Some CS programs have moved away from heavy maths requirements over the last 2 decades, outside a few maths-heavy specific CS courses.
Physics degrees still mean you have very decent maths, but CS degrees are not necessarily as strong a signifier of it.
I suspect that is the difference, particularly if you are actually working on tricky programming tasks.
That and they necessarily have to learn a lot of CS just to do their own degree work. It's like wondering why cross country runners perform well at other sports too, their sport incorporates the 'hard' part of most sports, the running and endurance aspects.
You're basically just using it as a proxy for general intelligence, the _average_ physics major's IQ is around 130.
It appears that an IQ test can be administered if it can be argued that a certain score is required to do the job, and the test is not simply a way to discriminate. It sounds like a court case waiting to happen though: how does one prove what score is required? Easier if your defense is "we never administered an IQ test, tour honor".
The reason everyone doesn't test IQ is that it's not very useful, not that it's legally risky.
People think it is because there's an subtext that everybody would hire straight off IQ scores if they could, which supports a (frankly gross) biological essentialist argument a lot of edgy nerds are fond of. But the whole argument is fractally mythological.
The whole point is to have a test that is correlated with IQ, and does not look like an IQ test in a legal way.
You want a lower level administrative job? You better have a degree so we know that you're not stupid. Now you get to pay off your loans with 20 bucks an hour.
The degree was just a fancy filter if could read and write. If they worked out, they would be eventually hired direct into less mindless tasks.
Not all of the contractors were worth retaining.
Hah, I also noticed that. For some reason, ex-army programmers really excel in their junior years (or sometimes even just months), too. Do you think it's the attitude towards problem-solving?
My feeling is that they're just built different, military, especially in US will either teach you or make you disciplined (not something I'd say about my country, you'll learn how to get hazed and drink). If you have a task, well, you better solve it quick, no distractions.
I remember thinking "oh, you understand, like actually understand" to them in particular, so maybe it's that they spend more time understanding before doing.
In my experience those with math degrees too. Maybe the structured methods of analysis and problem solving.
I agree with a sibling comment that physicists often seem to make the best coders, for some reason.
My hypothesis: it's because physicists are rigorously trained to model real-world systems directly. What would be considered an "advanced" modeling problem to most would be an intro problem to a physics student.
Math is absolutely related, but I think the secret ingredient is "mathematical maturity" — the ability to fluidly jump between layers of abstraction. Mathematicians are good at this too, but physicists go a step further: they are trained to ground their abstractions in concrete physical phenomena.
Mathematicians ground systems in axioms, sure. But physicists have to tether models back to reality — to processes and measurements — which turns out to be exactly the skill set that makes for good programmers and system designers.
Huge generalization, obviously.
But personally, I've noticed my own programming ability increases the more physics I learn. Physics gives you a systematic framework to reason about complexity — and physicists get the luxury of a "relatively simple" universe compared to fields like chemistry or biology. They're working with rich systems described by just a few tightly-coupled parameters. And the kicker: a lot of those systems are 100% repeatable, every time.
That kind of structure — and the habit of respecting it — is priceless for engineering.
As above I would say that the physics students I know are often the ones going furthest in their careers either in research, computing (know a few at google), consulting e.g. PWC etc
I’ve also found this to be true. And math degrees.
I can also confirm that.
It shouldn't come as a surprise that people with a formal degree are on average better prepared to interviews.
But sadly, it has absolutely no correlation with work performance. Zero, none.
In fact, I can say that the overwhelming majority of non graduates did far better on the job: more motivated, stays longer, hungrier to learn and prove themselves.
I think those type of people just have really good analytical thinking
You can find people with physics degrees working in pretty much any technical field.