The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

If you want to be a chemist make sure your degree is accredited by the RSC, if it is then you'll have full access to research jobs in chemistry.
Chemistry, for in the end you will have done a lot of physics. Biology will be covered too.
Reply 3
You sure as hell dont want to do chemistry. trust me dont do it. natural sciences would be so much better and interesting
Out of the two I advise chemistry as it's more specific, natural science may not give enough background on each subject and so may limit your career prospects.
I enjoy mt chemistry course and applied to other unis for nat-sci and im glad im not doing it.
Reply 6
If Cambridge is on your list for NatSci, I wouldn't worry too much about Chem vs NatSci, you'll cover all the chem any chem undergrad would anyway from what I can gather from reading on here.

Dunno about NatSci at any other unis though.
-G-a-v-
If Cambridge is on your list for NatSci, I wouldn't worry too much about Chem vs NatSci, you'll cover all the chem any chem undergrad would anyway from what I can gather from reading on here.

Dunno about NatSci at any other unis though.


My friend is number 1 in his year at Oxford, he knows the syllabus in and out, and has made extensive comparison with Cambridge NatSci. Conclusion: NatSci in no way approaches the depth nor difficulty of the chemistry course at Oxford. It is a misconception that you can go into the same depth with something that is a lot more broad.
Reply 8
webecomesilhouetes
My friend is number 1 in his year at Oxford, he knows the syllabus in and out, and has made extensive comparison with Cambridge NatSci. Conclusion: NatSci in no way approaches the depth nor difficulty of the chemistry course at Oxford. It is a misconception that you can go into the same depth with something that is a lot more broad.


Oxford hasn't even been mentioned until now. I only mentioned Cambridge because it's one of the most well known for Natural Sciences, the intention wasn't to spark an Oxford Chem vs Cambridge NatSci debate.

Just because your friend is the best in his year, that doesn't make much of a difference apart from knowing what is covered in Oxford and what isn't since obviously he will know the syllabus inside out. Exactly how extensvely has he compared the courses though?

Admittedly, the comment I've heard (numerous times) was usually in the specific context of physics rather than chemistry (probably because I tend to check physics-related threads far more than chemistry ones), I assumed it'd be a similar set up though. After first year, Cambridge NatSci gets more specialised e.g. you'll do a few science subjects in first year, then in second year start to specialise. In the grand scheme of things, I can't really see that the broader options in the first year make THAT much of a diffrence to the depth the course eventually goes in. I assume Cambridge natsci would also be approved by the RSC if you choose to do enough Chemistry. So, for them at least, it's as good as any Chemistry degree.
-G-a-v-
Oxford hasn't even been mentioned until now. I only mentioned Cambridge because it's one of the most well known for Natural Sciences, the intention wasn't to spark an Oxford Chem vs Cambridge NatSci debate.

Just because your friend is the best in his year, that doesn't make much of a difference apart from knowing what is covered in Oxford and what isn't since obviously he will know the syllabus inside out. Exactly how extensvely has he compared the courses though?

Admittedly, the comment I've heard (numerous times) was usually in the specific context of physics rather than chemistry (probably because I tend to check physics-related threads far more than chemistry ones), I assumed it'd be a similar set up though. After first year, Cambridge NatSci gets more specialised e.g. you'll do a few science subjects in first year, then in second year start to specialise. In the grand scheme of things, I can't really see that the broader options in the first year make THAT much of a diffrence to the depth the course eventually goes in. I assume Cambridge natsci would also be approved by the RSC if you choose to do enough Chemistry. So, for them at least, it's as good as any Chemistry degree.


1. Your argument is fallacious because you cannot rely on non-existent authority of having heard an utterance "numerous times".

2. If they don't cover what we do in first year, how will Cambridge magically assume all that knowledge to begin from where we do in second year. It is impossible to do so. Ie., either they teach the course horribly and assume people to learn the rest of the first year chemistry course over the Long Vacation, or their starting point in second year is far behind ours.
3. The amount of work we do is at the threshold point. It is physically impossible to put more things on the syllabus. Hence Cambridge would not be able to "magically" catch up with us.
Chemistry at Wolverhampton is also RSC approved, but that does not mean it is on par with Oxford.
Reply 11
webecomesilhouetes
1. Your argument is fallacious because you cannot rely on non-existent authority of having heard an utterance "numerous times".

