[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / biz / c / cgl / ck / cm / co / d / diy / e / fa / fit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / news / o / out / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vip /vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y ] [Search | Home]
4Archive logo
Is it better to study Maths or Physics in...
If images are not shown try to refresh the page. If you like this website, please disable any AdBlock software!

You are currently reading a thread in /sci/ - Science & Math

Thread replies: 180
Thread images: 9
File: Major.jpg (47 KB, 480x280) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
Major.jpg
47 KB, 480x280
Is it better to study Maths or Physics in terms of jobs.
>>
>>7798865
Just study what you like you nigger
>>
Maths, you can go to finance easier.

*EASIER, you can do it as well with physics, but it's more "expected" for math majors.
>>
The more you know - the more you get.
Science doesn't matter. If you want to know less but get more - neither would help you.
I would chose math lol.
>>
>>7798865
maths, i'm a physics/finance double major
>>
why not... engineering = physics + math

?
>>
>>7798865
Engineering, a combination of the two

But if you had to choose, I'd go with Math and minor in finance or something
>>
>>7798865

Math if you're not a fuckwit and take the easiest courses.
>>
>>7798905
>there are actually people that believe this
>>7798865
Stop worrying about what will get you a job because chances are you'll be shit at it and really unhappy with life if you do that. Worry more about how to turn your passion into a career.
>>
>>7798905
Physics has more math than engineering does m80
And at my uni (UT Austin) its like 6 extra credit hours to pick up a math degree when you're in physics
>>
>>7798865
Depends what you want to do. Prospects are about the same for both, maths graduates lean more towards finance, physics graduates are better qualified for technical jobs.
>>
>>7798905
engineering = physics - math

There, corrected your sign mistake.
>>
Maths is better for job opportunity in general.

Physics if you like to work in research.
>>
>>7798865
Neither of those are degrees meant to get you a job.

It's for rich kids who can afford to not worry about earning a full time untill they finish grad-school or for people who didn't get into engineering directly and hope to transfer.
>>
>>7798905
Maybe if you let maths =dick and Physics =sucking
>>
>>7800224
>Being an undergrad memester/redditor
Take it from a double major undergrad engineering -except for the meme disciplines- has far more math than undergrad Physics. Physics usually has an extra calculus of variations class taken from the math department, but that's because no one in the math department actually has knowledge of the type of applied math in upper level physics and engineering, so the math is taught by the respective departments themselves.

Grad-school depends entirely on your specialisation.
>>
>>7800265
Being a grad-school engineer
Take it from a double major who took physics with a math concentration. Engineering majors just take the low level physics classes, Calc I - Diff Eq. and then split. Maybe some linear algebra. Undergrad physics and engineering are what you make them. Physics requires more abstract math than engineering, engineering requires practical math. You can take as much math as you want in college, there's no limit besides time and credit hours.

Undergraduate physics programs generally include upper level math classes taught through the math department, sorry to burst your bubble. At the university I went to, every physics major had to take classes around junior year so they could understand the math in QM. But yes, math is generally taught at the upper levels by the departments, because they can apply it better to the specific field they are teaching to.
>>
>>7800277
That fact that you think undegrad engineering math stops at diffy Qs tells me you aren't in a real engineering department. There's no way I could TA undergrad control engineering with only the math from upper level physics or pure math for example. The math requried for undergrad level QM is child's play in comparison and you know it (or would if you actually were a double major).

It's pointless to discuss this with you, you've already made up your mind and you won't believe any evidence to the contrary.
>>
>>7800277
>Engineering major math requirements

Calc 1-3, ODEs, Linear Algebra, Complex Variables, PDEs, Systems and Signals (Fourier Series, Fourier Transforms, DTFT, DFT, FFT, Laplace and Z Transforms), Numerical Analysis, Discrete Math or Proofs, Probability and Stochastic Processes, and Information and Coding Theory.

>Physics major math requirements

Calc 1-3, ODEs
+ ~3 lectures on Calculus of Variation in Analytical Mechanics
+ ~2 lectures on Fourier Series/Transforms in Analytical Mechanics
+ the same ~2 lectures on Fourier Series/Transforms in Electrodynamics
+ the same ~2 lectures on Fourier Series/Transforms in Quantum Mechanics
+ the same ~2 lectures on Fourier Series/Transforms in Optics
+ 1/2 of lecture on Probability in Thermodynamics & Statistical Mechanics
+ some cursory discussion of tensors scattered throughout

So amazing, so wow.

>>7800265
>because no one in the math department actually has knowledge of the type of applied math in upper level physics and engineering

That's completely wrong.
>>
>>7800458
Physics requires a shitton of LA. Calc of variations isn't just "~3 lectures" it's a course typically called calculus IV etc.

>That's completely wrong.
Depends on your university. We don't have an applied math research group other than actuarial math. Our math department has more money than most so can they hire non-researching lecturers who only have bachelor degrees to teach applied math classes (imagine the house wife/high-school teacher type; they only teach calc. I, LA etc. and do nothing else) while their full professors only focus on upper level pure math and grad classes.

But the other problem is you can't really push in more math class credits in enigineering (the best physics students will take more upper level math as electives) because the coarse load is too heavy already so lecturers have to give crash courses and you're supposed to pick it up in your spare time.
>>
>>7800625
>non-researching lecturers who only have bachelor degrees

You're school is shit mate. Schools here need professors with PhDs to teach classes above precalculus or they won't be accredited.
>>
So guys. I'm a physics major in the first semester.
I know I definetely don't want to go into researching.
How is my outlook if I get my bachelor and/or master? Would it be easier if I changed to engineering if I don't want to go into researching field?
Physics is pretty hard sure, but I'm not sure if engineering would be any easier. They have to do less physics and maths things, but they have a shitton of other courses all at once. On the other hand, I as a physics major, only have 3 courses per semester.
>>
>>7800265
>>7800296

LOL obvious troll is obvious. When I was in school, EE or ME took cal 1-3, then a 1 semester class called 'engineering math' that crammed a quick survey of linear algebra and ODEs together. No math beyond that.
>>
>>7800659
It is ABET/WA accreddited and it's top 40 international. No one cares about who teaches calc. there is absolutely no requirement unless you're in a shittier outdated (and unaccreditted) trade school like Germany, stop making shit up.
>>
>>7801021
Read the posts you fucking retard.
>>
>>7800296
Yeah, I'm at a top 10 engineering school(Purdue) and we require nothing above ODE(with a sprinkle of PDE). Half the engineers can barely do basic calc.
>>
>>7798865
If you do math, just make sure it's not pure math.
>>
>>7798865
what's better than going to university for a job is going to trade school.
>>
>>7798905
>>7800249
>>7800256
>>7800458
>>7801161
No.
>>7801177
Depends on the job you want, and the pay you eventually want to achieve.
>>7800852
Bachelors you will be fine. There seem to be a lot of people in this thread who equate "a job" with "a job in finance", in which case I would say maths may be considered better than physics, I'm not entirely sure. Physics degrees are one of the best all-rounder degrees, and allows you to move very easily into different careers.
>>
>>7801112
Fuckoff and stop lying. You're not in engineering. We know what's in Purdue's curriculum we have that fucking NukE who keeps posting his shit.

Why do you keep posting your bullshit major politics on /sci/? If you're that insecure about your major then you definitely picked the wrong one. I know I would be if I didn't double major because a physics undergrad is a baby major, the only thing it prepares you for is further study, and most of you aren't good enough to get into grad-school.

