Engineering or physics!?
Hi im new to this, im studying at A-level now (physics and maths) and I am currently doing my personal statement to apply for Mechanical Engineering next year. I'm struggling to think of reasons why I want to be an engineer, my favourite subject is physics and I love the subject and also love the fact of possibly earning a physics degree. But I cant see many job options in physics compared to engineering so hence ive gone for engineering! I would enjoy engineering but I am really struggling with my personal statement, if it was physics I would find it a lot easier to write! Can anyone help me on how to write this, or is there a Physics/Engineering student who was in my shoes? Would appreciate any reply, thanks.
Original post by lucwillis
Hi im new to this, im studying at A-level now (physics and maths) and I am currently doing my personal statement to apply for Mechanical Engineering next year. I'm struggling to think of reasons why I want to be an engineer, my favourite subject is physics and I love the subject and also love the fact of possibly earning a physics degree. But I cant see many job options in physics compared to engineering so hence ive gone for engineering! I would enjoy engineering but I am really struggling with my personal statement, if it was physics I would find it a lot easier to write! Can anyone help me on how to write this, or is there a Physics/Engineering student who was in my shoes? Would appreciate any reply, thanks.
Do you prefer solid theory work or do you prefer applying theory to practical situations?
Original post by lucwillis
Hi im new to this, im studying at A-level now (physics and maths) and I am currently doing my personal statement to apply for Mechanical Engineering next year. I'm struggling to think of reasons why I want to be an engineer, my favourite subject is physics and I love the subject and also love the fact of possibly earning a physics degree. But I cant see many job options in physics compared to engineering so hence ive gone for engineering! I would enjoy engineering but I am really struggling with my personal statement, if it was physics I would find it a lot easier to write! Can anyone help me on how to write this, or is there a Physics/Engineering student who was in my shoes? Would appreciate any reply, thanks.
Most things relevant to physics you could probably make relevant to engineering if you try hard enough, they're not that unrelated! I had this problem initially though but went for physics as I felt it would keep my options open more and I felt it was more suited to me. You could still go into engineering with physics (albeit with extra training or a conversion course probably) but it might be harder to do other things with an engineering degree. I might be wrong though, that's just how I see it, graduates of both are very employable anyway so it shouldn't make that much difference in terms of graduate prospects I don't think. Have you looked at some physics courses too and do you think you'd enjoy it?
Original post by nebelbon
Do you prefer solid theory work or do you prefer applying theory to practical situations?
I like both sides of it see, are you studying any of the courses?
Original post by lucwillis
I like both sides of it see, are you studying any of the courses?
I am studying Electrical Engineering, however like you i enjoyed Physics too.
There are many different disciplines a Physicist can move into.
So I've never posted here but I found your post on accident while searching for some other information...
Your debacle has so much related to what I did, I felt obligated to share. Bear in mind, that I am a student in the U.S. so some of our titles are different (A-level is like a freshman? First year?)
I am currently a senior (4th year) mechanical engineer who also joined the physics program (I am at my junior/3rd year in the physics program) at my university because the physics interested me so much. I am far from a perfect student, but am loving my classes and curriculum.
As a rule, engineers typically try to determine the maximum stuff that can be negated or ignored. Then we calculate forces & safety factors and usually all end up with different answers. So long as accurate assumptions are made and the margin of safety is large enough, it typically works and everyone is happy.
At the end of the day, your calculations lay the framework. Then you take the design and input it into a computer to perform finite element analysis (the computer chops everything up into a whole bunch of little pieces and performs the calculations at each point) and observe the results to ensure the project will work. If its overbuilt, you remove material/supports and try again until everything is optimized.
Physicist like to account for everything. The majority of the information is more theoretical. If designing an experiment, everything is taken into consideration and sometimes this leads to massive unnecessary equations. Furthermore, sometimes physicists end up creating equations that are unsolvable (mainly this is where the calculus comes into play) and you hit a stump. A lot of the models that are used do not depict the real life situations (I'm looking at you quantum wells) and have to be semi-visualized. When it comes to my physics work I tend to be in a constant state of confusion that somehow ends up clearing itself up, sometimes. It's fun, but the physics department at my university is also very light-hearted and easy to work with, so this comes into play a lot.
