|
||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Need Help Deciding Post by Hooie on Nov 23rd, 2003, 5:07pm Hi, I've been lurking here for quite a while, and I've noticed that there's a lot of engineers, physicists, and mathematicians posting here. I was hoping some of you could give me some advice. I'm a senior in high school, and applications for college are due pretty soon. I've been trying to pick a major for a long time, but I haven't made a decision yet. I want to major in something that involves a lot of math, so I've been thinking of choosing either physics or electrical engineering. However, I don't know how to choose between the two. I have a few questions about the two majors that hopefully some of you can answer. Which is a harder major, physics or electrical engineering? (I'm planning to go to UCLA, in case the answer depends on the school) Which involves more math? Which is more fun or interesting? (I know this is kind of subjective, but I'd like to hear your opinions on it) Do physicists and electrical engineers make the same amount of money? Is it possible to work as an engineer if you have a physics degree? Which degree is better suited to doing research and development? Is it easier to find a job with a degree in physics or EE? Is there anything else I should know? I'd appreciate any help. Thanks in advance. :) |
||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Need Help Deciding Post by Icarus on Nov 23rd, 2003, 7:21pm on 11/23/03 at 17:07:23, Hooie wrote:
Physics - though it does depend on the particular specializations that you follow in either path. Quote:
Physics again. Quote:
Definitely physics again, but others may disagree. The thing of it is, EE is an application of physics, so anything you find in EE you also find in physics. Quote:
If they are doing the same job, then yes. But in general EEs make more than physicists. Since their study is more applied, their skills are more directly marketable. Physicists however are more versatile in their usefulness, so they get a wider spread of possible jobs. But for any particular job, they are a hand down from those who already have specialization in that field. Quote:
Yes, or a Mathematics degree. I am working as an engineer, though my degrees were in physics and math. However, as I said above, you are generally at a disadvantage when looking for these jobs to those who have trained directly for them. There are exceptions. Mass Properties Engineering does not have a lot of appeal to most Engineering graduates, so they usually transfer out to other positions quickly. Therefore mathematicians are actually favored for such work, at least at my company. We tend to stick around longer. Quote:
Physics is a science. EE is an applied science. Physics is all about research. EE is all about development. Which end of it do you favor? Quote:
EE wins this hands down. Companies are generally less interested in new research than they are in developing new products, and supporting existing ones. Though every so often, companies need more of a generalist to tie things together, they far more need the specialist who knows how to apply what he or she has learned in making a product that will bring in the bucks for the company. So EEs are in far more demand than Physicists. Quote:
That you will not learn how to do the job, whatever the job is, in college. College will give you the tools that you need, but actually learning to put them to use requires on the job training. Which one you should pick depends very much on what matters most to you. If the pursuit of knowledge is what gives you the most joy, physics is a better choice. If bringing in the bucks is more important to you (this does not mean that you are shallow or greedy), then EE is a better way to go. The same is true if creating new things is what you find enjoyable. Also, be willing in college to explore all three of EE, physics, and mathematics (and other things as well). You may find that your original idea is less attractive as you move on with your degree. Colleges understand this - if not a majority, then at least a substantial minority of students make some change to their degree path while in college. I started out strictly in physics. Becoming a mathematician was the furthest thing from my mind. But when I started to get into some real mathematics, I found that I really enjoyed it. In the end, mathematics is what I chose for graduate work. Last - whatever you choose, be prepared to feel burned out on occasions. It doesn't mean you've made the wrong choice - just that you have been focusing too heavily on it. Balance it with other interests/activities that are not mathematical at all. |
