Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by R T)
    Lacrosse and rowing were the ones that really killed my free time (travelling for matches, and doing exhausting aerobic fitness sessions frequently mainly).
    The other main killers were having a social life/ having friends and having small interests such as reading and checking up things on the internet/ reddit/ etc.

    Having said this, what I did does not excuse my poor mark. I could have got a first with the remaining free time, I am just not committed/ motivated. Hopefully part II being the year that "counts" will shock me into action like it did for GCSE/A-Level.


    I think straying too far into biology is a mistake if you are interested in doing research later on. If you are actually a brilliant physicist, you should take advantage of this and be 'the neurologist who is amazing at diff. geom'. It's a better idea to stick to ChemEng/Physics/Chemistry because this will improve your research prospects and your job prospects (if academia does not interest you). For example: in neuro/ Pharm, there is nothing you will learn in cambridge that a textbook cannot teach you. Furthermore, even if you were to become a specialist in either of these areas, a complete knowledge of the subject is not necessary as you will become familiar with the theory anyway. What is necessary in a specialist position is practical skills, write-up skills and problem solving/ creative thinking. All of these will be taught better in the chemistry/ physics/ even maths depts.

    Edit: to counter my own post, the only advantage to doing a "soft" biology option would be to make the most of supervisions and lecturers' guidance and pick their thoughts. This could be useful before going into research. However, I think I would maintain my own opinion. The best way to avoid specializing permanently/ making a mistake is to stay as pure as possible. The caveat is that you don't want to be stuck in part II physics and suddenly realise that you find this stuff way too hard and you are in the bottom 5% of the year group. And therefore the advice is slightly more like "do the purest subject that you would enjoy and do well in".

    The scaling up? I don't follow?
    Okay, that changes things. So even doing Chemistry A/B and a Maths module (or one of the Physics) wouldn't close off neuro do you think?

    I also thought that with regards to the pharmacology, can just read up on it.

    With scaling up I meant, instead of like developing a drug based on biochemical properties, you'd be looking at how to mass produced the already designed drug. And I'd prefer the former section I think
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L'Evil Fish)
    Okay, that changes things. So even doing Chemistry A/B and a Maths module (or one of the Physics) wouldn't close off neuro do you think?

    I also thought that with regards to the pharmacology, can just read up on it.

    With scaling up I meant, instead of like developing a drug based on biochemical properties, you'd be looking at how to mass produced the already designed drug. And I'd prefer the former section I think
    It's a bit of a shady area. I visited a number of people from biology departments and straight up asked them "would you take a IB chemist for part II" and the answer was always "yes, if you are willing to do extra work in the summer". Officially, this is probably not the preferred policy.

    Tbh, I wasn't alluding to that at all though. What I mean is that if you want to be doing brilliant research in genetics, protein engineering, systems biology or DNA, it might be a good idea to do a chemistry degree (as in, ChemA+B in IB, then chem for parts II and III). And then look for research posts and funding for a PhD. This would put you in a different, and likely much stronger, position than someone who has just done "neurology" or something. Upon entry, they will know more - but the advantage a chemist would have is skills and techniques which cannot necessarily just be picked up after reading a few textbooks. Basically what I'm saying is that if you are capable of doing chemistry (and I can attest to it being really difficult), you should be doing it over a softer subject. The exception to this may be Biochemistry, but I'd stand by the statement that it would never be a disadvantage to be a physicist applying for a physical chemistry post, or to be a chemist applying for a biology post.

    ^This is all advice that I wish someone had pulled me aside and told me earlier. I regret turning my back on maths/ physics simply because I found them boring.

    Okay, well ChemEng is super-employable for a reason. I am not really the right person to comment on any of this
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by R T)
    It's a bit of a shady area. I visited a number of people from biology departments and straight up asked them "would you take a IB chemist for part II" and the answer was always "yes, if you are willing to do extra work in the summer". Officially, this is probably not the preferred policy.

    Tbh, I wasn't alluding to that at all though. What I mean is that if you want to be doing brilliant research in genetics, protein engineering, systems biology or DNA, it might be a good idea to do a chemistry degree (as in, ChemA+B in IB, then chem for parts II and III). And then look for research posts and funding for a PhD. This would put you in a different, and likely much stronger, position than someone who has just done "neurology" or something. Upon entry, they will know more - but the advantage a chemist would have is skills and techniques which cannot necessarily just be picked up after reading a few textbooks. Basically what I'm saying is that if you are capable of doing chemistry (and I can attest to it being really difficult), you should be doing it over a softer subject. The exception to this may be Biochemistry, but I'd stand by the statement that it would never be a disadvantage to be a physicist applying for a physical chemistry post, or to be a chemist applying for a biology post.

    ^This is all advice that I wish someone had pulled me aside and told me earlier. I regret turning my back on maths/ physics simply because I found them boring.

    Okay, well ChemEng is super-employable for a reason. I am not really the right person to comment on any of this
    Thanks a lot! I'm glad you've said that

    The employability aspect is why I'm considering it, I'm sure I'd enjoy it as well.

    I'll have the first year to see if I really enjoy the sciences, or whether I should switch
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.