Imperial College London
London
Just graduated with a biochemistry degree from Imperial College. Ask me anything!
Scroll to see replies
Original post by kanra
Oh wow, I thought this thread died months ago and now I login and find I missed all these new comments. Sorry guys! Thanks to dugefaellstmir for your input, and Sk2001 for your message 
Yes! I graduated with a first class honours. And I'm not entirely sure what GEM is, so I'm going to say no.
There are so many possibilities! A lot of people go into further research (masters, and then PhD, with the intention of continuing into a research career and possibly lecturing). At the same time, a lot go into consulting or finance. Some stay in science, but not research (e.g. medical consulting, or the management side of pharmaceuticals). There are a ton of new biotech companies emerging, particularly in London, so I know a few friends who have signed up for that kind of thing. And some go into patent law. I also have friends who have switched into fields like biomedical engineering, or computer science (from a neuroscience perspective).
A lot of people make the mistake of thinking you're bound by the field of your degree, but the possibilities are endless! I'm personally looking into pharmaceutical careers (considering both research and quality control/operations pathways).
Yes! There is a fair amount of maths, not so much in first year (although Professor Drickamer does some stuff on deriving equations, and Dr Beis covers some maths on reaction rates), but in my second year we covered protein crystallography which was essentially applied maths and physics. I'm not sure how it works now, since they've dramatically changed the layout of second year since we did it (now there are optional modules and a tutored dissertation).
Biotechnology and biochemistry are exactly the same degree for the first two years. In the third year, there are certain modules that have "biotechnology credits" and if you pick those particular modules you graduate with a biotechnology degree rather than biochemistry. I have a friend who did biotechnology, and her third year modules were stem cells, cancer, and neuroscience - none of which had any maths (except a little bit in neuroscience) so I don't think the biotechnology stream is more quantitative. I can't say anything about the UCL course - you would have to get in touch with the course directors.
I'm doing a masters at UCL now, but it's hard to compare two universities based on an undergraduate experience at one and a postgraduate experience at another. Are you deciding between the two universities?
I'm looking into pharmaceuticals, but as I said in my reply above to uka_qwer, there are a huge range of possibilities and doing a biochemistry degree doesn't tie you down to lab based careers. Where did you get the idea that biochemistry isn't a respected degree? From my experience, science degrees are generally very highly regarded.
At Imperial, biology isn't a required A level for those wanting to study biochemistry. There's quite a lot of biology in the course, so you would undoubtedly find things harder (at least to begin with) than your peers just because you wouldn't be familiar with a lot of the biological concepts.
That said, I think you can generally trust that entry requirements are sensible - if they don't specify that you need A level biology to get in, the course is doable without A level biology. I have friends who came in without basic biology knowledge, and it just means you have to be willing to put in the extra work to catch up. At the same time, most people don't do physics at A level, and struggle with the physical aspects of the biochemistry course - so you will have some advantages too.
Of course, this advice is specific to Imperial. If you have particular universities you are interested in, definitely check their entry requirements for biochemistry or get in touch with the admissions team for advice.
Yes! I graduated with a first class honours. And I'm not entirely sure what GEM is, so I'm going to say no.
There are so many possibilities! A lot of people go into further research (masters, and then PhD, with the intention of continuing into a research career and possibly lecturing). At the same time, a lot go into consulting or finance. Some stay in science, but not research (e.g. medical consulting, or the management side of pharmaceuticals). There are a ton of new biotech companies emerging, particularly in London, so I know a few friends who have signed up for that kind of thing. And some go into patent law. I also have friends who have switched into fields like biomedical engineering, or computer science (from a neuroscience perspective).
A lot of people make the mistake of thinking you're bound by the field of your degree, but the possibilities are endless! I'm personally looking into pharmaceutical careers (considering both research and quality control/operations pathways).
Yes! There is a fair amount of maths, not so much in first year (although Professor Drickamer does some stuff on deriving equations, and Dr Beis covers some maths on reaction rates), but in my second year we covered protein crystallography which was essentially applied maths and physics. I'm not sure how it works now, since they've dramatically changed the layout of second year since we did it (now there are optional modules and a tutored dissertation).
Biotechnology and biochemistry are exactly the same degree for the first two years. In the third year, there are certain modules that have "biotechnology credits" and if you pick those particular modules you graduate with a biotechnology degree rather than biochemistry. I have a friend who did biotechnology, and her third year modules were stem cells, cancer, and neuroscience - none of which had any maths (except a little bit in neuroscience) so I don't think the biotechnology stream is more quantitative. I can't say anything about the UCL course - you would have to get in touch with the course directors.
