A physics master’s degree opens doors to myriad careers | Hacker News Reader

A physics master’s degree opens doors to myriad careers

physicstoday.scitation.org

169 pointsdigital55162 comments

I've also heard the opposite, that it leads to absolutely nothing and you are kind of treated like a PhD dropout, at least in the US. Just be careful, I guess, and get plenty of advice from real people who took that path (successfully or not).

Oh, and a bachelor's in engineering physics seems to lead to nothing as well. Have had quite a few friends go to career fairs and every company rep lost interest as soon as they heard the words "engineering physics". They just went on to grad school in plain old physics since they had 0 other options besides learning to code.

I've never considered being a PhD dropout a bad thing. There are so many legit reasons for not finishing a program.

I've been in recruiting discussions where we specifically wanted an ABD in CS (we wanted ability, but also eagerness to work in a new subject area).

Although, it's conceivable that being both ABD and not specifically in CS is seen as a bridge too far.

Why did you want an ABD but not a PhD holder though?

Interest in "something new, anything new" tends to substantially increase in the past 2ish months of a PhD.

Not sure if this is a reason for or against.

Intimidation.

That seems to be an unnecessarily narrow band of candidates you want. You would be missing out on possibly good candidates just because they got a PhD.

Just to clarify, I don't think it's inherently a bad thing either. But these were the words given to me by physics grad students at the time.

When I was an undergrad, a classmate told me a Master's in Physics was a "kiss of death". I did stop with a Master's (didn't even go to the graduation ceremony, since it felt like dropping out), though financially I'm good since I went into the web world (started around the bubble's peak). I kinda buy that it helped develop my analytical thinking skills, though in the long run I'm not sure that mattered. Recently I'm also feeling something else that I was warned about: what I'm doing isn't fulfilling. So, it's kinda cliche, but I'd say do what you like doing, not what you think will make you money.

Have an undergraduate in physics and masters in applied math. It's odd how development and the occasional bit of analysis is not too fulfilling. Maybe it's the lack of intellectual challenge?

Interesting, in Scandinavia Engineering Physics is quite prestigious and many graduates end up as SWEs. In fact many researchers across Sweden hold Engineering Physics degrees in CS and other disciplines outside physics.

In Sweden I definitely observed this. I worked with quite a few SWE's who went to a technical university (LTH, Uppsala as primary examples) and held engineering physics degrees. From talking and working with people, though, I think it's because it's quite easy in Swedish technical university curricula to take SWE courses that count towards your degree. There is also quite much more of an applied engineering approach vs. theoretical than you would expect which might also play a role in this.

Is ending up as a SWE prestigious?

But then you are an Engineer.

I love engineering, but physics is often theoretical to the point that its useless for macro application.

I imagine an Engineering Physics is an Engineer.

Is Engineering Physics considered lesser than a Physics degree, or are you saying that both an Engineering Physics and a Physics degree seem to lead to nothing? What's the difference?

Apples and oranges. I just mentioned it because I saw another comment somewhere about engr. physics, and it reminded me of my friends' experiences in their program.

I'll echo this. In the US, having just a MS in Physics means that you failed your quals. Though it may not be true, this is the 'popular' perception.

In the UK we often make the dropout degree an MPhil or MRes, so it's different to people who started an MSc with the intention of just doing that degree.

I'm a physics PhD dropout. I dropped out sometime after passing my quals and oral exams. But I could not have gotten a masters without passing those. I've never heard that it's a perception that you got a masters because you didn't pass.

If you're in a Physics masters or Ph.D. program and are thinking about dropping out because academia is not for you, please email me: david [at] TraceUp.com. We are hiring people like you.

That hasn’t been my experience. I have M.S. in physics at a shitty school and went into industry. (I didn’t fail anything, and actually had a 4.0 gpa, just didn’t want to spend more time in school). Eventually switched from material science to data science. Currently an ML research scientist at AWS. It’s been a fun journey. No one gave a shit about what I did or didn’t do in college. It might matter to HR people, which can be the resume gate keepers. But the hiring managers and peers don’t care. In fact, if you polled them, I would guess half would know my background is in physics, a third that I have a masters, and 0 which school I went to.

Any tips for getting into Amazon's research arm? I'm in the market, as it were.

Research Scientists are mainly just data scientist in that we’re building models for the business, not just for papers. But we do try to push the boundary and contribute academically. The Data Scientist job family is similar, but lower technical bar and heavier on SQL/basic analysis.

To get into RS position, just know your ML/stats basics well and be proficient in SQL. Nothing super hard about getting an RS role.

Gotcha, thanks.

Would be interested to hear what you do and don’t like about your job and what skills you learned from your degree

I can’t actually think of anything I don’t like about my current job. The main thing I’ve learned from physics is being comfortable with mathematics and the confidence to work through tough technical stuff that I don’t understand. I think the math basics and grit can take you a long way.

That's close to what I was about to post as well. In fact I believe physics grads would also be a decent fit in HFT either as quants or SWE dealing with quants.

I think you're covered by the parent's "besides learning to code" caveat. That's a real smooth career transition, I did it as well as a ton of friends who had the same background. ML is a particularly good fit because physics majors just LOL at the "difficult" math that trips everyone else up.

I feel like any bachelors degree in the sciences should have you capable of doing any math needed.

I am quite concerned that Doctors in the medical field have limited to no understanding of statistics. IMO, stats should be second nature to anyone with 200 level math courses.

I'm not sure how 200 level math courses prepare you to review anything more than the most basic experiment designs.

Because 99% of math is basic calculations.

0.9% are 100-200 level math problems.

0.1% are beyond that, but at that point, hopefully your 200 level skills have taught you enough to learn about solving that.

In my lifetime, I only had 1, beyond 200 level problem that required research on math to understand. And technically, it was optional, but I volunteered.

