Deciding between Physics or Engineering after a very turbulent year

[fuzzie]

I'm new to this forum, so I hope I do everything correctly to get an answer because I am deeply in need for some guidance.
I also hope I can explain myself in the clearest way.

I'm a 20 year old student attending the first year in Computer and Electronics engineering.
Since I was in high school I was always deeply passionate about physics, so much that I also tried to study physics to participate to the physics olympiads. I wanted to pursue Physics as my career choice because that became my sort of "happy obsession": my desire to imitate the people I admired the most (all mathematicians and scientists).

However, in the last year of high school I started panicking because everyone around me discouraged my choice.
My family was reluctant and didn't think I could be a "successful" physicst (whathever that may mean) and I would risk being precarious for a lot of time. My insecurities grew stronger and my anxiety larger (I suffer from anxiety).

So I started exploring the engineering path instead. I asked questions to professors, went to workshops, watched engineering youtube videos and I was not extremely excited by the idea of working in industry. The idea of building things excited me for sure but I was still very unsure about it. I'd decided to enroll in a relatively small university because I couldn't afford to go to bigger ones (it was also very close to home, I live in Europe). The program of the courses seemed stimulating and sort of "complete" in terms of math and science content (I didn't have much choice anyway so I just tried to choose the best option).

What I wanted was to have a rigorous math and physics foundation. That would have been enough to quench my curiosity. I would have felt ok if I didn't do general relativity or astrophysics, I just wanted to face the engineering field in a "scientist way", I hope that makes sense.

I had decided to try my first period in the engineering course and, if it didn't convince me, I would have then switched to physics that same semester.

Unfortunately, the courses turned out to be very different from what I had expected. Not in terms of content, but in the way that content was delivered: the subjects were treated in the most superficial way. It was like no other engineering school lecture I had attended to other bigger universities.

Furthermore, my university's burocracy didn't allow me to switch (I had to switch only the next year, even If I passed the physics course's entrance exam) and I broke apart.
I tried so hard to do as many exams as possible to switch directly to the second year (I aced all the exams I could) but apparently the way math and physics are done in my engineering course is no near to the way math and physics are done in the physics department, so little to no exams will be recognized.

Even worse, I got ill along the way so I couldn't even complete my first university year as a whole.
I feel like a failure. I have worked very hard but anything worked out as expected. I have always aced my courses and did everything on time so this was a big shock for me.

I have the impression that no matter what I will do, what happened this year will damage my future "career" or job opportunities irreversibly.
My body is still weak and the anxiety that I have isn't helping at all to make a choice for the next year.

I really do want to explore electronics and computer engineering, I've grown a genuine curiosity and interest towards those subjects as well. but I don't want to abandon the maths and physics foundation, because I think they are essential to be a good engineer/physicist.

I am asking for reassurance (it there's any) and advice. Here are my questions:

1) will "losing" a uni year conprimse my "career"/job as a whole? By career i mean the job opportunities to "prestigious industries" and/or the possibility to do an (eventual) phd.

2) I still have difficulties deciding between physics or engineering path because where I live there is no Engineering Physics nor Applied Physics so I have to just pick one or another and compromise. The job market is terrible where I live and I am really afraid that picking up physics wouldn't be the wisest of choices, even if I like it. I like exploring math and physics in the most rigorous way, yet as I got informed I am also curious about building circuits for rockets/medical devices/cars/satellites/quantum technologies.
Do you think I fall more in the physics or engineering spectrum? (I am really struggling in understanding this so maybe a comparison would help me in a clearer way)

3) Should I change university for my next years ? Due to my health problems I can't go very far, but there is another uni "near" where I live that could be an alternative option.

In the end, I am just trying to understand what is the best decision for me and for my future.
I am willing to work very hard and smart to "catch up" but I really need to hear someone's opinion on this or else I think I could really break down.

Thank you for all the people that will have the patience to read and answer this.

 

[fresh_42]

I still have difficulties deciding between physics or engineering path because where I live there is no Engineering Physics nor Applied Physics so I have to just pick one or another and compromise.

Hello and !

Where do you live?

Going elsewhere won't solve any problems in my experience. You will carry them with you.

 

[fuzzie]

Hello and !

Where do you live?

