Which PhD Should I Pursue: Physics or Electrical Engineering?

[Mobusaki]

I'm a second year Electrical Engineering student, and last week I became an EE/Physics double major. This will extend my undergraduate stay for up to a year, but I feel the knowledge gained will be worth it.

Today I met with a physics professor about graduate school and research. I set up a time beforehand, but he was quite the popular guy today so I didn't get much time with him. However, in the 15-20 minutes I did spend with him, I was blown away. His office was covered in electronic parts, wires, circuit boards, experiments, tools etc. He kept showing me experiments and devices and projects and I was quite amazed and found it all very exciting. So I feel pursuing this physics degree is definitely the right course of action. My questions center mainly around which field I should pursue graduate study in if I get a bachelors in two fields!

So I've been doing a lot of reading in that vein. A lot of my questions have been answered, but my reading has also opened up new questions.

First, as far as my education and career goes, all I know with 100% certainty is that I want to understand what I am learning fundamentally, and then apply that knowledge to make new things. This is why I feel the double major is a good idea. The Physics is for a deep knowledge of the how and why, and the engineering is for application. Beyond that, I also know that I really, really want to go to graduate school and get a PhD. I want to be an expert at something. However, what I have read on the matter is disconcerting, and so is deciding which PhD to go for.

Here are some things that I am confused about:

1) Talking to that physics professor today, it seems that physicists and engineers both make new things. However, the difference is that engineers make things for commercial use while physicists make things for research and discovery. Is that a fair assessment?
1a) This particular physicist makes things all the time. Is this atypical and not something one could expect to be able to do (within the parameters of a job) as a physicist?

2) Apparently getting a PhD closes more doors than it opens. It's ridiculous, but it seems the consensus is you are "overqualified" for most jobs as a PhD. Is this true for an EE PhD as well as a Physics PhD? More or less true?

3) Would an EE PhD be "as stuck" in academia and government work as someone with a Physics PhD? Is this even true about Physicists in the first place?

4) If I went for a physics phd, would my EE bachelors become useless? By that I mean, would it no longer factor into employment, since a phd "overqualifies" one for most positions. Does that mean the EE degree would be a non-factor?

5) Would it be possible for me to practice high-level physics if I went with an EE PhD? More specifically, as an EE PhD student, would I be learning (by necessity) not just how to apply the physics, but the *why* and *how* of the physics as well? It seems at the undergraduate level of EE, we learn how to use things, but not necessarily why they work or where they came from. I want to know how something works, not just how a math or physics tool can be applied.

6) I can't seem to get a straight answer on whether or not physics phd's can readily get employment outside of government and education. There are people who argue passionately on both sides, but everyone seems biased and offers little evidence either way. Usually people present anecdotal evidence, where they knew someone or a few someones who had a particular experience, and so that experience must apply to everyone. I'm not sure what to believe. :/

Hopefully you guys and gals can help me clear these nagging questions up! :) I tried to be concise, but I found it unusually hard to phrase my questions. Sorry for that.

Also, it's almost 4AM, and I'm near exhaustion. So forgive me if this isn't coherent!

 

[fss]

1) Talking to that physics professor today, it seems that physicists and engineers both make new things. However, the difference is that engineers make things for commercial use while physicists make things for research and discovery. Is that a fair assessment?

It's oversimplified and thus not entirely "fair" (there's a lot of wiggle room for both), but it's one way to look at it. It really depends on what position or job you find yourself in afterwards.

1a) This particular physicist makes things all the time. Is this atypical and not something one could expect to be able to do (within the parameters of a job) as a physicist?

If by "things" you mean "commercial things" or "gadgets" then it depends. I worked in a (physics) lab that made little devices that eventually got stuck on the ATLAS experiment at CERN. They weren't commercial, but they were definitely gadgets.

2) Apparently getting a PhD closes more doors than it opens. It's ridiculous, but it seems the consensus is you are "overqualified" for most jobs as a PhD. Is this true for an EE PhD as well as a Physics PhD? More or less true?

Less so for an EE PhD, but again it depends. A lot of times PhD candidates get rejected for positions because the employer thinks that their salary requirement will be higher than the candidate with a Masters' degree to do the same job. To some extent they're doing you a favor. A PhD should be making a PhD-worthy salary.

3) Would an EE PhD be "as stuck" in academia and government work as someone with a Physics PhD? Is this even true about Physicists in the first place?

Not true for either. Google hires a lot of both, as do many other companies with a need for first-rate scientists. Again, it depends on the situation; if you spend years on a PhD in physics specializing in semiconductor research, you definitely won't be "stuck" anywhere.

