Math Vs Physics Vs Engineering
Which is harder Math vs Physics vs Engineering. Let the debate begin!
My vote is for math.
Ranking the Hardest Majors in College
While it’s easy to find lists ranking colleges and universities, it’s much harder to rank majors. As with any qualification, you need to define your terms. How do you measure what is the hardest major? Also, difficulty is likely to vary based on school, program and professors. In the debate around math vs physics vs engineering, WSO community members acknowledged that all three are tough, but they also offered the following opinions:
Hardest: Math
Most commenters agreed that math is the hardest major. This is a personal opinion, but a few reasons they gave include:
- More abstract topics
- Heavy use of proofs
Most Practical: Engineering
Within engineering, there is a hierarchy of difficulty. In general, civil and environmental engineering are viewed as the easiest while electrical, chemical and biomedical engineering are viewed as the hardest.
WSO users seem to be in agreement that engineering is the most practical major in that it has higher job placement rates out of college and topics are more relevant to real life. The hardest part of the major appears to be the workload, with a high amount of problem sets, team projects and lab reports.
Best Major for a Wall Street Career
The best major for a Wall Street depends on your career goals and other factors. The following posts give additional advice about majors.
- Double Major in Math and Econ or Major in Math Minor in Bus CS?
- College Major for Sales and Trading
- Breaking into Sales and Trading
- What Would be a Good Second Major to Mathematics for IB?
- Double Major or Higher GPA?
Want to break into investment banking?
Check out WSO’s comprehensive investment banking interview prep guide which covers more than 7,000 questions across more than 400 investment banks. The WSO Investment Banking Interview Prep Course has everything you need to start your career on Wall Street.
IB Interview Course
What type of engineering?
math = physics > engineering
you will find more abstraction in math and physics as opposed to engineering (in general)
These are all tough disciplines but this isn't a tough discussion. See below - 'nuff said.
Is computer science being counted as engineering for this conversation? Math from an applied point of view isn't bad but the pure theory analysis side of it makes me shed tears. Physics is fun.
Really varies on your specialization and what you mean by difficulty.
Assuming we are talking about B.S degrees, I'd say that a Math major with a Pure Mathematics focus is the hardest. That's mainly due to the heavy use of proofs and other abstract topics such as topology.
Most Physics majors pretty much have a math major built into them so I'd say a Physics is harder than Math (Applied and Statistics) or Engineering. In my engineering classes I never had to work with "infinite cylinders" and usually had nice correlations.
Of course engineering has it's own hierarchy of difficulty. I'd argue that a Civil Engineering curriculum is usually easier than a ChemE/EE/ASE degree plan--hell solving the Mass transfer/Navier-Stokes equations is pretty much your typical Applied Math ODE/PDE class. I think Engineering is "easier" in overall concepts and theory but can be harder to maintain a higher GPA since the sheer amount of work involved. You'll usually have long problem sets, team projects and weekly lab reports to deal with.
Math & physics are all prerequisites for engineering---specifically EE. So, that being said, Engineering is harder. And this is coming from someone with a Bs. Stat and Bs.EE
Awesome showcase of flawed logic!
Agreed! If you are an engineer and have given yourself a chance to think of norms, isomorphisms, homomorphisms, subgroups, convergence, let me know whether you think it's easier than engineering.
Oh and P.S.: I'm not bashing one or the other. I'm just trying to state the fact that Engineers just need Elementary PDEs at most to get by and that doesn't include the whole beautiful (and harder) area of mathematics.
Most people I've met has this idea that the math you learn for engineering is the math math majors learn. Highly not true. Engineers can graduate without having touch a single class on Analysis, Topology or Abstract Algebra. Once you get there, it's the whole different field.
You don't have calculators, Matlab or a MacBook to help you. All you have are definitions and lemmas to get by. And if you are a serious math major, once you reach pass the standard three fields, you need all the metal firepower you can get to pull through.
All engineer, physics, and math majors have very similar first two years of college. Those math and physics prerequisites for engineers you're talking about are also prerequisites for math and physics majors.
