Hi,
I'm just curious about the opinion of the other members of doing a physics major today. Is it worth it? I'm only asking because I really want to give it a go. More precisely, I would like to specialize then in astronomy. I've been always interested in astronomy, since I was like 10 years old....but I've deicded for a totally different career route: economics. Now I have a major in economics, spcialized in finance and accountancy, and I'm really not happy with my life like this
But I don't know how smart or what IQ one has to have in order to do a major in physics, and besides, would it be worth it, financially? I mean are there any jobs which require both these fields, or is there an occupation field, where it could be considered a huuge advantage if sy has a major in physics and economics? I really can't tell, but I do know, that, whenever I look at the full moon, I feel sad
So basically my question is, is economics and physics on any level, a valid / reasonable combination, or is it just a waste of time?

All I know is, Neil deGrasse Tyson makes me want to be an astrophysicist: http://www.amazon.com/Death-Black-Hole-C...0393062244

Also, just get a degree and play poker, no economics necessary: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnew...ament.html

nest0r Wrote:Also, just get a degree and play poker, no economics necessary: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnew...ament.html

Man, I just can't believe that there are people like her: smart, beautiful and rich....

Physics + Finance = Quant

Quants are the people on Wall Street that create statistical models that predict the stock market for "high frequency" trading(trades done via computer at a rapid pace) or "algorithmic trading" (computers autonomously trade stocks via statistical methods) .

It requires the highest levels of mathematics (often a PhD) and it turns out that physicists are typically hired for these roles due to their strong math background.

These jobs typically pay $150,000 to $500,000 base salary.
By base salary, that is your regular salary. But your yearly bonus
is usually MANY times your salary.

In 3-5 years, you'd be making $1 million easily.

As for Japan, some of these jobs DON'T require fluency in Japanese, but many do.

If you don't believe, check here:
http://www.tokyoquantjobs.com/
http://www.topmoneyjobs.com/en/saleslist.html


Example Jobs:
US$888K 5Years Exp.
Japanese + English College Degree

Multi-billion multi-strategy hedge fund with strong statistical arbitrage and quantitative strategy focus is now looking to hire established traders with strong performance track records. Must be comfortable running large hundred million AUM funds on preferably statistical arbitrage or other quantitatively focused trading models. For a proven trader, the fund offers high net bonus payouts and excellent conditions. Markets of interest include Japan, Korea, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Australia, China, Singapore and other emerging markets in Asia. Singapore or Hong Kong are primary Asian offices. Must be bringing a minimum of 1-2 yrs direct experience running these same strategies with excellent results and references.


18M Yen base 3-5 years
English+ Japanese a plus College Degree

Growing desk now needs to add a VP-level exotic trader to their structured products trading desk covering exotic interest rate type products. You should have strong JPY/ USD trading experience in client trades and at least 3-5 years based in Japan. English is primary language Japanese ability is nice to have.

I'm doing this exact degree! Albeit it's actually a triple major: economics, finance and physics. To be honest, I'm only studying physics for the hell of it, and to make me look more brainy on my CV. I'm still studying, so I have no experience, but my finance lecturers tell me having a dual finance/maths degree can be very lucrative, but they're not giving much details. I would advise you talk to your economics professors (or if you can, talk to some finance ones, this is where maths would really be useful imo).

However, if you want to be a physicist, then definitely think carefully before going down that road. Putting aside the fact you'll have to dedicate the next however many years of your life getting a PhD, being a physicist... well you have to be a certain type to tolerate it. Look at physicsforums.com, lots of people really don't like it. It seems like an incredibly demanding job, and you'll live on pennies for the rest of your life. Unless you're a genius, and can get a job at MIT or Cambridge, you most likely wont be making any ground-breaking discoveries. It's more like making small observations on a computer and recording them to write a thesis which doesn't really do anything except fill the university shelves. I'm sounding like a downer here, but really. You have to make sure you're 100% dedicated to physics. I personally was doing a pure physics degree for a year before I realised that that's certainly not a path I want to go down, so I branched of into commerce.

Just my two cents

chamcham Wrote:Quants are the people on Wall Street that create statistical models that predict the stock market for "high frequency" trading(trades done via computer at a rapid pace) or "algorithmic trading" (computers autonomously trade stocks via statistical methods) .

It requires the highest levels of mathematics (often a PhD) and it turns out that physicists are typically hired for these roles due to their strong math background.