Everything else was algebra.

Stats is theory + math not just math. Maybe not even any math at all, just light programming using stats libraries. If you apply them wrong though, that's a big problem. Biological experiment design is a grad course, so 500 level. Still I agree that a doctor understand the theory.

This might be overstating it a bit. Just this week I've been studying the AdaNet paper and grappling with Noise Contrastive Estimation. I agree that with a B.S. in physics you'll at least get the calculus you need, but I think a graduate level degree really deepens your understanding since it's not the first time through and you're already familiar with the basic concepts.

Regarding doctors and stats, I share your concern. But I disagree with the statement that stats should be second nature to anyone that's gone through the courses. If I've learned one thing while going deeper and deeper into stats, it's that there's a lot more nuance than I originally understood, and I'm still not there. Just when I think I have a thorough understanding of p-values and the like, I'll read some "I can't believe everyone doesn't understand THIS" blog and see that there was more to the story still again. It's hard to know what you don't know.

I'm currently getting a Masters in CS (specialising in ML) after leaving a pure math PhD. I'd love a research type job from anywhere, let alone Amazon, but every job posting for roles with 'research' in the title says they require a PhD. Was your success a case of simply applying anyway? I know they say to apply anyway but it feels like a long shot to me. Do many of your peers have a similar background to you?

When they say they want a PhD, what they're really saying is that they want someone with a proven track record of generating and finishing their own researching projects, publishing top-tier papers, and who knows the state of the art in the field. Because you can't graduate from a PhD without that.

But if you happen to have those things without a PhD, then do apply anyway and I'm pretty sure they'll be interested.

If you don't have those things, then you may not be ready for these kinds of jobs.

There are several very successful academic and industrial CS researchers without PhDs - Simon Peyton Jones for example - so it can be done.

My primary mechanism was reaching out to recruiters and people on LinkedIn that already had the jobs I wanted. I found that just applying through the job site almost never went anywhere. It comes down to a numbers game, so I would sort your hypothetical list of jobs from "dream job" at the top to "I guess" at the bottom, and then start applying from top down. You should absolutely take job postings and required skills with a healthy grain of salt. These are almost always generic, copy/paste artifacts.

An exception might be if you see "Publications in top-tiered journals" as a requirement. Those positions likely actually target PhDs with relevant publications. They might overlook a lack of a PhD if you're a recognized expert in the field, of course. But I interpret this requirement as "we want an academic", and there primary job is likely research and publishing papers. A Research Scientist at AWS is not an academic, as someone at Google Brain might be, but rather someone building applied ML solutions.

I have a masters in physics and know people who do to with different results. One thing you gotta realize is physicists tend to be very smart people and often enough "lazy". Or I should say - don't like putting on a suit for a 9-5.

They're different people. And a lot of then value living their lives over slaving away and are OK with that.

> I've also heard the opposite, that it leads to absolutely nothing and you are kind of treated like a PhD dropout, at least in the US.

Students who do a Master's before going on to Ph.D. are usually more competent and more useful to the university. This is FUD created by graduate students to prevent competition.

>Have had quite a few friends go to career fairs and every company rep lost interest as soon as they heard the words "engineering physics".

It's true, but I'm glad it happened this way. I don't want to work at any company that doesn't recognize the value of this degree. I'm a SWE in a FAANG now, and I think I do much more interesting work than if I had just joined a company looking for a CS grad. And to be clear, I only have a Ba.

But, advice to other EngPhys grads looking for jobs or internships: don't mention the Engineering Physics degree until you've got the rep interested in you (by talking about experience, etc) or frame it in a different way. For example, my EngPhys specialization was computing, so I would talk about that first when I was at career fairs.

I have a degree in Engineering Physics where I concentrated in Electrical Engineering. I also minored in Industrial Design. I currently work at a product design firm as an "Embedded Systems Engineer", where I primarily design and write software for embedded microcontrollers and microprocessors and couple that with user experience design.

I have been able to utilize my understanding of physics to work on things like designing sensors into products that require real world math (motion, position, motor control, etc), though not as extensive as it could be if it were academic research. And have used my circuits foundation to understand how to get answers in the realm of embedded micros.

The thing I emphasize the most though, is understand where you want to have an expertise and make it happen, work on it. Mine is embedded software with a user focused design process.

Fresh out of college, your degree is not going to separate you unless it's coupled with experience from internships, school projects, or personal projects.

My opinion is that a degree in engineering provides foundation, but real world experience is where you grow and learn for your career.

Side note: You mentioned "other than learning code", I think that is a valid option to supplement this degree. I started writing code in eighth grade, so it was something I was already doing and interested in. I never wanted to be a plain ol' software developer, so this path was good for me.

TL;DR Went to school for Engineering Physics, I am happy with my career path, but took it upon myself to find a way to provide value beyond the name of my degree.

>plain ol' software developer

Oh, you resonate with me (not sure if. I am going to start an undergrad in physics soon, and started doubting my choice after this thread. I got into programming from 9th grade. I am still interested in it, but I kinda grew over my crush on being a dev in FAANG and silicon valley startups. I have the opportunity to got to a SE program, but I don't like the lack of humanity(and other) electives in eng programs. I am also accepted to a CS program, but the school with the physics-math program have a better name and opportunities around it. The CS program is in a mainly-undergrad school in a suburb-ish city.

Do you think I would still be good sticking with physics and complement it with personal projects and CS electives/minor? (This is Ottawa, Canada)

I'm not the person you're replying to, but yeah, lots of people become programmers with a bachelor's in physics and they've done programming classes, projects, etc. on the side. That path is totally fine if you eventually decide you want to go into the software world. (or who knows, maybe you'll reignite your crush with FAANG in the meantime!)