I'm doing a masters at UCL now, but it's hard to compare two universities based on an undergraduate experience at one and a postgraduate experience at another. Are you deciding between the two universities?
I'm looking into pharmaceuticals, but as I said in my reply above to uka_qwer, there are a huge range of possibilities and doing a biochemistry degree doesn't tie you down to lab based careers. Where did you get the idea that biochemistry isn't a respected degree? From my experience, science degrees are generally very highly regarded.
At Imperial, biology isn't a required A level for those wanting to study biochemistry. There's quite a lot of biology in the course, so you would undoubtedly find things harder (at least to begin with) than your peers just because you wouldn't be familiar with a lot of the biological concepts.
That said, I think you can generally trust that entry requirements are sensible - if they don't specify that you need A level biology to get in, the course is doable without A level biology. I have friends who came in without basic biology knowledge, and it just means you have to be willing to put in the extra work to catch up. At the same time, most people don't do physics at A level, and struggle with the physical aspects of the biochemistry course - so you will have some advantages too.
Of course, this advice is specific to Imperial. If you have particular universities you are interested in, definitely check their entry requirements for biochemistry or get in touch with the admissions team for advice.
GEM means Graduate Entry Medicine. Are you going to do that?
Imperial College London
London
Original post by kanra
Yes! There is a fair amount of maths, not so much in first year (although Professor Drickamer does some stuff on deriving equations, and Dr Beis covers some maths on reaction rates), but in my second year we covered protein crystallography which was essentially applied maths and physics. I'm not sure how it works now, since they've dramatically changed the layout of second year since we did it (now there are optional modules and a tutored dissertation).
Biotechnology and biochemistry are exactly the same degree for the first two years. In the third year, there are certain modules that have "biotechnology credits" and if you pick those particular modules you graduate with a biotechnology degree rather than biochemistry. I have a friend who did biotechnology, and her third year modules were stem cells, cancer, and neuroscience - none of which had any maths (except a little bit in neuroscience) so I don't think the biotechnology stream is more quantitative. I can't say anything about the UCL course - you would have to get in touch with the course directors.
Biotechnology and biochemistry are exactly the same degree for the first two years. In the third year, there are certain modules that have "biotechnology credits" and if you pick those particular modules you graduate with a biotechnology degree rather than biochemistry. I have a friend who did biotechnology, and her third year modules were stem cells, cancer, and neuroscience - none of which had any maths (except a little bit in neuroscience) so I don't think the biotechnology stream is more quantitative. I can't say anything about the UCL course - you would have to get in touch with the course directors.
I'm currently studying computational biology at ETH; having been here for six months, I wouldn't consider any of the stuff taught by Drickamer/Beis/Curry to be advanced math/physics at all. Michaelis-Menten kinetics is a bunch of linear homogenous first-order ODEs; BC exam questions for Gibbs free energy were just algebraic manipulation; crystallography is basic vector algebra and complex numbers -- all of which are taught at or before A levels. van Thor even had to dumb down his physics lectures to approximately A level standard. Hence, in the first two years, we barely learnt any uni-level math at all! Real maths at varsity level would be: linear algebra, multi-variate calculus and analysis, probability and statistics, mechanics, numerical methods (Matlab), and finally, for those interested in bioinformatics, data structures and algorithms. Ideally, math lectures should be purely in math (perhaps 30-45 ECTS in total in the first two years would suffice), and not about math equations applied in biology, but sadly that will never happen in Imperial, as there is for instance extremely little communication or collaboration between the Life Sciences and Maths departments. Additionally, just because the Fourier transform was introduced in crystallography, it doesn't mean that MSF1 is all of a sudden a mathematical course. In a real math course, we would actually be performing calculations with the Fourier transform and solving problems, rather than memorising a long-ass equation to be regurgitated, term for term, in an essay.
A biotech degree is supposed to be more quantitative than a biochem degree, hence the name. Are you certain that your friend graduated with a Biotech degree with those final-year mods? It's explicitly stated that you need 8 Biotech points or more to get a Biotech degree, otherwise the degree will be in Biochem and not Biotech. Your friend's mods give a grand total of 4 Biotech points. I suspect that he/she was initially registered under Biotech, but upon doing those mods, the degree was automatically changed to Biochem. If, however, he/she really did graduate with a Biotech degree, then that means the rules are not properly enforced, and it's too easy to graduate with a Biotech degree, i.e. the Biotech degree is being devalued. The Biotech degree should be rightfully reserved for people who studied the likes of ISB, BAP, M3D, synthetic, bioinformatics, and/or MNE; it's an insult to us that somebody else who did a combination of SCRA, Cancer, and Neuro is considered just as worthy of a technology degree. Why, then, even bother having two separate degrees in the first place?