Go deal with it somewhere else and stop sperging on /sci/.
>>
>>7801882
>Physics degrees are one of the best all-rounder degrees, and allows you to move very easily into different careers.

Can you elaborate on this?

>confused physics student here
>>
>>7802010
People who confuse being a tech or a code monkey with a real career in that industry. Math is far more versatile because in the jobs of jobs where mathematicians are actually needed you'd have a large multi-disciplinary team and have someone to sign off on everything. Mathematicians also have an actually useful niche instead of being a jack of half the trades and incompetant in all of them.
>>
>>7798865
Physics PhD here. With this background you have a lot of options and the universities know it. This means conditions are more favourable than if you do a purely theoretical study where your only career will be in academia.

I have worked in physics R&D labs, electronics (analogue, RF and high sensitivity), software industry and more. It has also made it possible for me to find work abroad.

It is also a good background for a career in patent business, as an examiner as well as a patent attorney. And both are well paid and secure jobs even these days.
>>
>>7802010
One of the most mathematical degrees on offer (second to mathematics).
Most physics degrees have a strong computational element.
Many physics students write a lot of essays.
Many physics degrees have a transferable skills component, a number of presentations, etc...
Many hours of lab work improves technical report writing, referencing, practical skills, etc...
Many physics degrees share classes with (or otherwise learn a lot of the material in) a number of engineering disciplines like electronic engineering and chemical engineering.

Because physics graduates tend to have good all-round knowledge/abilities (have a look at GRE by subject, for example), it means that they are well respected.
There's nothing wrong with mathematics, and mathematicians are respected for their analytical skills about as much as physicists, but they typically have worse communication skills and essentially no technical skills.
If you want to go into finance, you know more than enough mathematics to be able to do so.
If you want to become an engineer, you'd probably not earn as much as a qualified engineer, but you can definitely do it.
If you want to go into IT/computing, you can do that too. You may not be as good at software development as someone who studied applied computing, but it's not a hard skill to acquire.
The physics background helps get you into well-payed, specialised fields as well. Learn a scripting language and a bit about machine learning and you can be a data scientist. Get a law degree and you can be a patent lawyer.

Trust me, there's a LOT you can do.

>>7802231
No.
>>
>>7801882
>Physics degrees are one of the best all-rounder degrees

As someone with physics major, I disagree. Physics BS degrees by themselves are pointless.

If you want to go to graduate school, you should really get a math degree.
If you want to get a job that applies what you learn, you should get an engineering degree.
If you're uncertain, you should get an engineering + math degree.

A physics major only makes sense if you plan on becoming a teacher, programmer, go to med or law school, or work in finance and don't plan on using it for anything more.
>>
>>7799033
>>7799875
>>7800277
>>7801882
>>7802315
>>7802366

These.
>>
>>7801979
What? I said engineering doesn't have hard math lol. I spent 2 years in nuclear engineering before changing to math (I left with a 3.82 and 105 credit hours. It wasn't a gpa problem). Engineering is a considerably more demanding major but the math is very easy in engineering. Look at the nukE curriculum that is always spammed. It goes to math 266(ODE) and then an elective math course which is normally "graduate" level vector calculus in nukE.
>>
>>7802366
>No.
Your post doesn't contradict mine at all. Pretty much corroborates it precisely.


Just as an aside. Which one of those jobs do you think is actually unique to physics? And I mean that in the sense that you can justify saying physics is "thet best" all rounder degree. Any generic STEM degree can get any of those jobs and usually far more.

Those are all decently paid, fine jobs, but you could get all of them with pretty much any of the non-meme STEM degrees, and they are not top tier highly interesting/highly paid jobs (except patent attorney, for which law+eng is a better combo anyway). Those skills you listed are also very generic STEM skills that all graduates have, I don't think you understand that Physics majors write less reports on average and has less lab hours than most majors, compared to something like say chemistry, other more practical majors will also have more communication/public speaking skills. Finance? Engineers and (applied) mathematicians actually do financial mathematics in undergrad and having more options they can negotiate for higher salaries.

Physics bachelors is one of the most limiting degrees, if you don't do a PhD you're pretty much stuck in those generic 60k jobs until you either get a higher degree or several IT certs etc. (which again anyone can do, even non-STEM majors).

Physics PhD is one of the best qualifications to have though.
>>
>>7801979
Also, here's proof. Last semester shown, I was changing majors so my gpa dipped down a bit.
>>
File: cosby.jpg (73 KB, 400x400) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
cosby.jpg
73 KB, 400x400
>>7802386

>As someone with physics major, I disagree. Physics BS degrees by themselves are pointless.

>A physics major only makes sense if you plan on becoming a teacher, programmer, go to med or law school, or work in finance and don't plan on using it for anything more.

... So it's only good for almost everything? Oh, ok.
Also:
> If you want to go to graduate school, you should really get a math degree.
Unless you don't want to go to graduate school for maths. With physics you can do maths, physics, computing, engineering and a bunch of interdisciplinary graduate degrees.
> If you want to get a job that applies what you learn, you should get an engineering degree.
> If you're uncertain, you should get an engineering + math degree.
There are so many engineering degrees though.
>>
>>7802413
>There are so many engineering degrees though.
Do mech, chem, or ee, and you're pretty good. There's such a wide variety of jobs each of those gets you in the door for that you'll find something you like. Also, once you've got that first degree, it's literally no problem to take/audit another couple of courses then pass the certs for another flavoring of engineering so long as you keep up your math skills.
>>
>>7802407
21 credits in a semester
wat
>>
>>7802424
Nah, I took a test out exam for that course. It just shows as a class.
>>
>>7800224
EE's will take more math than a physics major
>>
>>7802400

>Just as an aside. Which one of those jobs do you think is actually unique to physics? And I mean that in the sense that you can justify saying physics is "thet best" all rounder degree. Any generic STEM degree can get any of those jobs and usually far more.

But how many mathematicians have you met who weren't total autists? And how many engineers have you met that aren't tards?

But seriously, I disagree with a lot of what you said there. Physics PhDs close a lot of doors, if you want something specialised, it's probably more worth it than a PhD in another subject.
I wrote more reports and essays (with the exception of psychology) and presentations (with the exception of computing) than most of the students I knew.
I know how easy it is to get a job in finance with a BS in physics too, because that's the first thing I did after I graduated.
I don't think I was wrong to say that physics is one of the best all-rounder degrees, considering my experience, the distribution of fields in the employment statistics, and the number of physics graduates employed one year after graduation.
>>
>>7802432
Why do people shit on physic degrees so much, and not people like biologists, chemists, etc that have as bad/worse bachelor degree opportunities, and do equally or more esoteric graduate work?

It always seems like physics is one of those degrees people think are useless, then point to the same types of jobs that other science majors get as examples of the degree being "worthless".
>>
>>7802424

So what? Many kids do 21/semester. Not everyone is a lazy fuck that just does the minimum 12.
>>
>>7802442
I feel you. It depends entirely on the person looking for employment of course, and how good they are at interview.

In my experience, physicists tend to interview better than other STEM graduates. Don't think I ever met a CS grad without exceedingly poor soft skills. And I'm doing CS now, so I should know.
>>
>>7800296
What is the math required for control engineering? I thought it was just, differential equations, linear algebra, complex variables, Laplace and Z transforms and Fourier Analysis. Not trying to dismiss, just have interest on the subject.
>>
>>7802451
That's about the maximum amount of math required for even the most mathematical engineering degrees.
>>
>>7802444
In my country only lazy people do less than 26 credits/semester.
>>
No idea, but consider this.