I think it really depends on what you want to do. If you want to work with physical systems, computation, or data-science, then I think engineering physics is a good path.

Where I went to college, all engineering physics majors concentrated (which is essentially a minor) in one of the other engineering disciplines (mechanical, electrical, civil, computer science, etc).

If you want to work on digital only products that don't utilize what you learn with a engineering physics degree, then you may want to consider another degree.

I can't speak directly about a physics only degree, since I did engineering physics, where I took all of the same core classes as engineering students.

Motivation, experience wherever you can get it, and knowing people / networking, will get you pretty far, so I would also say, take the path that's interests you the most. Also, physics is hard.

Unsubstantiated hearsay. How does a Master's imply you are a PhD dropout? Plenty of people go with the expectation of only Master's to begin with.

Heck, this distinction is even made when you enroll in the Master's program in Stanford CS instead of the PhD program. They are treated as different tracks that you can't move between.

When I was a physics undergrad student, I remember being told by advisors that a Master's was considered to be a booby prize. We were told that grad programs would only consider students who indicated an interest in a PhD.

One possible reason is that grad student funding was limited, and they didn't want to waste it on students who weren't going to contribute to research. All physics grad students were fully funded. I'm not sure this is true today.

So far as I could tell, this was strictly limited to physics. My graduate program was almost exclusively PhD students, and the terminal Master's was used as an escape hatch. On the other hand, those students did just fine in the job market, so it could be just a peculiarity of the academic culture that is not reflected outside of the academe.

Working in industry after my degree, I encountered people with Masters in physics, who were doing just fine, and they did not strike me as inferior -- they just didn't want to stay for a PhD.

I kind of suspect there's a possible bias from the advisor.

It could be on behalf of their employer - they have a shortage of a certain class of student at the university.

or it could like engineers who too easily recommend extremely over-powered computers for friends and family not in the industry who are thinking about buying a computer.

It was pretty widespread. PhD students generally outnumbered MS students, fairly substantially. I went to a second tier program, and there were zero MS students. It wasn't a thing.

My own college didn't have a graduate program. This was based on multiple advisors having similar expectations about applying for grad school.

Keep in mind that career fairs are attended by people looking for a very specific kind of hire and/or they're just looking to get you to visit their careers website. A Google engineering recruiter at a Stanford career fair isn't there to chat an English major who is excited about the computer science for liberal arts majors course they took. They're basically not interested in talking to anyone, as because standing there all day saying "tell me about yourself" and answer "what does you company do?" is mind numbingly boring once you've done it a few times. If you're working at a career fair, the only thing you're looking forward to is an after hours happy hour.

Please please please do not pursue a PhD or MSc in Physics on the sole expectation it will open a door to a career that you believe would otherwise be closed. You will not enjoy it.

So I assume it would acceptable to pursue a degree if you enjoy physics and hope to use the knowledge and degree to advance your career. Are the job prospects for advanced degrees in physics that poor?

Not the person you are responding to, but I think the point is that if you want to do an advanced physics degree with the primary goal of advancing your career, that is a horrible idea because there are much more efficient ways to advance your career.

However, if you love physics and want to get an advanced degree for it's own sake, the degree will still likely be a boost to your career, just not necessarily in proportion to the effort you put in to get it.

I would say yes. Pursue physics only because you love it. Unless you want to go into Defense the job prospects are terrible. However, learning physics teaches you how to learn anything and how to do it fast. This turns out to be an invaluable skill for programming, so physicists make great programmers. You just have to earn it on top of all the physics.

Yeah it's very much like that with my math degree. Demonstrated ability to torture myself with difficult concepts.

I mentioned in another thread, if you can get good at something that other people hate, you won't be unemployed. Although, it might take longer to find a job if it's not a fungible skill.

But the secret is, it's not torture. For most people, it's prohibitively difficult to reach the expert level in something that we're not inclined to enjoy.

I think engineering degrees demonstrate an ability to torture oneself with boring and routine concepts. A skill which is apparently more valuable in the working world.

Well, the job prospects are "terrible" if you're committing yourself to stay in physics and be a physicist in both title and profession.

The thing is, most people that get advanced degrees in physics don't stick around in the field and don't follow the traditional path. The article is correct to point out that physics departments would do better if they accept that reality and accommodate for it explicitly. Some schools already do that with the "engineering physics" degree.

Physics is a great preparation for general purpose problem-solving, IMHO.

In my own case, I do wish that I had a smoother transition out of physics, however. Spent a lot of time in my career not knowing where I fit in. Not that it's a totally bad thing, finding "a job" was never a problem, but self-actualization is harder when you're dealing with not knowing where you belong.

>The thing is, most people that get advanced degrees in physics don't stick around in the field and don't follow the traditional path.

The point isn't that if you get a degree in physics, that you're doomed. Pretty much everyone I know who got a degree in physics is doing well. The point is, they are pretty much at a disadvantage (at least initially) in getting those jobs. Whichever non-physics job you find physicists going into, it'll be easier to get those jobs with a different degree.

The only exception I can think of is quantitative finance in the 2000's, where they seemed to prefer physicists and mathematicians above all us (including finance degree holders).

I agree that physics is a great preparation to problem solving. I've heard this in industry as well. Yet I've consistently found that even those who make such statements are more likely to hire those with engineering degrees.

Versatility is one of the main things offered by a physics degree. It might not be the most preferred degree in a given area you're likely to move into, but it's probably at least acceptable.

For varying definitions of acceptable. It's certainly less acceptable than an engineering degree.

Yes, the first conditional of your question is mandatory to successfully follow through and complete an academic career in Physics.

I really loved Physics growing up as a student. I was really good at it and enjoyed the problem-solving.

Finished the degree at university, but knew I wasn't married to the idea of doing it for the rest of my career/life. So I touch computers now (got a degree for that too). It pays more, plus it pays 'now'.