Wouldn't it be better if they had a finance and a maths degree? I mean a mathematician surely must have a higher mathematical kowledge than a physicist, or do they prefer physicists at Wall Street because they think the gravity also influences the market? / thinking of people?
Funny you should mention trading, because I'm into that. Exactly I have been interested in trading with stocks and currency for the last few years, as a matter of fact I've aleready tried, with demo accounts, and it was nice
- I just don't know if you have to have a PHD in physics to get in these fields (it's out of the question, I'm definitely not suitable for that, it's way above my level)
- Wouldn't sy be more suitable for positions like this, with a major in applied economics / economic analyst, because they have higher mathemathical background, then "us" general finance and accountancy majors
- Where do you start, to eventually become an employee in the positons you mentioned? I have a feeling that besides physics you would also need to complete costy trainings / courses which are recognised on an international level as well....
- Is there an age limit?

IceCream Wrote:

nest0r Wrote:All I know is, Neil deGrasse Tyson makes me want to be an astrophysicist: http://www.amazon.com/Death-Black-Hole-C...0393062244

Also, just get a degree and play poker, no economics necessary: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnew...ament.html

i knew her. we played at the same club. seriously, she is (was, anyway) wayyyy more lucky than good. and a bit of a b****

but yeah, if you have a degree in economics, go for any investment bank job. You have to work like 100 hours a week for the first few years but you get £100K a year, so if moneys your thing, you can retire young...

EDIT: ^^ that was pretty harsh. i stand by it though. she does nothing for the prehistoric attitudes towards women most men in poker have. nobody respected her as a player at all. um... smart? i guess. if you call objectifying yourself to get ahead smart. She got picked up for her looks, not her brains or skill. and therefore got backed for all her tournaments because she's willing to pose half naked for magazines. tbh, it's reallllllly hard to play for that long and NOT win at some point, no matter how bad you are. Who knows, maybe she learnt though...
/rant. lol.

She won a million pounds against over 1200 players. I am not good at math, but the chances of winning by luck must be very low.

IceCream is a hardened gambling addict. Who knew? What a poker face.

It's not really clear from your post whether you have finished your economics major already, and are now looking at doing a Physics degree also?

Anyway my 2 cents. I started a physics major, but in the end didn't complete it. Why ? Because I was only a B student and I knew that having an undergraduate degree in physics with a B average wouldn't count for much. Actually I'm still interested in physics and read books in the area every now and again.

I think a physics degree alone is a very poor investment. The statistics I have seen for Australia (other countries might be different) show very poor starting salaries and chances of finding a job. To get a job as a Physicist I would say you would need a PhD AND have published some decent papers.

If you already have an economics major I can't see the harm in getting a physics major as well. Yes there are some highly paid "quant" roles. But again be careful about drawing conclusions from a few highly paid jobs. To get a good quant job I would say you would need the right graduate degrees as well. At least an appropriate masters or PhD. Also to get into the right company you need to have gone to the "right" schools and know the "right" people. Sure there are exceptions, but in general I think this is true.

I think Physicist are sometimes preferred to Mathematicians for quant jobs due to their experience with certain types of partial differential equations, as well as fitting models to data etc. That is their background is a closer match to the work. On the other hand I think there are plenty of quants with math degrees as well.

So I can't see any harm in studying some physics, but from a purely practical point of view I wouldn't recommend turning your back totally on economics, accounting and so on. Maybe a masters degree in financial engineering or something might be of interest? Anyway good luck to you !

I'm finishing off a physics degree - I didn't find as much time for languages as you might in other courses. Also, as far as I'm aware a lot of other countries run physics courses in English regardless of where they are (don't know about Japan though) - so you better make sure you REALLY like physics before making that choice

P.S. Also if it helps, degree level physics is quite different from A-level physics (or equivalent) - there's a carp-load of maths involved. Best if you check out the course in some detail, and if possible read through some of the texts you might be using to check you're okay with it before enrolling. Good luck!

As someone who is finishing his major in physics, here is my rant =P

I highly don't recommend it. As someone already mentioned, it's sorta prestigious and you can probably make a lot of money (though I think most quants have a Masters or a PhD). But here are the downsides:

1) It has almost no relationship to what you see on TV or read in the paper. All those fancy laser black holes and whatever? You don't really get into any of that till graduate school.

