2nd Level Phys -> 3rd Level Phys

Carsinian Thau

How much more difficult is 3rd level physics compared to 2nd level physics?

I find secondary school physics fairly challenging but very enjoyable, would the same be true for college physics?

Thanks.

The Roach

Hmm, I reckon the answer is a definite maybe!

But to clarify that a bit, it depends on exactly what kind of physics course you'd like to do. I did general science in Maynooth, and as part of that I did both experimental and theoretical physics, and there's a fair difference between the 2. I ended up doing my degree in experimental physics and loved it, but I know a lot of people that preferred the stuff covered in the theoretical physics course.

As for the level of difficulty, yes it's harder, but in the same way that leaving cert maths is harder than junior cert maths. Most of what you cover in college will be following on in some way from stuff you've done in LC, or at least touched on briefly.

But that being said, if you enjoy physics at the moment then it's definitely worth looking at the courses available. Like all college courses, you will need to put in a lot of work, but having a real interest or love for the subject you're studying make it much less of a chore.

Hope that helps a bit!

nesf

Since you are from Cork, I'll assume you might be looking at UCC. The honest answer is that LC physics has very little resemblance to 3rd level physics and if you find 2nd level challenging then you would probably find physics in UCC at least quite difficult. I imagine it'd be similar with theoretical physics in Trinity. I don't know enough about the courses in other colleges to give an opinion though.

Maths wise, you'd also want to not find LC honours maths very difficult if you want to do physics in either of the above and not put yourself under a lot of pressure.

By 'challenging' I'm assuming you meant that you have to put a fair amount of work in to get the stuff at 2nd level (if I misinterpreted disregard what I said above).

Michael Collins

I didn't do physics at 3rd level but I did do electronic engineering and took quite a few physics courses as part of that. I don't think anything in college is harder than the leaving cert. It's all just a continuation of the same really.

As The Roach says, it's kinda like JC vs. LC maths. I mean learning how to solve a cubic equation like you do in the Leaving, isn't harder than it was learning to solve a quadratic - in fact it may be easier since you (should!) know exactly what your doing. When it starts to get hard is if knowledge you require to understand something isn't there. That's why Leaving Cert honours maths has such a bad name - you need to remember practically everything from the Junior Cert curriculum. And that's why some people think college is harder - you arn't guided through the learning process anymore i.e. you don't get homework everynight. I never got any at all. So if you fall behind then it's very hard.

Anyway, I digress slightly. If you like and are reasonably competent with LC physics then I'd say go for it. Yes, maths is very important too. When the LC physics couse was changed for 2002 a lot of the more advanced maths was removed. Rightly or wrongly this gives a false impression of physics, a high apptitude for maths just IS necessary to study the subject. In college you'll find physics involves lots and lots of calculus, and 1st year maybe a bit of a suprise in this respect. You'll be integrating and differentiating everything insight!

So in conclusion I'd say if you're good at honours physics and honours maths then don't worry about how hard it's going to be, you'll manage once your prepaired to put in the effort.

nesf

Michael Collins wrote:

I didn't do physics at 3rd level but I did do electronic engineering and took quite a few physics courses as part of that. I don't think anything in college is harder than the leaving cert. It's all just a continuation of the same really.

Engineering and Physics as a degree subject are worlds apart in terms of content (at least in terms of as a degree subject). There's also a fair difference in the aptitudes needed to do both at them. A person who was good at one wouldn't be necessarily good at the other.

ApeXaviour

nesf wrote:

Engineering and Physics as a degree subject are worlds apart in terms of content (at least in terms of as a degree subject). There's also a fair difference in the aptitudes needed to do both at them.

I'd agree that their content can be quite different inspite of significant crossover. But I disagree on the aptitude difference, especially with electronic engineering. Ask dudara.

Michael Collins

nesf wrote:

Engineering and Physics as a degree subject are worlds apart in terms of content (at least in terms of as a degree subject)...

Aye there's obviously a good difference between the two alright but from my experience EE and TP in UCD share quite a few subjects.

A person who was good at one wouldn't be necessarily good at the other.