4) If I went for a physics phd, would my EE bachelors become useless? By that I mean, would it no longer factor into employment, since a phd "overqualifies" one for most positions. Does that mean the EE degree would be a non-factor?

If you are a PhD and are looking for a position that requires a BS, you are looking for the wrong job(s).

5) Would it be possible for me to practice high-level physics if I went with an EE PhD? More specifically, as an EE PhD student, would I be learning (by necessity) not just how to apply the physics, but the *why* and *how* of the physics as well?

Can't speak directly to the EE graduate curriculum, but in physics you generally don't have time for anything outside of physics. You an probably squeeze in a couple of electives if you want to.

6) I can't seem to get a straight answer on whether or not physics phd's can readily get employment outside of government and education. There are people who argue passionately on both sides, but everyone seems biased and offers little evidence either way. Usually people present anecdotal evidence, where they knew someone or a few someones who had a particular experience, and so that experience must apply to everyone. I'm not sure what to believe. :/

There is no straight answer to this question. A physics degree qualifies you for most positions that don't require professional licensure or years of practice (law, some kinds of engineering, medicine) as long as you can sell yourself to an employer. Even the licensure issue depends on the situation. You're not going to be able to get a be-all, end-all answer on this... and if you do, you should be suspicious.

 

[twofish-quant]

1) Talking to that physics professor today, it seems that physicists and engineers both make new things. However, the difference is that engineers make things for commercial use while physicists make things for research and discovery. Is that a fair assessment?

Not necessarily. You have lots of physicists creating financial derivatives for example.

2) Apparently getting a PhD closes more doors than it opens. It's ridiculous, but it seems the consensus is you are "overqualified" for most jobs as a PhD. Is this true for an EE PhD as well as a Physics PhD? More or less true?

I don't think this is true, and I think that "overqualified" needs to be restated.

1) Overqualified sometimes means "misqualified." You really shouldn't think of a Ph.D. as a masters+stuff but rather as a totally different animal. You have situations in which a Ph. D. in CS would get a job that a Masters in CS would because the Ph.D. doesn't have the skills that the masters holder has.

2) Also, sometimes it's a good thing to be overqualified. I've been turned down for jobs for being "overqualified" and in those situations the interviewer was quite honest in saying that they weren't hiring me because, I could find a better paying job elsewhere. And they were right.

4) If I went for a physics phd, would my EE bachelors become useless? By that I mean, would it no longer factor into employment, since a phd "overqualifies" one for most positions. Does that mean the EE degree would be a non-factor?

Having an EE background is useful in lots of different ways.

6) I can't seem to get a straight answer on whether or not physics phd's can readily get employment outside of government and education. There are people who argue passionately on both sides, but everyone seems biased and offers little evidence either way. Usually people present anecdotal evidence, where they knew someone or a few someones who had a particular experience, and so that experience must apply to everyone. I'm not sure what to believe. :/

I can speak from personal experience. I've not had any problem getting work with my physics Ph.D.

 

[Mobusaki]

Thank you for your responses! It's really helping me form a mental picture.

As is often the case, finding answers often opens up new questions. lol, So I have a couple new questions! Comments on the old ones are, of course, always welcome. I can't have too much information.

I have an opportunity to get involved with "wide-bad gap" semiconductor research in the physics department at my university. If I were to do this, and then focus on that field in graduate school, I could study and research the topic in either discipline: EE or Physics. Correct?

1-2) So my question is, what would the difference be? How would semiconductor research as an EE PhD student and a Physics PhD student differ? How would the work afterward differ?

Lastly, to clarify, when I say I want to make things, I mean I want to make new things. I know that's vague, but I doubt I could narrow it down beyond that. It doesn't necessarily have to be a concept the world has never seen before, but my desire is to "make leaps." For example, I don't want to make the latest-greatest iphone. I would like to make the latest-greatest capacitor, though. Or the latest-greatest optical-drive laser. Those are just random examples of things I think I would enjoy doing.

2-2) Which degree would be more suited for bringing entirely new ideas to existence?

 

[yllihp]

2) Apparently getting a PhD closes more doors than it opens. It's ridiculous, but it seems the consensus is you are "overqualified" for most jobs as a PhD. Is this true for an EE PhD as well as a Physics PhD? More or less true?

I never really get this 'overqualified' stuff. When applying jobs that don't require a phd, couldn't you just not mention you have a phd?

 

[Mobusaki]

I never really get this 'overqualified' stuff. When applying jobs that don't require a phd, couldn't you just not mention you have a phd?