2) Most of the course work involves reading/understanding some sort of complicated stuff which is most often very poorly explained. Unfortunately physics and communication skills don't go hand in hand so you end up having to deal with a lot of people that are really smart but aren't really good at explaining things.

3) The rest of the time you're doing a LOT of integrals and derivatives, manipulating equations and plugging one equation into another till you massage it into the answer you want. There is occasionally some room for creativity (if you happen to get a good professor), but the vast majority of it is doing really tedious cooked up problems.

4) The most frustrating part (which I realized a little to late to change majors) is that it's REALLY not practical unless you go to graduate school. After 3 years of physics it's very hard for me to say what I've really learned... It's mostly prep for grad-school.

5) Which brings me to my last point. You're pretty much expected to go to graduate school. I don't know if this is just my university, but here they really look down on people doing a BA instead of a BS and there is a LOT of elitism (ragging on math, chemistry, biology). I'm doing the BA program and there is almost no help for people like me. I have no idea what kind of job I can get at this point...

In general it'll be really hard to get to the top of your class. You have to remember that they'll be students that go home and read textbooks for fun, or go in their spare time and prove the Schroedinger equation in spherical coordinates because they think it's interesting. I think you have to have some bolts loose in your head to do that.

I'd highly recommend doing an engineering discipline, or maybe do the introductory physics series just so that you improve your general problem solving skills.

Anyways, though are just my thoughts on it. I'm sure plenty of people will disagree =)

IceCream Wrote:a.) how much she won has nothing to do with it.
b.) It's only 1200 players.
c.) she has entered a lot of tournaments.
d.) i hope she isn't terrible after this long

it's well within statistical probability that she would win.

While i was playing, i won a bunch of tournaments. just scanning some results:
1st: 687 players
1st: 349 players
1st: 1568 players
2nd: 720 players
3rd: 1198 players
3rd: 948 players
a whole bunch of other 1st-5th with slightly less players, uncountable 1sts 180 players.

Its not hard to win a poker tournament if you play a bunch...

This is nonsensical.

IceCream Wrote:a.) how much she won has nothing to do with it.
b.) It's only 1200 players.
c.) she has entered a lot of tournaments.
d.) i hope she isn't terrible after this long

Really, is that true? I assumed for a prize that large, it must be a difficult tournament with more skilled opponents.

So is anyone allowed to enter any poker tournament, as long as they have the money? That's interesting..

There are arts degrees (BA) in physics? That is bizarre..

donjorge22 Wrote:I'm finishing off a physics degree

Cool! I've always wanted to ask a physicist about this: could you explain to me,
how does the space-time structure change under the surface of large planetary objects? Like under the surface of Earth. Or how does gravity change under the surface of our planet for example? I can't firgure it out on my own...and I don't know any physicists
Oh, another quick question: as I understand time slows down when: the gravity is bigger, or when an object moves very fast (near the speed of light). What's the explanation behind that? Is it because of Einstein's famous formula: E=Mc2? So is it because high energy (near speed of light) bends the spacetime curve similar to high gravity (mass)?

georgative Wrote:As someone who is finishing his major in physics,
After 3 years of physics it's very hard for me to say what I've really learned... It's mostly prep for grad-school.

Wait, I'm confused. If you are finishing your degree that means that you have to be at least in your last academic year, or last semester. But you said "after 3 years", so does this mean that a major degree is a 4 year program? I thought that in the EU there is this porgarm called Bologna in the tertiary education, in which all courses a composed of 2 major parts: a 3 year long Bsc, and a 2 year long Msc (major), so if you are doing a major that should be 5 years long..or whatever

georgative Wrote:Which brings me to my last point. You're pretty much expected to go to graduate school

Does this mean that you have to do an Msc? Or PHD?

georgative Wrote:In general it'll be really hard to get to the top of your class.

Nope. I don't have to. I aleready have a degree, my logic is, if you want to get your way, you either want to be very, very, very (if not the best) good in your profession (Well, I've aleready blown that ), or you can be good in several fields. Since the first option is not avaliable for me (and I think for the majority of graduates in economics),
I'm thinking of going into physics, and see where it goes. I really don't know. I'm just palpating in the dark

ググれ. Answers to all of that is on wiki.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_...ravitation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation...e_dilation

georgative Wrote:As someone who is finishing his major in physics, here is my rant =P

I highly don't recommend it. As someone already mentioned, it's sorta prestigious and you can probably make a lot of money (though I think most quants have a Masters or a PhD). But here are the downsides:

1) It has almost no relationship to what you see on TV or read in the paper. All those fancy laser black holes and whatever? You don't really get into any of that till graduate school.