Going elsewhere won't solve any problems in my experience. You will carry them with you.

Thank you for the welcoming message!
I live in Italy.

 

[fresh_42]

Thank you for the welcoming message!
I live in Italy

Well, Italy is large. There are definitely good universities in Italy to study "Engineering Physics and Applied Physics" in every corner of the country.

 

[fuzzie]

Well, Italy is large. There are definitely good universities in Italy to study "Engineering Physics and Applied Physics" in every corner of the country.

Unfortunately that's not true... Engineering physics (which is the same as Applied Physics here) is available in only 3 universities, and I live far away from all of them.

 

[scottdave]

Welcome. Many people have setbacks. I know something about it. It is not the end of the road, but may redirect your path.

For the other university- do you know anybody who goes there? If it were me, I would want to visit to learn about the programs and the environment there.

Good luck!

 

[fuzzie]

Welcome. Many people have setbacks. I know something about it. It is not the end of the road, but may redirect your path.

For the other university- do you know anybody who goes there? If it were me, I would want to visit to learn about the programs and the environment there.

Good luck!

I see...
I know someone studying in the other uni, and I'm asking for info. It's a bigger and more hectic university than mine, but it's more advanced than this one.
Thank you for the encouragement

 

[fresh_42]

Unfortunately that's not true... Engineering physics (which is the same as Applied Physics here) is available in only 3 universities, and I live far away from all of them.

I guess we can exclude Rome, the Toscana, and large parts of northern Italy. I looked up Triest as an example and found engineering as well as physics. Remains Napoli, Lecce, and Palermo. All of them have engineering and physics.

Have I forgotten a corner? Ok, Bolzano looks bad for physics but great for engineering and Innsbruck isn't that far away. (If you live in Alto Adige you probably speak German, and Austria and Italy are both in the EU, so there won't be basic problems with Innsbruck.)

The specific institute isn't so important. To commit yourself to a goal you want to achieve is way more important. Formulas, math, and physical laws are the same everywhere.

 

[fuzzie]

I guess we can exclude Rome, the Toscana, and large parts of northern Italy. I looked up Triest as an example and found engineering as well as physics. Remains Napoli, Lecce, and Palermo. All of them have engineering and physics.

Have I forgotten a corner? Ok, Bolzano looks bad for physics but great for engineering and Innsbruck isn't that far away. (If you live in Alto Adige you probably speak German, and Austria and Italy are both in the EU, so there won't be basic problems with Innsbruck.)

I am sorry, maybe there has been a mistunderstanding, when I mean Engineering Physics I mean the specific course which "blends" engineering and physics together. It's a relatively new course but it's present in other universities abroad (Princeton for example). It's not the same as engineering or physics, it's a mix of the two!
Alas, this course is not available to me, so I either have to choose physics or engineering, but not both and that's the hard part :')
I hope I've explained myself

 

[fresh_42]

Why do you want to merge physics and engineering? For one you could in principle study both in parallel, but on the other hand, you could study one and attend courses in the other. They are indeed quite different and I don't see a reason to study both, since neither of them is easy. In my opinion, the hidden question is whether you are more interested in physics or in engineering. It sounds a bit as if you want to study physics and add on engineering for later career chances. If the latter is a real aspect, then you should study engineering from the beginning.

 

[fuzzie]

Why do you want to merge physics and engineering? For one you could in principle study both in parallel, but on the other hand, you could study one and attend courses in the other. They are indeed quite different and I don't see a reason to study both, since neither of them is easy. In my opinion, the hidden question is whether you are more interested in physics or in engineering. It sounds a bit as if you want to study physics and add on engineering for later career chances. If the latter is a real aspect, then you should study engineering from the beginning.

In a way, yes, that's exactly the idea. If I studied physics I would still add some cs/ engineering courses for personal interest (and why not, for extra career chances as well)

 

[WWGD]

In a way, yes, that's exactly the idea. If I studied physics I would still add some cs/ engineering courses for personal interest (and why not, for extra career chances as well)

I suggest , if you haven't done it yet, become proficient in some form of programming, data science/engineering to fall back on if needed, before your career kicks in.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I am not a fan of engineering physics programs, and many of my colleagues disagree with me. My position is that this provides inadequate training for being a professional engineer, and inadeuqate training for physics grad schools. It is not the best of both worlds, but the worst. Besides, one could always double major.