>girl goes to CC
>transfers to UC Berkeley
>gets a degree in physics
>graduates with good gpa
>can't find a job
>gets desperate and enrolls back q CC
>this time to get a degree in.... Mech.E
>engineering professor on campus is asked to recommend the best students at CC for internship at some company
>recommends said student cus when smart and one of the best
>is so good they give Hera full-time job
>mfw she wouldn't have a job today if it wasn't for that professor.

My engineering professor told us that story yesterday. He used to teach at Berkeley as well. So just keep that in mind bro. Maybe it was just her, but it resonates with all the salty physics and math majors around here who throw jabs at engineers that actually have a job.
>>
>>7802394
We're not talking about the math in engineering V the math in real Math. We're talking about the fact that the material in calc I-III+odes isn't half the math covered in engineering and how much math they take compared to physics majors which is completely overrated because people somehow think that a calc. of variations class is significant just because it's from the math department. Although it varies a lot form disciplines and different departments see this Anon's >>7800458 post for the gist. That is not to mention that many universities require their engineering programmes to take QM so there is very little that is special to undergrad physics in most cases. There is an EXTREME difference between mathmematical/theoretical physics and engineering however, but many researchers and authors in this field came from a math bachelors anyway.

You only took intro classes, I don't know why you think you're a allowed to have an opinion. Obivously you only use calculus in intro courses where you are just starting to learn calculus; it's the same in every program, you do easier calc. based E&M before you tackle Jackson in physics too. In junior year classes like continuum mechanics/transfer processes enigneers rapidly start learning a large amount of an easier version of th applied math that isn't taught until graduate school for math majors themselves. The math used here is more general than typically covered in physics' classical mechanics based on Taylor etc and involves a lot of math techniques that no one else does. In senior year you learn a ton of applied math using results from fields like complex and real analysis, discreet math etc. much easier than math equivalent complex analysis etc. of course (though there is still proof based examination involved contrary to popular belief), but far beyond the "I-III+odes" meme that you're purposely propogating out of some insecurity over your own decisions. You should've just double majored instead of shitposting.
>>
File: seriously.jpg (388 KB, 1280x720) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
seriously.jpg
388 KB, 1280x720
>>7798905
>engineering= physics + math
>engineering - physics = math
>math
>implies that engineering is more mathematically rigorous than physics is
Do you actually believe this?
>>
>>7802432
Just because you want believe something doesn't mean it's true.

>But how many mathematicians have you met who weren't total autists?
People think of you as an autist too you know? Only engineers had the bullshit communication classes which turns out to in fact help you not be a sperg. And people think engineers are autistic too. The autism image turns out to be a good thing.

But just look at this logically. Let's take Math since you seem to be convinced your "essays" make you more special than a math major (do you seriously call it essays btw? That's different from technical papers/reports which is actually useful).

Take the set of jobs you mentioned in >>7802366, even those requiring further qualifications, let

[math]WageCuckJobs = \{finance,~engineering (unqualified/tech),~IT/computing,~patent~lawyer,~ML/big~data\} [/math]

As we've already established any non-STEM major can get into these, especially finance which is one of the main industries employing math grads, mathemeticians are also far better suited for ML (even engineering majors work with neural networks in control so they are also more suited and are likely to have more programming experience).

Now consider the blatantly obvious fact that math majors have MORE jobs than contained in the set of WageCuckJobs; such as CA and other high paying options, so [math]WageCuckJobs \subset MathJobs[/math].


Physics is not more general. It's a generic STEM degree, everyone in STEM has been told the exact same propoganda you have, it's true of course those jobs are all open to STEM, the problem is they FUCKING SUCK, there's a shitton of people who majored in finance, IT etc. who drag the salaries down.

It's still far above average salaries and a comfy job don't get me wrong, it's just really unambitious and basically not worth mentioning at all on a board like /sci/.
>>
>>7802496
This is very misleading though. You are mistaking quantity for quality. I had a friend last semester bitching about the Fourier analysis stuff in his signals class because they didn't explain how anything worked(and this is a friend who is considerably smarter than me). Just because you memorize a dick load of formulas, does not mean you are doing the math. It just devolves into chugging through equations and knowing when to apply them. Two people of equal intelligence working on 60 hours of school a week should naturally learn at the same rate. How is it humanly possible for engineers to come out with more from the experience? Same for the double major shit you keep spewing. By taking 2 majors, you have to give up taking grad classes early in a single major so that you can do the basics in your other major. A double major is very rarely a good idea. This was the exact mentality I hated about all of my engineering peers. Most of them knew a little about everything and understood nothing deeply(minus a select few who are just brilliant people that sold their souls to academics).
>>
>>7802489
Nothing in that story makes sense
>Literally had to go back to school to get an internship+offer most engineering students get by 19.*
>Prof. is proud of the fact that he cucked himself to girl who would never, ever fuck him.
>Math and Physics majors are proud of the fact taht even having a good gpa won't get them a job unless they start life 4 years later than their engineering peers.
>Girl is probably proud of herself for being top of her class at a CC where's she's competing against younger undergrads.

*Footnote: or 18 actually, half the engineering students in my class were studying on coportate bursaries which can nett as much as 30k/year with our holiday training wage+combined scholarships; if you're a quality candidate you can make more studying than you would working full time minimum wage.

Seriously you might prefer one or the other, but if you plan on going into engineering anyway you're either stupid or lazy as fuck for doing physics instead of getting a real engineering degree first and studying what you want while earning full time.
>>
>>7802559
>This is very misleading though.
No, it's not, if you compare my post to yours you are basically just repeating what I already said. The fact that you want to emphasize the difference between studying the field in depth inside the mathematical discipline and applying it -which I already explicitly stated several times- tells me you are very insecure about your choices. And you should be because you don't seem to have a long term plan. You should've figure this shit out in high-school instead of fucking around at university for so long.

>grad courses in undergrad
You can take whatever grad courses you want in grad-school, it doesn't matter if you take them in undergrad unless you're desperate to make your CV look more shiny. If you're really anxious about getting into grad-school just get a good Prof. to do a summer RA under, if you do a good job chances are his recommendation and network will get you in somewhere without even needing to go through the usual interview process (think grabbing coffee with a Prof. who explains a list of projects for you to pick from). Though for Math I can see why grad-school courses would be more valuable than research experience.
>>
>>7801979
>I know I would be if I didn't double major because a physics undergrad is a baby major, the only thing it prepares you for is further study, and most of you aren't good enough to get into grad-school

This.
>>
>>7802366
>Most physics degrees have a strong computational element.
>Many physics students write a lot of essays.
>Many hours of lab work improves technical report writing, referencing, practical skills, etc...
>Many physics degrees share classes with (or otherwise learn a lot of the material in) a number of engineering disciplines like electronic engineering and chemical engineering.

Simply not true.

>There's nothing wrong with mathematics, and mathematicians are respected for their analytical skills about as much as physicists, but they typically have worse communication skills and essentially no technical skills.

Math majors tend to be the best communicators of any STEM major.

>If you want to become an engineer, you'd probably not earn as much as a qualified engineer, but you can definitely do it.

No one want a physics major when they can easily get an engineer.
>>
>>7798870

how come this was the first answer, and the best answer, yet this thread is still going on?
>>
>>7802645
Because "study what you like" is something dumbfuck millennial tween would say in between commenting on facebook baby pictures and liking justin bieber songs on twitter.

