<p>Looks rough… both intensity- and schedule-wise. Can anyone who is in the major tell me how it is spaced over the years and how rough it is?</p>
<p>I would like to know this as well.</p>
<p>Don’t think “biochemistry” unless you have a strong interest in theoretical chemistry, because that’s the direction true biochem has been trending for years, to the degree that the discipline even exists.</p>
<p>Because the life sciences are on a collision course with chemistry in many areas (think structural, for example) and because there has been so much innovation in the life sciences in the past 20-30 years, many of the exciting areas have hardly been named yet.</p>
<p>So, IMHO, you’d be best off pursuing a somewhat broader background, bio sci, chem or both (the combo lends itself well to dual concentrations!) and seeing what’s interesting. The bonus is that you can make it as rough or easy as you want.</p>
<p>I am concerned though, about your fear of “rough”. If you want a career in a science, it will always be rough, because if it is not, you are not pushing yourself. Faculty look for students who push themselves when it comes to writing top grad school recs. </p>
<p>At the same time, what is rough to one person will be a fascinating challenge to another. If you pursue a science and do find the going “rough”, it may be a good hint to choose another career path, because the sciences are not an easy way to make a living. If you don’t love it, even as an undergrad, it is probably no place for you. JMHO, though.</p>