No, because then it looks like you did nothing during those 4-6 years you were getting your phd. Half a decade of doing nothing is worse than just listing the phd, I imagine! ;)

 

[fss]

I have an opportunity to get involved with "wide-bad gap" semiconductor research in the physics department at my university. If I were to do this, and then focus on that field in graduate school, I could study and research the topic in either discipline: EE or Physics. Correct?

I don't see why not.

1-2) So my question is, what would the difference be? How would semiconductor research as an EE PhD student and a Physics PhD student differ? How would the work afterward differ?

It probably wouldn't be that different, with the usual qualifiers of what institution you study at and their institutional requirements for graduate degrees.

2-2) Which degree would be more suited for bringing entirely new ideas to existence?

You don't need any degrees to bring new ideas into existence.

 

[Mobusaki]

You don't need any degrees to bring new ideas into existence.

It certainly helps. I imagine if you were the first person to think of an electric car, building, promoting, patenting, the car would have been easier if you had the knowledge to actually make the idea happen. Anyone can have an idea, but not anyone can make it happen.

 

[fss]

It certainly helps. I imagine if you were the first person to think of an electric car, building, promoting, patenting, the car would have been easier if you had the knowledge to actually make the idea happen. Anyone can have an idea, but not anyone can make it happen.

One person usually does not design, build, promote, and/or patent an idea (side note: ideas cannot be patented) all by themselves anyways. I see what you are getting at, but don't think it really helps you make a decision.

 

[twofish-quant]

One person usually does not design, build, promote, and/or patent an idea (side note: ideas cannot be patented) all by themselves anyways. I see what you are getting at, but don't think it really helps you make a decision.

If you really want to "get stuff done" you'll have to also learn a lot about marketing, finance, and business. Even then you won't be a "lone wolf" but will be working in a team with other people. Something that tends to happen in academia is that people tend to get pushed into being hyper-experts in one field to the exclusion of others, whereas in business you have to have the ability to communicate with experts in different fields.

One reason I got out of academia was that I found the walls to be too confining.

 

[twofish-quant]

It certainly helps. I imagine if you were the first person to think of an electric car, building, promoting, patenting, the car would have been easier if you had the knowledge to actually make the idea happen. Anyone can have an idea, but not anyone can make it happen.

But what you'll find is that a lot of the skills that you need to "make stuff happen" aren't technical skills, but rather social skills. Also the people that tend to be in the top of social hierarchies tend to be people with high social skills since they can use their skills to coordinate people with technical skills.

One reason I got into finance is that I figured out how important money is. It doesn't matter how smart you are, or how much you know, if you can't convince someone to give you the money to open up a factory. Conversely, if you have access to money, you can hire technical experts. So if money is so important, it makes sense to go somewhere that you can learn about it, and right now I'm working on my post-post-post-post doc.

Something that you will have to do if you get a Ph.D. is to "fight the school." One of the cool things about Ph.D.'s is that they are very much self-directed. In undergraduate work, you sit back and absorb knowledge. In a Ph.D. program, you are encouraged to think deeply, and thinking deeply involves questioning and sometimes fighting the system that you are in.

The other mistake that people make is that people think you go to school and then you get a job. Personally, I'll be in school for the rest of my life.

 

[twofish-quant]

I never really get this 'overqualified' stuff. When applying jobs that don't require a phd, couldn't you just not mention you have a phd?

That's what I do. I have several different resumes for different jobs. For some jobs, I put the Ph.D. in line one. In other jobs, I put the Ph.D. as a "hobby."

Also this overqualified thing doesn't make sense to a lot of undergraduates, because since kindergarten, you've been in an environment in which you get ahead by making the highest score. But something you have to realize is that environment is something people have created, and you have different environments.

A Ph.D. isn't a super-Masters. There are a lot of Ph.D.'s in CS that are simply incompetent applications programmers. Also, Ph.d.'s have problems with jobs that just require you to take orders and not think.

 

[Dr Lots-o'watts]

Anyone can have an idea, but not anyone can make it happen.

What you need to make ideas happen is to surround yourself with the right people. A degree can suggest to people that you can be serious enough to complete a long-term project in a specific field and confident enough to teach it.

When I presented a project for my degree, one professor told me I could undertake it with either department, EE or physics. In the end, I simply chose an adviser, and he happened to be in physics.

If you want to make the latest-greatest optical-drive laser, what matters is that you learn the relevant subjects and keep contact with the relevant people, whether they call themselves EE or physicists.

 

[D H]

Apparently getting a PhD closes more doors than it opens. It's ridiculous, but it seems the consensus is you are "overqualified" for most jobs as a PhD.