"Double major!" they would say "but that will take a whole extra year!" This is correct. But an engineering physics degree "solves" this problem by teaching them only 80% of what they need to know.

 

[StatGuy2000]

I am not a fan of engineering physics programs, and many of my colleagues disagree with me. My position is that this provides inadequate training for being a professional engineer, and inadeuqate training for physics grad schools. It is not the best of both worlds, but the worst. Besides, one could always double major.

"Double major!" they would say "but that will take a whole extra year!" This is correct. But an engineering physics degree "solves" this problem by teaching them only 80% of what they need to know.

It is worth pointing out that in many countries (including Canada, where I am from), double-majoring in engineering and physics is not possible due to the specific "limited-enrollment" nature of engineering degrees. I believe this is the case in most European countries, including Italy.

Also, I am more on the side of your colleagues on the question of engineering physics. Good engineering physics programs (of which there are many) do provide strong training for graduates to be professional engineers, while also providing strong training for the graduates to pursue graduate studies in physics (especially the more experimental areas of physics).

 

[StatGuy2000]

Unfortunately that's not true... Engineering physics (which is the same as Applied Physics here) is available in only 3 universities, and I live far away from all of them.

@fuzzie , I have a few questions for you:

1. Are you currently attending an university close to where you and your family live?

2. What part of Italy do you live?

3. According to this website, there seems to be more than 3 universities that offer Applied or Engineering Physics. (https://edurank.org/physics/applied/it) Is this website inaccurate? If so, in what way is it inaccurate?

 

[fresh_42]

I believe this is the case in most European countries, including Italy.

I seriously doubt that. Both faculties are not really overrun by students, so I assume that there are no bureaucratic obstacles to immatriculate in both of them at universities in the EU. There are also dual versions as a quick search showed.

 

[Choppy]

1) will "losing" a uni year conprimse my "career"/job as a whole? By career i mean the job opportunities to "prestigious industries" and/or the possibility to do an (eventual) phd.

Not really. What matters is that you do well in the courses you take. Having a first year that doesn't work out can hurt in that it can decrease your GPA if you don't do well in those courses. But there are lots of examples of people who studder before figuring out their path, and then go on to have successful, productive careers.

The real trick is making sure that if you do have any of those bad mark courses this year, that you're not going to repeat the cycle next year. For some people that's a tall order. It's not too challenging to find examples of students projecting blame outwards for a poor performance. I'm sure there are some cases where it's justified. Often, there are factors that the student can control. Those are worth identifying as early as possible and addressing.

2) I still have difficulties deciding between physics or engineering path because where I live there is no Engineering Physics nor Applied Physics so I have to just pick one or another and compromise. The job market is terrible where I live and I am really afraid that picking up physics wouldn't be the wisest of choices, even if I like it. I like exploring math and physics in the most rigorous way, yet as I got informed I am also curious about building circuits for rockets/medical devices/cars/satellites/quantum technologies.
Do you think I fall more in the physics or engineering spectrum? (I am really struggling in understanding this so maybe a comparison would help me in a clearer way)

I'm not sure that someone who comes out of high school is inherently a "physicist" or an "engineer." At this point, you're someone who has an aptitude for and interest in the physical sciences. What I can tell you is that (i) there's no perfect answer for something like this, (ii) your interests and strengths will change as you mature academically, and (iii) it's amazing how interesting a problem becomes when its solution can put food on your table.
For what it's worth, pursuing physics is not a ticket to poverty for the rest of your life. The trick is that as some point you're likely going to have to figure out how to translate a skill set that is largely academic in nature into a vocation. You can do this through going to professional branches of physics like medical physics or geophysics. You can do it by leveraging skills in programming, statistics, data-science, experimental methods, fabrication, etc. You can get into technical sales and use your background to broker multi-million dollar deals

3) Should I change university for my next years ? Due to my health problems I can't go very far, but there is another uni "near" where I live that could be an alternative option.