There is the debate that a physicist can do anything an engineer can. This is completely true; and if we waited for them to finish performing the calculations, we'd still be walking everywhere. Fortunately, we have engineers who are willing to fudge the numbers a bit, over build things, and by churning out some results the wright brothers made flight.
An example of the senior project I am currently working on. My team and I are to design & build an AUV for underwater missions. I am responsible for designing the heat transfer from the PC to the water.
From my engineering perspective;
I want to build it with atleast a safety factor of 2 (that is, it can remove 2x as much heat as the PC generates). Fortunately our hull has 2 end caps that are made of aluminum. => 2 end caps, safety factor of 2, each endcap needs to disperse the heat of the PC
The length of the hull is made of acrylic & offers little heat transfer => Ignore it.
One of the endcaps has wires coming out of it, this reduces the heat transfer across the endcap => Analyze this endcap
The water has a small current in it => too small of velocity worth considering, treat as stationary fluid of infinite medium
Now I just need to determine the thickness of the endcap (this has to do with the bolts that hold it together) and from there I can calculate the necessary fins for heat transfer.
From a physicist perspective;
The conductivity of the aluminum cap will need to be evaluated as the temperature changes (the change was so minimal, as an engineer the temp would be averaged and ignored)
Both endcaps would need to be analyzed together
Water current would need to be verified & calculated
The known fluid & heat transfer formulas that I use as an engineer would be scrapped, they are approximations.
The acrylic hull needs to be considered & analyzed.
Engineering perspective would take a week to do rough calculations (including time to figure out unknown information, such as thickness of cap).
Physics perspective would take a week to figure out what variables I still need to account for. Nevermind the calculations.
Your debacle has so much related to what I did, I felt obligated to share. Bear in mind, that I am a student in the U.S. so some of our titles are different (A-level is like a freshman? First year?)
I am currently a senior (4th year) mechanical engineer who also joined the physics program (I am at my junior/3rd year in the physics program) at my university because the physics interested me so much. I am far from a perfect student, but am loving my classes and curriculum.
As a rule, engineers typically try to determine the maximum stuff that can be negated or ignored. Then we calculate forces & safety factors and usually all end up with different answers. So long as accurate assumptions are made and the margin of safety is large enough, it typically works and everyone is happy.
At the end of the day, your calculations lay the framework. Then you take the design and input it into a computer to perform finite element analysis (the computer chops everything up into a whole bunch of little pieces and performs the calculations at each point) and observe the results to ensure the project will work. If its overbuilt, you remove material/supports and try again until everything is optimized.
Physicist like to account for everything. The majority of the information is more theoretical. If designing an experiment, everything is taken into consideration and sometimes this leads to massive unnecessary equations. Furthermore, sometimes physicists end up creating equations that are unsolvable (mainly this is where the calculus comes into play) and you hit a stump. A lot of the models that are used do not depict the real life situations (I'm looking at you quantum wells) and have to be semi-visualized. When it comes to my physics work I tend to be in a constant state of confusion that somehow ends up clearing itself up, sometimes. It's fun, but the physics department at my university is also very light-hearted and easy to work with, so this comes into play a lot.
There is the debate that a physicist can do anything an engineer can. This is completely true; and if we waited for them to finish performing the calculations, we'd still be walking everywhere. Fortunately, we have engineers who are willing to fudge the numbers a bit, over build things, and by churning out some results the wright brothers made flight.
An example of the senior project I am currently working on. My team and I are to design & build an AUV for underwater missions. I am responsible for designing the heat transfer from the PC to the water.
From my engineering perspective;
I want to build it with atleast a safety factor of 2 (that is, it can remove 2x as much heat as the PC generates). Fortunately our hull has 2 end caps that are made of aluminum. => 2 end caps, safety factor of 2, each endcap needs to disperse the heat of the PC
The length of the hull is made of acrylic & offers little heat transfer => Ignore it.
One of the endcaps has wires coming out of it, this reduces the heat transfer across the endcap => Analyze this endcap
The water has a small current in it => too small of velocity worth considering, treat as stationary fluid of infinite medium
Now I just need to determine the thickness of the endcap (this has to do with the bolts that hold it together) and from there I can calculate the necessary fins for heat transfer.
