Is a natural sciences degree more sought-after than a single subject science degree by scientific research employers?

[Getbackinthebox]

My DS enjoys physics but plans to apply for Natural Sciences (focusing on physical sciences) at Cambridge as one of his five choices on his UCAS form. He was originally planning to choose Physics rather than Natural Sciences for his other four choices at other universities, partly because we think the Cambridge course is the only one where he could cover sufficient physics content to have the equivalent of a physics degree whilst also having the bonus of studying some broader science subjects. However, I have since heard and read that Natural Sciences degrees are considered useful for scientific research careers because many of the newer scientific breakthroughs are happening at the boundaries between the major scientific fields and hence studying at these boundaries may be beneficial for a budding scientist! I wondered though if, in practice, many Natural Science degrees on offer don't cover enough depth to enable easy progress to further scientific study (e.g. Masters or Phd)? Also, do many people pick Natural Sciences to keep their options open if they can't decide between the sciences or want more time to make up their minds?

I would really like to know what the view is in the scientific community and from parents/academics with students doing science degrees as to whether it is still desirable to focus on a single subject science degree if you are hoping for a career in science research? Also, I would love to get any insights into particular Natural Sciences courses that enable the student to specialise ultimately in Physics so that the degree still has quite a lot of depth in one of the sciences. Some of the courses seem more like joint honours sciences courses or seem to be stronger in biological sciences than physical sciences so they are not what DS would be looking for!

Thank you for any insight you can give me!

At Cambridge natural sciences allows a broad part 1 where you choose a number of courses in the first year and then narrow down and specialise as you progress. There is a lot of content and most sciences are now 4 year courses.

Maybe not about "desirable" but abput giving your ds options to try different areas then specialise .
If he really knows it is pure physics he can go for that but a broader degree will allow him to try different areas before specialising.
You don't want him going very narrow and decides he doesn't like it after all...while a broader degree will give optional modules as he goes through. Might open up areas he has not yet considered.
For research he will need msc and then go on to PhD anyway so he does not need to decide exactly which bit of physics right now.
He can look at graduate outcomes for different courses.
Where will he thrive and get a first ?

I’m a professor and supervise MSc and PhD students. I even recently hired a NatSci student. There is no rule that NatSci is better or worse than a single subject degree. It entirely depends on the students grades and research projects and extras they have done with the degree. Let your son choose whatever motivates him best.

Thank you. I get the point about letting him choose. He will be the one choosing! I am just trying to find out more from those who know more than I or he does if he is better off going for depth rather than breadth (if the courses won't enable him to specialise in a chosen area in later years)! We feel confident the Cambridge course would be absolutely fine, it is more a question of whether he would end up with diluted science knowledge on some of the natural sciences courses at other universities which then is less valued when applying for an MSc or Phd! It seems like natural sciences may be fine if the right options are chosen so there is no need for DS to rule it out. It would be very helpful if anyone has any suggestions on natural sciences degrees at other universities that would enable him to focus on physical science modules and ultimately specialise in physics or another single physical science so he ends up with sufficient depth in a science field.

PS - he intends to do a four year science degree too. Most science faculties seem to now offer the option of Bsc or Msci (4 years) now so he intends to apply for the 4 year MSci (or possibly MPhys) degrees depending on what is offered and whether he is focusing on physics or natural sciences.

He can ask on studentroom
And look at ucas courses

https://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=50

He needs to take on the research here

He needs to be aware that if he does the 4 year MPhys/MSci he won’t be eligible for a Masters loan. An MSc may allow more specialism than the integrated masters.

I would say the opposite. A natsci degree is going to need a really strong 2 year masters to specialise before going for a phd, like they do on the continent, and they'll still possibly be at a disadvantage when looking for jobs after phd because they're missing basic chunks when specialising. The British 4 year system only works because they specialise from 16 so can cover enough stuff in 4 years instead of 5-6. Cambridge natsci is an exception because the students are exceptional enough to pick up anything.

If he is particularly keen on physics, I'd say do Physics.
I frequently get told I'm a biological scientist, when I ended up doing Phys and Chem (many years ago) as the end subjects in my Nat Sci degree.
If he is unsure, go for Nat Sci - it was great. But with hindsight, I should have done straight Chemistry (or even Chem Eng).

Take a look at at Durham NatSci which offers a lot of flexibility and subject combos including switching to single science after 1st year.

Thank you so much, there's some really useful responses here! Escapefrom1984, we're going up to Durham in a few weeks for an open day so it's useful to know there's a lot of flexibility. Thanks for the links cestlavielife, I will suggest to DS he starts doing research on that forum. He's busy revising for his end of year exams that result in his UCAS grade predictions at the moment so he's not keen to start researching for a a couple of weeks but he needs to get onto this soon! Titchy, I hadn't realised there would be an issue with getting a masters loan if he does the MSci/Mphys and then later wants to do an MSc, for example. Paaseitjes, thanks for pointing out the risk of needing more years of study to specialise if choosing a Nat Sci degree!

Is it normal for a good student to be able to progress from and MSci/Mphys to a Phd or would they often need to have an Msc first? If that is the case he may need to look more closely at the courses' BSc programmes and check if he can switch from MSci to BSc and how late he can do that!