||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Need Help Deciding Post by James Fingas on Nov 24th, 2003, 9:03am I was going to comment in this thread, but then I remembered that engineering is a completely different animal in Canada. I also know nothing about UCLA, so my responses are more indicative of my own experience at my Alma Mater, the University of Toronto. I also didn't take the regular EE course. So I still have comments, but take them with a grain of salt! I could readily believe that Physics would be harder than regular EE, but that would depend entirely upon the school you go to. They both involve the same math (barring quirky physics-only fields), and you can go as deep into it as you want to in either field, although my guess is you'd see the fancier math earlier in physics, while in EE you won't see the fancy stuff until grad school. The EE courses may also gloss over the math sometimes to get to a practical application (though mine rarely did--this will vary from school to school). If math is truly what you want, then go into physics and stay at a university doing research; that'll likely be your mathiest option. More fun/interesting? It depends entirely on what you find interesting. If the conceptual stuff is interesting by itself, then probably physics. If you like real-world stuff, then likely EE. No idea about the money. The two jobs are rather segregated in Canada. For R&D, the two jobs are likely about equivalent, although I'd say you'll predispose yourself towards two different types of R&D. I'd agree with Icarus that an EE degree is better for finding a job. So basically, if you enjoy math :P, then take physics. If you enjoy real-world eletrical type stuff or think you might and are good at math, then take EE. |
||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Need Help Deciding Post by Hooie on Nov 24th, 2003, 10:26pm :) Thanks for the help! I have a few more questions, if you don't mind, but I need to do a little more explaining first. I really like math, which is why I'm considering majoring either in physics or ee. I'm planning only to get a bachelor's degree in physics/ee, and then a master's in math. The reason I don't just pick math is because I'm not sure what kind of jobs would be available to me with a degree in math. I don't want to end up crunching numbers all day long. So I figured I'll get a bachelor's in physics/ee and work as an engineer, and then get my master's in math for fun. Is this dumb? Would it be a waste of time to get the bachelor's in physics/ee? Both of you mentioned doing research as a physics major. I don't plan to go past a bachelor's in physics if I do major in it, so would I really be able to do research? What kind of work can I do with a math degree? Does it involve nothing more than number crunching? Again, thanks for the help. I really appreciate it. |
||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Need Help Deciding Post by william wu on Nov 25th, 2003, 2:33am I don't know enough about the real world to answer most of your questions, but maybe I can comment a little about math in EE. In general physics will certainly require more math than EE, but I would argue that some areas of EE are just like math -- although you typically won't touch the real math (e.g. mostly proofs instead of computations) until graduate school. For instance, several EE professors in the information systems laboratory at my instuition recommend that advisees take an array of courses in the math department, usually including such topics as analysis, measure theory, large deviation theory, and all of the graduate-level probability sequence. The very theoretical areas of EE such as information theory are practically math as far as I can tell. There are also EE professors with joint appointments in the mathematics or statistics departments. Finally, many of the seminal contributors to communications/information theory had doctorates in mathematics, such as John Tukey and Claude Shannon. So if you study the right areas of EE in depth, you might end up becoming a mathematician if you're not one already. Or at least a probability nut. :) Finally, EE is more interesting than physics in my opinion. Why? Because modern-day physics theories are probably just wrong. :D Physics has undergone several paradigm shifts (Aristotelian, Galilean, Newtonian, Relativisitic) in its history, and some of the most tumultuous periods have happened in the past century. It's like they're coming up with a new model every 50 years. When someone changes his mind so frequently, it makes me wonder whether I should bother listening. Is string theory really correct? I dunno. Does anyone really know? No. Incidentally I'm not alone in this boat of skepticism; in many philosophy of science courses, students have to read a controversial book by Thomas Kuhn called the Structure of Scientific Revolutions, in which Kuhn argues that when faced with deciding between whether to accept a new paradigm or keep the old one, scientific communities base their decisions less on rational reasoning and more on sociological things, such as where the funding is going, or what so-and-so thinks about the issue (e.g. Von Neumann thinks it's a good idea, so maybe I'll agree too; he's a smart guy.), or the fact that I've spent the last 50 years studying Galilean physics and if this fresh kid thinks he's going to revamp it, he'll have to do it over my dead body. I don't find the book totally convincing, but I agree that perhaps some skepticism is warranted. Anyways, physicists make models that approximate nature and are being constantly questioned. Their system is never purely formal. In theoretical EE or math, you can do mathy stuff, and take comfort in the fact that it's