From a physicist perspective;
The conductivity of the aluminum cap will need to be evaluated as the temperature changes (the change was so minimal, as an engineer the temp would be averaged and ignored)
Both endcaps would need to be analyzed together
Water current would need to be verified & calculated
The known fluid & heat transfer formulas that I use as an engineer would be scrapped, they are approximations.
The acrylic hull needs to be considered & analyzed.
Engineering perspective would take a week to do rough calculations (including time to figure out unknown information, such as thickness of cap).
Physics perspective would take a week to figure out what variables I still need to account for. Nevermind the calculations.
Original post by rogue909
So I've never posted here but I found your post on accident while searching for some other information...
Your debacle has so much related to what I did, I felt obligated to share. Bear in mind, that I am a student in the U.S. so some of our titles are different (A-level is like a freshman? First year?)
I am currently a senior (4th year) mechanical engineer who also joined the physics program (I am at my junior/3rd year in the physics program) at my university because the physics interested me so much. I am far from a perfect student, but am loving my classes and curriculum.
As a rule, engineers typically try to determine the maximum stuff that can be negated or ignored. Then we calculate forces & safety factors and usually all end up with different answers. So long as accurate assumptions are made and the margin of safety is large enough, it typically works and everyone is happy.
At the end of the day, your calculations lay the framework. Then you take the design and input it into a computer to perform finite element analysis (the computer chops everything up into a whole bunch of little pieces and performs the calculations at each point) and observe the results to ensure the project will work. If its overbuilt, you remove material/supports and try again until everything is optimized.
Physicist like to account for everything. The majority of the information is more theoretical. If designing an experiment, everything is taken into consideration and sometimes this leads to massive unnecessary equations. Furthermore, sometimes physicists end up creating equations that are unsolvable (mainly this is where the calculus comes into play) and you hit a stump. A lot of the models that are used do not depict the real life situations (I'm looking at you quantum wells) and have to be semi-visualized. When it comes to my physics work I tend to be in a constant state of confusion that somehow ends up clearing itself up, sometimes. It's fun, but the physics department at my university is also very light-hearted and easy to work with, so this comes into play a lot.
There is the debate that a physicist can do anything an engineer can. This is completely true; and if we waited for them to finish performing the calculations, we'd still be walking everywhere. Fortunately, we have engineers who are willing to fudge the numbers a bit, over build things, and by churning out some results the wright brothers made flight.
An example of the senior project I am currently working on. My team and I are to design & build an AUV for underwater missions. I am responsible for designing the heat transfer from the PC to the water.
From my engineering perspective;
I want to build it with atleast a safety factor of 2 (that is, it can remove 2x as much heat as the PC generates). Fortunately our hull has 2 end caps that are made of aluminum. => 2 end caps, safety factor of 2, each endcap needs to disperse the heat of the PC
The length of the hull is made of acrylic & offers little heat transfer => Ignore it.
One of the endcaps has wires coming out of it, this reduces the heat transfer across the endcap => Analyze this endcap
The water has a small current in it => too small of velocity worth considering, treat as stationary fluid of infinite medium
Now I just need to determine the thickness of the endcap (this has to do with the bolts that hold it together) and from there I can calculate the necessary fins for heat transfer.
From a physicist perspective;
The conductivity of the aluminum cap will need to be evaluated as the temperature changes (the change was so minimal, as an engineer the temp would be averaged and ignored)
Both endcaps would need to be analyzed together
Water current would need to be verified & calculated
The known fluid & heat transfer formulas that I use as an engineer would be scrapped, they are approximations.
The acrylic hull needs to be considered & analyzed.
Engineering perspective would take a week to do rough calculations (including time to figure out unknown information, such as thickness of cap).
Physics perspective would take a week to figure out what variables I still need to account for. Nevermind the calculations.
Your debacle has so much related to what I did, I felt obligated to share. Bear in mind, that I am a student in the U.S. so some of our titles are different (A-level is like a freshman? First year?)