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by 99victor
Did you feel like the Biotechnology course was too qualitative too? Do you know if the UCL Biotechnology course has more maths in it? And would you choose UCL over Imperial?
Actually yes, I think the Biotech course was too qualitative as well, esp. in the second year. Biotech and Biochem have exactly the same course content for the first two years, meaning that we memorise the same signalling and metabolic pathways without ever learning how to engineer or artificially modify them. Even though there's a course in third year called 'Metabolic and Network Engineering', I think it's more to do with reading papers than performing calculations that involve linear algebra and ODEs. However, I hear the degree is getting better/more quantitative, with the introduction of R programming in second year Genes & Genomics.
I'm afraid I'm not the best person to advise you about UCL because I've never studied there. Judging from the outline of the course structure alone, they do significantly more stuff about bioreactors, which would inadvertently involve a fair amount of math (just that I'm not sure exactly how in-depth/rigorous the math will be, so you would have to ask UCL for some examples). Funnily, 4 years ago, I didn't apply to UCL, as I didn't really like their course structure, i.e. I didn't want to study bioreactor engineering and business. Thus, for all its shortcomings, Imperial still has the most suitable life science course for my interests. In no other uni in the UK would I have got the opportunity to study structural, systems, and synthetic biology all in the final year.
If you're aiming to study something quantitative in the UK yet specialise in biology eventually, I would definitely advise you to do a quantitative degree and then a masters in biology. These would specifically be computer science (related to informatics), maths (related to systems biology), chem eng (related to industrial bioreactors), mech eng (related to prosthetics), and electrical eng (related to bionanotech and bioelectronics). Alternatively you could check out Mathematical Biology courses in Edinburgh and Dundee, or, if you speak German, Rechnergestüzte Wissenschaften (computational science and engineering) with a final-year specialisation in chemistry and biology at ETH Zürich.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by kanra
Oh wow, I thought this thread died months ago and now I login and find I missed all these new comments. Sorry guys! Thanks to dugefaellstmir for your input, and Sk2001 for your message
Yes! I graduated with a first class honours. And I'm not entirely sure what GEM is, so I'm going to say no.
There are so many possibilities! A lot of people go into further research (masters, and then PhD, with the intention of continuing into a research career and possibly lecturing). At the same time, a lot go into consulting or finance. Some stay in science, but not research (e.g. medical consulting, or the management side of pharmaceuticals). There are a ton of new biotech companies emerging, particularly in London, so I know a few friends who have signed up for that kind of thing. And some go into patent law. I also have friends who have switched into fields like biomedical engineering, or computer science (from a neuroscience perspective).
A lot of people make the mistake of thinking you're bound by the field of your degree, but the possibilities are endless! I'm personally looking into pharmaceutical careers (considering both research and quality control/operations pathways).
Yes! There is a fair amount of maths, not so much in first year (although Professor Drickamer does some stuff on deriving equations, and Dr Beis covers some maths on reaction rates), but in my second year we covered protein crystallography which was essentially applied maths and physics. I'm not sure how it works now, since they've dramatically changed the layout of second year since we did it (now there are optional modules and a tutored dissertation).
Biotechnology and biochemistry are exactly the same degree for the first two years. In the third year, there are certain modules that have "biotechnology credits" and if you pick those particular modules you graduate with a biotechnology degree rather than biochemistry. I have a friend who did biotechnology, and her third year modules were stem cells, cancer, and neuroscience - none of which had any maths (except a little bit in neuroscience) so I don't think the biotechnology stream is more quantitative. I can't say anything about the UCL course - you would have to get in touch with the course directors.
I'm doing a masters at UCL now, but it's hard to compare two universities based on an undergraduate experience at one and a postgraduate experience at another. Are you deciding between the two universities?
I'm looking into pharmaceuticals, but as I said in my reply above to uka_qwer, there are a huge range of possibilities and doing a biochemistry degree doesn't tie you down to lab based careers. Where did you get the idea that biochemistry isn't a respected degree? From my experience, science degrees are generally very highly regarded.
At Imperial, biology isn't a required A level for those wanting to study biochemistry. There's quite a lot of biology in the course, so you would undoubtedly find things harder (at least to begin with) than your peers just because you wouldn't be familiar with a lot of the biological concepts.
That said, I think you can generally trust that entry requirements are sensible - if they don't specify that you need A level biology to get in, the course is doable without A level biology. I have friends who came in without basic biology knowledge, and it just means you have to be willing to put in the extra work to catch up. At the same time, most people don't do physics at A level, and struggle with the physical aspects of the biochemistry course - so you will have some advantages too.
