Physics or maths degree? Advice please!
Natalie Watson
at a loss when it comes to choosing one. I like theoretical physics, however
I'm worried that a straight physics degree will not contain enough maths to
make me good enough to do research, should I decide to. But if I did a maths
degree, would that contain enough physics for me to go into experimental or
theoretical physics? If I did a maths and physics joint course, would that
just make me a jack of all trades, and not really prepared for
specialisation due to only doing half a degree in each subject, as it were.
Decisions, decisions! I would really appreciate it if someone would be able
to help me.
Thanks
Natalie
Sam Wormley
Get both, Natalie.
Casey Hawthorne
physics.
The reasons are the following:
- math and physics tend to drive each other
-- developments in one often require learning more about the other
- a double honors degree is more courses than a major
-- so it is more like 3/4 of a degree in each specialty
- an honors degree shows more independent research
-- usually there are directed credit courses in fourth year
Thank you for your time.
Regards,
Casey
Gregory L. Hansen
If a math degree, you can take physics elective courses. If a physics
degree, you can take math elective courses. A fellow student went into
the physics graduate program after majoring in mathematics as an
undergrad, and he did well enough that I suspect mathematics as an
undergrad is better preparation for theoretical physics as a grad.
Then again, figure out what courses you must take for math (or physics)
and what electives you can take in physics (or math), and think about how
much extra work it would be to get a degree in both, as others have
suggested.
You also don't have to make up your mind right away. You'll be very busy
in your first year or two with the standard sequence of calculus, physics,
and liberal arts classes.
--
"For every problem there is a solution which is simple, clean and wrong. "
-- Henry Louis Mencken
Etherman
"Natalie Watson" <nats...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:B94CEA9E.6238%nats...@yahoo.co.uk...
> Hi, I'm looking at university degree courses in physics and maths,
and I'm
> at a loss when it comes to choosing one.
Take engineering if you want a job after you graduate.
--
Etherman
AA # pi
EAC Director of Ritual Satanic Abuse Operations
AMTCode(v2): [Poster][TÆ][A5][Lx][Sx][Bx][FD][P-][CC]
Arthur
B94CEA9E.6238%nats...@yahoo.co.uk...
I think if you get a degree in theoretical (or experimental) physics, you
will be able to do research in that field. If you take maths, you will not
get much of physics (at least that is the case where I live). However, when
you do theoretical physics you will get some solid maths courses simply
because you need them.
The starting point is: which do you find most interesting? Maybe you can
find out just by taking time for orientation.
Should you be unable to choose after orientation, do not hesitate and just
take both. The great advantage is that you can drop one of them at any time
you like. The first year of physics you are doing basic mathematics over 2/3
of the time anyway, so there is much overlap. This way you can delay those
'decisions' for at least a year, after which you will have quite some
experience, you have seen the level of difficulty etc.
In my country, one can graduate in both mathematics and physics, and there
are special ready-made schedules and things for it. This will not give you
'half a degree in each subject', but more like 3/4 a degree each. When doing
research, being not that specialised could be an advantage rather than a
disadvantage. It *will* take considerably more time and work than doing one
of the two, but that's understood.
Best regards, Arthur
Tim Klein
I chose to both Math and Physics. The math has an emphasis in
computational mathematics, and the physics is theoretical. I hope to go
on to graduate school. Doing the double major, I am not going light on
either -- that is not an option at my school. I am getting a full set
of courses in both -- it is around 170 credits. The physics course do
have a lot of math prerequisites, so much that a Math minor is required,
like it or not. There is also of year of Mathematical physics
available, so one does not have to go light on the math, even if only
physics is taken.
Tim
--
======================================================
== Timothy Klein || teece@silver_NO-UCE_klein.net ==
== ------------------------------------------------ ==
== "Hello, World" 17 Errors, 31 Warnings... ==
======================================================
Jamieson Christie
> at a loss when it comes to choosing one. I like theoretical physics, however
> I'm worried that a straight physics degree will not contain enough maths to
> make me good enough to do research, should I decide to. But if I did a maths
> degree, would that contain enough physics for me to go into experimental or
> theoretical physics? If I did a maths and physics joint course, would that
> just make me a jack of all trades, and not really prepared for
> specialisation due to only doing half a degree in each subject, as it were.
>
From your email address I guess you're looking at courses in the UK?
Your options of maths, maths and physics, or straight physics are all
really much more alike than they are different. If your interest is
in theoretical physics, then you will find enough maths in all three
of these degree options to go and do research afterward, provided you
choose your options carefully in the third and fourth years of your
courses. (If you're in the UK and thinking about carrying on in
physics after your degree, you should definitely be looking at a four
year MSci or MPhys or MMath course, by the way.)