not wrong (as long as you trust Aristotelian logic and the formal system you're working in). You can't come up with counterexamples to things that have been proven true. As a final note, a few months ago I would've told you to just major in math as an undergraduate. But later I realized it's a real tough tradeoff. On one hand, math would've made lots of stuff make more sense much earlier. On the other hand, an EECS degree taught me the power of computing, and afforded me many cool experiences that the more theoretical majors often don't get, such as working with fellow students on design projects that actually run around and do something, including a small robot, an operating system, a CD player, and AI for a strategy game. And while you're stuck in Soda Hall late at night coding with your team, many classic incidents will happen that will become funny stories to tell others in the future. :) |
||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Need Help Deciding Post by Icarus on Nov 27th, 2003, 11:03pm Mathematics and Physics both offer their own possibilities for funny stories to tell later. With a bachelor's degree in physics, you will not be participating in hot physics research in general, but you can get involved in supporting roles, and it can be a good grounding for later mathematical research. Concerning jobs -- the primary job for mathematicians to work as mathematicians is as a research professor. You get to confuse students for 6 hours a week, spend another 6 dredging through the results of their confusion. Another 6 to 12 hours are spent on committee and other pud work, leaving the rest of the time to pound your head against the desk trying to figure out some garbage to toss out in order to satisfy your "publish or perish" requirements. - Okay, it's not that bleak, and if you like real mathematics, it can be interesting and fun. On the other hand, "publish or perish" results in a lot of garbage being put out, and you will have to wade though it to find the gems. (If you are not familiar with the phrase, "publish or perish" refers to the rules that require a certain level of published output to maintain your job.) This brings up the question of what it is you like about mathematics. Real mathematics does not generally involve "number crunching". To a mathematician, mathematics is all about definitions and theorems. We want to spend our time proving things. Calculation is seldom involved. My dissertation contained very few numbers (other than the page numbers). They were all integers and the highest was 26. So if proving things doesn't attract you, skip the math and look for something else. Outside of research mathematics, few other jobs call directly for a mathematician. Proving things is not a highly marketable activity. However, mathematicians do possess skills that make them valuable in a number of situations. They just have to willing to accept that they will not be doing true mathematics. Much of this does involve number crunching - but the good news is that the computer gets to do the crunching - your job is to tell it how to go about the task. If you do not enjoy physics or EE, then it would be foolish to major in either. Just go ahead and get the Mathematics degree. Jobs in industry are more scarce than for either of those two (particularly less than for EE), but are not impossible to find (in the long run - in the short run it depends very much on conditions when you graduate - this is true for all three fields though). However, it would be a good idea to get as much grounding in practical application as you can. If you find either physics or EE attractive, just not as much as mathematics, then go for a dual path. The closer you are to application, the stronger your employment prospects - at least for working directly in your area of interest. Whatever you do, look around - explore all three, and some other areas as well. You may find that what you want to do is something entirely different than what you are thinking now. College is in many ways a much different world than the one you inhabit now. |
||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Need Help Deciding Post by Hooie on Nov 30th, 2003, 9:57pm Well, my application has been sent. I'm finally done with that. I put Physics as my major for UCLA and UCI, and Engineering Physics as my major for UC Berkeley. I guess it really doesn't matter much; as it has been mentioned, I can always change my major to Math if I want to. Icarus, if you have some time could you perhaps tell me a little about your job? Is what you do what most mathematicians working as engineers do? If you're in a really good mood, maybe you could describe what your daily routine at work is like. :) |
