[humbleservant]

I am trying to decide what I would like to major in and then pursue even further in Graduate school.

I have narrowed it down between these two but have a hard time deciding between which ones to pursue and what are really the differences between these two, aside from the obvious which is one utilizes physics and the other a more heavy reliance on computers.

are there any really glaring differences between these two fields?

Most websites dont even recognize computational/theoretical chemistry as it's own specializations.

[enahs]

Theoretical chemists probably on average make quite a bit more then physical chemist fresh out of college. There are however A LOT fewer jobs for theoretical chemists.

And, not always, but from everybody I know from all over, theoretical chemistry PhD is much harder to get simply because you publish less work and thus a lot harder to write a dissertation. Some are lucky to do a lot of small supplementary theoretical work for other people, but not all.

[humbleservant]

Theoretical chemists probably on average make quite a bit more then physical chemist fresh out of college. There are however A LOT fewer jobs for theoretical chemists.

And, not always, but from everybody I know from all over, theoretical chemistry PhD is much harder to get simply because you publish less work and thus a lot harder to write a dissertation. Some are lucky to do a lot of small supplementary theoretical work for other people, but not all.

Is there any other difference between these two fields that have more to do with their basic function and in what part they try to play in solving different problems of chemical systems?

from what I've heard they both are organized around interpreting, explaining, and even PREDICTING the behavior of different chemical systems.

This is an amazing field.
I was just wondering -- since Wikipedia enlists both of these fields (Comp. and Physical) as two separate disciplines-- where at are they truly SEPARATE at besides one working with computers?
It appears that Theoretical/Computational Chemistry is described as a sub-set field of Physical Chemistry-- is this true?

[enahs]

Yes, theoretical chemistry is best described as a subset of Physical Chemistry.

A theoretical chemist will learn and know just as much about quantum chemistry as a physical chemist, in many cases even more. Same can be said true for all the interactions of the various forces, particles, etc.

A theoretical chemist will have little exposure to instrumentation and instrumental techniques   such as xrd, nmr, ir, epr, etc etc. That is why there are a lot fewer jobs for them. Conversely, physical chemist will not really have much exposure to the modeling/calculation aspect that theoretical chemist will have.

[Juan R.]

I am trying to decide what I would like to major in and then pursue even further in Graduate school.

I have narrowed it down between these two but have a hard time deciding between which ones to pursue and what are really the differences between these two, aside from the obvious which is one utilizes physics and the other a more heavy reliance on computers.

are there any really glaring differences between these two fields?

Most websites dont even recognize computational/theoretical chemistry as it's own specializations.

What physical chemists do

[Juan R.]

Yes, theoretical chemistry is best described as a subset of Physical Chemistry.

That is very debatable. First, because it would mean that other branches of chemistry (analytical, organic, technical...) are only experimental, which is not true. Second, because there is theoretical tools/concepts that are not a subset of physical chemistry (aka quantum chemistry and the like): the several topological index proposed in mathematical chemistry, which are based in graph theory; the files format proposed in chemoinformatics, which are based in computer science and technology (Chemical Markup Language is based in XML).

[humbleservant]

Juan R.-- why does that link not have Theoretical or Computational Chemistry listed?

[Juan R.]

Juan R.-- why does that link not have Theoretical or Computational Chemistry listed?

You would ask that to the American Chemical Society guys. My guess about theoretical chemistry is that this is not a well-defined field, with different people taking different meanings for the term. For the lack of independent entry for computational chemistry I only can guess that they consider it as a subset of quantum chemistry, which is a subset of physical chemistry. Note that they do not list independently each subfield of physical chemistry (thermodynamics, chemical kinetics, quantum chemistry, statistical mechanics...) but only define physical chemist as a whole.

[tamim83]

That is very debatable. First, because it would mean that other branches of chemistry (analytical, organic, technical...) are only experimental, which is not true. Second, because there is theoretical tools/concepts that are not a subset of physical chemistry (aka quantum chemistry and the like): the several topological index proposed in mathematical chemistry, which are based in graph theory; the files format proposed in chemoinformatics, which are based in computer science and technology (Chemical Markup Language is based in XML).

I am not so sure if I completely agree with this.  I would consider most types computational chemistry a subset of physical chemistry.  In particular, if you are doing any type of computer modeling that involves quantum methods, molecular mechanics (i.e.-use Newton's laws), or Monte Carlo simulations, I would consider that P-Chem.  The thing is, computational chemistry is very interdisciplinary. 

Also, how can quantum chemistry not fall under physical chemistry?

[Juan R.]

That is very debatable. First, because it would mean that other branches of chemistry (analytical, organic, technical...) are only experimental, which is not true. Second, because there is theoretical tools/concepts that are not a subset of physical chemistry (aka quantum chemistry and the like): the several topological index proposed in mathematical chemistry, which are based in graph theory; the files format proposed in chemoinformatics, which are based in computer science and technology (Chemical Markup Language is based in XML).

I am not so sure if I completely agree with this.  I would consider most types computational chemistry a subset of physical chemistry.  In particular, if you are doing any type of computer modeling that involves quantum methods, molecular mechanics (i.e.-use Newton's laws), or Monte Carlo simulations, I would consider that P-Chem.  The thing is, computational chemistry is very interdisciplinary. 

Also, how can quantum chemistry not fall under physical chemistry?

Either I expressed very bad or you misread me.

Of course, quantum chemistry and statistical mechanical are branches of physical chemistry.

My disagreement was focused to those subfields of theoretical chemistry that are not a subset of physical chemistry. You can do theories outside of physics!

In fact, I gave two examples: the topological indexes (which are based in chemical graph theory) of mathematical chemistry (a theoretical branch of chemistry) and files formats as the Chemical Markup Language (which is based in XML) used in computational chemistry.

I think that my point is also shared by computational chemists. The aims and scope of the Journal of Computational Chemistry says:

This distinguished journal publishes articles concerned with all aspects of computational chemistry: analytical, biological,inorganic, organic and physical. The Journal of Computational Chemistry presents original research, contemporary developments in theory and methodology, and state-of-the-art applications. Computational areas that are featured in the Journal include ab initio and semiempirical quantum mechanics, density functional theory, molecular mechanics, molecular dynamics, statistical mechanics, cheminformatics, biomolecular structure prediction, molecular design, and bioinformatics.