I'll second this. You don't do academia for career stuff, or because you think that's the path to becoming a professor. You do it because it's fun, full-time science for a couple years.

There was a thread the other day where the top-comment was some guy who quit his PhD as soon as he realized professorship wasn't an option. Personally, I find this staggeringly backwards and have trouble relating...

Quite a bit of first generation students (I am one) could have trouble realizing this. They are grown up in The Netherlands with: university is the best education you can afford and it will make you the most money. And since parents of first generation students are a bit money scarce (not a lot, I'm not saying they're poor), money is important.

And according to them, if you do university education, then you don't have to work like your parents, who started having back problems between 40 and 50 because dad lifts a lot and mum is just unlucky.

Get a white collar job and don't burn your body: go to university.

If that's drilled in for the first 18 years, then yea, your opinion would be considered a new interesting one they've never heard of.

however, there are certain jobs that a ph.d. will basically catapult you into a senior position as soon as you are hired, and it will do so at the expense of people with just a bachelor's or master's degree. i have seen people titled "senior research scientist" and put into management roles despite having just graduated in the same year. in other cases, having a ph.d. will give you large amounts of responsibility (good for career growth) right off the bat, despite having much, much less experience than already hired colleagues with only master's degrees. why is that? well, some people, cultures, companies, labs, etc. still hold the ph.d. quite high in their mind and heart, despite what they may say. these are the places that think a ph.d. gives someone the ability to manage not only technical aspects (that somewhat makes sense) but also people, projects, system design, etc. (that often doesn't make sense).

so basically, in the end, there is no golden rule.

Everywhere I've worked incoming grads with PhD's have ended up somewhere similar to the 2-year experience mark in seniority. Some have come in and quickly ended up with a lot of responsibilities, others have basically ended up as fresh grads. I think it's more due to personality than the skills a PhD give you though.

In a job where original thinking is involved, the individual with a PhD has has already proved that they are capable of original research; after all, that is what a PhD is. The MS person still has to prove that they can do original research.

I have an MS in physics and I disagree with this. If you want opened doors, go for software engineering. You have so many things you can do with software, seriously.

I have finished my master's in November, and I have been looking for a job. I have not been very lucky so far. I am looking for data-science related stuff. If you have any suggestions, please, I am all ears. (I am in Europe)

There was a time when, if you had a degree in Physics, they'd throw money at you. That is no longer true.

why data science and not something where physics degrees confer more of a comparative advantage? Something like telecommunications engineering or something of that sort?

My MS was in astroparticle physics (applied). That means I am better suited for data science than for engineering stuff.

Weirdly enough, if I knew optics but no coding I would be in a better place than the one I am in right now, which is: I know (a little bit of) coding but no optics.

Applied?

Well, it's more experimental than applied, bad word I guess. It could've been theorical, but it was experimental.

Data science is one of the few fields where a physics degree does have at least some comparative advantage. In any engineering field, a hiring manager with a choice between an engineering graduate and a physics graduate is always going to choose the engineering graduate because they have specific training in the field. Part of the myth propagated by physics departments is that learning to solve a bunch of general problems will somehow make you qualified to solve very specific problems.

The real myth is that schools actually prepare you for specific problems on the job, as you have asserted. I have helped hire people before and I would say that schools do very little good specialized training. Almost everything learned in engineering school is going to be at best tangential to the problems actually experienced in industry, to the point where there is little difference between an engineering degree and a physics degree, especially in a field that is close to physics (electrical engineering, radio engineering).

Do physics students have to learn about electrical components?

In Chemical Engineering, I had to take 2 electrical classes and I learned what math I needed and what components exist.

I think that is a bit extreme but I agree with one thing. If school does not teach job related knowledge but it somehow makes it easier to learn skills on the job later on then isn't it actually just an indirect measure of motivation or intelligence?

The advantage formal education confers is merely making those stand out among the other applicants.

Hi,

I don't know the situation in Europe. In the US, there are a number of data science boot camps geared more towards PhDs who decide that they want to do something else. I've had friends go into that and find jobs afterwards. I think that what helped them was not the material per se (if you've done physics, most of the math in data science is not terribly challenging), but 1) having space to work on the subject (some people might not have had experience with say coding or thought about coding interviews) and 2) Network The American physical society just launched a topical group on data science in physics. We're planning to offer training to help students who want to either apply data science to physics or want to transition out. We're also hoping to have some webinars from people who started off doing physics and went into industry to let students learn their stories. I hope that's helpful...

> If you have any suggestions, please, I am all ears. (I am in Europe)

What was your MS program like (research/taught/etc)? Happy to give some advice, but a bit more background would be useful.

I went through a lot of mental gymnastics justifying the path I took in college for years, when in retrospect the straightest, simplest path to get where I am today was to just get a CS degree at my flagship state school.

Consider Lambda School. That way you have skills and education. You'll be an easy pick for employers.

You're not wrong about physics but I'd say the degree in software is only as good as your ability to code mixed with how willing you are to follow over controlling bosses.

I didn't do my physics PhD expecting it would lead to a job. Which is good because it hasn't.

but I'm sure, given your anticipation, you prepared alternative pathways to employment, such as taking CS classes, doing internships?

I am very happy I choose to work on my own projects than peruse a PhD.

Anecdotes like yours from my peers were very helpful in making this decision.

Not to mention, both teachers seemed like they wanted me to pay to do their work.

As someone who obtained their Master's in Physics, I have to agree with the article. The breadth and depth of my scientific training has made me a much more capable data scientist (and engineer) than most of my peers who went the CS path. I only wished that I could have double majored in biology. I would say that my study in physics has taught me how to better see the "bigger picture" and to try to account for all possible outcomes in a given scenario.