This is your decision. If you're not happy with the courses that are offered or the programs available, then look elsewhere. If your health is keeping you from moving to the place you really want to be, it's also worth asking the question of whether this is the right time in your life to be going to school at all. It's okay to take a few years off, focus on yourself, and then go to school when you're ready and healthy. In fact, going back to the first question, it looks a whole lot better to be applying (to grad school or a job) as a "mature" applicant who aced every undergraduate course, then it does to be an applicant who struggled all the way through, but didn't take any time off.

 

[gwnorth]

It is worth pointing out that in many countries (including Canada, where I am from), double-majoring in engineering and physics is not possible due to the specific "limited-enrollment" nature of engineering degrees.

While rare, that's not exclusively true.

https://www.uottawa.ca/faculty-science/programs/undergraduate/physics-electrical-engineering
https://www.uvic.ca/ecs/ece/current/undergraduate/options/quantum-physics/index.php
https://www.eng.mcmaster.ca/ibiomed/degree-options/engineering-physics-and-biomedical-
engineering/

I don't know if the option would exist in Italy though.

 

[fresh_42]

I don't know if the option would exist in Italy though.

I never heard of it in Germany and doubt that Italy is any different. See post #16. If you qualify for university (and the subject - we have extra hurdles e.g. medicine), you can principally enroll in any faculty.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Western Europe has a different funding model for higher education than North America. They have decided that students should pay very little out of pocket, so they are heavily subsidized. As these subsides are not infinite, there needs to be limits on how much a single student can spend, Usually restrictions on multiple majors and changing majors is part of it.

"I don't know if I want to major in X or Y, so you, society, may be on the hook for an extra year or two" is a fine position to hold. But one shouldn't be surprised if society responds with "No, we don't. You need to get your act together first".

 

[fresh_42]

Western Europe has a different funding model for higher education than North America. They have decided that students should pay very little out of pocket, so they are heavily subsidized. As these subsides are not infinite, there needs to be limits on how much a single student can spend, Usually restrictions on multiple majors and changing majors is part of it.

"I don't know if I want to major in X or Y, so you, society, may be on the hook for an extra year or two" is a fine position to hold. But one shouldn't be surprised if society responds with "No, we don't. You need to get your act together first".

I seriously doubt that it works that way. It might be true for faculties whose single costs per student are high, such as medicine, but I am not convinced that this is true for physics or engineering. I think it isn't even true for chemistry which probably costs a bit more than physics.

Your reasoning along costs is determined by your North American experiences and values. We have fundamentally different values in Europe. Discussions here are led along completely different parameters. We do not even debate what you wrote.

Our main goal is to give every single student the same starting opportunity independent of the money their parents have. That is the main goal, not money. Our discussions about money is whether we have a yearly fee (under €1,000) or not, or whether students should get a special tarif on public transfer. And, let's face the facts: the fall-out rate during the first year in STEM fields is (my estimate) somewhere between 30% and 50%. There is simply no need for regulations, the problem resolves itself.

There is no such thing as a responding society as long as there isn't a public debate.

Edit: They tried to introduce fees in Germany a couple of years ago. Fees to the extend I mentioned: less than $1,000 a year (or semester, I don't remember the details anymore). As far as I know, it totally failed. Here is the list: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studiengebühren_in_Deutschland
(Zweitstudium=second major)

So €1.400 / year is the highest cost of physics AND engineering in RLP, but most states have no fees. This does not support your argument at all! Europe isn't the US.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Education costs money. You need to payu professors, and you probably want to put up some buildings and such. That money has to come from somewhere. I hope this is not controversial.

Ultimately, in either system, the party paying for it has a large say in how much gets used.

 

[fresh_42]

Education costs money. You need to payu professors, and you probably want to put up some buildings and such. That money has to come from somewhere. I hope this is not controversial.

Ultimately, in either system, the party paying for it has a large say in how much gets used.

Yes, but that is a virtual discussion. It does not take place. There is no need to assume your American standards to apply to the rest of the world. Education is one of the last things we consider to save money. I'm unfortunately not allowed to comment on this any further. Our system is aiming at a broad basis, not the peaks as in the US. This includes salaries and fees.

The list I posted clearly refutes your argument. You cannot apply values in a discussion where its central subject does not follow those values. That doesn't make any sense, is misinformation and a distraction from the current Italian situation we are speaking about.

 

[berkeman]

Thread closed for Moderation.