Engineering Physics or Physics/Mathematics (U of T)??

[physics5high]

Hello everyone, I've currently applied to UTSC for their Physics/Stats program, Waterloo Physics and UTSG Engineering Science (Engineering Physics) program. I really enjoy physics but I am wondering which one would be best for me in terms of jobs in the future; they all seem interesting though. P.S: I have a 96% average so far (but I find the Ontario high school curriculum too easy, so too do all my teachers and even many of friends who complain about difficulty end up with high marks)

[Aznsilvrboy]

People who go into Engineering Science at UofT tend to end up in grad school rather than in the work place. If you want to get a job, go for another engineering discipline like Electrical Engineering with physics minor or something. Going pure physics is going to have a hard time finding a job, just telling you in advance. Check out the careers forum for more info.

[windforcexx28]

People who go into Engineering Science at UofT tend to end up in grad school rather than in the work place. If you want to get a job, go for another engineering discipline like Electrical Engineering with physics minor or something. Going pure physics is going to have a hard time finding a job, just telling you in advance. Check out the careers forum for more info.

+1

If you are planning to go to grad school, either program works depending on what program you're planning to apply for and your career plans.

[Vascilli]

If your work ethic is anything short of outstanding, you will not survive Engineering Science no matter how good your grades are. (Unless you are a child prodigy in which case you likely would not be asking such a question.)

[BoogieWilliams]

You seem to have the smarts but you also need the time management skills along with it to do engineering science. If you think you can do it that is definitely the better option.

[physics5high]

You seem to have the smarts but you also need the time management skills along with it to do engineering science. If you think you can do it that is definitely the better option.

Uhm...lol. Well I find the material easy now, so I would usually just listen to music, study on the last day before a test or exam and generally play video games

[physics5high]

What the physics/mathematics co-op option at UTSC? Is it worth with job-wise and even for grad school?

[DrXenon]

Employers don't know what to do with people who graduate from nontraditional streams of engineering like eng phys. There is a traditional-stream grad behind every blade of grass in Canada, so why would you hire someone from an Eng Phys/Eng Chem/Applied Math program? Stick to Electrical, Civil and Mechanical and take electives in quantum physics or whatever. Forget about Eng Sci at UofT; the payoff doesn't compensate you for the amount of effort required.

Pure sciences are a waste of time; go on workopolis and search for "mathematician" and "physicist" versus "engineer".

[Metagame]

Pure sciences are a waste of time; go on workopolis and search for "mathematician" and "physicist" versus "engineer".

Wait until Harper signs more FTA's, then the same thing that is happening to manufacturing/engineering in the U.S is going to happen here in Canada and the market will be flooded with foreign engineers willing to work for a few dollars above minimum wage or companies will be able to outsource most of their jobs. Enjoy the few years you have left. :D

All the while, developing countries are vehemently recruiting physicists and physics graduates from the West. They are realizing that engineers just can't competently work in the growing fields of superconductivity, opto-electronics, solid state materials, nuclear energy, nanotechnology, etc.

[Metagame]

Uhm...lol. Well I find the material easy now, so I would usually just listen to music, study on the last day before a test or exam and generally play video games

This was the final (http://www.physics.utoronto.ca/~dfvj/publications/PHY151_2011_final.pdf) for the first year physics specialist at UofT in mechanics. See how many questions you can do. Many many students were physics superstars in their high school, but failed that test miserably. Massive bell curve.

[Vascilli]

Uhm...lol. Well I find the material easy now, so I would usually just listen to music, study on the last day before a test or exam and generally play video games

If you do that in Eng Sci you will fail no matter how smart you are. I have a friend in first year Eng Sci right now and she does absolutely nothing but study. No extracurriculars at all. She did very, very well in high school.

[Mark77]

Employers don't know what to do with people who graduate from nontraditional streams of engineering like eng phys. There is a traditional-stream grad behind every blade of grass in Canada, so why would you hire someone from an Eng Phys/Eng Chem/Applied Math program? Stick to Electrical, Civil and Mechanical and take electives in quantum physics or whatever. Forget about Eng Sci at UofT; the payoff doesn't compensate you for the amount of effort required.

Pure sciences are a waste of time; go on workopolis and search for "mathematician" and "physicist" versus "engineer".

Yup, employers can't even figure out what to do with EE/CS / CompE people in Canada, even though they generally have a superset of the skills found in your ordinary, run-of-the-mill EE grad.


All the while, developing countries are vehemently recruiting physicists and physics graduates from the West. They are realizing that engineers just can't competently work in the growing fields of superconductivity, opto-electronics, solid state materials, nuclear energy, nanotechnology, etc.