> As someone who obtained their Master's in Physics, I have to agree with the article. The breadth and depth of my scientific training has made me a much more capable data scientist (and engineer) than most of my peers who went the CS path.

Not knocking on you specifically, but I've seen this kind of overconfidence before in physicists, mechanical engineers, mathematicians etc.: "programming / statistics / data science is so easy, of course I know what I'm doing and will be up to speed right away." Their work is generally not bad, but not particularly great either. I do think the scientific training and rigorous education in these fields helps, but if it's not supplemented with a little humility it makes for poor colleagues.

It isn't overconfidence. The academic material these individuals study is directly and specifically related to the work of a data scientist. Statistical analysis is built in to any reasonably good physics curriculum starting with undergrad lab courses and proceeding through statistical mechanics, quantum physics and beyond.

In your mind, do you think a physics degree or a statistics degree is better suited to doing data analysis, and why?

> do you think a physics degree or a statistics degree is better suited to doing data analysis, and why?

For finance, physics 100%. (The more experimental, the better.) When you're forced to map your theories to reality, and deal with the divergence, you develop an intuition for a certain set of problems. Those problems recur in commercial data science.

I'm not sure how this speaks to the superiority of physics over stats in this regard.

Depends on the context of the analysis and the desired outcome. What does that have to do with my comment or the GP's?

Reading through the thread, it looks like you believe that physicists can perform data analysis better than statisticians, because a physics program includes some stats courses.

I tend to agree. If I have a bunch of applicants for a programming job, given the choice between a similarly capable computer science graduate, or a natural sciences graduate (e.g. physics, chem, bio, oddly psychology - except I'm biased I have qualifications in the last two) then I'm likely to pick the non CS qualification applicant because of the breadth of experience, and the implicit recognition that the computer isn't the most important part of the job. Having said that I've worked with a few excellent CS grads, and for some tasks, good ones are really valuable.

That really depends on what you mean by "similarly capable."

If we're talking a psych grad who taught themselves the equivalent of a CS degree, then sure. That's usually not the case though. Non CS grads tend to never learn the boring parts.

As someone who worked professionally for almost a decade before getting my CS degree, what I learned during my degree has made a huge difference. There were so many gaps in my knowledge that I didn't know I had.

I've also hired plenty of CS grads, and non CS grads, and in my experience, the CS grads tend to outperform the rest all else being equal.

Are you sure that you're not seeing selection bias here? Non CS majors tend to be career changers (or they've had time to finish and degree and learn CS) and are therefore older on average.

How about this way of putting it: For many teams you don't need many people with a strong background in CS. Yes, strong CS grads can be useful, but often it's just as more valuable to have self-taught or similar (i.e. highly motivated) people with a breadth of experience outside the realm of having the computer as the primary focus in the task - because for many programming tasks, the computer isn't really the primary focus. A relatively small proportion of strong CS grads in a team can be really useful.

Not my experience and I have a Engineering-Physics degree, which is essentially a full physics degree with additionaly courses gears towards training us as systems engineers and luckily that's how I landed a job afterwards. I tell all prospective physics majors to dual major in CS or EE or some other engineering useful discipline if you truly want to do something good. You have a much better chance of landing a job afterwards and gaining the foothold you need to propel into what you really want to do. Most places outside academia don't know what to do with you. Funny thing is, the people I know with physics degrees end up being some of the best engineers and quickly bubble to the top. HR types have a hard time seeing that potential if you don't fit their criteria degree exactly.

Physics major myself and found it pretty much the same as you mentioned. Definitely wish they had put more emphasis on double majoring, or doing internships and such.

I'm a recent graduate with a BS in Engineering Physics (EP) as well. I chose the field because I love mathematics and because of the "infinite career possibilities" that the Physics department advertised (just like in this article) which was actually very misleading. I had a really hard time getting started right out of college (your description of HR's view of EP majors is spot on) and started to pursue my Master's at the same University in EP. I dropped out of my Master's program after about a year because I realized I hated doing academic research. A lot of the courses that I took were also very similar to my undergraduate courses... So I didn't feel like I was gaining any added value from my MS.

Most of us graduates in EP either went to pursue graduate work or became Systems Engineers. Now I'm working as a Systems Engineer really only because it felt like the only alternative. I'm planning on getting my Master's in CS so I can get myself on track to the career that I really want. I don't regret studying physics - but I wish I had done a double major instead.

Yup, this resonates with me. I hated academia and wanted to get out there and do some real high level engineering work, so I took my BS in EP and left. Luckily I had some decent programming skills and it helped me land my systems engineering job doing simulation work. Yes I reversed engineered system in order to understand how to simulate them which applies to my degree focus, but without the software background I could never put theory into practice. Now I'm a project engineer leading teams of other systems engineers, so it worked out ok for me. If you are the more mathematically inclined theoretical type rather than the build systems hand on type of physics major, you will have a harder time. First thing I do when I go back to visit my Alma mater is dispell their "infinite possibilities" myth.

I will say I do believe this is a much smaller issue in the bay area (and possibly a few other places), provided you can code okay. If you are looking for a job, say, in Phoenix, St. Louis, Dallas or similar, the HR hurdles are much harder to overcome. Those places want CS or EE, maybe ME.

I have a BS in Applied Physics.

Agreed, although I no longer live in the Bay Area, I grew up there and probably would not have had the same problems. Cost of living and a sense of "been there done that" kept me from going back. Luckily coming from SV, I had some coding skills just from high school and stuff I was doing on the side + internships back home, and that was a major factor in landing my current job.

From my experience both interviewing and hiring, a physics degree absolutely will not help you in tech. You will have more credibility than any non-STEM graduate, but employers will constantly wonder if you've bridged the gap created by your lack of a CS degree.