This is the only time I agree with those loser NEETS who think college is a Jew conspiracy. The internet has all the information and textbooks you need to study your hobbeys. University is about obtaining qualifications and building a career, not buying expensive coffee and pretending you're actually doing something with your life just because you are capable of showing up to a lecture hall.
>>
>>7802413
>... So it's only good for almost everything? Oh, ok.

Most physics major won't like those jobs (you won't do anything physic-y in them)

>Unless you don't want to go to graduate school for maths. With physics you can do maths

Many physics professors advise students to major in math if they want to do really well in grad school for physics. A physics major wouldn't be able to enter a grad math program without doing 2 years of remedial courses.

>There are so many engineering degrees though.

Mech&AeroEng, ChemE, ECE, and MatSci&Eng are the only real ones
>>
>>7802423
>certs for engineering

what?
>>
>>7802636
Do you people understand that between technicians and professional engineers there are also technical job niches that isn't black and white tech/engineer? You don't always want an expensive PE when you just want someone to help develop code for new control models or run a QA lab tech staff etc.
>>
>>7802659
Professional degrees, you sit an exam for them after a few years in training after graduation. Huge salary bump in most industries and gives your signature the power to sign off on pretty much anything large scale in your discipline.

Each discipline has their own professional degrees, so you need to do some remedial coursework if you're a MechE who wants to be able to sign off on reactors etc.
>>
>>7802659
You're aware that to work as most flavors of engineer, you have to be certified (at least in the US, I can't imagine it's any different in Europe or Japan, everywhere else, who knows), right?

Just getting the degree isn't enough. The degree gives you the right to take the certification exams, but it doesn't make you an "engineer" any more than graduating law school makes you a lawyer.
>>
i think you guys are mixing up a regular physics degree with a physics honors specializing in physics-mathematics.

Fundamentals of Engineering Computation1 3
or
ITI1120 Introduction to Computing I1 3
MAT1320 Calculus I 3
MAT1322 Calculus II 3
or
MAT1325 Calculus II and an Introduction to Analysis2 3
MAT1341 Introduction to Linear Algebra 3
PHY1121 Fundamentals of Physics I 3
PHY1122 Fundamentals of Physics II 3
MAT2122 Multivariable Calculus 3
MAT2125 Elementary Real Analysis 3
MAT2141 Linear Algebra I 3
MAT2143 Algebraic Structures 3
MAT2324 Ordinary Differential Equations and the Laplace Transform 3
or
MAT2384 Ordinary Differential Equations and Numerical Methods 3
MAT2371 Introduction to Probability 3
or
MAT2377 Probability and Statistics for Engineers 3
PHY2104 Introduction to Circuit Theory and Electronics 3
PHY2311 Waves and Optics 3
PHY2323 Electricity and Magnetism 3
PHY2333 Mechanics 3
PHY2361 Modern Physics 3
PHY3320 Electromagnetic Theory 3
PHY3341 Theoretical Physics 3
PHY3350 Thermodynamics 3
PHY3355 Statistical Thermodynamics 3
PHY3370 Introductory Quantum Mechanics 3
PHY3902 Laboratoire de physique et de physique appliquée I / Physics and Applied Physics Laboratory I 3
PHY4370 Quantum Mechanics 3
3 optional course credits from:
PHY4382 Introduction to Solid State Physics 3
PHY4906 Projet de physique / Physics Project
>>
>>7802678
so you can't even take the exams unless you get an engineering degree? lol
>>
>>7802682
Kinda, there's usually an in lieu of where if you have a related degree and have taken certain key courses you can.
>>
>>7802682
You can't even take another discipline's exam.

If you're a ChemE you can't sit for the EE exam and vice versa.

The bureaucracy is tedious and somewhat disconcerting, but nessecary in order for engineers to retain elitism on Taiwanese puppetshow forums and also to prevent people from dying etc.
>>
>>7798865
Psychology, math minor here

I like solving problems, endless analysis bored the shit out of me though so I switched to psych
>>
>>7802524
Talking from personal experience only: math and physics double majors at my university claim physics is too hard. People dropped out of physics to do maths or engineering.
I happened to learn more about microelectronics and programming than EE majors at that same university, and I learned more about algorithms then CS majors I knew.
Of all maths, engineering and CS, most of the physics guys seemed less autistic too, so there's that.
We did more hours of lab per week than any other science, we did a whole bunch of technical report writing AND essays (pretty certain that makes me better at writing than a maths major, where writing is essentially nonexistant).

I'm not saying other STEM subjects couldn't also get high paying, interesting jobs. I was saying that I think physicists tend to have an easier time going between different fields. I don't see why you seem to think that mathematics has so much more going for it than physics.
I speak to you from the experience of someone doing an industry-funded PhD, earning a good salary, and who - on a nearly daily basis - has to explain simple concepts to maths majors in my team.
Of course, this is entirely anecdotal, so experiences may vary, but I still don't think it's wrong to say that "physics degrees are one of the best all-rounder degrees".

I'm sorry your maths degree didn't land you your dream job. Have you tried working on your soft skills? Those are important too.
>>
>>7802636
>Simply not true.
Totally true, at least in my experience.
>Math majors tend to be the best communicators of any STEM major.
Personal experience and GRE scores suggests otherwise.
>No one want a physics major when they can easily get an engineer.
Demonstrably untrue, particularly when certain specialist knowledge is required that regular engineers are unable to provide.
>>
>>7802659
Its FE exams and if you pass them you can work as a junior engineering. The P.Eng is the license you get after 10 years in the industry and if you pass the test. This is where you can be called an engineer under the eyes of the law. There is no such thing as an engineer outside of the P.Eng designation. You're basically a technician.
>>
>>7802743
If that really, truly happens at your university I can assure you it happens nowhere else.

Would you please stop saying "essay", that's the wrong word. You aren't an English lit. major (though with your ego you probably think you are), technical writing is more precise, it's not an essay.
>>
>>7802658
>Most physics major won't like those jobs (you won't do anything physic-y in them)
Very true, but that doesn't diminish the value of a physics degree.
>Many physics professors advise students to major in math if they want to do really well in grad school for physics. A physics major wouldn't be able to enter a grad math program without doing 2 years of remedial courses.
This may vary dependent on course, as I have a classmate that went to get a masters in maths straight after bachelors physics. I guess the type of graduate research you do may determine whether physics or maths is the better undergraduate degree. Say if the research were magnetohydrodynamics, then sure, maybe maths is generally better.
>Mech&AeroEng, ChemE, ECE, and MatSci&Eng are the only real ones
And a large subset of each of those is shared by physics. In general you can't say there's an awful lot of overlap between certain engineering disciplines, which would make engineering less well-rounded in my opinion.
>>
>>7802762
A lot of the top engineers in the industry have PhD in physics. Physicists have better knowledge of the natural world than engineers. With that knowledge they can find errors and solutions engineers can never see.
>>
>>7802675
And then you're stuck doing the same job forever.
>>
>>7802771
I feel like this is generally true in my country.
Also I keep saying essay because I keep making the distinction between technical reports and essays. We do both.
>>
>>7802773
>ou can't say there's an awful lot of overlap between certain engineering disciplines

This guy is trolling. You can stop responding to him now.
>>
>>7802783
You don't understand what either of those words mean.

What do you think a technical report is?
>>
>>7802784
Electronic engineering and mechanical engineering.
>>
>>7802786
If we can agree that the wikipedia definition of both is relatively accurate, then the wikipedia definition. Please take your superiority complex somewhere else.
>>
>>7802791
There's shittons more overlap between engineering disciplines than engineering and physics.