Of course, this advice is specific to Imperial. If you have particular universities you are interested in, definitely check their entry requirements for biochemistry or get in touch with the admissions team for advice.
Yes! I graduated with a first class honours. And I'm not entirely sure what GEM is, so I'm going to say no.
There are so many possibilities! A lot of people go into further research (masters, and then PhD, with the intention of continuing into a research career and possibly lecturing). At the same time, a lot go into consulting or finance. Some stay in science, but not research (e.g. medical consulting, or the management side of pharmaceuticals). There are a ton of new biotech companies emerging, particularly in London, so I know a few friends who have signed up for that kind of thing. And some go into patent law. I also have friends who have switched into fields like biomedical engineering, or computer science (from a neuroscience perspective).
A lot of people make the mistake of thinking you're bound by the field of your degree, but the possibilities are endless! I'm personally looking into pharmaceutical careers (considering both research and quality control/operations pathways).
Yes! There is a fair amount of maths, not so much in first year (although Professor Drickamer does some stuff on deriving equations, and Dr Beis covers some maths on reaction rates), but in my second year we covered protein crystallography which was essentially applied maths and physics. I'm not sure how it works now, since they've dramatically changed the layout of second year since we did it (now there are optional modules and a tutored dissertation).
Biotechnology and biochemistry are exactly the same degree for the first two years. In the third year, there are certain modules that have "biotechnology credits" and if you pick those particular modules you graduate with a biotechnology degree rather than biochemistry. I have a friend who did biotechnology, and her third year modules were stem cells, cancer, and neuroscience - none of which had any maths (except a little bit in neuroscience) so I don't think the biotechnology stream is more quantitative. I can't say anything about the UCL course - you would have to get in touch with the course directors.
I'm doing a masters at UCL now, but it's hard to compare two universities based on an undergraduate experience at one and a postgraduate experience at another. Are you deciding between the two universities?
I'm looking into pharmaceuticals, but as I said in my reply above to uka_qwer, there are a huge range of possibilities and doing a biochemistry degree doesn't tie you down to lab based careers. Where did you get the idea that biochemistry isn't a respected degree? From my experience, science degrees are generally very highly regarded.
At Imperial, biology isn't a required A level for those wanting to study biochemistry. There's quite a lot of biology in the course, so you would undoubtedly find things harder (at least to begin with) than your peers just because you wouldn't be familiar with a lot of the biological concepts.
That said, I think you can generally trust that entry requirements are sensible - if they don't specify that you need A level biology to get in, the course is doable without A level biology. I have friends who came in without basic biology knowledge, and it just means you have to be willing to put in the extra work to catch up. At the same time, most people don't do physics at A level, and struggle with the physical aspects of the biochemistry course - so you will have some advantages too.
Of course, this advice is specific to Imperial. If you have particular universities you are interested in, definitely check their entry requirements for biochemistry or get in touch with the admissions team for advice.
Sorry if someone already asked these questions :3 ...
- I do bio, chem and maths a level and was wondering what's the jump like for a level to degree level. Is it like from GCSE to a level?
- would you say the content is like a mix of bio and chem or purely bio based. If so is it just expanding on your a level content?
Thanks in advance
Thanks a lot! I have an offer to study Biotechnology with a year in industry/research with Management (5 year course). Does it make sense to do the management year if I want to do research? Could I change my degree to simply biotech with the year in industry? I do like the management component but I would still like to do research in the long run.
Original post by 99victor
Thanks a lot! I have an offer to study Biotechnology with a year in industry/research with Management (5 year course). Does it make sense to do the management year if I want to do research? Could I change my degree to simply biotech with the year in industry? I do like the management component but I would still like to do research in the long run.
You can definitely change your degree later down the line. Biotechnology can switch to biochem, people can drop in and out of the year in industry and the management year. You don't have to finalise anything until at least the second year, and I'm pretty sure some of my friends opted in for the management year part way through third year. I personally don't think having an additional year in management should impact too much on whether you do research in the future, since you still have the same biotechnical qualification and knowledge as everyone else who took the course.
Original post by kiiten
Sorry if someone already asked these questions :3 ...
- I do bio, chem and maths a level and was wondering what's the jump like for a level to degree level. Is it like from GCSE to a level?
- would you say the content is like a mix of bio and chem or purely bio based. If so is it just expanding on your a level content?
Thanks in advance
- I do bio, chem and maths a level and was wondering what's the jump like for a level to degree level. Is it like from GCSE to a level?