Wow, I've never heard this sort of comment before. Care to elaborate a little bit more?


If you do that in Eng Sci you will fail no matter how smart you are. I have a friend in first year Eng Sci right now and she does absolutely nothing but study. No extracurriculars at all. She did very, very well in high school.

As with all disciplines in engineering -- the 'studying' is usually completing problem sets. If one doesn't know the material, it is practically impossible to 'study' it for exams. Either you learn it as you go along, or you never learn it at all. "studying" in the context of an engineering class for an engineering final is usually to make sure that your materials are in order, that you've reviewed problem sets and ensured that any errors made in the problems have been understood/rectified.

[Hyperfluxe]

Wait until Harper signs more FTA's, then the same thing that is happening to manufacturing/engineering in the U.S is going to happen here in Canada and the market will be flooded with foreign engineers willing to work for a few dollars above minimum wage or companies will be able to outsource most of their jobs. Enjoy the few years you have left. :D

All the while, developing countries are vehemently recruiting physicists and physics graduates from the West. They are realizing that engineers just can't competently work in the growing fields of superconductivity, opto-electronics, solid state materials, nuclear energy, nanotechnology, etc.

That's pretty delusional. I actually really want to study Physics, but there are way more engineers than physicists in industry. Even in the fields you mentioned. Obviously not in academia, but it's hard enough to get a faculty position anyway.

[Metagame]

Wow, I've never heard this sort of comment before. Care to elaborate a little bit more?

You probably haven't read this Article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/go-to-china-young-scientist/2011/05/19/AFCY227G_story.html) yet, have you?

[Metagame]

That's pretty delusional. I actually really want to study Physics, but there are way more engineers than physicists in industry. Even in the fields you mentioned. Obviously not in academia, but it's hard enough to get a faculty position anyway.

How about you read my post properly before going ahead and calling me delusional? :facepalm:


The reason why there aren't many physicists in industry is primarily due to politics (government regulations and an obsession with the P Eng designation) and HR screening out those who do not have engineering degrees. 30+ years ago, it was very common for physicists to work industrial jobs that are now exclusively reserved for engineers. If you want to be a physicist and want to have decent job prospects, then you need to prepare yourself to go abroad, because Canada and the U.S have made it quite clear they don't really need or want their physicists while other countries will happily take as many as possible.

[Anonymouse]

You probably haven't read this Article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/go-to-china-young-scientist/2011/05/19/AFCY227G_story.html) yet, have you?

I think he is asking about this extraordinary claim:

They are realizing that engineers just can't competently work in the growing fields of superconductivity, opto-electronics, solid state materials, nuclear energy, nanotechnology, etc.

Speaking as an EE who worked for years on optoelectronics and solid state materials, without encountering a single physicist unless you count the Eng Phys grads, I would, um, respectfully disagree.

[Hyperfluxe]

The reason why there aren't many physicists in industry is primarily due to politics (government regulations and an obsession with the P Eng designation) and HR screening out those who do not have engineering degrees. 30+ years ago, it was very common for physicists to work industrial jobs that are now exclusively reserved for engineers. If you want to be a physicist and want to have decent job prospects, then you need to prepare yourself to go abroad, because Canada and the U.S have made it quite clear they don't really need or want their physicists while other countries will happily take as many as possible.

I entirely agree with you. There's no reason at all that physicists can't do an engineer's job, they can learn quickly. Physics is probably the hardest major and arguably the one where you develop the most problem solving skills, which would make you an excellent asset to any industry related to engineering. Also, physics is so damn interesting because of how fundamental it is :)

BUT, ever since then end of WWII, there haven't been many physicists outside of academia. The ratio of physicists to engineers in industry is very low. Keep in mind that I'm talking about scientific fields, and not computational finance or any sort of quant job on Wall Street. The politics around this will not change any time soon in North America.

[physics5high]

Thank for each of your inputs. This is still a difficult decision for me; I want to study physics, not really engineering but I am worried about the job prospects as well.

[orangealphabet]

Hey there, I'm a 4th year Physics student, but in first year I was actually in Engineering Science, so I can talk a little bit about both experiences.

On the job front, I don't think you're going to get a straight answer. It also depends on what KINDS of jobs you'd like to get after graduation. If you're looking for an engineering job, then obviously you'd be able to meet the requirements of more engineering positions after going through an engineering program. If you're looking to get into graduate school in the sciences though, it might be better to go for a science program (Physics with or without another major). Of course, it's possible to go from a BSc to an engineering career, but it'd be more difficult. Similarly, it's possible to go into physics graduate school after doing an engineering physics degree, it'd just be a lot more work.