Engineering is basically just applied physics and math. I'd say engineering is easier just because it can be more practical and logical unlike some of the others.
Which degree will be more valued in the financial industry (Imperial Physics vs LSE Maths+Econ)? (Originally Posted: 04/02/2013)
hello, i'm new to this forum and i need some advice.
I am currently a first year Physicist at Imperial College who is eager to work in the finance industry in the future (Hedge Fund/Investment Bank/Private Equity etc.) as well as wanting a uni degree which will have a "brand name" which will carry me internationally.
When i first started my degree, i initially didn't like it and so over the course of my first year, i applied to LSE (Maths+Econ), of which i now have an unconditional offer for.
However, over the course of the year, i have warmed up to Physics and have heard somewhere that Physics/Sciency/Engineering degrees are even better than Econ/Finance degrees for getting into BBs/Hedge Funds because of the academic rigor of the degrees.
So now i am in a crossroads, i enjoy anything Mathsy and like Economics and Physics, however i don't know which to choose.
So from your experience, which degree will be more sought after in the future by the financial industry: Imperial College Physics or LSE Maths and Econ?
They're all tough, and there's a lot of sharp quantitative minds in all three areas. The difference is that engineering is something that turns into a job.
At Illinois, EE and Nuclear Engineering were considered the hardest undergraduate majors at the school. Yes, math was tough; ECE was supposedly tougher. (I was a CS major.) That said, Illinois ranked higher in engineering than math; I would imagine things could have been different if the rankings were reversed.
What is your take on the fact that engineers have a higher placement rate upon graduation (be it undergrad or grad school) than physics and math majors? What's your take on the fact that us engineers largely got to avoid real analysis, set theory, and the higher "algebras"? Highest math course that I took was a 400-level calc-based probability course and diffy'qs.In terms of technical skills, physics dominates economics (e.g. it's easier for a physicist to learn economics than the opposite). A physics degree also gives you more options if you eventually realize that you don't really want to do finance.
However, LSE Maths/Econ probably has the edge for recruitment.
Both degrees are good to be honest. It's more important to have good grades, good projects, etc. so I would advise studying whichever field you really love.
At first I thought he was trolling when he said Imperial Physics - what's next, Royal English ?
It's what they were teaching before Metric Physics ;)
bump, sorry but i really want more opinions on this
[/quote]What is your take on the fact that engineers have a higher placement rate upon graduation (be it undergrad or grad school) than physics and math majors?[/quote]
job placement rates don't have anything to do with difficulty of major. I'm sure acconting majors have a higher placement rate than math majors too
Computer Science/Math/Physics/Engineering/etc. undergrad -> IBD = waste of u-grad degree? (Originally Posted: 08/13/2011)
I know Illini said that you pretty much need to use programming when you get out of u-grad or else it'll be a waste, but I was wondering what some of you other guys think about it (along with math/physics/etc.).
Obviously your degree won't be a "waste", but how much of the stuff that you've learned do you think would be forgotten over the first 2 years?
if you don't enjoy learning math/CS/physics just for the sake of it being interesting you will fail
i didn't major in economics BC my schools program wouldn't give me skills required for phd econ/MFE program
see above for non finance ^
It's not a waste if you a like the subject. It also develops a good approach to problem solving, and it helps to be good with numerical concepts. If you take it just because it looks good, yes...it's a waste.
I studied arguably the hardest major at one of the hardest schools. Worth it though. Fucked my gpa over, but learnt a lot. Do I use what I learnt on the job? hellz no. But I do use the general approach to problem solving when analyzing markets and models.
Sociology @ Harvard ?
i did the same thing. i was in a gut major, decided that i was wasting my brain, took the hardest major at a school where the curve is murder, and got a worse GPA for it. absolutely no regrets though.
It looks good that you've challenged yourself but unless you're really good at it or want to be in a quant role it's not a great idea or very useful. Stick with econ/stat.
