I'm starting Uc irvine and I want to get a jump start on my major since I'm going to china for a year after this year. I have an issue choosing my major; I THINK physics is a good major. However my sister, BA and MBA from MIT in Computer crap, says I should do something like bIo engineering. I might end up doing bioengineering in liu of physics on basis that my sister says a physics degree is pretty worthless, much like a business degree :)

I wouldn't call a Physics degree "worthless" but granted, unless you're a genius - and get on board with a big company that will pay you bucu bucks, then it's a tough field.

Since your options are open, you should research the various industries - looking for info on the trends and forecasts of industries, like this:
http://www.collegeboard.com/student/csearch/majors_careers/236.html

My post is going to address the pay and opportunity issues. I can't decide if one field is more interesting than another for you. Its not uncommon for some undergrads to change along the way, as you really don't know the material until you experience it. I've taught undergrad chem majors who were terrible at chem... they chose the major because they had a fun HS teacher, not because it fit their abilities. You need to balance your abilities and you interests accordingly.

Physicists are among the highest paid scientists around.

There is certainly a difference in the fields, though there is also much crossover these days. I remember a lecture from a few years ago of a physicist who was working in the area of cell bio/biochem. The fact that he was working from a different perspective allowed his to see an approach that nobody in the field had tried. Sometimes its these "novel" approaches that are the most interesting and successful.

For example, four important figureheads in the elucidation of the structure of DNA were watson, crick, wilkins, and franklin. Crick and wilkins were physicists, watson had a Ph.D in zoology (I think) and franklin was a chemist.

Work in bioengineering can certainly be worthwhile as well. What do you intend to do with your degree? Generally speaking, if you wish to make money and you wish to not be a peon, you need a Ph.D. anything less and you'll be following the orders of someone else in most cases. This means 4 years usually of undergrad, and several more years of grad work plus post doc work.

And it is the talk of the naïve that call a business degree worthless. Yes, it is true that the rigors aren't the same, and its probably a more pedestrian degree, with more people having it.

But almost every scientist I know who is working in industry (many of them bachelor degrees) and has risen to the top has acquired an M.B.A. which is another degree that is becoming more pedestrian, but nevertheless, needed sometimes if you want to be on the board of directors running the business, especially if your science degree is a bachelors or masters and not doctoral. Not always. The big money is almost always in running the business. Yes, you can be a director of R&D or of technology... I know of four people who are. One has a Ph.D in chemistry, one has a Ph.D in chem and an M.B.A. two have undergrad science and both M.B.A.s, and the president of a company I'm friends with is a bachelor engineer with an M.B.A. so again, its usually those with no experience in the business field that mark business degrees as worthless. I worked in R&D for some time, and I can tell you if id tied in an mba major, I wouldve been making a lot more money faster. Sooo... if you are going to work in industry, you'd better get your Ph.D or tie your degree to an M.B.A. if you don't want to get stuck somewhere along the way. Not saying its bad to do less, but you will not be able to rise through the ranks as well. One person I know has had problems getting her M.B.A. due to conflicts with a busy family life. This has cost her an opportunity to have a seat on the board of directors, and probably about $40,000 a year. Had she tied in an MBA program with or immediately after her undergrad science, shed absolutely be in top management making over six figures a year.

In academia, a Ph.D is what is needed to teach and drive research. The pace is more relaxed than industry. The pay is less than industry (I know bachelor and master grads who make more money in business easily). There are jobs, but it can be harder to find and academia is its own little world.

So... physics is an excellent field. Those who are strong will have good, lucritave jobs, as fewer go into this field for the rigors of the program. And your graduate level and post doc work can guide you into crossover areas.

I know a guy who after undergrad did the "double-whammy"... M.D./Ph.D. where you become a medical doctor with a Ph.D. in an area of research... and his was physics related, but tied to biophysics.

I know another physicist who was offered jobs in cali and New York no problem out grad school. He went to a decent, but not a top 100 undergrad program, and then went to a top 30 doctoral program. He had his pick of a few attractive jobs.

And I'm not knocking bioengineering. Engineers get paid usually higher out of the gate than chemists and bio majors. And its obviously a field that is only going to continue to grow.

If you are really, really strong in math you can pursue the physics. If you are good in math but not wanting to spend as much time on it, the engineering degree might be a better suit. Generally, in the hard core sciences you should take as much math as you reasonably can. The reason is even though a bio major, for example, might not need it for the rigors of the undergrad program, they might suddenly find they are over their heads in the doctoral program. And also, as fewer go into the more rigorous fields, there more demand.