Is it also the case that a first class degree is now always needed in order to move on to MSc/Phd? I ask because I was a university student many years ago now and I recall some students moving on to MSc?MPhil/Phd with 2i degrees!

Both my DDs are NatSci graduates. DD1 studied PhysNatSci at Cambridge as a 4-year integrated Masters. In y1 she studied Maths (compulsory), Chemistry, Materials Science and Physics, then gradually specialised in Materials Science. Whilst at school, she wasn't at all sure that was where she would end up as Chemistry was her thing. She has just submitted her PhD thesis there and will be teaching in that department from next month. DD2 studied in the Midlands on a course which sadly no longer exists. She too studied for an integrated Masters but her degree included a year abroad (which due to Covid was only 4 months actually in Japan). She is now working as a research scientist in the field of bespoke cancer treatments, which followed on really well from her Masters project.

Both DDs were awarded a First at the end of Part II (DD1) and the Bachelor's degree (DD2) so progression was automatic if they wanted it. DD2 was offered a PhD at her uni but for a couple of reasons decided she wanted to work and possibly try her luck abroad in a couple of years having gained more practical experience.

The comments from @Paaseitjes have not applied to either of my DDs. Both covered their Masters in 1 year. Furthermore, DD2's employers have said that they prefer graduates like her with a blend of science experience rather than straight Biologists.

Thanks @Malbecfan , that's useful to know! @parietal did you hire your Nat Sci student into a Phd and did they come straight from an integrated masters (e.g. MSci) or had they done an MSc in-between?

Ds can always switch later. Take a year in industry. Go work in a engineering plant in australia or zambia. Come back to msc or PhD. Etc. Don't think too far ahead! He needs to choose what he will enjoy and a uni where he will thrive. What works right now for the plan?

As he grows opportunities will present.

Roundabout routes are valid too do not stress too much over if he does xx for 3 years can he move onto yy in 5 ? You can always get to y if he wants to ...even via x z And q.

the risk of needing more years of study to specialise if choosing a Nat Sci degree!

But does that matter? If he would like a broader degree now he should do it keep options open. He wil have plenty years ahead.

If he certain he wants to go narrow now that is fine too ...and he can expand later.

@MalbecfanI think you're right for grad schemes, but the OP asked specifically about research careers. I hire for PhD positions and for staff at an applied research institute. For us, we find (not necessarily UK) natsci students struggle and basically have to do a second masters alongside their PhD to catch up. They don't have enough depth to find teaching easy so have to do twice as much prep as their peers and once they've graduated their phds they miss the depth outside their specialist area so need much more training to get up to speed. The positive is they're more prepared to give left field projects a go.

I can’t help with natsci specifically but a Cambridge degree will be sought after however my dsd found that employers weren’t as keen on physics as she would have thought, they seem to be favouring engineering students for graduate jobs. Pure research obviously what pure science graduates but I would get him to research how many positions there are. As a contrast my dd did engineering and she and all her friends walked in easily to grad jobs

Always worked in industry R&D. There's not much wrong with a Nat Sci degree for general technical grad scheme entry, but any technical degree without a "normal" subject title can be filtered out by HR departments and automatic screening that is looking for "physics" or "chemistry".

We tend to recruit by specific scientific or engineering degree subject.

I actually have a biochemical engineering degree but took a chemical engineering degree certificate title so I didn't get screened out by non-bio focussed organisations for this reason.

Cross disciplinary is where a lot of exciting stuff is at and the breadth shown from doing a nat sci is I think attractive to employers - at least the ones I have come across

He should go with whichever inspires him most, but do plenty of research first. Some NatSci courses are very prescribed with “pathways” and lots of compulsory modules, whereas others have lots of flexibility. DD is doing NatSci at Durham, though not physics, and students can start broad and either stay broad or specialise more. Many students end up with a joint honours degree but DD has kept her breadth. She has a free choice of modules across her three departments as long as she has done any prerequisites. She doesn’t plan to do a masters, but would be an excellent candidate for some due to her wide learning but excluded from others. I did a joint honours degree and several of my peers went into research.

1st not needed for Masters, 2:1 is accepted pretty much everywhere - ds got an MSc from a 2:2! Distinction mostly needed at Masters for a funded PhD - though possible with a high merit and distinction grade dissertation.

Post UG he might also want to look at an MRes rather than MSc if a PhD is the plan.

That is an interesting point about many employers looking for engineering rather than physics graduates. I think DS hasn't considered engineering and I am not sure he would be persuaded to as he has been on the path of considering physics/natural sciences for a while now. I think he has a passion and wants to pursue it but it would be a shame if there was no job at the end of it and he ended up training as an accountant! I can see how competitive it can be though as he had to try very hard to find a relevant work experience placement. He managed to get accepted onto one but had numerous rejections, always hundreds of applicants so it felt like a lottery!

I think if you look at ‘engineering research’ in some fields it looks a hell of a lot like physics or materials science!

DH and I are PhD chemists…if your DS wants to ultimately be a scientific researcher then either a single science or Cambridge NatSci followed by a PhD would likely be the pathway.

Science academic here.

Son should study what enthuses him the most. MSci to PhD is the common route into research and academia in my subject. MScs tend to be more vocational preparation for industry and none the worse for that.