I major in math because I enjoy it immensely, but making a career out of it is unrealistic.
Yeah, but it just seems like it would suck to go from something like CS or anything like that (even if you enjoy it) to a job that doesn't use any of your skills. Lets say Wall Street isn't for you, what could you do afterwards? Would you be able to get jobs that people right out of u-grad typically get? Or would going back to school be one of the best options?
I'd like to learn CS and I'm not too sure if I want to try for IB, but it just seems like if I were to realize that IB isn't for me, then I'd be screwed if I got out of there after two years (assuming I have no time to practice programming because of shit hours).
coding is a small portion of CS
Yeah I know but it seems like something you need to use before you lose it... like math, stats, etc.
well as long as you learned it before you should have no problem picking it up very fast and should have a lot of "oh i remember now!!" moments :D
hopefully... I'm mainly leaning more towards s&t than ib anyways even though pe seems like it would be cooler than hf...
Got a degree in math and finance. I mostly use calculus from my background in math. I would have a hard time going back to the theoretical math again (think quintic equations in radicals and shit like that). It was great fun in my UG studies, but I don't come across these problems enough to keep my skill set at the required level (lots of 'oh... I've done that before. Just let me think about it...'). Though, as mentioned above, you learn a specific approach that I find quite useful in other areas.
Most people at my office think I'm much smarter than them just because of what I studied (math in UG + MFE). Just for that reason I don't think it was a waste. lol
So a 3.2 in engineering will really screw you out of scholarships and grad school opportunities compared to a 3.8 in finance?
wtf...
Do employers tend to look at it differently?
Pure Math is definately the hardest, followed by Physics, Actuarial, Engineering and Stats.
Math is the way to go!
Physics is fun at the lower div level, but once you hit upper div classes it gets really brutal. We had one midterm in my upper division thermodynamics class where the average was 9 / 100. I got a 7. You don't walk out of a test like that feeling very good.
I think which type of engineering we are talking about is very important. I'd say Civil and Environmental Engineering are the easiest. Electric, Chemical and Biomedical are generally viewed as the hardest. Electrical because of all the ridiculous abstract concepts associated with the subject. Chem because you have to take lots of Chem courses that often get ridiculously hard on top of all the Physics/Math, etc. Biomed because you have to take life sciences courses (lots of orgo, advanced bio, etc.) along with the Physics Math and Engineering courses. Plus, if your concentration in BME is more systems/imaging related you will have to take many EE courses as well. Imagine taking Bio, Chem, Physics, Math, EE courses + labs/group projects with 18 credits each term for 4 years. All difficult courses and no real "joke" classes. It gets pretty insane. I'd say BME/EE and ChemE all rival even the most complex Math or Physics majors.
A lot of this also has to do with the fact that Engineering Profs all seem to think the only class you have that semester is theirs so they dump boatloads of work on you. I never did understand the thought process when profs tell you if you spend 4 hours in their class per week you should spend 3x that amount outside class studying. If you have 18 credits (= 18 hours of class a week) they want you to study for 54 hours per week outside of class? WTF?
in order math enginerring computer science physics
Pure Math = Mathematical Physics > Theoretical Physics = Applied Math > Experimental Physics = Computer Science > Engineering
=P
Nar, I think some of your equalities are not too valid.
Theoretical Physics has lots of abstract algebra and differential geometry which isn't too applied. Experimental Physics = Computer Science, maybe only if you are dealing with numerical analysis work.
So wait, you're saying that Theoretical Physics isn't applied??? That's very surprising!!!
Wtf are people on this thread smoking?
^ that good shit.
LMFAOOO! OMG WHO EVER SAID EE is harder is not aware of theories such as string theory, probability theory, number theory,,,, computers (ee) can help us to a certain extent... but ok fine... go tell a computer to come up with a theory, and if its good enough i will personally give it a nobel prize.. computers dont come up with no nothing, its the creativity of us and the tools math offers us that makes it possibly for other fields (engineering,etc...) possibly to exist.
