<p>I’m an incoming freshman, and I thought about taking Biology 141 and 142 and Chemistry 141 and 142 during my freshman year. However, after talking to a current student, they said that its very difficult to do both because of the lab components. I’m not so sure what to do now. Should I just take them both regardless or should I do something different?</p>
<p>You likely talked to some of the wimpier pre-meds who also have the pleasure of taking the old MCAT so can easily afford to do that. Actually, doubling up is extremely common now-a-days and if you are pre-med, given that the new MCAT will include some biochemistry and things of that nature, you’ll want to get these two out of the way so that you can get on with orgo. and physics and not have to worry about the possibility of tripling up to get all of these done before taking your MCAT (say, junior year. I mean ideally, you’d like to more easily fit in courses that interest you as you progress. Delaying one of those 2 makes this more difficult). And honestly, chemistry lab is easy. It’s biology lab that can be somewhat tedious (it’s annoying, however grading is usually easy, and there is usually a curve if you don’t have an easy TA). Likewise, for the lectures, usually chemistry is difficult and biology moderate to easy. It’s either this, or taking organic chemistry and biology together. That can be rougher than gen. chem and biology, especially if you hope to select quality instructors (organic has a tougher lab than gen. chem and the lecture is usually tougher when you have a decent instructor. That coupled with biology and a person who hasn’t taken two or more college science or math intensive courses simultaneously can be tough). </p>
<p>Gen. bio and gen. chem together is likely as easy as it gets when it comes to taking two lab sciences together. You can delay taking two together, but again, with the new MCAT, you may be harming yourself and you may end up with a harder couple to double up on. For example, orgo with physics sophomore year makes sense as, if you are a stereotypical pre-med, you will take the algebra based physics course, which has a joke lab and a lecture that is not that rigorous, very similar to biology. So it’s pretty much like freshman year again. You won’t be dealing with something you are not used to and then scrambling to figure out what to take junior year (like, maybe some will be squeamish on taking physics and biochem together while prepping for the MCAT).</p>
<p><you likely="" talked="" to="" some="" of="" the="" wimpier="" pre-meds="" who="" also="" have="" pleasure="" taking="" old="" mcat="" so="" can="" easily="" afford="" do="" that.=""> Yes, likely, because some just aren’t prepared and therefore actually made the wise choice rather than being “wimpy.”</you></p>
<p>Well, that could be true, but how would they know? Some of these people are choosing their courses based on fear (this is more of what I mean by “wimpy”. They let fear sparked from a “grapevine” scare the daylights out of them and this fear controlled their course selection. I understand it to some degree, but often it develops into a disturbing trend) that is often over exaggerated by others and is now unwarranted. I would say that the advice to not take both was more relevant when biology was a difficult course. Now it is not as difficult, and taking both is not very harmful unless you absolutely want to party extremely hard or rush freshman year. However, if you’re willing to balance, then taking both isn’t too bad. </p>
<p>Now, I would argue, that it would be wise to consider delaying if you are in the situation above or have not really been exposed to AP/IB/A-level math or science courses. Otherwise, go for it, take advantage of the learning resources, and do well. If you are decent and aren’t afraid of asking for help, and manage your time well, it’ll work out (this could even be said for those who don’t have the background). Another thing you don’t have to worry about is a curve (meaning, a lapse in background will not result in a disadvantage that cannot easily be mitigate. Classes hard enough to need a curve may do so though. When Eisen was teaching, this was the case. Clearly, and AP or IB student would have an advantage as his approach to the material was more rigorous than a normal intro. bio course). </p>
<p>The gen. bio, physics, and chemistry sequences are usually not curved. You don’t have to worry about your professor in such courses making the exams difficult enough so that they have to arbitrarily recenter the average course GPA (thus resulting in the essential capping of the number of A grades given). The chem exams have low averages (Below 75) sometimes, but it often works out such that their is enough free Homework, clicker, and lab grades to keep the average reasonable. Biology and Physics exams rarely dip below 75 (or 80 for that matter). Only organic chemistry and perhaps biochem in the chem department are sometimes difficult enough to need a curve (where averages are anywhere between 50 and 80 depending on the professor or the exam. Usually 65-75 though). In theory, you don’t really even have to earn 90s on exams in these classes to make an A (maybe like a high or mid 80 if you get high marks on the other components). In some organic chemistry sections, a low 80 test average may get you a solid A for the semester (a high 70 may get you an A-). It seems that a high 80 (like 87-88) exam average, perfect clicker/quiz score, and solid lab score, will get you the desired grade in the “gen” classes. And if you take someone like McGill for gen. chem, she’ll scale individual exams if she finds that her overall average is not in line with the other two sections by semesters end. One time it resulted in an increase of about 2-3 points in students’ final course average, which is a whole level.</p>
<p>Bernie12, it seems to me (after reading your posts) that the real problem lies with the student’s attitude and mentality, not with the courseload or professor. So, in other words, the real answer lies within the student himself.</p>
<p>Yeah, I get the feeling that a lot of people don’t actually know how it works and that’s where the fear comes from. They may hear from the one person who claimed they struggled with doing “x”.