Your best bet is to look round the universities to find courses that
offer lots of choice in the later years. This way you can tailor your
degree to your interests. I think that you should not have a problem
with any of your three possible choices.
Jamieson Christie
Spaceman
>Remember, you only have so much time on this planet, so you should make the
>most of it, and besides, a physics degree is cool enough!
I agree with James.
except for the above.
:)
In physics
you should not have "time to do things"
you would have Earth revs or part of such.
and that is not time
for time is not real,
and Earth revs are a proven reality unlike time itself.
so I restate the above as
Remember, you only have so many revolutions of Earth WRT the Sun,
so you should make the most of it, and besides, a physics degree is cool
enough!
WRT= With Refererence To (in case some didn't know :)
If you do take physics..
please place some of the REAL back into it like I just did in the above
statement.
:)
and because I do agree with James still.
I admit..
I am a techie (no degree and only GHD)
and I work on clocks to dumptrucks to computers to programming
little 3D characters that can listen to you and talk back too and help you run
your computer..
I always like REAL things.
anything that REALly works I have found out how.
and not just using the HowThingsWork website<G>
.
Clocks count their own things.
and that is not time itself..
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman
http://www.realspaceman.com
Natalie Watson
>
> Your options of maths, maths and physics, or straight physics are all
> really much more alike than they are different. If your interest is
> in theoretical physics, then you will find enough maths in all three
> of these degree options to go and do research afterward, provided you
> choose your options carefully in the third and fourth years of your
> courses.
I've had conflicting reports on this one. The Director of Studies for Maths
at Cambridge (yep, I am looking at courses in the UK) said that if I did the
Cambridge maths course, then it's half physics anyway. However, I'm not sure
if that extends to other universities as well, such as Durham or Manchester.
Cambridge is probably special. On the other hand, another person has written
to me saying that if I did straight maths, I would not have enough of a
physics background to go into it, unless I took a load of physics modules.
The thing is, I was under the impression that the most cutting edge
theoretical physics stems from "inventing" new maths, as it were, or
applying some really obscure pure maths things to it, that you need a degree
to understand anyway, which is why I'm somewhat confused.
Also, what are job prospects like in theoretical physics? I can't imagine
them to be wonderful. I'd just hate to end up being an accountant at the end
of a really interesting degree course.
Well, thanks for all of your help, it's much appreciated.
Natalie
Gregory L. Hansen
Natalie Watson <nats...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>> Your options of maths, maths and physics, or straight physics are all
>> really much more alike than they are different. If your interest is
>> in theoretical physics, then you will find enough maths in all three
>> of these degree options to go and do research afterward, provided you
>> choose your options carefully in the third and fourth years of your
>> courses.
>
>I've had conflicting reports on this one. The Director of Studies for Maths
>at Cambridge (yep, I am looking at courses in the UK) said that if I did the
>Cambridge maths course, then it's half physics anyway. However, I'm not sure
>if that extends to other universities as well, such as Durham or Manchester.
Although there's nothing inherent about math that makes physics an
essential part, math majors tend to get a lot of physics. And a physicist
getting into things like relativistic quantum field theory and string
theories can load up enough math to tax a lot of mathematicians. Math is
a big enough subject that they may just not have spent much time with,
e.g., differential geometry.
>Cambridge is probably special. On the other hand, another person has written
>to me saying that if I did straight maths, I would not have enough of a
>physics background to go into it, unless I took a load of physics modules.
>The thing is, I was under the impression that the most cutting edge
>theoretical physics stems from "inventing" new maths, as it were, or
>applying some really obscure pure maths things to it, that you need a degree
>to understand anyway, which is why I'm somewhat confused.
If you do nothing but math, you won't have good preparation for
theoretical physics. That's true. But you can take physics and math
courses at the same time, it's really not much of a problem.
The "inventing new maths" part is true at the cutting edge of theoretical
physics, as you say. Devising quantum theories of gravity, playing with
warp drives and wormholes, and so on. But first you have to get there.
And to get there you have to go through a lot of physics and a lot of math
that's been understood for a long time. You won't be doing much with
string theory unless you have a very good grap of canonical mechanics and
electromagnetism, for instance. The cutting edge of theoretical physics
must include the phenomena, and it builds on the framework of classical
mechanics.
>
>Also, what are job prospects like in theoretical physics? I can't imagine
>them to be wonderful. I'd just hate to end up being an accountant at the end
>of a really interesting degree course.
Academia, computer programming, finance. Some physicist have brought
methods of canonical and statistical mechanics to financial problems.