- would you say the content is like a mix of bio and chem or purely bio based. If so is it just expanding on your a level content?
Thanks in advance
I found the jump from A level to university pretty intense, more because the of the sheer content of lectures than the material itself being hard to understand. The course starts off as a mixture of biology and chemistry (you have one biological chemistry module and one cell biology module to start with), but later on in the year you have a module on proteins and enzymes and one on molecular biology which I would say lean more towards biology. Second year adds a bit more physics and maths to the mix, but the structure of second year has changed a lot since we did it so I'm not sure if the balance has changed here. Third year really depends on your module options.
I would say the chemistry component of the course is mostly an extension of what I learnt at A level, although they go over this again from the basics anyway since everyone will have slightly different backgrounds (A level, IB, different exam boards etc.). The biology is a bit more mixed. We cover protein structure, genetics, immunology, organelles (all A level topics) in much more detail, but there are also topics like neuroscience, cancer, and signalling that I don't think I learnt at A level.
Original post by Sk2001
Ok thanks that's helped a lot . Just curious, what A Levels did you do and did they help throughout your degree?
. Just curious, what A Levels did you do and did they help throughout your degree?I did maths, biology, and chemistry. Chemistry is compulsory anyway, so I won't discuss that, but I think having a biology background helped a lot - especially in the first months of the course. I know a few people who really struggled to write the first essay and follow lectures because they don't really go over the basic biology despite biology not being compulsory.
The maths, I'm not really sure about. I personally struggled a lot with the mathematical aspects of the course, and I guess I would have probably struggled more had I not done maths?
Original post by S2M
GEM means Graduate Entry Medicine. Are you going to do that?
Oh! I see. Definitely not. I'm really not keen on another 5 years of studying and definitely do not have the mental strength for medicine.
Congrats on the degree, what do you plan on doing next?
Original post by kanra
You can definitely change your degree later down the line. Biotechnology can switch to biochem, people can drop in and out of the year in industry and the management year. You don't have to finalise anything until at least the second year, and I'm pretty sure some of my friends opted in for the management year part way through third year. I personally don't think having an additional year in management should impact too much on whether you do research in the future, since you still have the same biotechnical qualification and knowledge as everyone else who took the course.
I found the jump from A level to university pretty intense, more because the of the sheer content of lectures than the material itself being hard to understand. The course starts off as a mixture of biology and chemistry (you have one biological chemistry module and one cell biology module to start with), but later on in the year you have a module on proteins and enzymes and one on molecular biology which I would say lean more towards biology. Second year adds a bit more physics and maths to the mix, but the structure of second year has changed a lot since we did it so I'm not sure if the balance has changed here. Third year really depends on your module options.
I would say the chemistry component of the course is mostly an extension of what I learnt at A level, although they go over this again from the basics anyway since everyone will have slightly different backgrounds (A level, IB, different exam boards etc.). The biology is a bit more mixed. We cover protein structure, genetics, immunology, organelles (all A level topics) in much more detail, but there are also topics like neuroscience, cancer, and signalling that I don't think I learnt at A level.
I did maths, biology, and chemistry. Chemistry is compulsory anyway, so I won't discuss that, but I think having a biology background helped a lot - especially in the first months of the course. I know a few people who really struggled to write the first essay and follow lectures because they don't really go over the basic biology despite biology not being compulsory.
The maths, I'm not really sure about. I personally struggled a lot with the mathematical aspects of the course, and I guess I would have probably struggled more had I not done maths?
Oh! I see. Definitely not. I'm really not keen on another 5 years of studying and definitely do not have the mental strength for medicine.
I found the jump from A level to university pretty intense, more because the of the sheer content of lectures than the material itself being hard to understand. The course starts off as a mixture of biology and chemistry (you have one biological chemistry module and one cell biology module to start with), but later on in the year you have a module on proteins and enzymes and one on molecular biology which I would say lean more towards biology. Second year adds a bit more physics and maths to the mix, but the structure of second year has changed a lot since we did it so I'm not sure if the balance has changed here. Third year really depends on your module options.
I would say the chemistry component of the course is mostly an extension of what I learnt at A level, although they go over this again from the basics anyway since everyone will have slightly different backgrounds (A level, IB, different exam boards etc.). The biology is a bit more mixed. We cover protein structure, genetics, immunology, organelles (all A level topics) in much more detail, but there are also topics like neuroscience, cancer, and signalling that I don't think I learnt at A level.
I did maths, biology, and chemistry. Chemistry is compulsory anyway, so I won't discuss that, but I think having a biology background helped a lot - especially in the first months of the course. I know a few people who really struggled to write the first essay and follow lectures because they don't really go over the basic biology despite biology not being compulsory.