2) Most of the course work involves reading/understanding some sort of complicated stuff which is most often very poorly explained. Unfortunately physics and communication skills don't go hand in hand so you end up having to deal with a lot of people that are really smart but aren't really good at explaining things.

3) The rest of the time you're doing a LOT of integrals and derivatives, manipulating equations and plugging one equation into another till you massage it into the answer you want. There is occasionally some room for creativity (if you happen to get a good professor), but the vast majority of it is doing really tedious cooked up problems.

4) The most frustrating part (which I realized a little to late to change majors) is that it's REALLY not practical unless you go to graduate school. After 3 years of physics it's very hard for me to say what I've really learned... It's mostly prep for grad-school.

5) Which brings me to my last point. You're pretty much expected to go to graduate school. I don't know if this is just my university, but here they really look down on people doing a BA instead of a BS and there is a LOT of elitism (ragging on math, chemistry, biology). I'm doing the BA program and there is almost no help for people like me. I have no idea what kind of job I can get at this point...

In general it'll be really hard to get to the top of your class. You have to remember that they'll be students that go home and read textbooks for fun, or go in their spare time and prove the Schroedinger equation in spherical coordinates because they think it's interesting. I think you have to have some bolts loose in your head to do that.

I'd highly recommend doing an engineering discipline, or maybe do the introductory physics series just so that you improve your general problem solving skills.

Anyways, though are just my thoughts on it. I'm sure plenty of people will disagree =)

I totally agree, though maybe not as rantingly , especially about those guys who like to prove Schroedinger's equation for fun. Man, those guys were so annoying (though maybe if I had been more like that, I would've been a better physicist)...

From what I've seen, a BSc in physics alone doesn't do much unless you go for jobs outside of physics, most of the people I graduated with who didn't go on to further study went into banking, finance and computing. There are some engineering roles you can apply for, but so many more require an engineering degree if you're looking you end up wishing you just did an engineering degree instead (speaking from experience!) To do something practical in the field you would need to specialise and at least do a masters, and hard core physics certainly requires a PhD.

But assuming you want to head into finance/business/economics/banking, I think an Economics and Physics Major is a good idea . Apparantly lots of banks and the like take on physics grads due to their supposed analytical and mathematical skills. Besides I believe it is better for your first degree to be a little broader as it gives you more options later.

Raschaverak Wrote:

donjorge22 Wrote:I'm finishing off a physics degree

Cool! I've always wanted to ask a physicist about this: could you explain to me,
how does the space-time structure change under the surface of large planetary objects? Like under the surface of Earth. Or how does gravity change under the surface of our planet for example? I can't firgure it out on my own...and I don't know any physicists
Oh, another quick question: as I understand time slows down when: the gravity is bigger, or when an object moves very fast (near the speed of light). What's the explanation behind that? Is it because of Einstein's famous formula: E=Mc2? So is it because high energy (near speed of light) bends the spacetime curve similar to high gravity (mass)?

I'm a pretty bad physicist, but if you want a quick, dirty answer...

If you travelled to the centre of the earth and didn't burn to a crisp, you should feel no gravity due being surrounding by equal mass from all sides. As for what the spacetime curve would look like I have no idea (only studied special relativity) I'm guessing it's...flat? :/
As far as I know, it's less to do with E=mc2 (unless you're talking about particles) and more to do with the time dilation equation; Δt' = Δt/(SQRT(1 - v2/c2)) (for special relativity), as you can see the larger the number you put in for velocity, the larger Δt' becomes and if v2 = c2 you get infinite time (or an error on your calculator, I can't remember). And it may be better to say high acceleration bends spacetime similar to high gravity.

Waits for the first class physics students to come crucify me...

Fuamnach Wrote:From what I've seen, a BSc in physics alone doesn't do much unless you go for jobs outside of physics, most of the people I graduated with who didn't go on to further study went into banking, finance and computing.

Man, I envy those people so much. 3 years of studying and then get a good job at a bank. I can't get a god damned job at any banks in Hungary, after 5 years of studying, and a little banking experience. Please tell me those people's secret! Tell me, tell me!!