All engineers take intro engineering courses like engineering communcation/CAD, statics, strength of materials, circuits and EE (including intro power engineering etc. which ), busineness and managment classes, engineering economics, environmental classes, all engineers take the same intro mat sci and checm. All except Civil take transfer processes/continuum mech/ heat transfer. Usually some some stupid social engineering class and patent/environmental law class.

You might be more general math, but you are niched as fuck compared to engineering.
>>
>>7802777
Code monkey and finance is still as open to you as ever you'd just be fucking stupid to leave a respectful and intellectually stimulating and high paying career to do these stupid token 60kpa jobs >>7802366 that will have you offing yourself at 40.
>>
>>7802796
Please learn basic English if you don't want people to correct your langauge.
>>
>Maths can get into finance
>Prof tells me about her friend who hires people into finance
>Math people are only slightly less useless than economists
>Physicists tend to be the most valuable

But I suppose I should just believe what some high schoolers/undergrads are saying on 4chan.
>>
>>7802774
Take for example the work that happened during WWII. It was pretty much engineering done by Physicists.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTRVlUT665U
>>
>>7802825
There was nothing to correct, but keep shitposting son.
>>
>>7802655
if you do not study what you like you will either:
drop out
or
wake up 20 years from now and go through a massive existential crisis when you realize you wasted your life.
have a nice day you foresightless retard.
>>
>>7802805
>You might be more general math, but you are niched as fuck compared to engineering.
You say that, but you only give examples of intro courses that physicists do as well, we just go a little deeper into the physics behind it all. I don't hear of many engineers moving into other engineering disciplines is all I'm saying, while physics seems poised to jump into any of those fields.
>>
>>7802870
>wake up 20 years from now with your loving wife in a 7 figure property and wondering how to spend your saturday with the near unlimited freedom that your money provides.
vs
>Waking up in your cruddy apartment and dreading the work you need to do because you're still taking orders from someone in your oversaturad field. The work you used to love has become work and nothing more.

It's easy to love something if you've only had a high-school exposure to it. Try doing it for even 10 years and telling me it doesn't feel like work.
>>
>>7802821
>Playing with CAD software
>Intellectually stimulating
This must be why I enjoy talking to 40 year old engineers so much
>>
>>7802773
>>7802875
Half of those aren't even science or math courses, the point you don't do anything outside of physics, engineers do a shitton and have more in common with each other than your niche specialization.

Her's my undergrad Chemical Engineering curriculum:

Sem1 (20)
>Chemistry 4
>Chemical Engineering 2
>Physics 4
>Humanities & Social Sciences Elective 2
>Manufacturing and CAD 4
>Calculus I 4
Sem2 (20)
>Organic and Physical Chemistry 4
>Chemical engineering 2
>Electricity and electronics 4
>Humanities & Social Sciences Elective 2
>Mechanics [statics] 4
>Linear algebra 2
>Calculus II 2
Sem3 (20)
>Organic chemistry II 3
>Physical chemistry II 3
>Chemical engineering materials 2
>Programming 4
>Strength of materials 4
>Differential equations 2
>Calculus III 2
Sem4 (22)
>Statistics for Engineers 2
>Analytical Chemistry 2
>General Thermodynamics 4
>Electrical Engineering 4
>Mathematics 4 [eigen vals/vectors applied to systems of ODEs, convergence, power/fourier series, PDEs]
>Numerical Analysis 2
>Departmental Elective 4
Sem5 (18)
>Chemical Thermodynamics 4
>Mass transfer 4
>Transfer processes 4 [fluid mechanics and intro to HT]
>Particle technology 4
>Engineering Management 2
Sem6 (20)
>Heat transfer and piping design 4
>Kinetics 4
>Chemical engineering laboratory 4
>Process dynamics 4
>Social and Environmental Engineering 4
Sem7 (20)
>Biotechnology 4
>Process control 4
>Process synthesis 4
>Reactor design 4
>Research project I 4
Sem8 (20)
>Design project 8
>Chemical engineering practice 2 [financial engineering]
>Process analysis 2
>Research project II 4
>Specialization Elective 4

[cont]
>>
>>7802911 [cont.]
>>7802773
>>7802875


Please tell me again how physics is more general despite having zero exposure to actual tranferable and employable skills in biology/biochem, organic+analytical chemistry, business managment, reaction engineering, finance, physical chemistry beyond the introductory baby's first non-ideal system, continuum mechanics beyond baby's first volume integral, strength of materials, design, control theory, neural networks and non-linear modelling, power engineering, logic circuits, proven research and design experience, process synthesis or analysis or anything remotely important to an employer that isn't for some stupid code monkey job?
>>
>>7802911
>>7802917

... Do you honestly think physics degrees don't have similar modules to what you just listed? And more, from other engineering disciplines?
I mean, I can't say I've studied reactor design, organic chemistry, finance or business management (and similar modules you've listed), but I don't see the first two being too useful to an employer outside of chemical engineering, and the latter two can be learned from a book and bullshitted, so...
>>
>>7802828
Any engineer knows that physicists are there to help engineers solve problems that are too advanced for engineers. PhD in physics is a goldmine for a lot of STEM companies.
>>
>>7802949
I know what a physics curriculum looks like nigger. It's half that, plus QM, calc. var. and stat. mech. with the rest of the credits assigned as electives.

>And more, from other engineering disciplines?
Those are literally all the availabe intro engineering modules plus intro ChemE. Stop talking out of your ass moron.

The only exceptions are material science 1 and dynamics which we cover respectively in chemical engineering materials (which also includes more advanced material beyond first year level such as polymer composite and additive systems) and process dynamics.

>I don't see the first two being too useful to an employer outside of chemical engineering
Because you're a layman idiot who doesn't know anything about engineering, modern technology, or how the computer you're typing on was made.

> the latter two can be learned from a book and bullshitted, so...
So can your entire degree. The difference is having a proven qualification, which you do not have, which is you why you are limited to code monkey jobs until you go back to school.

You also neglected the most important and immediatly practical fields such control theory and strength of materials which tells me you've probably never taken a single engineering class.

Don't bother replying to me agian unless you are going to stop laying for a single fucking post.
>>
>>7802954
Too bad they only need a few of them, and countless engineers.
>>
>>7802954
A PhD in anything implies specialization, PhD in engineering are consulted and paid far more than PhDs in physics, they're not hiring PhD physics because it's in "physics", they hire them because they are specialized in a particular problem just like they hire PhDs in any other field from genetics to biochem to economics.
>>
>>7802967
>I know what a physics curriculum looks like nigger. It's half that, plus QM, calc. var. and stat. mech. with the rest of the credits assigned as electives.
Perhaps this is just the difference between US and UK institutions, but I can say that I've done a whole bunch of the shit you're talking about, and I'm sorry that makes you feel bad. I wasn't saying Chem E is somehow easier or anything, just that physics does a bit of nearly every engineering discipline.
>Those are literally all the availabe intro engineering modules plus intro ChemE. Stop talking out of your ass moron.
Oh, in which case physics does a few advanced engineering modules too.
> Because you're a layman idiot who doesn't know anything about engineering, modern technology, or how the computer you're typing on was made.
On the contrary, I work on a specialist team at a company whose main business is circuit design.
> So can your entire degree. The difference is having a proven qualification, which you do not have, which is you why you are limited to code monkey jobs until you go back to school.
You were making a good point there until you mentioned the code monkey bit, at which point it was clear you have no experience of the wider world outside your undergrad.
> You also neglected the most important and immediatly practical fields such control theory and strength of materials which tells me you've probably never taken a single engineering class.
Neglected to mention them because I've done them, niqqa r u srs?
>>
>>7802678
>certification exams

License exams. It's not a cert like tradesmen get.