The maths, I'm not really sure about. I personally struggled a lot with the mathematical aspects of the course, and I guess I would have probably struggled more had I not done maths?
Oh! I see. Definitely not. I'm really not keen on another 5 years of studying and definitely do not have the mental strength for medicine.
Ohh ok. Congratulations though for your degree!
Original post by kanra
Hey everyone! Hope results went well today, and congratulations to everyone who managed to meet their Imperial College offer!
I just graduated with a first in biochemistry, so feel free to ask me anything about student life, workload, accommodation, whatever
I just graduated with a first in biochemistry, so feel free to ask me anything about student life, workload, accommodation, whatever
Hey there. I've applied to the Imperial BSc Biochemistry course, after which I would intend to do a one year MSc (possibly at UCL like you) - all my other applications have been for the MSci Biochemistry (4 year integrated masters).
Do you know whether there is a difference between the MSci and BSc+MSc routes in terms of getting into PhD programmes etc? Also, would you recommend biochemistry at Imperial/have any insight about it generally?
Thanks!
Hi,
I've got an offer for Biochemistry with management and I'm stuck between imperial and St Andrews. I'm just wondering if Imperial is a nice place to study and if the low student satisfaction should be a genuine concern or not? Also how much better do
you think the job prospects would be between the two, or are they roughly equal?
Thanks for any help!
I've got an offer for Biochemistry with management and I'm stuck between imperial and St Andrews. I'm just wondering if Imperial is a nice place to study and if the low student satisfaction should be a genuine concern or not? Also how much better do
you think the job prospects would be between the two, or are they roughly equal?
Thanks for any help!
Hello! I currently have NatSci Cambridge as my firm and Imperial Biochem as my insurance. I am thinking of changing my firm to Imperial and here are a few of my questions and considerations:
1. Cambridge is obviously more world renowned, but I read in many threads that many UK industries prefer Imperial graduates, but is this only true for engineering or does it apply for biochem as well? (My plan is either to work in a biochem/biotech firm or non-science related jobs like consultancy, but defenitely not academia)
2. I really like spending my free time doing park runs, watching musicals, going to art exhibitions/museums and most of these opportunities are in London. Of course I can head down to London, but the 6-day NatSci week may make this difficult. Do you have lots of free time to do this in Imperial?
What do you guys think? Any comments or opinions will be really helpful! (:
1. Cambridge is obviously more world renowned, but I read in many threads that many UK industries prefer Imperial graduates, but is this only true for engineering or does it apply for biochem as well? (My plan is either to work in a biochem/biotech firm or non-science related jobs like consultancy, but defenitely not academia)
2. I really like spending my free time doing park runs, watching musicals, going to art exhibitions/museums and most of these opportunities are in London. Of course I can head down to London, but the 6-day NatSci week may make this difficult. Do you have lots of free time to do this in Imperial?
What do you guys think? Any comments or opinions will be really helpful! (:
Original post by rabbit06
Hello! I currently have NatSci Cambridge as my firm and Imperial Biochem as my insurance. I am thinking of changing my firm to Imperial and here are a few of my questions and considerations:
1. Cambridge is obviously more world renowned, but I read in many threads that many UK industries prefer Imperial graduates, but is this only true for engineering or does it apply for biochem as well? (My plan is either to work in a biochem/biotech firm or non-science related jobs like consultancy, but defenitely not academia)
2. I really like spending my free time doing park runs, watching musicals, going to art exhibitions/museums and most of these opportunities are in London. Of course I can head down to London, but the 6-day NatSci week may make this difficult. Do you have lots of free time to do this in Imperial?
What do you guys think? Any comments or opinions will be really helpful! (:
1. Cambridge is obviously more world renowned, but I read in many threads that many UK industries prefer Imperial graduates, but is this only true for engineering or does it apply for biochem as well? (My plan is either to work in a biochem/biotech firm or non-science related jobs like consultancy, but defenitely not academia)
2. I really like spending my free time doing park runs, watching musicals, going to art exhibitions/museums and most of these opportunities are in London. Of course I can head down to London, but the 6-day NatSci week may make this difficult. Do you have lots of free time to do this in Imperial?