Fuamnach Wrote:As far as I know, it's less to do with E=mc2 (unless you're talking about particles) and more to do with the time dilation equation; Δt' = Δt/(SQRT(1 - v2/c2)) (for special relativity), as you can see the larger the number you put in for velocity, the larger Δt' becomes and if v2 = c2 you get infinite time (or an error on your calculator, I can't remember). And it may be better to say high acceleration bends spacetime similar to high gravity.

So. does this mean when a particle, or a train () that travels with the speed of light, time will stop for the people on board? (If I understand correctly infinite time = no time).
But the equation does not provide an answer to my question. So what I see is 2 totally different things: a huuge mass (let's say a black hole), and a for ex.: a train travelling with the speed of light. And yet these both experience the very same phenomena, namely: time slowing down or stopping. That's why I thought that there must be a common, mutual explanation behind this, in other words, the same rules give the same results, even in apparently differnet situations, and with my little knowledge of physics, I thought that the E=Mc2 might explain it a bit, since it says that mass is nothing but energy and vice versa..or something like that
But I think I'll end posting about this topic to avoid further embarassing myself

Lol, I think it's coz the people I refer to graduated 2007/2008, before the whole credit crisis thing, so I assume it was easier to get a job then (though still really competitive, it's like they want you to be amazing or out of this world or something). And this was in the UK, I'm not sure how things work in Hungary.

Raschaverak Wrote:

Fuamnach Wrote:As far as I know, it's less to do with E=mc2 (unless you're talking about particles) and more to do with the time dilation equation; Δt' = Δt/(SQRT(1 - v2/c2)) (for special relativity), as you can see the larger the number you put in for velocity, the larger Δt' becomes and if v2 = c2 you get infinite time (or an error on your calculator, I can't remember). And it may be better to say high acceleration bends spacetime similar to high gravity.

So. does this mean when a particle, or a train () that travels with the speed of light, time will stop for the people on board? (If I understand correctly infinite time = no time).
But the equation does not provide an answer to my question. So what I see is 2 totally different things: a huuge mass (let's say a black hole), and a for ex.: a train travelling with the speed of light. And yet these both experience the very same phenomena, namely: time slowing down or stopping. That's why I thought that there must be a common, mutual explanation behind this, in other words, the same rules give the same results, even in apparently differnet situations, and with my little knowledge of physics, I thought that the E=Mc2 might explain it a bit, since it says that mass is nothing but energy and vice versa..or something like that
But I think I'll end posting about this topic to avoid further embarassing myself

I think if you’re on the train and travelling at the speed of light (though this is pretty impossible unless you and the train are massless ) time doesn’t stop for you, but if it were possible for a stationary trainspotter to follow what you were up to on the train, you wouldn’t be moving at all. E.g., the train is travelling close to the speed of light and you walked from one end of the carriage to the other, nothing would feel unusual to you, but to an outside observer it would take you eons to walk to the other side of the carriage. An observer travelling at half the speed of light (in the same direction) would see the guy walking less slower because the velocity of the almost speed of light train is slower relative to their speed than for the stationary observer. It’s all relative
If I try and explain the second part of your question, I risk further embarrasement I really don’t know about general, but kind of hoping my attempt at explaining the other stuff will soon have the dormant physics vultures swooping down on us and they can provide you a good explanation

Fuamnach Wrote:

Raschaverak Wrote:

Fuamnach Wrote:As far as I know, it's less to do with E=mc2 (unless you're talking about particles) and more to do with the time dilation equation; Δt' = Δt/(SQRT(1 - v2/c2)) (for special relativity), as you can see the larger the number you put in for velocity, the larger Δt' becomes and if v2 = c2 you get infinite time (or an error on your calculator, I can't remember). And it may be better to say high acceleration bends spacetime similar to high gravity.