Yeah, but so what? You aren't going after jobs that require you to ask customers whether they want fries with their order, are you? Even a lowly bachelor's closes some doors. A master's degree closes even more. The number of doors closed to those who hold a PhD is huge.

If you are going after a PhD because of the number of doors that it closes you need to rethink your goals. You need to focus on the doors that a PhD helps open.

People with a bachelors or even a masters degree in some technical discipline will not for the most part be asking customers if they want fries with their orders. Many of them however will still have technical McJobs. You don't (or shouldn't) want one of those McJobs. If you are PhD material you should only be satisfied if your job challenges you on a regular basis. There just are not that many of those truly challenging and and truly rewarding jobs of a technical nature out there -- and it is exactly the doorway to those jobs that a PhD helps open.

 

[Mobusaki]

Yeah, but so what? You aren't going after jobs that require you to ask customers whether they want fries with their order, are you? Even a lowly bachelor's closes some doors. A master's degree closes even more. The number of doors closed to those who hold a PhD is huge.

If you are going after a PhD because of the number of doors that it closes you need to rethink your goals. You need to focus on the doors that a PhD helps open.

People with a bachelors or even a masters degree in some technical discipline will not for the most part be asking customers if they want fries with their orders. Many of them however will still have technical McJobs. You don't (or shouldn't) want one of those McJobs. If you are PhD material you should only be satisfied if your job challenges you on a regular basis. There just are not that many of those truly challenging and and truly rewarding jobs of a technical nature out there -- and it is exactly the doorway to those jobs that a PhD helps open.

This is the best take on the overqualifying nature of a phd, and on the type of person that should pursue one, that I've heard. I mean, you could be completely wrong for all I know, but I like it and it sounds right - so I'll take it. haha ;)

Thanks. :)

 

[twofish-quant]

A master's degree closes even more. The number of doors closed to those who hold a PhD is huge.

Also, I don't think that having a Ph.D. really **does** close any doors. It's true for example that a lot of people with Ph.D.'s in computer science make lousy programmers, but they'd be lousy programmers without the Ph.D. If you are painfully shy, you are much more likely to succeed as a mathematician than as a used car salesman, but it wasn't the Ph.D. that disqualifies you for the job.

Conversely if you were good at selling used cars or application programming before, then having the Ph.D. doesn't hurt you. Also one very good thing about having a physics Ph.D. is that you get out with too much debt. If you get your Ph.D. and then decide that you want to sell lobsters in Louisiana, you can. If you get an MBA, then you'll have a lot of bankers wanting you to pay back your loans, and you'll be stuck with golden handcuffs.

Many of them however will still have technical McJobs. You don't (or shouldn't) want one of those McJobs. If you are PhD material you should only be satisfied if your job challenges you on a regular basis.

One thing that has helped me a lot is that I have a much higher tolerance to boring jobs than most people. I find coding relaxing, and sometimes a bit of boredom is a very good thing.

There just are not that many of those truly challenging and and truly rewarding jobs of a technical nature out there -- and it is exactly the doorway to those jobs that a PhD helps open.

The one thing that you do have to understand is that career services for physics Ph.D.'s in most schools tends to be horribly bad, so you are going to have to do a lot of digging on your own to find the information that you need. But that's part of the challenge.

 

[Mobusaki]

I just read a thread about going from an EE bachelors degree to physics in graduate school, and it turns out that it is indeed possible. That was on my mind, so it's nice to have it answered.

But I also wonder if it works in the reverse direction. Can a physics bachelor go on to do EE graduate study? I'm betting the answer is yes, but I figure it's worth asking to be sure.

My big dilemma is that while I think I can do a double major, I don't want to devote that much time dividing myself between two (albeit related) fields. I want to be able to have a job, do research, and take the time to really learn what I'm doing in depth. I'm most afraid that if I double major I will often find myself without time to learn in depth, and will instead find myself studying to pass tests. There's a difference. ;)

Anyway, any input from professionals, or students who have "been there," would be greatly appreciated. :)

 

[twofish-quant]

My big dilemma is that while I think I can do a double major, I don't want to devote that much time dividing myself between two (albeit related) fields.

Undergraduate degrees are "mass produced" but Ph.D.'s are custom hand crafted. Every Ph.D. is different, and trying to hand craft a custom Ph.D. from two or three unrelated fields is encouraged.

I want to be able to have a job, do research, and take the time to really learn what I'm doing in depth. I'm most afraid that if I double major I will often find myself without time to learn in depth, and will instead find myself studying to pass tests.

