Favorite science classes
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 06:55:45 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Forum Community
  Off-topic Board (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, The Mikado, YE)
  Favorite science classes
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: What is your favorite science class?
#1
Biology
 
#2
Chemistry
 
#3
Physics
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 29

Author Topic: Favorite science classes  (Read 468 times)
Spark
Spark498
Atlas Politician
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,708
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.58, S: 0.00


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: August 17, 2016, 12:46:53 AM »
« edited: August 18, 2016, 10:40:08 PM by Northern Assembly Candidate Spark498 »

In high school or college.

My favorite was Biology, Chemistry was interesting, and Physics was challenging with a lot of math involved.
Logged
Blue3
Starwatcher
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,035
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: August 17, 2016, 01:03:18 AM »

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.
Logged
Crumpets
Thinking Crumpets Crumpet
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,586
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.06, S: -6.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: August 17, 2016, 01:47:26 AM »

Physics. I very nearly minored in physics in college, and if I have a chance, I might try to do that at some point.
Logged
TDAS04
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,475
Bhutan


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: August 17, 2016, 03:06:07 AM »

Biology.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,964
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: August 17, 2016, 04:10:37 AM »

Each of the three had stuff I found interesting and stuff I hated. I'm not sure which one I'd choose overall.
Logged
muon2
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: August 17, 2016, 07:14:37 AM »

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.
Logged
Fmr President & Senator Polnut
polnut
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,489
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -2.71, S: -5.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: August 17, 2016, 07:23:31 AM »

Biology was more interesting, but I ended up doing better in chemistry.
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,095
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: August 17, 2016, 08:27:21 AM »

Physics (just HS level) was the easiest and most fun.  Biology (HS and Community College) was harder and often less interesting, but still not that hard and often fun.  Chemistry (HS only) was boring and hard. 

My favorite science class was one called "Field Ecology" in HS (so "biology" for this poll).  Was 2 hours long (and was right before lunch as it often ran long) and only 2 days a week.  We went on a field trip almost every week, got to play with live animals, do real science in and out of the classroom/lab, the instructor loved his job and there was only 10 students in the class because nobody wanted to take it for reasons I still don't really understand.  Learning can be fun for kids, adults hate making it that way.
Logged
Sprouts Farmers Market ✘
Sprouts
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,752
Italy


Political Matrix
E: -4.90, S: 1.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: August 17, 2016, 08:54:57 AM »

Biology is cool if you just stick to plants and non-detrimental bacteria, but I start feeling woozy once we get into animals or heaven forbid, human biology. While that is most enjoyable at first, physics is the only one I retain a positive opinion of
Logged
RINO Tom
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,002
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: August 17, 2016, 09:40:15 AM »

I put physics because I love it as an extracurricular hobby, specifically how it relates to the creation of the Universe, but I hated all those classes.
Logged
Xing
xingkerui
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,303
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.52, S: -3.91

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: August 17, 2016, 09:49:50 AM »

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.
Logged
muon2
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: August 17, 2016, 11:57:26 AM »

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.
Logged
Hammy
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,711
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: August 17, 2016, 04:47:23 PM »

Physics, as that's where the bulk of meteorology is (though the math involved is painful.)
Logged
FairBol
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,807
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: August 17, 2016, 06:05:18 PM »

Going with a write-in vote this time....I have always enjoyed the social sciences, namely, psychology and sociology.  I find both areas of study to be quite thought-provoking.  Smiley
Logged
Kaine for Senate '18
benconstine
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,329
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: August 17, 2016, 07:27:59 PM »

Biology, by far
Logged
Blue3
Starwatcher
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,035
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: August 17, 2016, 07:56:47 PM »

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?
Logged
Illiniwek
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,866
United States



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: August 17, 2016, 09:02:48 PM »

Physics was fantastic and so was my teacher in high school. It's why I majored in engineering. I almost got a physics minor, but went math instead.
Logged
muon2
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: August 17, 2016, 10:17:45 PM »

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.
Logged
Xing
xingkerui
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,303
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.52, S: -3.91

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: August 17, 2016, 11:13:43 PM »

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.

I'm aware that it's a problem, especially in large universities. That's why class size is such a hot topic in education, and why I'm very strongly against some of the 300-400 student classes in universities where there isn't even a single T.A. to help out.
Logged
SWE
SomebodyWhoExists
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,234
United States


P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: August 17, 2016, 11:23:20 PM »

Biology. Chemistry was hard and boring, and physics was fairly easy but usually pretty dull.
Logged
Mr. Smith
MormDem
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 33,080
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: August 17, 2016, 11:40:32 PM »

Biology. The rest required too much math.
Logged
RFayette
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,952
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: August 17, 2016, 11:42:32 PM »

Chemistry by a country mile, though biology is in a distant, distant third.
Logged
FairBol
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,807
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: August 18, 2016, 07:30:51 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Indeed.  "Keep looking up!" -- Unknown
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.066 seconds with 15 queries.