||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Need Help Deciding Post by Icarus on Dec 1st, 2003, 6:13pm No, my job is not what most mathematicians working as engineers do. There are a number of positions that a mathematician can fill, and the spread is wide, so none of them is a particular majority. When I first applied for this job, a friend (who was VP of product engineering at the time - it's good to have a connection like that! :P) suggested I try for the Loads or Flutter groups instead of Weights, but Weights was hiring and they weren't, so that is where I ended up. My daily routine would be hard to describe, because what I do is constantly changing. My core responsibility is maintaining a database of weight, cg, and inertia information about the Electrical and Avionics systems of the particular aircraft model to which I have been assigned. Mostly this is done by analyzing solid models of the parts. But most of my time of late goes into trying to improve the badly antiquated and barely functional processes the weights group has been using. (We do our job using the very latest cutting-edge 1970s technology! I've been told that punch cards were still in use here in the early 1990s.) Most of this involves UNIX scripting, and I have come to be viewed as some sort of programming guru because I finally broke down and learned UNIX script language in self-defense against the truely nasty scripts that had been in use, and started fixing them. (This should come as a surprise to those who know that I seldom even venture into the cs forum here.) I also get the occasional special assignment. Some of these are straightforward and rather tedious - such as figuring out how much of our jet is made of composites (I did that today). But others are more interesting - for instance, figuring out better ways to analyse the plane's floatation characteristics, should it ditch in water (we have to show that the passengers can get away before the plane sinks in order to certify it). Whether you would find this job boring or not depends on you. I can tell you this: don't expect that you will get a job that challenges you all the time, or even most of it - but is still within your capabilities. Such jobs are very few and extremely far between. One thing I like about this job is that there are always more things to do. If things are slow, I have no dearth of other tasks I can turn to - things that have not been done simply because either no one had the time, or just never thought of doing. Of course if I and the others are ever successful in dragging our group kicking and screaming into the 21st century, I may have to start looking elsewhere. But by then it will probably be 2010 or later, so I can just start working on dragging them another decade forward! |
||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Need Help Deciding Post by aero_guy on Dec 3rd, 2003, 12:14pm So, Icarus, did that flotation thing work out? What kind of model did you finally use? |
||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Need Help Deciding Post by Icarus on Dec 4th, 2003, 6:08pm I've stuck with the equation I asked about. It seems to best fit the situation I am dealing with. I really don't like the assumption it makes of a linear relationship between the changes rates of interior and exterior volume, but the situation is too complex, so it is the best estimate I can make with the data on-hand (it is a much better estimate than was used before). However, your discussion with me did clear up a number of issues in my mind, so I am grateful. I've used the method to provide sink times for studies of two aircraft now - one for certification, and the other a preliminary estimate for design considerations. I've had to do manual searches for my final state (by which time the passengers need to be out if they don't want to fight inrushing water) because the guy who is supposed to be programming it hasn't had the time yet. So the whole thing is still a work in progress. But in the meantime, I have now become the company's "floatation expert" :P. The bad part (from one point-of-view - from another it is a really, really good point) is the lack of actual data to compare my results against. So far I have a single data point (the two passengers and dog survived without serious injury). But I don't have enough information yet to be able to calculate a result for it to compare against. Also - the guess at how long it took for the plane to go down, made by a guy swimming for his life, is of less than perfect accuracy, so it may be a moot point anyway. |
||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Need Help Deciding Post by aero_guy on Dec 10th, 2003, 9:58am These might be helpful: TI: In the drink ((ditch landing capability of aircraft)) AU: DORMER, IAN SO: Flight International , vol. 135, May 20, 1989, p. 87-90. AN: A89-43890 TI: Ditching and flotation tests on a 1/12-scale model V-22 Osprey AU: MUTTER, HARRY SO: Rotary wing test technology; Proceedings of the National Specialists' Meeting, Bridgeport, CT, Mar. 15, 16, 1988 (A88-51786 22-05). Alexandria, VA, American Helicopter Society, 1988, 5 p. AN: A88-51812 TI: H-46 helicopter emergency flotation system (HEFS) AU: TYBURSKI, JOHN J; MAWHINNEY, WILLIAM A SO: SAFE Association, Annual Symposium, 24th, San Antonio, TX, Dec. 11-13, 1986, Proceedings (A88-13376 03-54). Newhall, CA, SAFE Association, 1987, p. 147-152. AN: A88-13397 You weren't kidding that there is little info available. It seems that unless you are going to do a full finite element model or scale test there is no info out there. |
||||||||||||||||
|
Powered by YaBB 1 Gold - SP 1.4! Forum software copyright © 2000-2004 Yet another Bulletin Board |