>>7802765
>There is no such thing as an engineer outside of the P.Eng designation

Industrial exception. As long as you work under a PE, you're fine.

http://www.nspe.org/resources/blogs/pe-licensing-blog/industrial-exemption-what-if-anything-should-profession-do
>>
>>7803020
>http://www.nspe.org/resources/blogs/pe-licensing-blog/industrial-exemption-what-if-anything-should-profession-do
Holy shit only 20% get the PE but they're only consider engineers. The other 80% don't get it.
>>
File: coordinates.jpg (38 KB, 639x632) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
coordinates.jpg
38 KB, 639x632
>>7802993
>ut I can say that I've done a whole bunch of the shit you're talking about,
Post proof of your curriculum where you take a mimimum of 1 module from each discipline or it's bullshit and you've yet again shown you can't go a single post without lying. You can't even name a single intro module that you took not included in that list.

>physics does a bit of nearly every engineering discipline.
It doesn't. Any engineering discipline does a bit of every engineering discipline. Physics at best does E&M and materials. Physics BS comes out with an incredibly limited skillset compared to other STEM graduates including fields like Chemistry. The only think you have a surplus of is unwarrented ego, you are actually proud of being able to get IT and finance jobs it's pathetic. At least chemistry can work as QAs even biologists can get cool niche field work jobs. Your biggest claim to fame is being able to get generic jobs almost any uni grad can get.

>On the contrary, I work on a specialist team at a company whose main business is circuit design.
Your lying again. Or you're retarded and don't know anything about your own field. Reaction engineering models were employed in the first CVD process used in nearly all semiconductor manufacturing processes is modelled on reaction engineering principles. ChemEs are often employed in this field precisely because of their ReacEng bacground.

>Neglected to mention them because I've done them
Because I know you aren't going to post any proof of your bullshit (no physics curriculum takes control engineering, but I'll humour you), tell me which of these ponts are unstable. This is a really elementary problem concept, but free to even google it or check up that control textbook you are lying about having.
>>
>>7803084
>>7802993

I'll give you untill tommorow to reply.

For now I'm going back to my sweat reality where I have a degree in something useful, versatile and highly paid and not an easy meme degree that forces me to lie on the internet to sooth my assraped beta ego.
>>
>>7803127
Everyone stopped replying because you're insufferable.
>>
>>7803134
Nice try.

Fuck off retard. Keep your major politics bullshit off /sci/ next time.

What kind of fucking loser needs to lie on 4chan to feel better about himself?
>>
>>7803143
You just accuse everyone of lying if they disagree with you. Nice try though. "Major politics". Says the guy who has been arguing this shit on /sci/ for a day insulting every fucking person who disagrees with him. Get your engineering shit off of here and stroke dicks with the engineers on a thread not about engineering. There's a reason people make fun of engineers for being egocentric jackasses.
>>
>>7802451
Optimal control theory uses calculus of variations
>>
>>7802460

Many engineers do dynamical systems too
>>
>>7802878
>wake up 20 years from now with your loving wife in a 7 figure property and wondering how to spend your saturday with the near unlimited freedom that your money provides.
you can put that one into your little scrapbook of things that will never happen.
>>
Sadly, where I live it seems like most people who only possess a Physics/Maths undergrad degree will work in education. Fucking 3rd world countries man.
>>
>>7804100
That's common in the first world as well. Everyone on /sci/ think they'll get into top grad-schools.
>>
>>7804105
I've seen some stats posted on this board that suggest otherwise, though.

Here, pretty much 100% of physics graduates who don't remain in acadamia get into education. Our society hasn't found a good use for physicists that isn't the shitty educational system that sucks monkey balls.
>>
>>7804113
>100%
That's pretty extreme, but also it says more about the quality of your universities than your industry, STEM is a very international career, few people do post-grad in their own countries nowadays.
>>
>>7804118
And it's not even enough to supply the demand. Many physics teachers at schools aren't physics graduates, even with ~100% of the graduates going into education.

I'll tell ya, it's gonna sound edgy, but it sure feels lonely in here where very few people have a tendency to talk about things that don't have "real life" immediate applications.
>>
>>7804126
We have a similar situation here with the majority of physics and math grads teaching high-school (we don't have enough high-school teachers period, never mind science and math teachers).

But our top students also go on to study at Oxbridge, MIT etc. and roughly 10% find work at national labs etc.
>>
>>7803084
>>7803127
You're so mad. I'm not gonna look through my whole curriculum (which follows a different structure to the US) just to prove to you that physics isn't as awful as you seem to think it is.
And circuit design isn't the same as semiconductor fabrication.
I'm really sorry you have all these insecurities, I hope you'll get over them eventually.
>>
>>7804172
Hey man, can you give me some tips on what to do to make sure I get the most out of my physics degree, while doing it?

From what I read in this thread, it seems to me that Physics can be an all round degree, but it really depends on what you make of it.

>struggling 2nd year physics student here
>>
File: 1451840527318.jpg (46 KB, 720x554) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1451840527318.jpg
46 KB, 720x554
>>7798905
As a physics student I'm triggered by your ignorance, you rancid swine
>>
>>7804172
Your day is up anyway. I was actually genuinely curious to see if a physics programme had control in it's curriculum.

I asked you the first ungooglable concept that is learned in control theory. If you don't recoginze a fucking z-transform unit circle (go ahead and google now) then you've obviously never done even elementary control theory because that is one of the first and most intuitive things taught in control, it's used constantly as a map and ingrained in students' brains as much as elementary algebra. Most people would know this by heart so it's an effortless question if you actually did control, I implied you needed a textbook so you didn't go reading through the wikipedia page.

>I'm not gonna look through my whole curriculum
Dude we asked you to post a SINGLE course name that's not on the other curriculum >>7802949 "And more, from other engineering disciplines" because it's so fucking obvious that you didn't take 8+engineering modules in one semester on top of physics modules. You couldn't even name a single fucking subject. But we obviously expected that, you have the naivety of a biologist trying to tell people his education is just as good as an MD.


Why are you doing this? Getting yourself worked up just because you want people on an image board to view your degree as more than it is? Why do you have to lie about your coursework and ignore facts posted just because you're mad that people don't eco chamber your distorted world view? You're going to be mad at others for the rest of your life and it's your own fault. You just did a normal science degree, you're not better than mathemeticians just beccause "hurr I wrote essays xD" have some humility. Other science degrees like (bio)chemistry is a more general and versatile degree than physics.

Just stop posting, you were caught lying. Have some dignity and stop shitting up the board.