Really, though, it may be a bit too early to think about the types of jobs that you get. What I recommend is just reading through the program and course descriptions and seeing if the program is suitable for you :razz:. There are a couple of major differences between science programs (like Physics) and engineering programs (including Engineering science). First of all, as a science student you'd probably have a more flexible schedule. This is because engineering is an professional degree that has accreditation requirements (i.e. you have to complete a certain number of hours of certain types of courses before you can be an engineer). This is why engineering students frequently have schedules with more than 25+ hours of classes. Moreover, as a science student you'd get to pick more electives/more physics courses because, again, you wouldn't have accreditation requirements. Also, the engineering science program has courses such as civil engineering, electrical engineering, systems biology, and engineering design--if those courses sound right up your alley, then the program might be suitable for you. Conversely, if those courses don't sound like something you'd be interested in, you might be better off in a science program in which you could take courses in philosophy or chemistry or MORE physics courses or whatnot instead--the engineering courses, with their 25+ hours a week, drain a lot of your time and energy if you just want to concentrate on physics.

[Metagame]

Speaking as an EE who worked for years on optoelectronics and solid state materials, without encountering a single physicist unless you count the Eng Phys grads, I would, um, respectfully disagree.

Using your logic: I have never seen a photon in my life, ergo, they don't exist?

Every solid state and condensed matter physicist has extensive industry experience in the physics department at my school. The computer industry heavily employs physicists, despite what you spew on these forums, especially due to the fact more companies are investing in research for quantum computing seeing as the silicon industry is bound to fail using Moore's Law thanks to Heisenberg uncertainty principle, something most engineers just do not understand nor will they ever understand.

Are you going to try to lie again that EE's with no quantum background are somehow employed in quantum computing research? :lol::facepalm:

[Hyperfluxe]

Every solid state and condensed matter physicist has extensive industry experience in the physics department at my school. The computer industry heavily employs physicists, despite what you spew on these forums, especially due to the fact more companies are investing in research for quantum computing seeing as the silicon industry is bound to fail using Moore's Law thanks to Heisenberg uncertainty principle, something most engineers just do not understand nor will they ever understand.

Are you going to try to lie again that EE's with no quantum background are somehow employed in quantum computing research? :lol::facepalm:

Now you're just being a jerk. I knew and perfectly understood what Heisenberg's uncertainty principle was in grade 12. Why wouldn't an engineer be able to understand that? For the record, ECE and CS also are very applicable to quantum computing - it's not only for physicists. If you really think that only physicists do research in QC, you need to to actually look at academic or industrial research postings and see what background they require. There is heavy research in QC at my university, and most of it is from the ECE department and school of CS.

Out of curiosity, do you happen to go to U of T? Some of the things that you say really make you seem delusional. That seems to be the trend at U of T, especially with programs like EngSci where undergraduates somehow get convinced that you get 'special' kind of engineering jobs only for EngSci grads.

[Metagame]

Now you're just being a jerk. I knew and perfectly understood what Heisenberg's uncertainty principle was in grade 12.
Unless you're the next Stephen Hawking or on a similar level, I doubt that. Seriously, do you not see the sheer ignorance of what you are saying? It's like an average grade 12 student saying "I understand general relativity completely" without any background in topology, let alone differential geometry. :facepalm:


Why wouldn't an engineer be able to understand that?
The fact of the matter is that engineers are not very bright people in comparison to physicists. Most of their work is extremely applied and is done primarily by inputting numbers into equations or computers. If you need more proof, just compare the tests for a classical mechanics course that a mechanical engineer takes in third year to one a physics student takes in third year. Most mechanical engineers don't even have to learn what a Lagrangian is, perhaps due to the fact it is too deep of a concept for most mechanical engineers to handle.



For the record, ECE and CS also are very applicable to quantum computing - it's not only for physicists. If you really think that only physicists do research in QC, you need to to actually look at academic or industrial research postings and see what background they require. There is heavy research in QC at my university, and most of it is from the ECE department and school of CS.

CS, yes but they collaborate heavily with the physics department. Fact is, most running quantum computers have been built primarily by physics graduate students, post-docs and tenured professors and that is where the vast majority of significant progress comes from in the field. Sure, some ECE professors may be doing a bit of research in the field, but they know full well they can't compete with physicists who have been learning quantum mechanics since undergrad for grant money, while they probably never had to have learned quantum and only understand it on a very superficial level (much like your proclaimed understanding of the heisenberg uncertainty principle). I would think most electrical and computer engineers can do their entire degree without even an introduction to quantum mechanics.