I am sure engineering homework takes much more time than math homework. And books are probably bigger.
That being said, classes like Modern Analysis, Real Analysis, Topology, and Ordinary Differential Equations will make you cry like a sissy girl. Any class with 'Analysis' or 'Abstract' in its title will ruin your confidence, sleep, and social life. Your math professor is your God: a good professor will make your life x100 easier; a shitty professor will make you want to stab yourself with a hunting knife.
^^ Some of those courses are required for Engineering majors at some schools. I dunno, I think they were comparable to most of our 300-400 level courses in CS. They were tough, but doable if you read the book. Having a professor who spoke English was also helpful, as was the case in Engineering.
Math is a tough degree that would have been a lot of fun, but my parents insisted on only paying for a "practical undergraduate degree" in Business or Engineering and nixed math. When I got to Wall Street, I was able to finally prove to them that Math and Physics are legitimate "practical" degrees.
" Theoretical Physics = Applied Math > Experimental Physics = Computer Science > Engineering>"
You can see that this person like many others don't no that mathematical physics is applied mathematics!
Applied mathematics is the generic name for all mathematics applied to solve real world problems. Mathematical physics is that sub-field of applied mathematics that is concerned with mathematical formulations in physics!
Mathematical Physics and Theoretical Physics are closely related though the former emphasises on mathematical rigour (and sometimes with disregard to reality) while the latter is interested into physical reality.
Mathematics (general term) has got two subfields 1. Pure Math and 2. Applied Math.
Mathematical physics, biomatematics, financial math, are all sub-fields of applied maths!
cryptography, statistics and operation research branched out of applied some decades ago!
People before claiming anything do your homework first!
Andy Mayor, MMath (hons) master of mathematics - university of Southampton, UK.
Hello Andy,
I believe it was me who said that Theoretical Physics is not applied math. I do understand what you said that Mathematical Physics is applied math used to solve physics problems. However, the more I study math, the more I see how the math in physics is so unlike the math used to solve problems, otherwise called Applied math.
I shall succinctly summarize my argument with a quick anecdote. I was the shit in this class called Mathematical Modelling. We use all these methods to solve rather complicated PDEs that model real world situations. Not much proofs, just 'using the right method to gave the best approximation' Then I told myself ... "All right, lemme try this thing call Functional Analysis", what many people like you label as a topic in Mathematical Physics.
Applied Math right, I thought to myself. Shouldn't be difficult. Little did I know that in the class, we rigorously develop the theory of operators in linear space. Yup, those operators used in Quantum Mechanics. We went down to axioms, use theories, categorized spaces, make sure we converge "in the right norm" After two weeks, I told myself, no no no, this is NOT applied math. This is far removed from looking at a PDE that describes a problem and solving it.
I did not drop the class and this pivotal class in my undergrad career affirm my liking for theorems over calculations, existence over actual solutions, and to my understanding, pure over applied.
And hence my opinion that this Mathematical Physics is pure math. It's the dirty axiom theorem lemma theorem proof concept that applied mathematicians, well students, would rather not spend their time on.
I going to have to go with the mathematics on this one. A lot of the physics major I was in class with doubled in physics and math and they seemed to be a lot pissed during math midterms them physics. The whole point about abstract math is completely correct, they are the worst classes every devised. Engineering has more real world applications though. Math and Physics are great for academia or a PhD, but one needs some additive economics or business or something to get anywhere else.
someone said that maths is physics without sense. actually mathematicians learn some difficult concepts but a physisist must learn and further use them to solve complex physics problems, something that mathematicians don't do. engineering is actually applied classical physics. but for a physisist, classical physics is one of the easiest concepts in their degree (in comparing with relativity, nuclear and particle physics, cosmology, quantum physics and many more that only a physisist should learn). so physics is the hardest. no doubt
Apparently they don't teach "physisists" how to spell. :D
I'd go for Pure Math. Applied Math is also insane, but Topology, Abstract Algebra (especially Field Theory), Linear Algebra (via Abstract Algebra) and Analysis can make a grown man cry like a scared little girl.
