Favorite science classes

[muon2]

Biology, by far. I especially loved cellular biology, with organelles and mitochondria, mitosis, photosynthesis and cellular respiration (a bit much there sometimes but loved learning about it). As well as the genetic code, decoding DNA, genotypes and phenotypes. The classification of organisms. Seeing how ingenious our bodies, especially our cells, are, but also their limits and how some human frailties start at such a basic level. Leaning about life in general, how it works. The class was so alive.

Chemistry was more interesting than I thought, but rather dry, and more about electrons and orbitals than I would have predicted (in a good way though!). Periodic table was a little better than I thought it would better. Properties of water, solutions and solutes, all the measuring with scales, could be a little boring sometimes.

Physics I thought would be more like how chemistry was... but it wasn't. It was so bland. And I LOVE reading about Physics in my own time, I tried to memorize the basic subatomic particles in 6th grade like how most people memorize the planets in the solar system and the continents on Earth. I love the cutting edge, on the macro extreme of Cosmological physics and the micro extreme of Quantum physics. But the course was so dull. Just another math course, with some stupid labs about Newton's laws of motion, mixed with info about scalar and vectors and other soul-sucking material. Not at all what I was expecting.

You have fairly well illustrated the famous quote by Ernest Rutherford, "All science is either physics or stamp collecting." In 6th grade your approach to subatomic particle was stamp collecting. I did that, too, at that age. Biology classes into college tend to be that way, too, since the "physics" of biology can be far more mathematically complex than the physics of Newton's Laws.

What makes physics is seeing how precisely measured quantities form mathematical relationships that can be used to accurately predict the behavior of a system. Chemistry has become more physics-like as first the quantum understanding of the atom and then the computer to make necessary calculations has made the mathematical relationship doable. That tends to result in a class that seems dry.

One problem in 21st century biology is that our understanding of large molecules at the quantum level through computers has allowed biology to become more "physics", but undergraduate preparation still concentrates more on Rutherford's "stamp-collecting". Modern professional biologists are more often in molecular biology than in anatomy or ecology and need more chemistry and physics than they got for their major. At some point studies for pure molecular biology will have to diverge from biology for those in related health and environmental professions.

[muon2]

I find both physics and biology fascinating, and I wish my teachers had been more engaging. The thing about any science is that while there is a ton of information to cover, classes are much more effective if students do at least some interactive activities. It might be necessary to spend some time on lectures and explanations or course material, but when classes consist entirely of that, most students lose interest quickly. I may have gone in a more scientific direction in college if my classes had been more engaging.

Interactive activities are a great addition to science lecture classes. The problem is that that type of engagement requires smaller settings - typically with two dozen or fewer students. The science labs can handle that, usually staffed by graduate assistants. But most universities don't have the staff or space to break down their science lecture enrollment into sections of 24 students.

[muon2]

Biology, by far. I especially loved cellular biology, with organelles and mitochondria, mitosis, photosynthesis and cellular respiration (a bit much there sometimes but loved learning about it). As well as the genetic code, decoding DNA, genotypes and phenotypes. The classification of organisms. Seeing how ingenious our bodies, especially our cells, are, but also their limits and how some human frailties start at such a basic level. Leaning about life in general, how it works. The class was so alive.

Chemistry was more interesting than I thought, but rather dry, and more about electrons and orbitals than I would have predicted (in a good way though!). Periodic table was a little better than I thought it would better. Properties of water, solutions and solutes, all the measuring with scales, could be a little boring sometimes.

Physics I thought would be more like how chemistry was... but it wasn't. It was so bland. And I LOVE reading about Physics in my own time, I tried to memorize the basic subatomic particles in 6th grade like how most people memorize the planets in the solar system and the continents on Earth. I love the cutting edge, on the macro extreme of Cosmological physics and the micro extreme of Quantum physics. But the course was so dull. Just another math course, with some stupid labs about Newton's laws of motion, mixed with info about scalar and vectors and other soul-sucking material. Not at all what I was expecting.

You have fairly well illustrated the famous quote by Ernest Rutherford, "All science is either physics or stamp collecting." In 6th grade your approach to subatomic particle was stamp collecting. I did that, too, at that age. Biology classes into college tend to be that way, too, since the "physics" of biology can be far more mathematically complex than the physics of Newton's Laws.

What makes physics is seeing how precisely measured quantities form mathematical relationships that can be used to accurately predict the behavior of a system. Chemistry has become more physics-like as first the quantum understanding of the atom and then the computer to make necessary calculations has made the mathematical relationship doable. That tends to result in a class that seems dry.

One problem in 21st century biology is that our understanding of large molecules at the quantum level through computers has allowed biology to become more "physics", but undergraduate preparation still concentrates more on Rutherford's "stamp-collecting". Modern professional biologists are more often in molecular biology than in anatomy or ecology and need more chemistry and physics than they got for their major. At some point studies for pure molecular biology will have to diverge from biology for those in related health and environmental professions.

Very interesting. Do you think there's no good at all to come from the "stamp collecting" side? I think that knowledge at least should be required, and then go more into the "physics" in  200+ level college courses and high school electives?

The "stamp-collecting" is still science, and an important part at that. In order to get accurate predictive models, one needs a set of data as a basis. Classifying stars or plants helps build that data set. However, if only only engages in this taxonomic exercise one misses the next critical step, building a mathematical model and testing it. Building that mathematical model from basic principles is the "physics".

We can wonder at the stars, but the ability to do things like forecast eclipses for centuries in advance  makes astronomy truly elegant. We can appreciate the beauty of a rose, but the ability to read its DNA and see where its essential nature is coded is a beauty within.