Out of curiosity, do you happen to go to U of T? Some of the things that you say really make you seem delusional. That seems to be the trend at U of T, especially with programs like EngSci where undergraduates somehow get convinced that you get 'special' kind of engineering jobs only for EngSci grads.

You jelly? UofT has the best physics program in the country with top professors in their field. And it seems you have a problem with labeling anyone who posts facts "delusional".

[Hyperfluxe]

Unless you're the next Stephen Hawking or on a similar level, I doubt that. Seriously, do you not see the sheer ignorance of what you are saying? It's like an average grade 12 student saying "I understand general relativity completely" without any background in topology, let alone differential geometry. :facepalm:


The fact of the matter is that engineers are not very bright people in comparison to physicists. Most of their work is extremely applied and is done primarily by inputting numbers into equations or computers. If you need more proof, just compare the tests for a classical mechanics course that a mechanical engineer takes in third year to one a physics student takes in third year. Most mechanical engineers don't even have to learn what a Lagrangian is, perhaps due to the fact it is too deep of a concept for most mechanical engineers to handle.


CS, yes but they collaborate heavily with the physics department. Fact is, most running quantum computers have been built primarily by physics graduate students, post-docs and tenured professors and that is where the vast majority of significant progress comes from in the field. Sure, some ECE professors may be doing a bit of research in the field, but they know full well they can't compete with physicists who have been learning quantum mechanics since undergrad for grant money, while they probably never had to have learned quantum and only understand it on a very superficial level (much like your proclaimed understanding of the heisenberg uncertainty principle). I would think most electrical and computer engineers can do their entire degree without even an introduction to quantum mechanics.


You jelly? UofT has the best physics program in the country with top professors in their field. And it seems you have a problem with labeling anyone who posts facts "delusional".

I may not understand the derivation yet because I don't have the mathematical background, but I understand the concept and underlying theory. It doesn't take a genius to understand that what the HUP is saying is that you can't measure two physical parameters of particle precisely at the same instant. By saying "I understand completely", I guess that would imply that I understand the derivation, so my claim wasn't accurate.

You seem to have the need to feel superior to engineers. Engineers and physicists learn different things...that's all there is to it. Your classical mechanics will be more in depth and thorough than ours. Why? Because you're a physics major. Physics majors will take course in honours analysis, advanced geometry, astrophysics, etc. - things that engineers won't ever touch. Engineering majors will take courses in numerical methods, material science, control systems, design courses, etc. - things that physicists don't need to know. You're comparing apples to oranges.

Going back on topic, you can't do much with an undergraduate degree in physics. You absolutely must (the majority of the time) go to graduate school and get a PhD. in order to even get considered for a research position, and then another 4-6 years as a post-doc to be considered for a tenure track position. Engineers have tons of opportunities after four years of studies.

All ECE majors and CS majors are required to take an intro. to QM course at my uni (McGill if you must know). You're absolutely correct that physicists have more grasp on the subject, thus more contribution than engineers in the field. But your previous post implied that no engineers can contribute to QC - which is false.

I don't disagree with you about your comments on UofT. But, there is a lot of indoctrination going on there, and I've experienced that first hand when I went to visit friends and talked with professors. The thing is, a lot of the things you're saying are not facts. You implied that EE's can't in quantum computing. You seem to think that physicists have (or will have) better job prospects than engineers.

Going back to what an earlier member said; try searching for physicist or mathematician on Workopolis anywhere in NA. Unless if you specialized in condensed matter physics or solid state, you'll have a very hard time finding employment in industry outside of quantitative finance. As interesting as astrophysics is, nobody needs them right now. Even in academia, the work that they do is not very pleasant either. OP, try getting into a lab during the summer and work with a graduate student or prof and get a first-hand taste of academia is like - then make your decision. Keep in mind that if you pursue physics and want to work in physics (ie. not as a quant on Wall Street), it'll take 10 years of schooling + 4 to 6 years as a post-doc to land your first true research position.

[Metagame]

Going back on topic, you can't do much with an undergraduate degree in physics. You absolutely must (the majority of the time) go to graduate school and get a PhD. in order to even get considered for a research position, and then another 4-6 years as a post-doc to be considered for a tenure track position. Engineers have tons of opportunities after four years of studies.