I would think that might be true right out of school. But with a little bit of experience and maybe some cool projects under your belt, I would think a physics degree would look very good for some of those really specialty, high paying jobs.

But I can definitely see how it wouldn't help at the onset.

I guess my experience has been the opposite. On every software R&D team I have been on, there has been about an even mix of computer science, physics, and mathematics with a few sprinkles of data science from the biology fields. Especially by year 5 or so - who can tell the difference between a computer scientist that knows physics and a physicist who knows computer science?

The only skills a person needs to learn coding is the desire to learn coding and the persistence to do it.

This has been my experience within teams as well, but it was clear to me that we were hired in spite of our degrees rather than because of them.

I do not regret my physics education, and I would encourage young people who are passionate about the subject to pursue it. However, I think that they should go in knowing that unless they intend to stay in academia/research/defense, a physics degree is, at best, a signal of intelligence, and, at worst, a signal of overspecialization in a disparate field.

I would say GP's claim applies best for the first job, where that question of the gap is most visible.

I studied physics and later entered tech. The first proper development job was the hardest to get, because it was an uphill battle to prove competency.

I have worked with physicists. The ones that had respect for software engineering and learned it were excellent. I loved their math skills and they often provided interesting insights. there were others that kept writing crappy research code and didn't want to learn SW engineering practices. That didn't work too well.

One might even say - "The only skills a person needs to learn is the desire to learn."

What does “tech” mean in this context?

Very good question. By tech does he mean designing quantum computers or does he mean coding UI at Facebook. Very different.

Yeah I mean to me “tech” means technology, and I’d put Tesla and SpaceX as more “technology”-companies than Facebook.

except when you will fix their broken power supply with a pencil lead and al foil

To generalize the problem (because, hey, I got a math degree): someone inside one specialization often doesn't know how to account for what another specialization represents in terms of the skills and capacities involved.

Which means to handle that case, you more or less have to learn to do it for them. Half of which means learning enough about the target specialization, half of which is a skill that has a lot in common with pitching a startup.

So you think a CS chitty is automatically the best possible career in development no wonder you used a throwaway handle.

I would have said having a good grounding in physics or engineering can be a plus having to work from first principals rather than using memorised algo's for w=example.

"So you think a CS chitty is automatically the best possible career in development no wonder you used a throwaway handle. I would have said having a good grounding in physics or engineering can be a plus having to work from first principals rather than using memorised algo's for w=example."

Then you should have said that rather than whatever it is that you just typed.

I make a new throwaway every month so I don't get attached to HN karma - which often clouds your thinking for fear from judgment from the community.

If you actually read my posts, I have a physics degree.

So I am dyslexic sue me.

And your excuse for a throwaway account is "not readily believable"

Nice work. Completely ignore the most relevant part of the comment.

Great job contributing a negative amount of value to the discussion then following up with a childish "sue me."

I don't agree with this article. I did my undergrad with a Physics & CS double major. It was painful, 9 semesters of maximum allowed courseload. While people seemed to be impressed, I always felt like an imposter, knowing less CS than the CS students and less physics than the physics students. Couldn't maintain a great GPA either. Applied to 8 PhD programs, got rejected by all of them. Most of the CS companies also rejected me (a recruiter said I had too many degrees (???)). I did end up working at a National Lab, which was an amazing experience.

Side note: The American Physical Society(APS) publishes undergrad physics employment data[0] that my peers and I used to look at to feel good about our non-grad school prospects after BS. After my degree I realized it is biased at best, misleading at worst.

Currently I am doing an interdisciplinary (read flexible) masters program in computational science. It allows me to take both CS and physics grad classes and do research in physics labs too. Now I plan on pursuing research in machine learning applied to super big data hairy physics problems. I am gonna apply to PhD programs again (fields are fuzzy: physics, CS, ML, data science).

Would I do it again? Hell yeah. Started out as physics and then CS seemed interesting. Both gave me valuable skills: Good understanding of data structures, HPC, prototyping is helpful with physics problems, and I am not afraid of math in grad ML classes because of physics.

Would I recommend it to others? Not really unless you are extremely passionate about both (took me about 2 years to feel that) or are a genius and confident in your abilities (I am not). I am still anxious about the future, and where will I fit. If you have a passing interest in physics, do CS with a physics minor to satisfy that itch or pursue an interdisciplinary program[1] so you are not stranded employment wise. Set on being a physicist? Take some CS classes (data structures, simulation, numerical analysis, HPC, algorithms etc.)

People of HN, if you have a similar background/work in a similar field, I would love to pick your brain about your path and research/career options.

[0] https://www.aps.org/careers/statistics/index.cfm [1] https://www.siam.org/Students-Education/Resources/For-Underg...

I didn't read the artidcle yet, but I experience the same issues.

Computer science + business minor as a bachelor

Psychology (honours) as 2nd bachelor

Game studies master

Computer science research master

My fields of interest: computer science, psychology and business.

For the rest, your comment is almost identical, to some extent even the math parth (as psych. is quite statistics heavy compared to CS).

For what it's worth, you're almost exactly the type of person I would look to hire.

From my (albeit small) sample size, pure Physics majors have incredible intellectual chops, but aren't necessarily interested in hacking or building systems.

Pure CS majors usually love the latter, but don't always have the mathematical sophistication for more heavy duty (ML) work.

Someone who offers the best of both worlds is very desirable.

Obviously this doesn't apply across the board - there are countless people who fit the mould in the CS camp, the Physics camp, or without degree whatsoever. I'm just saying that if I had to go through 100 CVs, the simple fact that you're a Physics/CS major is enough to shoot you to the top of the list.

