<p>I have heard that UofC tends to be very theoretical. Does this mean that a Biology who doesn’t do undergraduate research will not get enough practical training and experience to be valuable to grad schools?</p>
<ol>
<li>You will not get into graduate school–at least not into a PhD program–if you don’t do research. Full stop. Doesn’t matter where you go. </li>
<li>Biology in general is not a very theoretical subject–it’s not physics, we can’t model it that well, at least not yet. (Which is not to say that none of biology can be modeled, or that people don’t try.) I’ve been trying to think of how you would teach biology in a “theoretical” manner and coming up short.</li>
</ol>
<p>I’m taking the AP5 sequence now and find it to be–I wouldn’t call it practical, but very focused on research; there’s a huge emphasis on teaching students how biological experiments are typically conducted. I can elaborate, if you like.</p>
<p>My plan is DEFINITELY to do research, buy I was just running through the worst case scenario.</p>
<p>I would love to hear any points that you think are the most important. Does the Biological Sciences Learning Center have adequate facilities? Any comparison in your mind between the Biological Sciences B.S. major and that of Georgetown? Seems like the class sizes for the Bio major classes at Georgetown will be a little smaller on average at Georgetown, but UofC Bio major classes will be taught by full professors a higher % of the time. Facilities is a negative of Georgetown (at least until they get their new Science building built).</p>
<p>Would love to hear your pros and cons of the Bio Sciences major at UofC.</p>
<p>^wat ru talking about? In terms of research qualities and opportunities, UChicago is world class. Jst look at the faculty’s research interest, their publications, citations etc. Remember bio is seldom theoretical</p>
<p>I’m saying that your original question is flawed. What is ‘practical training and experience,’ to a bio PhD program? It is research. There is no classroom experience that can substitute for real research.</p>
<p>To go over your questions quickly: I don’t have much experience with the facilities, being a first-year, but I’ve found them adequate so far. All I know about Georgetown’s program is what they tell me–[url=<a href=“http://biology.georgetown.edu/undergraduate/biology/degree/77844.html]here[/url”>http://biology.georgetown.edu/undergraduate/biology/degree/77844.html]here[/url</a>] are Georgetown’s requirements for the bio major, and [url=<a href=“http://collegecatalog.uchicago.edu/pdf/BIOS.pdf]here[/url”>http://collegecatalog.uchicago.edu/pdf/BIOS.pdf]here[/url</a>] are Chicago’s. </p>
<p>What I see:
- Georgetown requires two “foundation” classes and three “core area” classes (representing two and a half years of your time); Chicago requires one “foundation” class, one biocalc class, and three “core area” classes (one and a third years), and you can get out of the first two with an AP 5. So you spend more time taking basic bio classes at Georgetown. Do you actually learn more? I genuinely have no clue; it’s not obvious from the course descriptions.
- Different emphasis. You have to take molecular/cellular biology at Chicago. You have to take genetics at Chicago. On the other hand, you don’t have to take an E&E class unless you are specializing in E&E (and E&E people have a different set of requirements–it’s kind of like the regular bio major without the teeth.)
- Possibly related to the above: You have to take organic chemistry here. You have to take physics here. You don’t have to do either at Georgetown.</p>
<p>I’m too tired to go into a deep analysis of the course catalogs or anything, but looking at the classes offered at each school might help too. </p>
<p>(Chicago’s biology program is much more highly ranked than Georgetown’s. Just pointing that out. [whistle])</p>
<p>Will talk about AP5 in another comment.</p>