I never said physicists have better job prospects than engineers in North America, but abroad? It seems most developing countries overwhelmingly prefer physicists over engineers and are recruiting physics graduates from America. I already have a job lined up after I graduate with a simple BSc back in my country of origin under my uncle (who's a PhD doing interesting, top secret government research work). Let's not forget, it was physicists who built the atom bomb that essentially secured victory for the allies over the Nazis, and not engineers.

[physics5high]

Going back to what an earlier member said; try searching for physicist or mathematician on Workopolis anywhere in NA. Unless if you specialized in condensed matter physics or solid state, you'll have a very hard time finding employment in industry outside of quantitative finance. As interesting as astrophysics is, nobody needs them right now. Even in academia, the work that they do is not very pleasant either. OP, try getting into a lab during the summer and work with a graduate student or prof and get a first-hand taste of academia is like - then make your decision. Keep in mind that if you pursue physics and want to work in physics (ie. not as a quant on Wall Street), it'll take 10 years of schooling + 4 to 6 years as a post-doc to land your first true research position.

Actually look up physics in workopolis and you will see that there are jobs in the medical field, finance field, in optics, computers, mechanical testing and etc... each one asking for an undergraduate in physics/applied science/mathematics or engineering plus of course some experience but that is for all. So I don't really know what you are talking about

[Luckyinfil]

I never said physicists have better job prospects than engineers in North America, but abroad? It seems most developing countries overwhelmingly prefer physicists over engineers and are recruiting physics graduates from America. I already have a job lined up after I graduate with a simple BSc back in my country of origin under my uncle (who's a PhD doing interesting, top secret government research work). Let's not forget, it was physicists who built the atom bomb that essentially secured victory for the allies over the Nazis, and not engineers.

False. Physicists discovered the theory behind it, but they couldn't apply it in real life. It was the engineers that applied the theory in a practical way so that they can enrich the uranium in time. Source: see the manhattan project

[Luckyinfil]

Unless you're the next Stephen Hawking or on a similar level, I doubt that. Seriously, do you not see the sheer ignorance of what you are saying? It's like an average grade 12 student saying "I understand general relativity completely" without any background in topology, let alone differential geometry. :facepalm:


The fact of the matter is that engineers are not very bright people in comparison to physicists. Most of their work is extremely applied and is done primarily by inputting numbers into equations or computers. If you need more proof, just compare the tests for a classical mechanics course that a mechanical engineer takes in third year to one a physics student takes in third year. Most mechanical engineers don't even have to learn what a Lagrangian is, perhaps due to the fact it is too deep of a concept for most mechanical engineers to handle.




CS, yes but they collaborate heavily with the physics department. Fact is, most running quantum computers have been built primarily by physics graduate students, post-docs and tenured professors and that is where the vast majority of significant progress comes from in the field. Sure, some ECE professors may be doing a bit of research in the field, but they know full well they can't compete with physicists who have been learning quantum mechanics since undergrad for grant money, while they probably never had to have learned quantum and only understand it on a very superficial level (much like your proclaimed understanding of the heisenberg uncertainty principle). I would think most electrical and computer engineers can do their entire degree without even an introduction to quantum mechanics.



You jelly? UofT has the best physics program in the country with top professors in their field. And it seems you have a problem with labeling anyone who posts facts "delusional".

:facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm:

http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/watch-out-we-got-a-badass-over-here-meme.png

[physics5high]

LOL, jks

[RobertM2]

If you want to study Physics, go into a Physics program.

Engineering Science is very hard, and offers eight majors. One of those is Engineering Physics.
I think it would be a lot of unnecessary stress for nothing--like going through a Microsoft Certification program just to learn how to use Word.
If you are considering EngSci simply for its prestige as one of the best programs in Canada, that is another matter.

But don't do it just for the Physics.
Or the job market. Physics or engineering don't necessarily lead to good job prospects. This is Canada, after all. We are more into natural resources. You might be better off getting a job in a lumber mill. Or getting a trade. Plumbing is always good. There are already too many engineers and scientists driving cabs, waiting tables, baristas at Starbucks, etc.

[physics5high]

This was the final (http://www.physics.utoronto.ca/~dfvj/publications/PHY151_2011_final.pdf) for the first year physics specialist at UofT in mechanics. See how many questions you can do. Many many students were physics superstars in their high school, but failed that test miserably. Massive bell curve.

Actually the final doesnt seem that difficult, kepler's law, centripetal acceleration and energy questions were quite doable; however I know nothing of derivatives and integrals lol (yet....!). My brother who goes to Ryerson for Industrial engineering (83% average in high school) claimed that the test was similar to some of his first-year physics finals and even he managed to do the questions from the one you provided quite easily even though he wasn't that good in high school physics