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.

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.

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 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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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'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.

>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.

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.

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.

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 ending up as a SWE prestigious?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.