True enough. But to be good at either I think the points I laid out in my earlier post apply.

planck2

As I am a theoretical physicist, I would suggest that to be a good physicist you need to have leaving cert honours maths with grades between 80 and 100 and the same for honours leaving cert physics. Although physics is not necessarily required, but it is helpful.

Crucifix

I'm currently in my 3rd year of physics, loving it, good grades (not first good, but a good two one (so far)), haven't failed any exams, and I got a C in LC physics.
If I were to give one insight from my experience it would be this:
When I was in sixth year, I was told I would never do anything as difficult as the leaving cert. This was a lie. Things have gotten increasingly more difficult as I have gone along. But I god damn love it.

nesf

ApeXaviour wrote:

I'd agree that their content can be quite different inspite of significant crossover. But I disagree on the aptitude difference, especially with electronic engineering. Ask dudara.

I was thinking along the lines of the two are different enough for it to be the case that being good at one won't automatically mean you'd be good at the other. Physics and Applied Maths are similar, strangely enough.

Michael Collins wrote:

Aye there's obviously a good difference between the two alright but from my experience EE and TP in UCD share quite a few subjects.

Yes, but the cross-over isn't that big. In UCC it was practically non-existent bar a few subjects in first year. Think of it this way, a physics student would study more about the fundamentals of electro-magnetism (to a greater depth than most EE students) but an engineering student would study applications of electro-mag and the behaviour of circuits, power lines, data transmission etc to a far greater depth. There is overlap between the two degrees but the objective and aim of them are quite different.

JoeB-

hmmmm... I'd have to say that the methods of teaching are very different between school and college... in college there is no one to hold your hand and so it is easy to fall behind. Attending tutorials is essential in my view both for understanding and for the social aspect.

I got an A1 in honours maths in the leaving but I found college level maths very difficult especially set theory and matrices. But I found them difficult because I let myself fall behind for the first six months and was then lost. I studied Engineering in UCD for the first year.

I have since done university level courses with the Open University and it was difficult but I did much better... these were advanced courses in computer programming which I stayed on top of from the start. The Open University seems to suit me although the material is in no way 'easy'.

So basically I'd say that any course can be done but you have to be prepared to do the work.. obvious really.

Good luck.

kevmy

I've completed a degree in Applied Physics and Electronics in NUIG. I did this by going through General Science (so what I've offically got is a Science degree). If you do General Science like I did you will have a wider choice of subjects in your first couple of years. If you do Applied Physics straight away less choice but not really much difference.
In first year Experimental Physics we basically repeated the LC course with bits thrown in here and taken out there. Only real difference was the way it was taught (more that it would lead onto stuff in 2nd + 3rd year) and labs (alot goes into teaching good lab practice). I personally done Honours Maths, Computer Science and Earth and Ocean Science (ya had to pick another 'big' one and I didn't want to do Biology or Chemistry) in 1st year. You might have to do Maths Physics in 1st if your Applied Physics initially.
So LC Physics will fly ya through 1st year Experimental Physics. LC Hons Maths are a big advantage but if you know how to integrate, differentiate and good at algebra you will be fine for both Ex Physics and Maths Physics.
Hons Maths v. though in 1st year (as said before lots of matrices and number theory).
I'd say with LC Hons Maths and Physics you won't have a prob. If you prefer the practical side of Physics the the course I did is quite good. There are a couple of other courses in Galway that would suit you better if you prefer the theoretical side. If your not sure do General Science and you can decide on your route later on.
AS regard it being tougher than the LC well it has to be but the upside is that your usually doing subjects you enjoy and don't have to do the ones you dislike. So its tougher but more enjoyable.
By the way I'd say to you do what you enjoy more in 3rd level than what you get the best grades in. I kinda messed up the Physics LC paper and only got a C1 but I'm now doing a postgrad with a good 2.1 degree. Whereas I hated Business but got a B1 in it.

dudara

Well, since I'm being asked.

I do think that there is a fair bit of difference between physics at 2nd level and 3rd level, if you are thinking of taking physics for a degree. The 2nd level syllabus content has been reduced in recent years, without a corresponding change in 3rd level, who have attempted to maintain their intellectual status (and rightly so, I would like to add).