There's a limited number of jobs in government labs, probably fewer in
industry. One guy I've heard about, who specialized in general
relativity, got a job with Firestone. General relativity has a lot of
computations on curved manifolds, and a tire is curved, and it squished
under load...
And at the moment, it's a fact that particle physics doesn't really lack
for theory. What it really needs is data to select from the many theories
that are already floating around out there.
Tim Klein
>
> "Natalie Watson" <nats...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:B94CEA9E.6238%nats...@yahoo.co.uk...
>> Hi, I'm looking at university degree courses in physics and maths,
> and I'm
>> at a loss when it comes to choosing one.
>
> Take engineering if you want a job after you graduate.
>
Stupid logic. If it is all about jobs and money, engineering is a
really bad bet. You have to work comparitively very hard, yet those
folks who have marketing and management degrees can make orders of
magnitude more. How hard did they work? There are also a heck of a lot
of more business degree jobs out there.
It ain't about the job. It is about doing what you love. It may be
harder or easier, but life is to short to be a wimp and 'play it safe' by
picking a major you don't like and hoping it lands you a better job. I
have done jobs I didn't like, but paid well. It is no good. Jobs that
I liked, but paid like shit, were ultimately more satisfying.
maky m.
> at a loss when it comes to choosing one. I like theoretical physics, however
> I'm worried that a straight physics degree will not contain enough maths to
> make me good enough to do research, should I decide to. But if I did a maths
> degree, would that contain enough physics for me to go into experimental or
> theoretical physics? If I did a maths and physics joint course, would that
> just make me a jack of all trades, and not really prepared for
> specialisation due to only doing half a degree in each subject, as it were.
a math degree is stronger, even job-wise. of course a math degree and
two bucks will get you a nice cup of coffee and little else, if you
get my drift...
maky m.
> "Natalie Watson" <nats...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:B94CEA9E.6238%nats...@yahoo.co.uk...
> > I'm at a loss when it comes to choosing one. I like theoretical physics,
> > however I'm worried that a straight physics degree will not contain
> > enough maths to make me good enough to do research, should I decide to.
> > But if I did a maths degree, would that contain enough physics for me
> > to go into experimental or theoretical physics? If I did a maths and
> > physics joint course, would that just make me a jack of all trades,
> > and not really prepared for specialisation due to only doing half a
> > degree in each subject, as it were.
>
> put in my two cents.
>
> First off (because it's important people!!!) I have a B.S. degree in physics
> from Vanderbilt University. I didn't pursue graduate studies, so it sounds
> like you're taking a different path than I did, which is something to take
> into account with my advice.
>
> Oh yeah, let me emphasize that the people replying *really* should have
> given SOME information about themselves. It boggles my mind that people
> will reply supposedly trying to help you out with such a big decision and
> not give such relevant information!!!
in your case, blowing hard isn't going to cut it, given the crack pot
that you are.
> Ok. My physics degree has been extremely valuable to me in the real world
> in wide variety of situations, from working at hospitals while in the U.S.
> Army (five years), to helping people with computer problems on the phone, to
> doing computer programming, which I'm doing now.
bwahahahahahahahaha. your physics degree together with your crack
pottery are extremely valuable, not to work in hospitals, but rather
to be a patient in a mental hospital...
> Physics is about problem solving and people skills are emphasized because
> you can't do physics without working with teams, even as a theoretical
> physicists because at all the important levels, physics is a *group*
> process.
>
> So, in my opinion, you can't go wrong getting a physics degree.
>
> Just remember, unlike physics, mathematics is essentially a discipline of
> tools.
>
> Physics is about answering the fundamental questions of the nature of our
> world that can be approached using the scientific method, and mathematics is
> one of its greatest tools.
>
> What's the *point* of mathematics?
>
> If you can answer that question satisfactorily for yourself, and it looks
> like a great ideal, then you should get a math degree.
>
> If you're just thinking it'd probably be cool to have a physics AND math
> degree (very impressive at parties!!!) then you should probably just get a
> physics degree.
>
> Remember, you only have so much time on this planet, so you should make the
> most of it, and besides, a physics degree is cool enough!
>
> Oh, from the perspective of what will serve you best, just a straight
> physics degree is preferable if you want to keep your options open between
> experimental and theoretical physics. If you're set on being a theoretical
> physicist you should definitely stay away from a dual degree, and put an
> emphasis on experimental physics while you're in school, as it will form the
> basis for the insights you'll need to be a successful theoretician. If you
> definitely want to be an experimental physicist, then sure, go ahead and get
> a math degree too, if you want.