Grad school is one of the biggest modern scams that convinces highly skilled people to work for peanuts for years on end.

it really is messed up. in addition, it creates a bunch of weird spots in the job search space. for example, i have come across many jobs that i am more than qualified for, but they ended up being "post-doctoral fellowships". so they are jobs that i can't get because i don't have a ph.d. but even if i could get them, i would take around a 50% pay cut. it doesn't make any sense whatsoever! the only explanation is the post-doc thing being basically a version of slavery for skilled and educated people.

i like the story of the college grads with terrible undergraduate grades applying for the masters program, and getting in! And then turning their life around. After they graduate with a master's degree its like all their undergraduate sins are erased.

After your first job out of college, your undergraduate sins are essentially erased as well. The longer your career exists, the smaller the emphasis (and value of) your undergraduate performance becomes.

At the risk of sounding like pissing in the fish pond, my final year felt a lot like buffing. At this point you're not bad enough to get the boot but you can still be mediocre and pass because it's mostly networking.

Came to check this to confirm my experience. I would hire an ex PhD physicist as a data scientist only if they actually talk data science in an interview. Even better if they have good work experience in the same field.

One thing that really irks me is this notion that PhDs in physics are so smart just hire them and they can figure it out. Maybe that’s the case, but is it something I’m willing to take a bet on? probably not at least until you’ve learnt the field and ideally if you have experience.

That said my best friend in high school was one of the smartest people I know, went on to do a PhD in physics and then took two years to find a job. I know the struggle these guys go though because I spent a lot of time trying to help the guy out. Thankfully he landed on his feet, but the sad truth is a lot of these guys either just really love the field or think they’re going to be the next Feynman, until they realize how competitive the physics world is for only a few tenured spots.

The good news is if you’ve still got what it takes after a PhD or postdoc and you have the time or determination you’ve definitely already proved you have the horsepower, the work is then just converting that into something the real world appreciates.

I have worked in the software world for 20 years, and started coding while in grad school studying for my master's in astrophysics. I initially was building websites on the side to make extra money, but then decided to go full time. My physics background never seemed to matter to anyone. It neither seemed to help or hurt, so long as I could do the work, they seemed content to believe I could learn anything else I'd need to know. Which was true. I bought books on various languages, patterns and computation theory (one of my favorite textbooks).

Other than having co-workers find out I have a physics degree and thinking I'm the nerd as a result, there really hasn't been upside or downside to having studied physics.

Though, I totally went into physics not for the career but because I really wanted to learn physics.

If one is thinking about trying to become H1-B, one should be extremely wary: https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/04/16/h-1b-more-advanced-de... obviously this could change from Presidential administration to administration but they no longer permit those with physics/E.E./math advanced degrees to have H1-B for software work.

What awful news!

Unbelievably stupid (for reasons hopefully clear to everyone here). Extremely infuriating that someone would think that the people with these skills aren't extremely valuable for suitable software jobs (...contrary to what the market says).

Especially so in Silicon Valley, where so many software engineering jobs are more on the side of scientific computing, and actually require advanced science degrees.

E.g.: my previous employer was an EDA firm; guess what: writing software for litho mask optimization requires a solid knowledge of EM physics, chemistry and math quite beyond what a typical MS in Comp. Sci. might give. (Everyone on my team had a PhD, none a CompSci).

Then there's the whole academic pyramid aspect: there are way more PhD students than academic jobs, and cutting off access to jobs for people getting PhD's in the US is a good way to slowly kill science (which is an international endeavor).

Out of all the stupid anti-immigration initiatives, this one is the most outrageous.

Signed, a mathematics PhD working in software engineering.

Does anybody have experience going from a CS/engineering undergrad to a physics MSc? I graduated last year with a CE/EE degree (so, some relevant background in mathematics and electromagnetism, not much quantum). I'm looking at programs which would let me leverage CS/software skills to make up for my lack of physics education, and of course I'm reading textbooks in my free time to try to catch up a bit. I don't have any expectation that this would be helpful to my career.

I have met a physicist at Perimeter Institute who went all the way to Engineering at Master level and pivoted to Physics PhD. If he could do that, I'm sure you can. I do not remember his name, just his face.

I know a person who can do that - Howard Wolowitz.

Its just a strange thing to hear people say a physics masters is useful because it demonstrates your capacity to learn the same material as a computer science undergrad.

I certainly respect a physics degree for the same reason I respect a math degree: it shows me that this person can work really, really hard for a long a time.

If you're in physics or math you may know exactly what I mean, but if you're outside: it is bonkers how hard they have to work.

Just get a masters in mathematics. If you end up teaching, there are way more mathematics openings than physics openings. Usually there are 0 physics openings.

In the US, a lot of Master's degrees in physics and mathematics are really watered down. I was an engineering student, and had an MS in engineering, and was pursuing a PhD in it as well. I dropped out of the PhD and got another MS in physics as a "consolation degree" - I basically had all the coursework done as part of my PhD, so the credits just transferred over and I had a free MS in physics. I almost got another MS in mathematics just for the heck of it (took courses for fun).

Why do I say they are watered down degree? Because both the math and physics Master's requirements allow you to use courses that are required for their Bachelor's degree! So the main undergrad analysis class could be used for a Master's in mathematics (unless you had a math undergrad degree).

They structured it this way to try to get people from outside the discipline (like me) into the MS program. I could get an "easier" MS in physics than a physics student could (they could not double count their credits for the MS degree).

It may be another reason the MS degree in these disciplines is looked down upon.

I knew a ton of Physics PhDs who went on to be very successful software engineers. They were always sad they couldn't do physics because of either lack of salary or lack of good job options, but they were often very good quantitative engineers.

My PhD opened a lot of doors but it also taught me that I didn't want to be a scientist.