However, it may actually turn out that the person who claimed that they were struggling was making a B+ or higher and having to work for it unexpectedly or the person was not working as hard as they should (though they’ll swear up and down they were) and did worse. Some students who did not get solid As (even if they got A-) while doing whatever will basically tell everyone to never try it because it’s too hard.
However, there should be less fear when the average of half of the pre-med cores is at least a 3.0 no matter which professor you choose (well, there is only one section of physics 141 and 151 now so there is certainly going to be equality there). Let’s not talk about some of those NBB and “advanced” biology courses that many pre-medical students take. There are some exceptions, but usually only better or less stereotypical pre-medical students would take the advanced science courses or professors that usually end up closer to a B-/B average.</p>
<p>Thanks! I’m not really premed; I’m predent, but I will end up taking the same classes as a premed student. As far as testing, I don’t take the MCAT; I take the DAT (Dental Admission Test). The only sciences on that test are biology, general chemistry, and organic chemistry. No physics! I only ask because one of the current students said that it would be easier to just do biology and general chemistry separately because she struggled to do both. It kind of scared me and some other incoming freshman. However, I don’t want to do that. I’m up for the challenge of taking both. I took AP Biology senior year; I just decided not to take the AP test. I haven’t taken chemistry since sophomore year. But, I’ve had to take the GCAT, which has helped me to refresh some of the knowledge I forgot. Additionally, I’ve been reviewing a variety of biology and chemistry concepts since the summer started so that I have some background in both classes. I didn’t even like chemistry at first but after studying it, I’ve started to have a genuine interest in the subject. It’s actually quite fascinating. I’ve always LOVED biology. I’m a really hard worker, and I’m willing to put in any amount of work so that I can not only do well but also learn. I’m just hoping that I have good biology and general chemistry teachers who will prepare me for my journey after undergrad.</p>
<p>Then just go for it. Do you have enough AP credits so that you’ll be able to select the highest quality instructors like Mulford/McGill or Spell/Gilson/Passalaucqua (Ignore ratemyprofessor on Spell. She was basically punished in many earlier ratings for being difficult. It’s not the case anymore)?</p>
<p>Well, I’m not sure what you mean by saying if I have enough AP credits. I have about 15 AP credits transferring to Emory. (I didn’t start taking AP classes until junior year). Also, my AP credits are in English, History, Physics, Psych, and Economics. I just couldn’t afford taking the AP biology test, which is pretty much the main reason why I didn’t take the test. However, I got an A in the class both semesters. As I said before, I haven’t taken chemistry in a few years, but I’ve been reviewing all summer, so I think I should be prepared. Just a quick question: is Biology 141 and Chemistry 141 just information that is covered in the AP class and AP test? Also, those instructors you mentioned, will they actually teach the material? As weird as this may sound, I want to have teachers who will make me work hard in their class, and I want to be able to learn from their teaching. I just don’t want one of those teachers who basically repeats what is stated in a powerpoint or in the textbook and doesn’t explain the material.</p>
<p>I literally meant abundance. As in, you may have more AP credits than average (or at least be “using” as opposed to forfeiting) and thus may end up with a better initial course enrollment time (first night time). It doesn’t matter which ones you have. I suggested those professors because they do just that. I don’t recommend professors who don’t at least try more active learning or detailed explanation. All 3 of the biology professors are great at the active learning type of style with Passalaucqua doing the case based learning. Since you took AP biology and did well, take her as it will show you a different approach to learning and contextualizing the material. The other 2 would be more a rehash of AP bio with some more advanced concepts and perhaps better teaching.As for chem, McGill is better than Mulford for it (as in both are amazing at lecturing, but Mulford does way more “sticking to the script”). They are all excellent at teaching though. These two introductory courses have in some senses become “star-studded” when it comes to teaching quality (as in, more excellent than mediocre people).</p>
<p>Thanks bernie, your advice helps me out a lot right now.</p>