To pursue an honours physics degree would require A1 standard in LC physics (not too hard these days given the state of the curriculum) and an A1-A2 standard in Maths. (In context of my class of 8 who did honours physics degrees in UCC, all eight of us had A1s in Physics and Maths, and often Applied Maths and all were over 540 points, and this was in 1996).

However, if you're planning to do physics as a component of a degree then you can relax those requirements slightly. And if physics is just a subject requirement for a degree, then you should be OK.

Having been exposed to Physics and Electrical Engineering, I think that while the general aptitude for both is the same, they do diverge sharply in college. On paper I would have been a great candidate for an electrical engineering degree, but I know that it was not for me. The abstractness of Physics suited me much more than the concreteness of engineering. However, later on, doing my PhD in an Elec Eng department, I learned lots more.

Civilian_Target

dudara wrote:

To pursue an honours physics degree would require A1 standard in LC physics (not too hard these days given the state of the curriculum) and an A1-A2 standard in Maths. (In context of my class of 8 who did honours physics degrees in UCC, all eight of us had A1s in Physics and Maths, and often Applied Maths and all were over 540 points, and this was in 1996).

First of all, that's bull****. I got neither of your "requirements" and have a first class honours Physics degree from QUB (which is supposedly amongst the best physics depts in the UK), and I'm now studying in Imperial College

What you need is, in my opinion:
An aptitude for maths. It doesn't matter if learning the stuff is tough, if some aspects of maths, particularly differentiation/integration/matrices make some sense to you, that's enough. If you do physics, expect to see a lot of it.
An ability to see how things work. If you look at a machine and instantly want to see how it works, you're looking at the right kind of subject. If you see a London tube map and instantly start thinking about how to get places quickly, you have the right kind of mind.
You need to be keen. Its a lot more work than an arts degree. The last 2 years of my degree were as much work as a full time job, with no money.

That said, I'd recommend it to anyone. Challenging yourself is one of the most satisfying things you can do.

nesf

Civilian_Target wrote:

First of all, that's bull****. I got neither of your "requirements" and have a first class honours Physics degree from QUB (which is supposedly amongst the best physics depts in the UK), and I'm now studying in Imperial College

My read of it was that she was talking specifically about the physics degree in UCC. I was also in that course (albeit in a different year) and what she said is relatively true for the course in question. Out of my class there were very few under 500 points (read 3 out of 22) and everyone had high marks in LC maths and physics (I wouldn't go as far as to say A1 though). The emphasis in Queens is different to UCC and it's similar in Trinity etc. It doesn't make one degree any better than another.

It's just that from experience I'd agree with her that not being of an "A standard" in maths in particular would be make your life an awful lot harder in Physics in UCC. That's mostly because from the start they expect you to fill in all the mathematical gaps yourself (read: the maths modules you take are not "support modules" for the physics course). There is a hell of a lot of work to be doing keeping up with the physics side of things, not being able to digest and apply relatively complex mathematics quickly is going to make your life difficult.

kevmy

As you can see here OP every Physics course in every university is different. It all depends on what kind of degree you want. Higher points do not make a better course or even a harder one. For example nearly every course in Trinity is artifically inflated points wise due to the reputation of Trinity.
If I remember correctly the course in UCC is a more theoretical basis and the one in Trinity definelty is. Also I done the new LC physics course (in the 1st year so a lot of us with good physics knowledge got kinda shafted) and as previously stated had no difficulties with 3rd level physics.
Science and Engineering subjects usually require more time in college (attending lectures, tutorials and labs) but have the upside of very little homework as regards assignments. And ya it gets tough in the last year or two but every honours course in college does.
IMO you prob need a better grade in Physics and Maths(LC) if your doing a more theoretical physics course in college (again a more theoretical course doesn't make it better). So if your interested in doing physics but maybe aren't great at maths or you haven't got fantastic grades in physics then maybe an Applied Physics course is the way to go. NUIG or Queens both have good courses in this regard (I know from experience that the physics dept in Galway is one of the strongest in the whole college, biggest area and large research and postgrad populations)

dudara

Civilian_Target wrote:

First of all, that's bull****. I got neither of your "requirements" and have a first class honours Physics degree from QUB (which is supposedly amongst the best physics depts in the UK), and I'm now studying in Imperial College

What I mean is that you'd want to be capable of achieving that standard. Whether or not you put in the work and get those grades is entirely up to yourself.

hunnymonster

Just for clarity, we have theoretical physics, physics and computational physics in trinity. They are all different things. Computational physics is no longer a direct entry undergrad course but there are still a couple of large groups working in this area.

