• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Physics Major AND Business Leader?

FDG

pathwise dependent
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
5,903
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Enneagram
7w8
I think an economics Ph.D. would be better equipped to math out business word problems than a physics Ph.D., since that is basically what they do all day?

People with an economics PhD are, on average, less smart than those with a physics PhD (because in economics you can choose easy topics, if you want to). I suppose that what you say does hold for the brightest economics PhDs, though.
 

uumlau

Happy Dancer
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
5,517
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
953
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
I think an economics Ph.D. would be better equipped to math out business word problems than a physics Ph.D., since that is basically what they do all day?

People with an economics PhD are, on average, less smart than those with a physics PhD (because in economics you can choose easy topics, if you want to). I suppose that what you say does hold for the brightest economics PhDs, though.

The problem here is that an economics Ph.D. will often have a particular subjective pet theory about how economics "really works." It might be correct, but the problem is that it's subjective. Otherwise, it would be objectively true what economic system is "best." Instead, we have Economics Ph.D.s on both sides of the political spectrum.

A physicist, on the other hand, is dedicated to solving the problem at hand, rather than proving that his pet theory is true.

Note that my argument does not rely on any notion of which is "smarter."
 

FDG

pathwise dependent
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
5,903
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Enneagram
7w8
The problem here is that an economics Ph.D. will often have a particular subjective pet theory about how economics "really works." It might be correct, but the problem is that it's subjective. Otherwise, it would be objectively true what economic system is "best." Instead, we have Economics Ph.D.s on both sides of the political spectrum.

A physicist, on the other hand, is dedicated to solving the problem at hand, rather than proving that his pet theory is true.

Note that my argument does not rely on any notion of which is "smarter."

Right, that's also true. There's some branches of economics (well, inbetween economics and math) which are slightly more objective f.e. game theory / mechanism design / auction design, but only a marginal % of economics PhD have that kind of specialization.
 

Octarine

The Eighth Colour
Joined
Oct 14, 2007
Messages
1,351
MBTI Type
Aeon
Enneagram
10w
Instinctual Variant
so
The reason why you see Physics majors in Business and Finance is because there isn't enough funding in physics for them to all be productively employed.
 

Scott N Denver

New member
Joined
Apr 25, 2009
Messages
2,898
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
4w5
The reason why you see Physics majors in Business and Finance is because there isn't enough funding in physics for them to all be productively employed.

Where oh where did you hear THAT?

Having spent 10.5 years in university studying physics [and other stuff] I can tell you that no one I know who studied physics has gone into the business world. There are those who do, "quants" being probably the best example. In my experience, EE's had more problems finding funding than physics people did, at least terms of TA slots to pay for school. Everyone I know found/had funding for physics research, or else left with master's degrees and tried to find research or technical jobs using their physics background.
 
T

ThatGirl

Guest
A degree helps you to get a job. There is some underlying theory that you learn that's relevant maybe. Hopefully you learn how to write. Maybe you learn how to think. However, you really learn on the job.

Exactly, this is my issue with formal education. I see a lot of people who can complete some kind of degree but have no clue when thrown into a real situation. I think theory only goes so far for most people. The majority just figures out how to answer the right questions to get them through school. I mean that is how we are evaluated. So in the end, you're left with a bunch of people with the right answers to questions you're asking. But no clue how to actually apply them.
 

uumlau

Happy Dancer
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
5,517
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
953
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
Where oh where did you hear THAT?

Having spent 10.5 years in university studying physics [and other stuff] I can tell you that no one I know who studied physics has gone into the business world. There are those who do, "quants" being probably the best example. In my experience, EE's had more problems finding funding than physics people did, at least terms of TA slots to pay for school. Everyone I know found/had funding for physics research, or else left with master's degrees and tried to find research or technical jobs using their physics background.

Selection effect. You don't notice the ones who end up elsewhere. In one "jobs" seminar I went to, the speaker mentioned that in his experience, about 1/3 of phyics Ph.D.s go into academia, another 1/3 into government work, and the last 1/3 into "business." In my experience, a lot of the "business" ones went into software development, where it's easy to take the physics problem-solving tools and apply them to business processes. In my particular circumstances, my decision was influenced by two major events: closing the Superconducting Supercollider, and the .com boom, thus physics jobs were scarce and development jobs were lucrative at the time.
 

FDG

pathwise dependent
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
5,903
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Enneagram
7w8
Exactly, this is my issue with formal education. I see a lot of people who can complete some kind of degree but have no clue when thrown into a real situation. I think theory only goes so far for most people. The majority just figures out how to answer the right questions to get them through school. I mean that is how we are evaluated. So in the end, you're left with a bunch of people with the right answers to questions you're asking. But no clue how to actually apply them.

Yes, but what's the problem. Many jobs require a routine type of execution.
 

rav3n

.
Joined
Aug 6, 2010
Messages
11,655
I've seen a lot of different degrees in the upper echelons. The ones seen were law, finance, geology, chemistry, math, econ, mba, on and on. Now physics isn't one I have seen but there's no reason why not. The common knowledge theory behind business hiring is that if you have the dedication to attain a non-fluff degree, you might have what it takes to excel within a business environment.

Econs focus on trending where money isn't an element.
 

Lateralus

New member
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
6,262
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Enneagram
3w4
I hear that it is often the case that Physics majors, masters and PhDs find themselves right at the top of the corporate world. Is this really the case? How can a 3 year degree be worth so much to people?

I just discovered that one of the Australian Telephone service companies is lead by a guy that has a doctorate in physics, you'd think that a degree in business would be FAR more fitting for such a job, wouldn't you?
Nope, you don't learn anything in business school that you can't learn on the fly. Business degrees are arguably the most worthless degrees you can get.
 

Scott N Denver

New member
Joined
Apr 25, 2009
Messages
2,898
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
4w5
Selection effect. You don't notice the ones who end up elsewhere. In one "jobs" seminar I went to, the speaker mentioned that in his experience, about 1/3 of phyics Ph.D.s go into academia, another 1/3 into government work, and the last 1/3 into "business." In my experience, a lot of the "business" ones went into software development, where it's easy to take the physics problem-solving tools and apply them to business processes. In my particular circumstances, my decision was influenced by two major events: closing the Superconducting Supercollider, and the .com boom, thus physics jobs were scarce and development jobs were lucrative at the time.

It would not surprise me if a substantial portion of physics people did eventually go into business stuff. However, we never had any seminars saying 1/3 of peeps did, nor did we have any seminars talking about those numbers. For my undergrad on avg 80% of people went on to physics [or related, ie EE EO, etc] grad school. In my class it was 5/6.

My reference point was talking to people at my school(s) when they finished and asking them where they were going. Most went to postdocs and/or national labs. Some went to private companies for "science" purposes, and maybe some went to private companies as computer programmers. Admittedly, I did not ask EVERY person who left where they went, but I do think I eventually heard about all through the grapevine.

Another factor perhaps at play is that people I knew had just finished school, but if you were to come back 10 years later and ask again, more of them might have migrated into business or the like by that point.
 
Top