2. If they don't cover what we do in first year, how will Cambridge magically assume all that knowledge to begin from where we do in second year. It is impossible to do so. Ie., either they teach the course horribly and assume people to learn the rest of the first year chemistry course over the Long Vacation, or their starting point in second year is far behind ours.
3. The amount of work we do is at the threshold point. It is physically impossible to put more things on the syllabus. Hence Cambridge would not be able to "magically" catch up with us.


They could put more into the course. There's a little too much time, perhaps, between the last 1st year lectures and prelims. There's easily enough time to bung in a few quick 4 lecture courses. Yes, everybody would moan, but prelims don't really need that much revision... I know that I wasted most of 5th/6th week and still did reasonably well.
cpchem
They could put more into the course. There's a little too much time, perhaps, between the last 1st year lectures and prelims. There's easily enough time to bung in a few quick 4 lecture courses. Yes, everybody would moan, but prelims don't really need that much revision... I know that I wasted most of 5th/6th week and still did reasonably well.


Still, two 4-lecture courses would not make the NatSci course on par with chemistry at Oxford. That is unless they have extremely gifted students at Mordor.
Reply 13
webecomesilhouetes
1. Your argument is fallacious because you cannot rely on non-existent authority of having heard an utterance "numerous times".

2. If they don't cover what we do in first year, how will Cambridge magically assume all that knowledge to begin from where we do in second year. It is impossible to do so. Ie., either they teach the course horribly and assume people to learn the rest of the first year chemistry course over the Long Vacation, or their starting point in second year is far behind ours.
3. The amount of work we do is at the threshold point. It is physically impossible to put more things on the syllabus. Hence Cambridge would not be 2able to "magically" catch up with us.


The main person I've heard it from is a user on here, who is pretty knowledgeable on this sort of thing, and gives good advice on here all the time.

And how intensive Oxford's course is compared to other Universities isn't really relevant to the question the OP was asking. As I've already mentioned, I only used Cambridge as an example since its the most well-known natural sciences course. The OP may well not even be considering Cambridge. The point is that a good NatSci course will still be RSC-approved (when the focus has been on Chemistry), so it'll be seen as equivalent to a Chemistry degree and people who graduate in NatSci, who have specialised in Chemistry will still have covered all the core chemistry that every chemistry graduate is expected to know.

Also, Wolverhampton don't even do Chemistry. Biochemistry is the closest they have.
webecomesilhouetes
My friend is number 1 in his year at Oxford, he knows the syllabus in and out, and has made extensive comparison with Cambridge NatSci. Conclusion: NatSci in no way approaches the depth nor difficulty of the chemistry course at Oxford. It is a misconception that you can go into the same depth with something that is a lot more broad.


The breadth of the Cambridge NatSci is a bit of a misconception really. The oxford course is highly mathematical and physical in first year and so are cambridge students who take physics and mathematics in first year (as is common for chemists) really disadvantaged against oxford? Also Materials science (another popular choice for chemists at Cambridge) is an important adjunct to chemistry and can only add to the education of the chemists there.

A key point to note between the two courses is that fourth year in Oxford is spent exclusively on research whereas Part III still has significant amount of structured teaching within it - clearly this is ample time to 'make up' for the extra chemistry that oxford students have done in the preceding years. Perhaps their research experience will not be as extensive, but any undergraduate research project is only going to give you a superficial level of experience anyway. The fact that cambridge students can graduate earlier is irrelevant because Oxford only offer the MChem.
That is unless they have extremely gifted students at Mordor.


haha thats a good one "mordor"
Reply 16
NatSci at a decent uni should get you into a PhD course. Depends if you want to keep your bredth of knowledge. Perhaps your lab experience wont be complete, but a couple of summers of lab work experience would sort that.
Ita usually very easy to convert in the first term or two if you feel you choose thewrong option.
Reply 17
whats the main difference between nat sci and materials science?
Reply 18
materials science is a subject taught within natural sciences.
Quady
NatSci at a decent uni should get you into a PhD course. Depends if you want to keep your bredth of knowledge. Perhaps your lab experience wont be complete, but a couple of summers of lab work experience would sort that.
Ita usually very easy to convert in the first term or two if you feel you choose thewrong option.


Likewise, it is very easy to get a book on cell biology, university physics and real analysis. That is as far you would go if you wanted to do chemistry at Cambridge.