As some of the others have said. LC physics these days is not a good gauge or physics. It has been simplified into a number of rules with most of the maths taken out. On the one hand you might actually find 3rd level easier if you work well on a proper understandingofthings from first principles not the learn off by heart that LC has now become. Then again if the actual ideas are what you find challenging maybe not. A good option if you are not sure is a general science degree which gradually lets you specialise.

Son Goku

Civilian_Target wrote:

First of all, that's bull****. I got neither of your "requirements" and have a first class honours Physics degree from QUB (which is supposedly amongst the best physics depts in the UK), and I'm now studying in Imperial College

What are you studying at Imperial? Is it a masters or a Ph.D?
If you don't mind me asking.

Professor_Fink

dudara wrote:

To pursue an honours physics degree would require A1 standard in LC physics (not too hard these days given the state of the curriculum) and an A1-A2 standard in Maths. (In context of my class of 8 who did honours physics degrees in UCC, all eight of us had A1s in Physics and Maths, and often Applied Maths and all were over 540 points, and this was in 1996).

However, if you're planning to do physics as a component of a degree then you can relax those requirements slightly. And if physics is just a subject requirement for a degree, then you should be OK.

I have to agree with Civilian_Target on this. Your experience seems to be extremely atypical.

I did theoretical physics at UCD, and average points and grades were lower than what you give.

In fact, I didn't score what you have listed.

To put all of this in context, I got an A2 in physics and a B1 in Maths, and a grand total of 470 points, and I've just spent the last 3 hours teaching CMP at a college here in Oxford.

nesf

Professor_Fink wrote:

To put all of this in context, I got an A2 in physics and a B1 in Maths, and a grand total of 470 points, and I've just spent the last 3 hours teaching CMP at a college here in Oxford.

Ah shure there's no need for the name dropping.

Would it be fair to say that a B1 in maths wasn't your 'upper-limit' though? When I think of this stuff I'm not really thinking in terms of the mark a person got in the Leaving (since anyone who has gone through it knows how a person can just be unlucky/have a bad test/whatever). I'm thinking more of, if a person had to struggle, work themselves to the bone and have a good exam to scrape a B3 in maths or applied maths that their life doing a theory based degree in physics would be difficult. Not impossible, just maybe not the right road to travel down, or at least the most efficient.

There will be exceptions (some people don't find their 'mathematical feet until college'), but in general it would play against them imho.

hunnymonster

I would say an aptitude for maths is a more important indicator or a potential future in physics than leaving cert physics. Dumbed down as the maths course is, at least it is still taught from frist principles. Physics asks students to accept a lot without really understanding it.

ApeXaviour

Professor_Fink wrote:

To put all of this in context, I got an A2 in physics and a B1 in Maths, and a grand total of 470 points, and I've just spent the last 3 hours teaching CMP at a college here in Oxford.

I have to jump on the bandwagon and agree with you and civilian_target here. The leaving cert is not the be all and end all, by any stretch. Coincidentally I got exactly the same points in the L.C. and same scores in maths and physics as your good self. Now I'm in 4th physics in trinity, one of two people in my class who got schols in the subject.

nesf wrote:

Would it be fair to say that a B1 in maths wasn't your 'upper-limit' though?

Maybe, maybe not. The leaving cert is only really a means of getting the course you want in college. If you can get it easily enough why put in all the extra work? Being 16-19 is also about having fun.

hunnymonster

Schols for those from other colleges is an exam taken towards the end of second year. Students like ApeXaviour who perform extremely well in it become scholars of the university. It come with certain perks like accomodation, a small stipend and evening meal* for the remainer of their studies. The exams are extremely competative and achieving schols implies a high apptitude for the subject.












