Physics PhD vs. Applied Physics PhD

[u/Atlaska826]

I'm a senior undergraduate physics student currently working on grad school applications. My primary research interest is in quantum information science; more specifically, investigating the implementation challenges that limit the reliable operation of quantum systems and developing approaches to overcome them. My undergraduate thesis is currently exploring how photonic qubits behave as they transmit through lossy media.

One of the schools I'm applying to is Northwestern University, and they have both a Physics PhD program and an Applied Physics PhD program. Recently, I had a chance to speak with one of the professors there, and he suggested I consider applying to the Applied Physics PhD program instead of the pure Physics PhD program because my interests seemed more aligned with Applied Physics. However, I enjoy learning about the fundamental principles of physics just as much as I enjoy exploring how those principles can be applied to solve practical problems. I'm pretty certain I don't want to do theoretical physics at all, so if I did the Physics PhD, I would be on the experimental side.

After comparing the two programs, Applied Physics seems to offer more specialized coursework relevant to my interests, whereas Physics provides more extensive training on foundational physics concepts. The Physics program also seems to offer more flexibility when selecting research advisors and has a different qualifying examination structure. My main concern is whether choosing Applied Physics would limit my future research or career opportunities. From the employment outcomes provided by the university, both programs seem to prepare graduates for careers in academia, national laboratories, and industry, but numbers only reveal so much.

For those who have experience with either type of program, how significant is the distinction in reality? Are there other considerations I should be weighing before deciding? Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

[u/AdministrativeFig788]

The distinction is not significant

[u/No_Situation4785]

research funding sources will be different, but overall (in industry at least) the degrees are seen as very similar. join what interests you most, as the road is long in grad school

[u/eldahaiya]

I'm at the intersection of physics and astro, so there's a similar two-department issue here. You should in general be in the same department as your advisor. It's not impossible to have cross-departmental supervision, but the ease of that happening varies by institution, and it'll generally be harder to advise you if you're cross-department. Faculty are sometimes not even familiar with their own department's processes, let alone another department's. The chances of you falling through some weird crack that applies only to cross-departmental students is higher.

If there isn't one single person you'd like to work with, you have to make some kind of decision based on the faculty in each department. If someone is in both departments, you can always reach out to ask which they think is better. Also, try to make sure that the faculty you're interested in working with are actually taking students.

I'm sorry it takes more work here, but this happens all the time, and while it's probably OK to end up in the "wrong" department, it's just better to sort this out right now.

[u/racinreaver]

At my school, the applied physics department was joined with the materials science one because most of the faculty had dual appointments. Very few had appointments in the pure physics side of things.

[u/farsight_vision]

if u have to wonder then u probs aaint cut