Physics vs Engineering

investor

employers sometimes look at a 2.1 in physics as a 1st in say history or other non-core subjects.

History is a non-core subject? I assure you that getting a first history is ****ing hard.

Reply 22

ChemistBoy

The entire hi-tech industry is built on physicists

Aw come on, how can you make such a sweeping statement like that? Sure physicists can help develop new technologies, but what about mechantronics/electronics/control/mechanical engineers? (I assumed by hi-tech you were leaning towards electronics)

I don't like pitting physics against engineering because I love them both. But since engineering is the application of pure physics to real life problems, who'd you think will do the job better - someone who has an incredibly deep knowledge of WHY something is happening but little experience of modifying and optimising the characteristics, OR, someone who has very deep knowledge on optimising the situation but little of the deep deep fundamental science behind it (which is rarely needed anyway - of course you need a good level of knowledge, otherwise you can't even begin to understand it, but in engineering we are taught only what we need to know to improve the situation). Phew! Did that make sense?

Also, a few intelligence agencies recruit physics grads. :yy:

Reply 23

investor

employers sometimes look at a 2.1 in physics as a 1st in say history or other non-core subjects.

History is a non-core subject? I assure you that getting a first history is ****ing hard.

Reply 24

black_mamba

Aw come on, how can you make such a sweeping statement like that? Sure physicists can help develop new technologies, but what about mechantronics/electronics/control/mechanical engineers? (I assumed by hi-tech you were leaning towards electronics)

Because it is true. By built on I don't mean - made up of, but at the heart of hi-tech (yes I don't include biotech in this) is physics, plain and simple. Engineers take these new technologies further and make them into products but they need the new science to begin with.

I don't like pitting physics against engineering because I love them both. But since engineering is the application of pure physics to real life problems, who'd you think will do the job better - someone who has an incredibly deep knowledge of WHY something is happening but little experience of modifying and optimising the characteristics, OR, someone who has very deep knowledge on optimising the situation but little of the deep deep fundamental science behind it (which is rarely needed anyway - of course you need a good level of knowledge, otherwise you can't even begin to understand it, but in engineering we are taught only what we need to know to improve the situation). Phew! Did that make sense?

It depends on the situation. Sometime a deep understanding of something is needed to make even the smallest (and often in hindsight, simplest) breakthrough. You can't simply say that an engineer will be better at a job because they are more 'real world', it doesn't work like that. One also has to remember that many engineers are qualified to degree level where as many physicists who are active in technology are qualified to PhD level - a PhD in a technology related field is often a very practical and problem-solving based venture. Research experience is excellent as you are always encountering problems.

Reply 25

I'm just wondering; its not always a breakthrough in a new form of science that pushes technology further, sometimes its just a new way of applying an already known science. And yes, my example certainly doesn't cover all engineering vs physics arguments, but it addresses the general reason why engineers have slightly better job prospects than physics grads.

But I wasn't strictly talking about pushing the boundaries here - just typical engineering analysis which needs to be carried out e.g. we don't need to know why fluid moves in the way it does in order to optimise the design of a piping system, for example. On the innovative front, IMO its a big sloshy mixture of the two - deep knowledge and creative application of it.

Reply 26

black_mamba

I'm just wondering; its not always a breakthrough in a new form of science that pushes technology further, sometimes its just a new way of applying an already known science. And yes, my example certainly doesn't cover all engineering vs physics arguments, but it addresses the general reason why engineers have slightly better job prospects than physics grads.

Surely engineers have better prospects because they are needed to do most things in a functioning modern society from building roads to building robots?

But I wasn't strictly talking about pushing the boundaries here - just typical engineering analysis which needs to be carried out e.g. we don't need to know why fluid moves in the way it does in order to optimise the design of a piping system, for example. On the innovative front, IMO its a big sloshy mixture of the two - deep knowledge and creative application of it.

You are getting onto me terratory here - chemical engineering. Chemical engineers cannot design a chemical plant by themselves, they need to work with chemists to do that - why? Because the engineer, as you say, can make the flow efficient in the pipes but they need chemist to make sure the desired reaction is actually going to work! It is different areas of knowledge and expertise, but both are of equal import.

Reply 27

Exactly! I never assumed the engineer was working on their own in this situation. Otherwise we'd have a bit of a mess. :smile:

Reply 28

investor

thats absolutely nonsense - engineers design and create the machinary that say and MRI or CT scanner which is used in hospitals a type of xray machine.

the physicists do the background work and say wether it will work or not and then the engineers have to design and create it.

both are equally good, lets get that straight !! i see alot of people slagging off one or the other - with both of them you can go into any industry you like.

both are hard degrees and both will train you to not only be a smart person but a hard working one too, so with physics or engineering you can go into any discipline you like !!

history is a non-core subject its not ment as a dig at historians etc it covers all sorts, media studies psychology etc.

the core subjects are science, medicence, technology of which engineering would come under technology.

Reply 29