I am currently a senior (4th year) mechanical engineer who also joined the physics program (I am at my junior/3rd year in the physics program) at my university because the physics interested me so much. I am far from a perfect student, but am loving my classes and curriculum.
As a rule, engineers typically try to determine the maximum stuff that can be negated or ignored. Then we calculate forces & safety factors and usually all end up with different answers. So long as accurate assumptions are made and the margin of safety is large enough, it typically works and everyone is happy.
At the end of the day, your calculations lay the framework. Then you take the design and input it into a computer to perform finite element analysis (the computer chops everything up into a whole bunch of little pieces and performs the calculations at each point) and observe the results to ensure the project will work. If its overbuilt, you remove material/supports and try again until everything is optimized.
Physicist like to account for everything. The majority of the information is more theoretical. If designing an experiment, everything is taken into consideration and sometimes this leads to massive unnecessary equations. Furthermore, sometimes physicists end up creating equations that are unsolvable (mainly this is where the calculus comes into play) and you hit a stump. A lot of the models that are used do not depict the real life situations (I'm looking at you quantum wells) and have to be semi-visualized. When it comes to my physics work I tend to be in a constant state of confusion that somehow ends up clearing itself up, sometimes. It's fun, but the physics department at my university is also very light-hearted and easy to work with, so this comes into play a lot.
There is the debate that a physicist can do anything an engineer can. This is completely true; and if we waited for them to finish performing the calculations, we'd still be walking everywhere. Fortunately, we have engineers who are willing to fudge the numbers a bit, over build things, and by churning out some results the wright brothers made flight.
An example of the senior project I am currently working on. My team and I are to design & build an AUV for underwater missions. I am responsible for designing the heat transfer from the PC to the water.
From my engineering perspective;
I want to build it with atleast a safety factor of 2 (that is, it can remove 2x as much heat as the PC generates). Fortunately our hull has 2 end caps that are made of aluminum. => 2 end caps, safety factor of 2, each endcap needs to disperse the heat of the PC
The length of the hull is made of acrylic & offers little heat transfer => Ignore it.
One of the endcaps has wires coming out of it, this reduces the heat transfer across the endcap => Analyze this endcap
The water has a small current in it => too small of velocity worth considering, treat as stationary fluid of infinite medium
Now I just need to determine the thickness of the endcap (this has to do with the bolts that hold it together) and from there I can calculate the necessary fins for heat transfer.
From a physicist perspective;
The conductivity of the aluminum cap will need to be evaluated as the temperature changes (the change was so minimal, as an engineer the temp would be averaged and ignored)
Both endcaps would need to be analyzed together
Water current would need to be verified & calculated
The known fluid & heat transfer formulas that I use as an engineer would be scrapped, they are approximations.
The acrylic hull needs to be considered & analyzed.
Engineering perspective would take a week to do rough calculations (including time to figure out unknown information, such as thickness of cap).
Physics perspective would take a week to figure out what variables I still need to account for. Nevermind the calculations.
Brilliant analogy.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by rogue909
...
Engineering perspective would take a week to do rough calculations (including time to figure out unknown information, such as thickness of cap).
Physics perspective would take a week to figure out what variables I still need to account for. Nevermind the calculations.
Engineering perspective would take a week to do rough calculations (including time to figure out unknown information, such as thickness of cap).
Physics perspective would take a week to figure out what variables I still need to account for. Nevermind the calculations.
Nah, physicists would assume it's a sphere...
Posted from TSR Mobile
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Is the physics in an Engineering degree much harder than A Level physics?
- Regretting A level choices
- Engineering Vs physics degree
- Physics, computer science or electrical engineering?
- Engineering without a level maths/physics
- Physics or Engineering
- I’m stuck with what to do for A level
- a level subjects for chemical engineering
- Are engineers glorified graphic designers?
- Clearing 2023
- physics or engineering?
- Would an engineering A level help me get into an engineering course at uni?
- Uni of Loughboroug
- Chem engineering without maths and physics
- civil engineering
- Can I do engineering without chemistry in a levels
- Chemistry vs chemical engineering
- Engineering or physics
- becoming a civil engineer after a-level product design?
- Engineering A levels vs Btec
