicit questions and you will have to demonstrate why is it that you want to pursue doctoral studies in this particular field, as opposed to the one that matches your UG degree. So, in that sense, you will be at a disadvantage.

But it is by no means an insurmountable disadvantage.

The issue to me is that it is risky from a career perspective. Lots of people who want to be theoreticians can’t get into a decent graduate school (or can’t get into any graduate school at all). Of that that do, a significant number cannot finish the PhD, and even of those that do, a significant number (in fact, probably most) cannot get a tenure-track academic position or a true research industry position. Hence, at all of these career points, you have to determine what you are going to do if you cannot proceed. Having a more practical degree will at least give you some job security.

But perhaps this is all a matter of my personal risk aversion when it comes to careers.

mrniphty · May 1, 2006, 6:58pm

take a look at the announcement for the college of engineering at <a href=“http://www.coe.berkeley.edu/current_students/announce/engineeringannouncement0506.pdf[/url]”>http://www.coe.berkeley.edu/current_students/announce/engineeringannouncement0506.pdf</a>. it should answer questions about what classes the majors require. i’m told that a lot of engineering physics people go on to grad school. I met a guy who went into finance/consulting/soemthing like that

i don’t really know what i want to do after i graduate. grad school probably, maybe peace corps or such before that.

Student · May 1, 2006, 8:15pm

***. Phys 7A-7B-7C are all graded on a distribution of 25% A’s, 40% B’s, and 35% C’s and below.

DRab · May 1, 2006, 9:00pm

Hmm, A C doesn’t sound much like failing to me. But CantShutHisMouth doesn’t really care about accurate statistics often times.

Golden_Boy · May 1, 2006, 10:51pm

But it’s not really a great grade either… Is that kind of grading curve present mostly in lower div courses or throughout Cal?

Student · May 1, 2006, 11:30pm

Golden Boy - yes.

Chem 1A distribution is approx. 20-35-30-10-5.

I don’t know the distributions for Math 53/54 because my instructors don’t release them.

Math 1 series should have similar distributions based on what I’ve heard.

Bio 1 series are on a straight scale (90%-80%-70%-60%), and about 40-50% get a B or higher.

The CS 61 series are on absolute scale, but they’re set so that the class median is a B-/C+. And the instructors are actually quite good at setting them so that they turn out that way.

Undergrad Major and Grad School

CONNECT WITH US