>>7798865
In conclusion, do Math so you don't end up like the desperate sperg ITT.
>>
>>7804177
Build good relationships with your professors, try for an internship or undergrad research, just the general stuff really.
I would also look at the stuff you want to do, and what they typically look for in candidates, and if your skills in certain areas are lacking (do they expect applicants to have some number of years experience in programming, for example).
I couldn't really tell you anything about a US physics course, but if you're UK you might find this helpful: http://www.prospects.ac.uk/options_physics.htm
In regards to the 'struggling 2nd year physics student' part, don't worry, it'll get easier later on. All the the concepts start marrying up.
>>
>>7804225
You really don't sound like you were genuinely curious about anything, you seemed pretty content to pimp out ChemE while shitting on physics for no apparent reason.
If you want a module I studied in my undergrad, it doesn't follow the same system as your US system so I'm not sure you would know what it entails, but one of my modules was 'Analogue and Digital Electronic Systems' where, yes, control theory (and logic circuits, etc) is a part of that module. Another module was 'Solid State Physics and Microelectronics', where, yes, semiconductor fabrication (and CVD, etc) is a part of that module.
I'm sorry dude, but you're so ill-informed about physics. The only reason I'm responding is so that people don't fall for your bullshit.
>>
>>7802518
this. math in physics/engineering is not math. However the physical math in physics goes far beyond what people go for in engineering.

>inb4 engineers telling me that having more variables in your integrals means math is more difficult than what it is in physics
>>
>>7798865
>jobs

any jack off can put mathematician or physicist on a business card, only someone with an engineering degree can put engineer on there.

legally defined professions > everything else
>>
>>7804274
>'Analogue and Digital Electronic Systems' where, yes, control theory (and logic circuits, etc) is a part of that module.
What the hell do you think second year EE is? You said you had engineering courses OTHER than the ones listed in that curriculum. So were you lying then or do you just not know anything about science or engineering curricula in general? (As an aside, learning how to construct a PID circuit is NOT even close to the same as subject a "control theory").
>>
>tfw confused engineering and physics majors arguing in this thread
Engineers will learn the same physics that physics majors will learn in undergrad. You're honestly retarded if you believe that these majors differ in anything but a few different classes.

I personally like physics and applied maths more just because engineering has a lot of paper-work, writing, marketing, and a bunch of other "fluff" that comes between the work you've done and the final product.
>>
>>7804573
I love how engineers literally want universities to become trade schools.
>>
>>7804677
>Engineers will learn the same physics that physics majors will learn in undergrad.
That's completely wrong, physics undergrad will develop more advanced concepts such as Lagrange and Hamiltonian formalism which very few engineering programmes will do. The major distinguising traits is modern physics (QM) and statistical mechanics d focusses on more ideal systems incorporating more QM theory so is also different from advanced classical thermodynamics. More in-depth and advanced classical sciences fluid mechanics and heat and mass transfer is also more likely to be an optional elective than in engineering where it's required.

>engineering has a lot of paper-work, writing, marketing, and a bunch of other "fluff" that comes between the work you've done and the final product.
Except not all engineers work in product engineering/development and engineering jobs are very different from each other. Generalizations like that is really stupid.
>>
>>7804682
the man asked about jobs, not the lifelong pursuit of knowledge and personal fulfillment.

i love you circle jerking academic faggots. you give me new toys every once in a while.
>>
>>7804682
I love how engineering students think that they'll be the some of the hilariously small minority of actual engineers instead of just "overqualified technician".
>>
File: this is why.png (58 KB, 429x758) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
this is why.png
58 KB, 429x758
>>7804699
>I love how engineering students think that they'll be the some of the hilariously small minority of actual engineers instead of just "overqualified technician".

thats because most don't get jobs in their field. they end up being cost analysts or "QA" cubicle monkeys.

you aren't a real engineer till you get your stamp anyways, your first 5 years out of college is basically an apprenticeship.
>>
>>7804699
The funny part is that most engineers will end up working for a consulting company going from company to company on project-to-project basis.
The days of employee loyalty in engineering are over.
>>
>>7804710
nigga, thats how its always been. talented engineers almost always end up going solo-consulting after 10+ years in industry.

the guys you knew as "company men" were the ones stagnating in their careers.
>>
>>7804710
>>7804721
Consulting isn't nearnly as cool or highly paid as you two think it is. Exception being if you build a reputation as a god in a certain industry, which generally takes 20-30 years.

What's nice is more freedom.
>>
>what are fellows
>>
>>7804740
>Consulting isn't nearnly as cool or highly paid as you two think it is.

i know its not cool or highly paid. you don't do it for the money or glamour, you do it because you can come to work in your pajamas and you don't have a boss.
>>
>>7804747
>you don't have a boss.
Heh, the words of someone who has never been in business for themselves.

It's actually
>everyone is now your boss.
>>
>>7804759
you get what i mean. yeah you have to meet the clients expectations, but i'm talking about having your own thing. i know its actually more work than working for some company.
>>
>>7804610
I was asked for one module, I gave two. Both of which were second year modules. I never said that was the extent of my undergrad. Please calm down.
>>
>>7804563
>don't learn math in physics/engineering
Do you actually believe this? I know you like jerking off to the fact that they don't learn the higher levels of math but come on.
>>
>>7802563
>>Prof. is proud of the fact that he cucked himself to girl who would never, ever fuck him.
>the only reason to be nice to others is to fuck them

Your neckbeard is showing
>>
>>7802559
>Two people of equal intelligence working on 60 hours of school a week should naturally learn at the same rate

Not all courses are made the same. CS majors learn a 1/5th the content of a 3 credit Science/Math/Engineering class in one of their 4 credit """classes"""
>>
>>7802655
The question was between math and physics. Either of those are great options, ie. not women's studies. So in this case study what you like is a perfectly reasonable reply
>>
>>7798865

This

>>7798870

Fucking trapped in CS. Good Job hurr durr
>>
>>7805793
Its nvr too late anon
>>
>>7805811

>almost 30
>never too late
>>
>>7805817
Jesbus 30 is nothing. You speak as though you're 80 or something
>>
>>7798865
Is it better to shoot my right foot or my left for the 100m dash?
Top kek
>>
>>7804563
>Physics majors think the fact that their professor dropped the term "Hilbert Space" in QM equates to learning advanced math

lel
>>
>>7802743
>I happened to learn more about microelectronics [...] than EE majors at that same university

How do you figure that? Advanced Microelectronics really isn't a subject people learn for fun outside of EE.

>I happened to learn more about [...] programming than EE majors

EEs rarely put in the time to get good at programming while still in college. That's not impressive.

>and I learned more about algorithms then CS majors I knew

That has far more to do with CS majors having crippling cognitive impairments than your own excellence. Any STEM majors can learn more about algorithms than CS majors with ease.

>We did more hours of lab per week than any other science

Post your school. Most physics departments require only 1 or 2 advanced physics labs + a crash course on electronics. Chem majors take 6+ labs in their program that are far more time consuming.

>we did a whole bunch of technical report writing AND essays

What kind of essays would physics majors possibly write? "The Joy of Gluons"

>(pretty certain that makes me better at writing than a maths major, where writing is essentially nonexistant).

So you've NEVER seen a proof based math course?! In advanced math courses, equations disappear and there are just paragraphs of exposition. Math majors get a ton of writing practice.
>>
>>7806174
All part of the course, not attempting to show off.
Essays on renewable energy, philosophy of physics, etc. Also lab reports, literature reviews, reports on subjects like standard model (you get the idea).
I've never seen a maths degree where writing was required. I know mathematicians at my university could do a dissertation (which would have been their first written assessment), but could supplement it with another module if they wanted.
>>
>>7806174
That guy is a low functioning autist who doesn't understand that EE isn't the only engineering discipline. It's better to ignore him completely.
>>
>>7806571
>Essays on renewable energy, philosophy of physics, etc.
You do realize that all STEM courses do them in joke modules right? People don't mention it because it's non-technical and embarrasing

That's like bragging that your programme is so childish you have an English class. Good STEM programmes assume that their students' writing ability is already top-tier.
>>
>>7806651
>Get asked repeatedly about essays
>Give examples of essays
>"Well everyone does essays"
What can you do...
>>
>>7806651
>That's like bragging that your programme is so childish you have an English class. Good STEM programmes assume that their students' writing ability is already top-tier.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
*gasps for air*
HAHAHHAAHHA

Oh god. STEM writing is fuckawful across the board. There's a reason that technical writing is plug and chug. It's to keep idiots like you from making complete hashes of written communication.
>>
>>7807228
Go back to /lit/, it's well know that STEM majors have the best language scores from high-school.