>
> If you don't believe me, read up on some biographies like those of Einstein
> and Newton. Don't pick up the general stuff that most people get, but
> really dig in, like reading the work of Pais.
>
> > Decisions, decisions! I would really appreciate it if someone would be
> able
> > to help me.
>
> Hope I helped you a little bit.
>
>
> James Harris
maky m.
> >From: "James Harris" jst...@msn.com
>
> >Remember, you only have so much time on this planet, so you should make the
> >most of it, and besides, a physics degree is cool enough!
>
> I agree with James.
> except for the above.
you have to be careful when agreeing with crack pots. that can't be a
good association...
David McGloin
> I've had conflicting reports on this one. The Director of Studies for
Maths
> at Cambridge (yep, I am looking at courses in the UK) said that if I did
the
> Cambridge maths course, then it's half physics anyway. However, I'm not
sure
> if that extends to other universities as well, such as Durham or
Manchester.
> Cambridge is probably special. On the other hand, another person has
written
> to me saying that if I did straight maths, I would not have enough of a
> physics background to go into it, unless I took a load of physics modules.
> The thing is, I was under the impression that the most cutting edge
> theoretical physics stems from "inventing" new maths, as it were, or
> applying some really obscure pure maths things to it, that you need a
degree
> to understand anyway, which is why I'm somewhat confused.
>
> Also, what are job prospects like in theoretical physics? I can't imagine
> them to be wonderful. I'd just hate to end up being an accountant at the
end
> of a really interesting degree course.
>
> Well, thanks for all of your help, it's much appreciated.
>
> Natalie
Hi Natalie
If theorectical physics is what you want to do then do a degree in
Theoretical Physics, or possibly Mathematical Physics (e.g. at Edinburgh).
You'll find plenty of such courses in the UK. For instance there are degrees
here at University of St. Andrews in Th. Phys and in Th. Physics and Maths
(both MPhys degrees). Also if you are really unsure about what you want to
do, then go for a course where you can do courses in several subject in
either first or second year. Again, using St. Andrews as an example you can
take a options such that you could delay the decison of your final degree
until entry into honours (3rd year). The Scottish system is still a little
more flexible than the English in this regard (or least I believe so).
Also a 'straight physics' degree, as you call it can cover a multitude of
things - it really depends on the courses (modules) that the University in
question offers. For instance, due to elective courses that you take over
the course of your degree it is unlikely that any two persons degrees (from
the same University) are the same. You need to have a look in a bit more
detail about what modules are available and what sort of topics they are
likely to involve.
As for jobs, well a degree is the key for a wide variety of jobs, no matter
what the subject, and a degree with a high mathematical content opens up the
door for lots of things too (you'll likely develop computer programming
skills too with degrees in these fields). The banking industry (investment
banks that is) are always keen on theoretical physicists. And it does
without saying, if you want to be a physicist, theoretical or otherwise it's
a pretty good start to have a degree in the subject.
All the best, and I'm sure you make the right decision!
David
--
David McGloin
dm...@st-and.ac.uk
David C. Ullrich
>agents...@aol.combination (Spaceman) wrote in message news:<20020707164951...@mb-mu.aol.com>...
>> >From: "James Harris" jst...@msn.com
>>
>> >Remember, you only have so much time on this planet, so you should make the
>> >most of it, and besides, a physics degree is cool enough!
>>
>> I agree with James.
>> except for the above.
>
>you have to be careful when agreeing with crack pots. that can't be a
>good association...
I think that saying that one should be careful about agreeing with
crackpots makes one look much worse than agreeing with a crackpot
does. "Is the author a crackpot?" is not the most reliable way to
determine whether something is true or false.
(Also saying that one should not agree with a crackpot just because
he's a crackpot gives the crackpot ammunition when he claims that
the only reason people don't agree with him is because he's a
crackpot, or "come kind of nut", to use James' favorite phrase.
Not that "the only reason people disagree is that I'm a crackpot"
is a very compelling argument - the crackpot overlooks the fact
that the reader is going to wonder how he attained his crackpot
status in the first place. But I don't think it's a good thing
to reinforce that attitude.)
David C. Ullrich
maky m.
> On 7 Jul 2002 18:49:52 -0700, mman...@my-deja.com (maky m.) wrote:
>
> >agents...@aol.combination (Spaceman) wrote in message news:<20020707164951...@mb-mu.aol.com>...
> >> >From: "James Harris" jst...@msn.com
>
> >> >Remember, you only have so much time on this planet, so you should make the
> >> >most of it, and besides, a physics degree is cool enough!
> >>
> >> I agree with James.
> >> except for the above.
> >
> >you have to be careful when agreeing with crack pots. that can't be a
> >good association...