This should be nuanced with the fact that a Master's degree in the US is much different than Europe. Typically, in Europe, STEM fields do a "Masters" but it's really equivalent to junior and senior level coursework in the US. This was the case for me as an exchange CS student in Sweden at KTH, and it seemed that all of my Euro friends that were getting masters in their respective country just treat a Masters in STEM as a necessity and it didn't have the same pedigree or difficulty that a top tier US masters would. This is no shot at Euro schools, but something that was very clear to me and my American exchange counterparts when we talked to our EU friends, which were all engineers of some kind.

For a countervailing viewpoint, I got a Masters in CS from Georgia Tech, and it was just coursework at the level of my 3rd and 4th years of undergrad in New Zealand. Bit of a let-down.

In person or online?

Online. Could have something to do with it.

Some classes were very good, but on the whole I think of it mostly as a cheap thumb on the H-1B scales. (Not true on the whole, though -- students of the online program are statistically far more likely to be American citizens than their on-campus counterparts.)

I tend to think online programs, even from great schools like Georgia Tech or John Hopkins, are definitely easier than on campus. Typically on campus will attract students that did very well in undergrad and are on their way to a PhD, where as online has no option to continue for a PhD.

At least sixteen and possibly twenty students from GA Tech’s OMSCS have gone on to Ph.D. programmes. The following 14 universities have OMSCS grads and CMU admitted one.

National University of Singapore

MIT

UNSW

Florida International University

UBC

UC-Santa Cruz

Iowa State University

Tokyo Institute of Technology

University of Southern California

Virginia Commonwealth University

Auburn

Georgia Tech

University of New Hampshire

https://www.reddit.com/r/OMSCS/comments/awvb03/omscs_phd/

Not trying to discredit your evidence, but according to the GT OMSCS website, there have been 8664 students in that program. 20/8664 is less than .25%. Anyways, all I'm saying is that I'm confident that Online MSCS are not held to the same pedigree or difficulty as their on campus counterparts.

But what is the basis for your confidence?

The vast majority of students are working alongside the degree and not looking to go on to phd programs...

Imperial, Stanford, Columbia, Gatech, UIUC, Utexas Austin all offer online degrees.

Being in one of these programs myself I can assure you that the standard is rigorous. I attended a top university in the UK and the quality of education is not any lower.

There are some universities that are absolutely frauds but that is not the case for the universities listed above.

If you disagree go on the coursework pages and try and do the first problem set then tell me it’s not as difficult.

What courses did you take in the masters program?

Case in point: an Ask HN from a few week ago about what people with Physics backgrounds are currently working on

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19500151

ITT: a bunch of people with engineering physics or masters’ of physics who are either doing really well or not so well and ascribing that to their degree. I’m a loser because I have anxiety and don’t know how to sell myself, not because I have an MS. I keep going for shitty IT/programming jobs and they ask me “why aren’t you doing physics.” I say “I don’t think I’m smart enough.” Which is honest but I could just as easily bullshit them and use it to talk myself up. I don’t think many recruiters would last a month in those courses anyway.

Interesting!

Personally, I started with an B.Sc. Astrophysics, finished that. Realized that it may take a while before I could get in a job related to an area that I'm interested in. I went back and completed an B.Sc. Computer Sciences.

I've typically justified the two degrees by explaining that physics taught me how to learn, how to break apart a problem, and computer sciences provided the foundational basics as to how to associate abstract concepts into software. It was certainly an experience!

This is probably bad advice. Better advice would be to just find a good experiment at a reputable school and latch on.

Projects in experimental physics at a good state school are typically a great place for access to a machine shop, computing resources, and the possibility for travel, in addition to the departments typically having a lower student to professor ratio compared to the engineering schools.

You're also more likely to work for people with a variety of skills.

I've spent a lot of time getting an MA in mathematics, but I sometimes feel that I should've just gone straight for computer science. I never intended to do pure math research. My CS friends know more about databases and distributed systems than I do, even if I know more about representation theory. Still, if you subscribe to the signaling theory of education, what does it matter.

in a few years much of the current technologies gets obsolete not the mathematical foundations

> My CS friends know more about databases and distributed systems than I do, even if I know more about representation theory

I don't mean to be rude but this was a very foreseeable outcome of a masters in math. Why didn't you foresee it?

My reasons for choosing what I chose do not fit into a Hacker News comment.

I think there are two parts of it. Physics degree is good -- obtaining it correlates with the head being screwed on straight and is often appreciated by employers.

On the other axis, I am puzzled on why they consider a Masters as a sweet spot. If a graduate degree is not required, it does not get you much, career-wise; and wherever a graduate degree is appreciated a PhD gets you further. Just my 2c.

Once you have the job a master's degree is a master's degree. If your employer (esp. large ones) has some benefits in place for possessing a master's you will qualify. However when you apply for jobs hiring managers may not know what your master's degree (or Ph.D. for that matter) in physics entails.

Depends on the job. Some government labs will only hire people with MS's or PhDs in physics or a related field.

It me! Dropped out of my PhD program to do software engineering. Great preparation for thinking from first principles.

Physics is a great general purpose education. I have a BS in Physics, from the early 1970s, and while I have always worked in some form of software development or research role, Physics was a great start.

In current times, a BS degree is probably not as useful, so spending a little extra time to get a MS makes sense.

... except in physics.

I'm supposed to get my master's degree in physics this summer (only a thesis remains), and this thread is not doing me any good. Good thing I can program, I guess.

I am enrolling in an undergrad physics+mathematics program soon. And I started feeling uncomfortable.

In general, physics majors tend to be badasses.

I know of people in a myriad of tech careers: site-reliability engineer, MBB management consulting, QA, offensive security.

Some universities have an Engineering Physics undergraduate program, seems like a good option, of having choices to work in a lot of industries.

Another thing that opens the door to myriad careers is learning to code and learning math. it's free

Reply on news.ycombinator.com