Really...

yes

>physics bachelors
>bachelors
Literal dogshit degree, it's like the first two years of an engineering B, only with more sparse coursework.

Call me when you're in grad-school and you've actually studied something can start to be called advanced.

>*they're
Wut? It was right the first time!

>engineering their being taught
But not the second, nigger

To be fair, a physicist isn't far from an engineer. Someone who excels in one subject can do the other with relative ease, but I'd say it's easier for a physicist to transition into an engineer than vice versa.
Admittedly, physics undergrads are short on modules with signal processing and control theory, but a module on quantum field theory will teach functional analysis, and a module on computational physics will teach signal processing... And the latter is really not that hard. I imagine it would be a lot more conceptually and mathematically challenging for an engineer to pick up QFT.

>Physicists vs engineers: Valve edition

>Half life. Bunch of physicists getting rekt by a wide variety of creatures and screaming like babies. Out of hundreds in the game, only one isn't a pussy, and that's because he's player controlled.

>TF2. Engineers dropping automated death-dispensers and caving heads in with a wrench.

Ask any engineering manager what is their opinion of physicists or people who spent too much in grad school without real world experience.

>Do physicists do anything that good math bachelors couldn't do at an equal or higher level with a month of training?

nope :3

how far is a mathematician from a physicist or an engineer

Tell me more about how you're an expert in
>finite element analysis
>fluid mechanics
>control theory
>materials science
>manufacturing processes

Face it: you don't know jack shit

>being this proud of being a glorified technician

You have so little of an idea of the job specifications that you actually believe that. No, you're not ever going to be employed with that physics degree, and no, it is not more academically rigorous.

Fucking THIS. The first time you ran into something that didn't line up with your equations you would be completely unable to cope. When it comes to real-world application, it usually is not straightforward or clean mathematics.

>you're not ever

>not ever

I don't even have to read your full post to see that you are a retard. You do know that there are physicists making $120K base, and $200+K bonus, + benefits, right?

Yes, and they all work in academia and each had to step on 50 other currently unemployed physics grads to get there. Since apparently we're cherrypicking here, there's engineers out there whose salaries top 1mil.

>8352778
Nah, not even that above average (for a doctorate holder), and they don't work in academia (though yeah there are people in academia that make that). Mathematicians, statisticians, and computer scientists can be found doing the same jobs.

Am I supposed to be impressed by that? That's what most engineering bachelors make towards the end of their career, without spending eight extra years on school and racking up tons of debt. Salaries are much greater for ones with graduate degrees.

Lol nigga, you know that is false. The average electrical engineering late career makes 100K.

payscale.com/research/US/Job=Electrical_Engineer/Salary/2734dcd3/Late-Career

Where is that other 200+K that engineers make?

Also no, it isn't an extra eight years. Most unis will fail you if you spend eight years to graduate, most will get close to failing you if you get to 6 (which is the average MS+PhD time). It is more like an extra 2 years, 2 for a masters and 2 for you to be a real engineer.

>racking up tons of debt
You do know that universities won't accept you for a doctorate unless a fellowship (or professor as a research assistant) has agreed to pay for your masters and doctorate, right?

Stay buttmad, engifags, we all know you aren't socially intelligent enough to make money off of a business, and too intellectually retarded to make it into the big leagues.

pretty damn far, we're like a higher species user

>mathematicians

Hahahahaha. Pic related is the pinnacle of mathematician "study".

They can suck a mean cock

>engineers

Pic related is the pinnacle of engineers' """""study"""""

the mathematicians are the ones of a higher species?

really ?

...

really

are you sure ?

what are you talking about

...

>saying this on the Internet.

Yeah pretty sure

...

...

...

Meanwhile, the greatest contribution physicsts have made to humanity in the last 100 years was the Cold War.

...

...

apart from real work you mean?

your life is going to be tragic, and now that you said this, ironically hilarious!

Yeah. The vast majority of what engineers do isn't physics - you may have noticed that engineers learn physics at a substantially less advanced level. What the hell do you think they learn for the rest of their degree? Do you just think they're so stupid that it takes four to five years to learn watered-down applied physics?

Engineering is a *trade*. Being able to mathematically analyze systems is important (although a good part of that month would be spent getting up to speed on the empirical approximations and techniques for efficiently solving real-world problems; it's a numerics vs analytics thing), but there's also a lot of special knowledge you need about the practical properties of materials, what kind of engineering solutions have been used for other problems, how parts are manufactured, what capabilities are reasonable to expect... the individual concepts and tools may not be conceptually advanced, but designing a complex system requires keeping track of and optimizing all of them simultaneously. It's a very different skill than is required by, say, theoretical physics, and it's not something that would be trivial to pick up either, despite being less intellectually demanding than trying to solve quantum gravity.

they didn't account for the weight of the autistic "mathematicians" ego

AutoCAD, SolidWorks etc
Mathematica, Matlab etc

A degree says nothing about your own personal competence, intelligence and knowledge.

I'm in Europe. Many engineers are in math competitions and they win. Some with more theoretical interests go and work on semiconductors/semiconductor physics or control theory for their MSc/PhD studies.
Most really knowledgeable professors (both phyics and eng.) I know easily has knowledge worth 2-3 degrees. Some engineers also have a second degree in applied math; especially control theory or optimization guys.

Real shit begins for both engineers and physicists at MSc/PhD.

If we talk about people who know their shit you can't really compare them because they both know what they need to do their shit. When they don't they learn it. That's pretty much expected at that level.

Anyway a BSc is pretty weak for a comparison in the way you want to do it.
Most of the time you spend there is teaching you the basics: basic math + the basics of your degree's focus.

Essentially the choice is more of a question of interest and talent. Regarding engineers depending on what they do they need to know their physics well though.
No engineer knows everything about engineering and no physicists knows everything about physics.

Yo see and This post has much truth in it. It shows that engineering is more of general problem solving.

>The vast majority of what engineers do isn't physics
True. However regarding the exception:
>Engineering is a *trade*.
Engineering *can* be a trade if you do it like that, but in itself is much broader than that. There are highly theoretical engineering paths you can take for example someone who works on gas sensor physics or on methods for modeling complex systems is really different from the guy who has a workshop and who can build anything. That's not to say the workshop guy doesn't have an excellent in depth understanding of more theoretical topics to assist him.

So I pretty much agree with your post. To add for OP's sake:

An eng. should be able to work at the abstraction level necessary for the problem. For example there are many different transistor models: you need to use the one which fits the problem, you have to have a practical feel for it, knowing the physics makes this possible and a lot easier. Knowledge is needed if you want to improve it or make something new. Depending on what you want to do hat knowledge might be physics.

It's also required of an engineer to be able to understand a process in it's entirety from the underlying physics (at least on a basic level) through various models to the practical device/applications. That's how he or she knows whether something is applicable or how to improve something or even invent something new.

This engineering vs physics vs math is a Veeky Forums meme. Anyone who thinks that university level knowledge in a STEM field is babby tier is retarded. Too bad that half of Veeky Forums believes it which means that they're either below average undergrads or highschoolers or simply insecure as fuck.

TL;DR: NO!

classic school kid who goes to school just to get a job and not because (s)he's really interested about subjects.

Definitely: YES!

What about applied physics/engineering physics?

chemical engineering probably would take a little longer unless you were a chemical physicist