Physics, Applied Mathematics and Engineering require a great deal of analysis and logic. But in Pure Math, you'll need an even greater deal of those, as well as a photographic memory, because you will need to remember every theorem and lemma you'll encounter, and you should also know when to use them in order to create a satisfactory proof that will your professor will hopefully understand and agree upon.
The amount of blind subjective bias and cherry picking is hilarious. Why are people so naive? What's hard for one person is easy for another.
Do I think string theory would be more challenging to understand than say stability of an aircraft? Yes. Do I think writing from scratch, a numerical simulation in C/Fortran that solves the reactive Navier-Stokes equations using unstructured grids and complex geometries to be more challenging than say problem sets in quantum mechanics or topology? It depends on the person..
If you are referring to which major is harder, there is absolutely no correct answer because of the variability from one program/school to another. If you are talking about which subject is harder, you can't really claim an answer exists! All fields have unsolved problems that no one can currently solve. There are challenging unsolved math problems such as the Millenium Prize Problems. There are challenging engineering problem that are currently impossible to design, e.g. quantum computers. And there are also very challenging unsolved theoretical physics problems in GR, string theory, and quantum mechanics. Can you really claim one problem is harder than the other? No, it's a matter of taste and interest.
Here are some absurd examples to illustrate how ridiculous this discussion is.
To the pure mathematician and physicist: For a senior design project, try designing a marketable prototype for a purely electric helicopter that optimizes cost, safety, and performance. Have fun with that, your math and pure physics backgrounds won't help.
To the pure engineer and pure physicist: Try taking a real analysis, differential geometry, or topology class. Good luck struggling with the proofs. You're going to be lost and completely confused..
To the engineer and mathematician: Try taking a graduate class with Jackson's Electricity and Magnetism book. Your pure mathematics background won't suffice and your engineering background certainly won't cut it.
For reference, my background is in Physics (Astrophysics) and Aerospace Engineering (polar opposites).
Frankly these proofs aren't that hard. The ECE folks have seen this stuff before. Actually we have as many engineering and physics PhDs in this class as Math PhDs.
I'm not saying this stuff is easy; I'm just saying that a smart person who's taken calculus and a course or two involving proofs can generally figure out anything a graduate STEM class can throw at them if they study enough. If you've seen a limit, if you've seen proof by induction, you understand expectations of random variables, and you know how to take a derivative or an integral, you can hack your way through most graduate level math classes at top 3 for Math Princeton. The same is probably true for engineering.
OK, there are products and summations too, but if you haven't seen that somewhere in a four year STEM undergrad, your professors deserve to be shot.
Seriously, it's like the redneck's toolbox. Instead of WD40 and Duct tape, the graduate engineer's toolbox is two proof techniques, limits, expectations, and the stuff being taught in the course.
We also have a lot of applied math undergrads who can do well in CS and Engineering. They probably do it in a less ghetto way than the engineering folks, tho.
Applied math. But I'm biased. The depth of many engineers' mathematical training is very questionable.
Rerum possimus excepturi in a et et animi. Qui amet nemo sunt fuga maxime. Velit et voluptatum temporibus illo reprehenderit vero. Rem adipisci et voluptatem ut commodi.
Porro aut commodi enim. Voluptas et recusandae nemo omnis quo voluptatem. Excepturi voluptatem aut natus sit et id reprehenderit hic. Sequi qui nihil recusandae et.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Iusto et iusto eligendi cumque dolorem et nesciunt. Suscipit sed asperiores commodi voluptates incidunt officiis eaque maxime. Nesciunt aliquam reiciendis et officia qui perferendis error.
Quam earum eveniet voluptatum asperiores quos. Vel cum quia necessitatibus at. Ducimus veniam hic officiis ipsum. Totam nam non qui quae repellendus.
Recusandae odit est atque nisi officia nostrum minus. Iste laudantium harum error sit quia quo. Quos commodi ullam perferendis.