What do you guys think? Any comments or opinions will be really helpful! (:
Imperial 1st Year Chemist here. From what I've seen and have been told by my biochemistry friends is that 1st year biochem is not intense, at all. They probably have one of the lowest contact hours from all the courses from imperial, I can't speak for 2nd and 3rd year though. All the activities you want to do are more than possible if you do biochemistry at imperial
Original post by longsightdon
Imperial 1st Year Chemist here. From what I've seen and have been told by my biochemistry friends is that 1st year biochem is not intense, at all. They probably have one of the lowest contact hours from all the courses from imperial, I can't speak for 2nd and 3rd year though. All the activities you want to do are more than possible if you do biochemistry at imperial
Oh wow I didn't know that! Thanks(:
Original post by Em B
Hey there. I've applied to the Imperial BSc Biochemistry course, after which I would intend to do a one year MSc (possibly at UCL like you) - all my other applications have been for the MSci Biochemistry (4 year integrated masters).
Do you know whether there is a difference between the MSci and BSc+MSc routes in terms of getting into PhD programmes etc? Also, would you recommend biochemistry at Imperial/have any insight about it generally?
Thanks!
Do you know whether there is a difference between the MSci and BSc+MSc routes in terms of getting into PhD programmes etc? Also, would you recommend biochemistry at Imperial/have any insight about it generally?
Thanks!
As far as I know, BSc + MSc is more or less equivalent to 4 year MSci in the UK, but if you go to the US they don't count MSci as a masters (I don't know the full details though).
Overall I would definitely recommend the course. It's a tough journey and you will be expected to put in long hours and hard work, but the lecturers are real experts in their fields. "General insight" is quite a broad question though (I could write you an essay seriously), so maybe go back and read the other comments in this thread and get in touch again if you have a more specific question!
Original post by HBanners
Hi,
I've got an offer for Biochemistry with management and I'm stuck between imperial and St Andrews. I'm just wondering if Imperial is a nice place to study and if the low student satisfaction should be a genuine concern or not? Also how much better do
you think the job prospects would be between the two, or are they roughly equal?
Thanks for any help!
I've got an offer for Biochemistry with management and I'm stuck between imperial and St Andrews. I'm just wondering if Imperial is a nice place to study and if the low student satisfaction should be a genuine concern or not? Also how much better do
you think the job prospects would be between the two, or are they roughly equal?
Thanks for any help!
It's hard to make a fair comparison given that I only did my undergraduate at one university. I think the main reason for low student satisfaction is probably the high work load, and I know some students are stressed financially because it's London. Personally I never felt too unsatisfied with my course, but I suppose the biosciences are generally viewed as easier options compared to engineering (engineering workload is seriously no joke).
With regards to job prospects I wouldn't be too concerned. People forget that the CV and qualifications are only a small part of the hiring process. An Imperial degree won't save you from a terrible interview or assessment centre.
Original post by rabbit06
Hello! I currently have NatSci Cambridge as my firm and Imperial Biochem as my insurance. I am thinking of changing my firm to Imperial and here are a few of my questions and considerations:
1. Cambridge is obviously more world renowned, but I read in many threads that many UK industries prefer Imperial graduates, but is this only true for engineering or does it apply for biochem as well? (My plan is either to work in a biochem/biotech firm or non-science related jobs like consultancy, but defenitely not academia)
2. I really like spending my free time doing park runs, watching musicals, going to art exhibitions/museums and most of these opportunities are in London. Of course I can head down to London, but the 6-day NatSci week may make this difficult. Do you have lots of free time to do this in Imperial?
What do you guys think? Any comments or opinions will be really helpful! (:
1. Cambridge is obviously more world renowned, but I read in many threads that many UK industries prefer Imperial graduates, but is this only true for engineering or does it apply for biochem as well? (My plan is either to work in a biochem/biotech firm or non-science related jobs like consultancy, but defenitely not academia)
2. I really like spending my free time doing park runs, watching musicals, going to art exhibitions/museums and most of these opportunities are in London. Of course I can head down to London, but the 6-day NatSci week may make this difficult. Do you have lots of free time to do this in Imperial?
What do you guys think? Any comments or opinions will be really helpful! (:
Like I said above, I wouldn't think too much about the employment aspect. It's impossible to know exactly what hiring managers are thinking and different people within the same company probably have their own variation in preferences. Imperial and Cambridge are both top universities and I doubt you would get rejected solely due to having gone to one or the other. Again, the educational background is only one of many considerations during the hiring process (you have the tests, interviews, assessment centres, motivational questions...) and having a degree from X university won't save you if you perform poorly in the other stages.
I found I had a lot of free time in first year - most days I only had 2 lectures (in some cases 1) and maybe labs or tutorials in the afternoon (although some afternoons were just free). Second year was the worst in terms of work load, but I still managed to be an active member of two societies. It's all about good time management. Although they've massively changed the structure of second year since I was there.
Third year was actually freer than second, maybe also because you pick your modules and are more interested in them so it feels like you're working less? Overall, I would say you'll have plenty of time to enjoy London and the whole university experience as long as you plan ahead and work efficiently.