Read a science journal article then read some article written by feminist/departments other that philosophy/english. Come back when you've grow up.

>b-but everyone has their own special unique skill!
>>
>>7807272
>Read a science journal article then read some article written by feminist/departments other that philosophy/english.
You're such a master of written English.
>>
>>7807286
Yes, because good writing is all about spotting typos.
>>
>>7807293
>thinking typos are the problem with that sentence.
You're really not making your case better friend.
>>
>>7807294
It is the only problem in that sentence, but have fun google grammar rules to pick apart a 4chan post autist.
>>
>>7807308
>implying grammar is all there is to written communication
>implying that clear, concise, and engaging writing is always perfectly grammatical
Fun fact: typos would fall under grammar.

It's a damn good thing you've got those tech paper templates to fill out.
>>
>>7807317
Are you really this fucking insecure about your writing abilities that you're going to continue this pathetic tangent comment chain?

I'm not. I was the top English student in my disctrict. Some faggot on 4chan isn't going to take that away because he thinks careful internet argumetns are more important than real work.

Piss off if you aren't going to contribute to the actual discussion.
>>
>>7807335
>still thinks this is about grammar
>trying to bait with purposeful typos because incapable of getting point
Did you get a gold star for your efforts as the Toppestmost English Student? Were there cookies?
I love cookies.
>>
>>7807342
Typos aren't on purpose, I don't have the retard proof redlining dictionary tools installed on my current OS.
>>
>>7807352
>needing one
>>
>>7806174
Its not uncommon for chem and biology folks to have 18 labs total by completion of their bs.
>>
>>7807228
Part of the reason we had to do essays too, anon.
>>
File: tellmemore.jpg (35 KB, 500x346) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
tellmemore.jpg
35 KB, 500x346
>>7807228
>>7807335
>be me
>accidentally win national creative writing competition with english homework
>go into STEM
>"STEM writing is fuckawful across the board."
>>
>>7807829
>be so terrible at STEM I think anecdot=evidence
>>
>>7802400
>>7802636
>>7806174
>>7807530
Physics second year, we have 9 hours of lab scheduled a week. We're advised to do more, but we also have 25 hours of lectures and 5 hours of tutorials.
>>
>>7807853
>be so insecure about intelligence I make sweeping generalisations about the writing abilities of STEM students
>>
>>7807855
>9 hours of lab scheduled a week

So like 2 lab courses

>Physics second year

So the labs don't even cover modern physics topics yet
>>
>>7807876
No not yet. I'm told we get more hours of lab next year and less hours of lectures; which suits me better honestly. I also just looked it up, and ~9 hours a week for labs is pretty common across all STEM subjects.
>>
>>7807867
>falls well in line with data

In a recent survey completed by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME),1
52
percent of mechanical engineering department heads considered the written and oral
communication skills of their mechanical engineering graduates to be strong, while only 20
percent considered these skills to be weak. Unexpectedly, a parallel survey of industry
representatives found almost opposite results, with only 9 percent considering the
communication skills of recent mechanical graduates to be strong and 52 percent considering
those same skills to be weak. Given these results were gathered from 68 mechanical engineering
department heads and more than 1000 engineers and managers, a disparity clearly exists between
the communication skills we are teaching to engineering students and what industry expects our
students to know.

http://www.asee.org/public/conferences/1/papers/1503/download
Additionally,
>implying STEM communication skills being bad hasn't been a known problem for ages and the last decade hasn't seen massive changes in how classes are taught to address this WIDE SWEEPING DEFICIENCY
>>
>>7807964

>falls well in line with data
https://www.ets.org/s/gre/pdf/gre_guide_table4.pdf

2011-2014:

Verbal Reasoning -
Life Sciences: 151, σ=7
Physical Sciences: 152, σ=9
Engineering: 150, σ=9
Social Sciences: 153, σ=7
Arts and Humanities: 157, σ=7

Quantitative Reasoning -
Life Sciences: 151, σ=7
Physical Sciences: 158, σ=9
Engineering: 159, σ=7
Social Sciences: 150, σ=8
Arts and Humanities: 150, σ=7

Analytical Writing -
Life Sciences: 3.8, σ=0.7
Physical Sciences: 3.5, σ=0.9
Engineering: 3.4, σ=0.8
Social Sciences: 3.9, σ=0.8
Arts and Humanities: 4.1, σ=0.8

Physics and Astronomy -
Verbal Reasoning: 156, σ=8
Quantitative Reasoning: 161, σ=6
Analytical Writing: 3.8, σ=0.8

English Language and Literature -
Verbal Reasoning: 157, σ=7
Quantitative Reasoning: 149, σ=7
Analytical Writing: 4.2, σ=0.8
>>
>>7808315
>>7807964

>implying STEM communication skills being bad hasn't been a known problem for ages and the last decade hasn't seen massive changes in how classes are taught to address this WIDE SWEEPING DEFICIENCY
http://www.kyoolee.net/GRE_2005-6_Score_Chart_and_PHILOSOPHY_MAJORS.pdf

2005-2006:

Verbal Reasoning -
Life Sciences: 463, σ=98
Physical Sciences: 487, σ=122
Engineering: 467, σ=117
Social Sciences: 486, σ=104
Arts and Humanities: 544, σ=106

Quantitative Reasoning -
Life Sciences: 582, σ=122
Physical Sciences: 699, σ=100
Engineering: 720, σ=80
Social Sciences: 565, σ=131
Arts and Humanities: 566, σ=126

Analytical Writing -
Life Sciences: 4.3, σ=0.8
Physical Sciences: 4.3, σ=0.9
Engineering: 4.2, σ=0.9
Social Sciences: 4.5, σ=0.8
Arts and Humanities: 4.8, σ=0.8

Physics and Astronomy -
Verbal Reasoning: 534, σ=115
Quantitative Reasoning: 783, σ=72
Analytical Writing: 4.5, σ=0.9

English Language and Literature -
Verbal Reasoning: 559, σ=98
Quantitative Reasoning: 552, σ=122
Analytical Writing: 4.9, σ=0.8
>>
>>7808319
>>7808315
>>7807964

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/j.2333-8504.1999.tb01814.x/pdf

Verbal Score Averages in 1996 -
Arts and Humanities: 543
Physical Sciences, Mathematics, Computer Sciences: 515

I dunno dude, doesn't seem to be that big of a difference.
In terms of quantitative reasoning, however...
>>
>>7807964
>>7808321

It's good that I come from a country where the gap in written ability is essentially nonexistant. Except where disabilities are involved.
Thread replies: 180
Thread images: 9
Thread DB ID: 462336



[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / biz / c / cgl / ck / cm / co / d / diy / e / fa / fit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / news / o / out / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vip /vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y] [Search | Home]

[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / biz / c / cgl / ck / cm / co / d / diy / e / fa / fit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / news / o / out / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vip /vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y] [Search | Home]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at [email protected] with the post's information.