One great way of getting around that problem is to not take tests. If you are interested in something, go out to Amazon and buy a book, or just attend the lectures, do the homework, and just don't show up for the tests. Or just google for interesting stuff.

There is a lot of "school bureaucracy" involved in courses, and if you are in a situation where you don't need that piece of paper saying that you've taken X class, it's easier to just forget about it, and just learn the stuff because it's interesting. It also prepares you for graduate study and the "real world" in which you spend most of your time learning stuff that you don't get immediately graded for.

Something that you'll find out is that there is much, much too much stuff for anyone person to know, which is why most technical projects are done by teams of people with different areas of expertise.

 

[twofish-quant]

One other thing. A lot of what direction to go in will depend on "random" factors just as who you meet. It could be that the people in one EE department are just friendlier than people in the physics department so you want to spend more time there, or vice-versa.

Also, a lot of how departments split up knowledge ends up being quite random. Something that happens in the physics department in school A could be done in EE in school B, just because EE prof in school B got funding.

 

[twofish-quant]

Something that has worked for me is to take two seemingly unrelated fields, and be the world expert at the intersection. From example, you could study Arabic literature, computer science, and physical chemistry, and it's not hard for you to be the world expert in Arabic literature/CS/physical chemistry. That might sound useless, but if you happen to be the world expert in something like that, you might then find a situation if which you are perfect for the job (like if you have a need to write a computer program that translates bomb manuals which someone finds in Iraq).

 

[Mobusaki]

I was just on the US labor statistics government website. Apparently there are something like 26,000 physicists in the US. There are around 350,000 electrical engineers.

I found that incredible. I knew there were more EE's, and that physicists were relatively rare...but that rare? I don't understand why. lol, It's sort of like when you first found out that not everyone liked the same flavors of ice cream as you do. "What?! How can you not like strawberry ice cream?!" ;)

Anyway. Why are there so few physicists?! I love both fields, so I'm not picking on either one. But I don't get how there are only 26k physicists. We hear about them and their work just as often as engineers (there's something like 1.6million engineers in the US), so it just sort of boggles my mind.

What is it? Is it really just money? I have friends that, when asked, say "for the money" as their reason for being in engineering. So I can see that aspect of it. However, those people are failing all their engineering classes. So, what causes that huge difference? Supply and demand? There are around 1.6 million engineers in the USA, yet only 26k physicists? That's just so odd to me.

 

[twofish-quant]

I was just on the US labor statistics government website. Apparently there are something like 26,000 physicists in the US. There are around 350,000 electrical engineers.

Yup. That sounds about right. Also take a look at the number of managers.

I found that incredible. I knew there were more EE's, and that physicists were relatively rare...but that rare?

Something that you should know is that the US graduates about 1000 physics Ph.D.'s each year. It graduates about 100,000 MBA's, and Harvard MBA has about 1000 graduates each year. Also, in theoretical high energy physics, you have about 20 or so graduates each year looking for about 6 or so faculty positions.

Anyway. Why are there so few physicists?

There are a few reasons. One is the second Einstein effect. One Einstein can come up with a theory that changes the world, but that leaves very little for the second Einstein to do. Most physics problems are those in which a small number of people can change the world. That makes those problems cool, but it means there really aren't that many jobs.

Software engineering isn't prone to the second Einstein problem. If you have a software system that involves ten million lines of code, then you can't have a few brilliant people debug all that code. You need large numbers of warm bodies.

I love both fields, so I'm not picking on either one. But I don't get how there are only 26k physicists. We hear about them and their work just as often as engineers (there's something like 1.6million engineers in the US), so it just sort of boggles my mind.

If you are in the physics department, then you'll spend a lot of your time talking to physicists. One other thing is to look at history. Physics departments became huge in the 1960's to fight the Russians. Once the Russians fell apart, there was a massive shrinkage in the departments.

What is it? Is it really just money?

Partly. One thing that you'll learn is the challenges of getting funding for a job.

Also the supply and demand part works in favor of physicists. There are few jobs for physicists, but even fewer physicists. There's also the issue that doing things for the money is usually a bad idea.

If you have a physics Ph.D., you can make about $250K after about three years working for a bank. But there is a big, big catch. That catch is that you'll be spending twelve hours a day, five days a week for the rest of your life working on mathematics. Imagine your last final exam. Now imagine being under that level of stress and intensity, day in, day out, for decades at a time. Every hour is a final exam.

Very few people like that sort of thing. I once described my day to someone, and their reaction was "I feel so sorry for you" because for someone else, my job is total hell. But it works for me. It might also work for you. But that's because we are both freaks.