So. does this mean when a particle, or a train () that travels with the speed of light, time will stop for the people on board? (If I understand correctly infinite time = no time).
But the equation does not provide an answer to my question. So what I see is 2 totally different things: a huuge mass (let's say a black hole), and a for ex.: a train travelling with the speed of light. And yet these both experience the very same phenomena, namely: time slowing down or stopping. That's why I thought that there must be a common, mutual explanation behind this, in other words, the same rules give the same results, even in apparently differnet situations, and with my little knowledge of physics, I thought that the E=Mc2 might explain it a bit, since it says that mass is nothing but energy and vice versa..or something like that
But I think I'll end posting about this topic to avoid further embarassing myself

I think if you’re on the train and travelling at the speed of light (though this is pretty impossible unless you and the train are massless ) time doesn’t stop for you, but if it were possible for a stationary trainspotter to follow what you were up to on the train, you wouldn’t be moving at all. E.g., the train is travelling close to the speed of light and you walked from one end of the carriage to the other, nothing would feel unusual to you, but to an outside observer it would take you eons to walk to the other side of the carriage. An observer travelling at half the speed of light (in the same direction) would see the guy walking less slower because the velocity of the almost speed of light train is slower relative to their speed than for the stationary observer. It’s all relative
If I try and explain the second part of your question, I risk further embarrasement I really don’t know about general, but kind of hoping my attempt at explaining the other stuff will soon have the dormant physics vultures swooping down on us and they can provide you a good explanation

Pretty sure Fuamnach's explanation is right afaik, when you get near light speed, energy is "converted" into mass, such that if you travelled at light speed you'd have infinite mass - which is why you can't travel at lightspeed. Also has interesting consequences for the mass of photons, since they travel at the speed of light. By the way, it's not as simple as E=mc^2 - there are some more terms that need to be added in for it to be relativistically correct (Wikipedia it ).

Also, as mentioned already, a physics BSc does NOT make you as employable as the universities make out. Anything to do with engineering is ruled out without doing a conversion course. The other point about things being ill-explained is very true too - you really have to work hard to understand what's being taught.

If you do go for the course anyway, take note: 1) it's worth making an effort to pester the professors until you figure it out 2) Wikipedia has some really good explanations and analogies of physics (although the accompanying maths is generally poor) and 3) LaTeX is a really good way to take course notes, since it's possible to type way faster than you can write. Also saves lugging around huge great ring-binders of paper that get easily dog-eared. If you do do that, GIMP is good for diagrams

Hey, I'm about halfway through a physics PhD program (specializing in theoretical astrophysics) so I can say a few words about this, meaning I'll say a lot

First, I'm a bit confused about your situation. Is it the case that you've graduated college with a bachelors in econ and are thinking about pursuing a PhD in physics? Or, are you still in undergrad and thinking about double-majoring in physics and econ? I’m assuming the latter…

There's no ‘smartness limit’ to being a physicist, and the preconception that physicists are generally otherworldly math whizzes plays a large role in keeping it that way. The truth is that beyond some basic math training (read: not inherent ability), anyone can become a physicist. A lot people don't have the interest (or have it killed off at an early stage by bad classes or teachers), and therefore stereotype those who do as the more ‘smarty-pants’ members of society. So, don’t let that deter you from pursuing a degree in it!

If you want to work in a stereotypical 'physicist' job (i.e. academia), you'll need a PhD. This is a huge investment in time and is not worth it from a monetary standpoint (if you remain in academia, that is). Now don't get me wrong, if you can wrangle a professorship then the pay is respectable. You should be getting 6 figures by the time they give you tenure, but the life is a hectic one. My young professor friends routinely put in 80+ hour weeks and the work is full of administrative stuff like attending meetings, writing grant proposals, and what have you.

If you're interested a job that ‘just’ requires technical/analytical skills, then a bachelors in physics can be a great degree. My classmates from undergrad that didn’t go on to grad school are doing things like working in the software industry, aerospace industry, teaching (one’s even in peace corps), and of course finance. If you want a very high level technical job outside of physics then a PhD can be worth your time, but I would only recommend it if you really like physics – not as a means of getting a job.

There’s no specific job that requires a physics and econ degree – the closest would be, as other people have mentioned, a quant in the financial sector (in that it is a very technical part of the econ world). The funny thing about this job is that it doesn’t really require any specific degree – just strong math/modeling skills. I have friends who are doing it from engineering, computer science, econ, math, and physics backgrounds…

tl;dr
Try out the physics classes where you are – if you like them, major in physics. If you don’t, then there are plenty of other majors that can prepare you well for a technical career.

Jarvik7 Wrote:There are arts degrees (BA) in physics? That is bizarre..

Yeah, it does seem weird, but at my university (Cornell) you could only get a BA in physics! You could specialize within physics or outside of physics, with a specialization in physics being for those who intend to go to grad school. This is comparable to the choice you make at other liberal arts colleges between getting a BA and BS in physics.