*It's highly debatable if the meal (commons) is actually a perk!

dudara

Let me re-iterate what I said in my second post. Whether you got the A1 in the Leaving or not doesn't matter, but you should possess the aptitude to acheive that standard.

I agree with what nesf said just previously, he explained it well.

Lots of people come into their own in college and fully realise their potential. Personally, I think I'm only realising my full potential now that I've entered the workplace.

nesf

ApeXaviour wrote:

Maybe, maybe not. The leaving cert is only really a means of getting the course you want in college. If you can get it easily enough why put in all the extra work? Being 16-19 is also about having fun.

I completely agree with you. I did hardly anything for my leaving and spend most of my time on the piss tbh. Ditto for first year in college...

Mine, and dudara's point has been about aptitude not leaving cert results. The only reason that I, and probably she, use the idea of being an 'A standard' is that it's an easy one for most people to grasp and isn't that vague. If we started talking about having a strong intuitive appreciation of calculus at second level and stuff like that we'd just be overcomplicating the matter with respect to talking to someone in second level. Sure, you, Frink, etc would understand if we started talking about visualising what's happening from a differential equation and being able to manipulate 3-dimensional objects in your head, but seriously if you said that stuff to me when I was doing my leaving I might have thought I'd understand what you were talking about but I know now that it wouldn't be the case. It's easier and clearer to speak in terms of the Leaving Cert when speaking to Leaving Cert students. In my opinion anyways.

Professor_Fink

nesf wrote:

Mine, and dudara's point has been about aptitude not leaving cert results. The only reason that I, and probably she, use the idea of being an 'A standard' is that it's an easy one for most people to grasp and isn't that vague.

I'll go one step further. You have to actually enjoy maths at some level. If you do, the rest will fall into place.

I'm not saying that you have to enjoy every part of it, or that you have to take pleasure from doing integration by parts (and I for one hate doing it). What I mean is that if you're the type of person that enjoys mathematical puzzles, for example, then you're probably well suited to physics, and will probably enjoy it. If you absolutely hate all maths, then don't do physics in college (and definitely not TP) because you'll be letting yourself in for a world of pain.

Professor_Fink

nesf wrote:

Ah shure there's no need for the name dropping.

Would it be fair to say that a B1 in maths wasn't your 'upper-limit' though?

Yeah, I know, but I couldn't help it.

Who's to say how I would have done? I thought I'd get an A, but I didn't. I'm sure there are plenty of people who get et down by their LC results, and I just want to make sure we're not discouraging people from the subject who would excel at it on the basis of a single test. That's what the CAO is for.

nesf

Professor_Fink wrote:

I'll go one step further. You have to actually enjoy maths at some level. If you do, the rest will fall into place.

I'm not saying that you have to enjoy every part of it, or that you have to take pleasure from doing integration by parts (and I for one hate doing it). What I mean is that if you're the type of person that enjoys mathematical puzzles, for example, then you're probably well suited to physics, and will probably enjoy it. If you absolutely hate all maths, then don't do physics in college (and definitely not TP) because you'll be letting yourself in for a world of pain.

That's a good way of putting it. Not enjoying maths makes your life hell in physics. I had that issue with Quantum, I really didn't enjoy working with that type of maths, it was just never intuitive for me. I dreaded the module rolling around each year, I just wanted to go back to my lovely intuitive calculus.

Professor_Fink wrote:

Yeah, I know, but I couldn't help it.

Nah, it's a natural response, and I was just teasing anyway.

Professor_Fink wrote:

Who's to say how I would have done? I thought I'd get an A, but I didn't. I'm sure there are plenty of people who get et down by their LC results, and I just want to make sure we're not discouraging people from the subject who would excel at it on the basis of a single test. That's what the CAO is for.

I had the same thing. I had an absolute nightmare of an exam, went in exhausted, got stumped in my better areas because I wasn't thinking straight and barely clawed out a B2. That didn't get to me though, I just put it down to tiredness. It was the C in chemistry that really got under my skin. But I have serious issues sitting exams in general, I get stressed and end up not sleeping for the week of them etc. Though finishing the last exam for the LC was one of the most relaxing experiences that I've ever had. I never want to go through that crap again.