(edited 6 years ago)
What grades did you get to apply for Imperial? What do you plan to become?
Original post by kanra
Hey everyone! Hope results went well today, and congratulations to everyone who managed to meet their Imperial College offer!
I just graduated with a first in biochemistry, so feel free to ask me anything about student life, workload, accommodation, whatever
I just graduated with a first in biochemistry, so feel free to ask me anything about student life, workload, accommodation, whatever
Biochemistry vs Pharmacy?
I know this was discussed in the past multiple times, and what seems to be recurring is the fact that job prospects for pharmacists are a lot better.
However, I always wanted to go into research (I did a work experience in a hospital pharmacy, and it was ridiculously boring), I want to be always discovering new things, I want to be thinking of new ways to cultivate a culture, I want to come into work excited about what I'm going to find under the microscope or when I do a test, I want to publish papers.
I don't care if it's private industry or uni research. Pay , of course, is important but it's not the end of the world if I get an average salary. I know that I'll have to do a PhD, I was planning to do that ragardless of which course I get into anyway.
Can you please enlighten me with your experience with Biochemistry? and whether or not both courses have equal footing in terms of research?
Thank you in advance!
Original post by 2017
Es ist unlängst bekannt dass deutsche Unis (insbesondere die ETH) eine viel bessere theoretische Grundlage bieten und auch ein hohes Mass an Eigenständigkeit und Selbstdisziplin fordern. Ausser Cambridge (Mathe tripos) und LBS/Oxbridge Econ würde ich GB meiden. Nicht nur wegen der "unvollständigen" Ausbildung, sondern auch wegen den prekären Abeitsbedingungen und schlechter Löhne.
ETH is in Switzerland
Original post by Deltahedron
ETH is in Switzerland
He/She probably meant 'deutschsprachige' rather than 'deutsche'.
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by 2017
Es ist unlängst bekannt dass deutsche Unis (insbesondere die ETH) eine viel bessere theoretische Grundlage bieten und auch ein hohes Mass an Eigenständigkeit und Selbstdisziplin fordern. Ausser Cambridge (Mathe tripos) und LBS/Oxbridge Econ würde ich GB meiden. Nicht nur wegen der "unvollständigen" Ausbildung, sondern auch wegen den prekären Abeitsbedingungen und schlechter Löhne.
Ich hab' dieses Gefuehl, dass die meisten hier sehr wenig Deutsch verstehen, und es scheint auch, dass dein Deutsch viel besser als mein ist, deshalb antworte ich auf Englisch. Yes, it's undeniable that the theoretical education in continental Europe is far more rigorous than in the British unis ranked just below Oxbridge (i.e. IC/UCL) -- and for a much lower tuition. It pains me to say this, because I did my bachelors in the UK and I love the country, but the rest of your assessment is largely spot-on (schlechtere Loehne inklusiv). Unfortunately, there are very few who have experienced the university systems in both the UK and continental Europe, and would realise the vast difference between both systems. The confusion lies in the fact that British universities at large continue to out-rank their European counterparts, but I think it's partly because the rankings are biased towards unis where the first language is English.
(edited 6 years ago)
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- uni rankings. imperial to kcl?
- Trouble with choosing ucas courses help!!!
- biochemistry in oxford and natrual sciences (biological courses) in Cambridge
- Switching from Biochemistry to Chemistry at Imperial College
- Imperial Biochem VS Leeds Natsci
- Undergraduate degree decision
- Doubt about following through with my deferred offer.
- Bristol vs. Imperial?!
- Biology degree without chemistry A-level?!
- UCL Biochemical Engineering AMA
- How to become a Clinical Scientist?
- how can you become a clinical scientist?
- chem eng or chem
- Imperial College MSc Finance Video Interview
- Getting over it (A level edition)
- Ask a Design Engineering Student! AMA
- is studying forensic science a bad idea?
- Official NATURAL SCIENCES applicants thread 2024
- Help me choose! (Physics)
- biology / biological science applicants 2023
Latest
Trending
Last reply 4 days ago
Official Imperial College London Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entryLast reply 1 week ago
What are the chances I get the offer from Imperial for Computing?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Computer science application for Imperial College LondonLast reply 4 weeks ago
Official Imperial College 2024 Undergraduate Applicants ThreadTrending
Last reply 4 days ago
Official Imperial College London Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entryLast reply 1 week ago
What are the chances I get the offer from Imperial for Computing?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Computer science application for Imperial College LondonLast reply 4 weeks ago
Official Imperial College 2024 Undergraduate Applicants Thread