>
> I think that saying that one should be careful about agreeing with
> crackpots makes one look much worse than agreeing with a crackpot
> does. "Is the author a crackpot?" is not the most reliable way to
> determine whether something is true or false.
well, you know what i meant - didn't you?
Pmb
I can only tell you what I did. And I took a double major physics and
math. But even if you took only a physics major then you'd get enough
math to do what you need to do. In fact the only math you'd be lacking
would be things of an abstract mathmatical nature that is not demanded
in physics. That is not to say that this particular math isn't
important but that you don't have to have it at that time. Maybe
later. However you should be able to learn any form of math that you'd
require later on. For example: A physicist rarely learns tensors. And
even if he does it's rarely learned at an undergraduate level. However
if you choose to study physics then you'd learn those aspects of
tensors that you'd require in order to learn the physics you'd need.
For example: You'd take an EM course in Grad school. In that course
you'd touch base on tensors. However that doesn't mean that you'd
learn tensor analysis in an EM course.
Personally I recommend a double major in physics/math. You have enough
math in the physics major that only by taking math in your electives
you'll have a double major no problem. And you can't learn too much
math as a physics major!
Pmb
Spaceman
>Personally I recommend a double major in physics/math
Yes a double brainwahsing will enforce his magical God clock.
since you won't be able to tell your teachers they are wrong
no matter what you could show them for REAL things.
Pmb
You don't know how a clock works huh?
I suggest all find out how clocks work
and see the Godly clock fall.
and then ..
take the new phsyics that will stem from REALity
instead of from magical force without form crap of physics today.
Stuart Wilson
At the risk of offending people here: take the same route I did and choose
mechanical engineering :-)
At least that way your ideologies are more grounded in real-life... *ducks*
But seriously, if you had to choose one, and you are serious about branching
specifically into theoretical physics then a specific theoretical physics
degree is probably the way to go. Filled out the UCAS forms yet? If not
(time's admittedly a bit short now) then if you are still having trouble
deciding take a year out and think about it.
Stuart
Spaceman
>At the risk of offending people here: take the same route I did and choose
>mechanical engineering :-)
>At least that way your ideologies are more grounded in real-life... *ducks*
No need to duck,
phsyics can only throw bad math and bad logic at you.
:)
You need only hold up an atomic clock and it blocks
all thier bolgona they throw.
(after all it has Godly time changing powers.)
:0
I agree.
mechnanical engineering is much better for REALity driven jobs
and
Most of them know the clock goofed.
and not this silly time changing crap.
Take both.
and laugh at the physics.
like most do.
The clock is their God,
if you won't accept that.
you best take mechanical engineering instead.
:)
Pmb
> >Personally I recommend a double major in physics/math
>
> Yes a double brainwahsing will enforce his magical God clock.
> since you won't be able to tell your teachers they are wrong
> no matter what you could show them for REAL things.
Brainwashing huh? So you're telling me that if it was YOU who were to
study math and physics then YOU'D have your brainwashed in that you
would be unable to form your own opinions? Tell me. Why do you think
you'd be unable to form an opinion after someone explained math and
physics to you. If you think you'd be the exception the kindly tell me
why you think you'd be different than others without even knowing
these other people who'd get 'brainwashed'?
>
> Pmb
>
> You don't know how a clock works huh?
And you deduced that I don't know how a clock works because .......
?????
Pmb
jmfb...@aol.com
"Stuart Wilson" <stu...@coreshutdown.com> wrote:
<snip>
>At the risk of offending people here: take the same route I did and choose
>mechanical engineering :-)
When I went back to school, one of the instructors said that
an ME degree was the most versatile. He said that he could
get a job anywhere any time. So it's definitely the most
practical. :-)
>At least that way your ideologies are more
>grounded in real-life... *ducks*
I could use an ME around here.
>
>But seriously, if you had to choose one, and you are
>serious about branching
>specifically into theoretical physics then a specific theoretical physics
>degree is probably the way to go. Filled out the UCAS forms yet? If not
>(time's admittedly a bit short now) then if you are still having trouble
>deciding take a year out and think about it.
Has the OP done any lab work?
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
Aardvark
I was in your shoes <mumble> years ago. Obviously it differs from
university to university, but insofar as my experience is relevant:
there's almost certainly more maths in a physics undergraduate degree
than physics in a maths degree. And (at least at Oxford) you can opt
out of all lab work after the first year and take an advanced theory
paper instead, where you will learn enough mathematics to get you up
to a level where you can start to do research.
But it depends a little on what you want to do at the end of it. Most
of the graduate students I knew working in strings and that stuff had
done undergraduate maths degrees, and needed it all.