Michael Collins

Professor_Fink wrote:

I'll go one step further. You have to actually enjoy maths at some level. If you do, the rest will fall into place.

Yeh, that's the real question. You have to enjoy it or at least not mind it.

I remember when I'd be doing my homework...I hated everything except for Maths. I mean French, my God I detested that, you'd be sitting there with your dictionary looking up every damn word and still it wouldn't make sense, hell, pure simple hell...but when it came to maths I'd get completely caught up in solving the problem, especially if it was really tricky. I'd always feel really satisfied if I worked it out. The best was the next day if you were among the few (or the only one) who had it right!

Of course you'd get beaten up then but it was worth it...

planck2

Hi,

I didn't study physics for the leaving cert. I studied chemistry and biology.
I got my degree with Prof Fink, we were in the same class. And now I am doing my PhD at the University of Alberta on Black Holes. So basically t's not what results you get in the leaving that matter. Of course you need to get the points to get in. After that it's about aptitude, attitude and putting in the work. If you want to study physics go for. You'll find your niche with it in the end.

Civilian_Target

Son Goku wrote:

What are you studying at Imperial? Is it a masters or a Ph.D?
If you don't mind me asking.

1 year MSc in Advanced Computing (specialising in High Performance Computing)

Its actually every bit as tough as physics (which is a good thing, sortof!)

I got the same results as Prof Fink in my LC and to be honest, I don't think I could have done any much better in either subject to be honest.

To get an A in leaving cert. doesn't always require a thorough understanding of the subject, just a knowledge of the course material, and I was never going to be able to remember every little point of each of the pre-determined leaving cert physics experiments, nor every detail of the proofs on the maths course...

Son Goku

Civilian_Target wrote:

1 year MSc in Advanced Computing (specialising in High Performance Computing)

Its actually every bit as tough as physics (which is a good thing, sortof!)

All of Imperials Masters are very hard. I remember hearing it has the highest MSc standards in the world.

All of them are designed to make you Research capable in the relevant field.

nesf

Civilian_Target wrote:

1 year MSc in Advanced Computing (specialising in High Performance Computing)

Its actually every bit as tough as physics (which is a good thing, sortof!)

One of my old classmates was doing something similar in the University of Edinburgh (I think). The last time I met him he was bitching about how difficult it was, quite a big change from Physics/Maths apparently.

ZorbaTehZ

An A1 in honours physics isn't really asking a lot - (like you said) looking at the current course it is imo very basic. But an A2-A1 in maths? I definitely disagree with that.
There is no comparison between what the current maths honours and physics honours course is asking in terms of understanding and comprehending. In physics 75% is about learning off definitions - and the maths? Everybody complains about the maths which I find quite funny really when half the time you're finding the average refractive index for the umpteenth time or the average wavelength for the umpteenth time etc.
In comparison, the honours maths papers are taking a very positive step in the right direction, where you need to actually have a very good understanding of how Limits, Asymptotes, Logarithms, Absolute Values etc. work to get an A1. Just take a look at some of last year's questions.
You can get an A1 in physics by simply cramming, you can't in maths.

What says it all? The fact that I know more about physics than my damn teacher does.

In short no. There is no comparison between the physics 2nd level course and any kind of course focusing primarily on the same subject in 3rd level for the sole reason that the quality of Physics in 2nd level is a joke.

*lawl i realise that that probably sounds like im raging. I'm not though. 'swear

kevmy

ZorbaTehZ wrote:

What says it all? The fact that I know more about physics than my damn teacher does.

In short no. There is no comparison between the physics 2nd level course and any kind of course focusing primarily on the same subject in 3rd level for the sole reason that the quality of Physics in 2nd level is a joke.

I wouldn't say it's a joke. I did the new course in its first year and I thought it set me up pretty well for 3rd level. Mind you I had a good teacher and she always maintained that the course may have been made a bit easier but the basics remained the same.
I also thought that cramming for physics while possible is not the best way to study. Grasp the idea and the rest will seem to fall into your head once you have the ability to solve equations etc.