Help with Year 11 Subject Choices - Chemistry or Biology?! (1 Viewer)

[The Matrix]

Biology you don't even use chemical equations, biology is pure rote learning, i.e., memorising bullshit.
Also, physics is awesome, watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVxBdMxgVX0 (Part 1)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGWlT8SqXLM (Part 2)
Hopefully this is enough to convince you to choose physics, otherwise, I'll convince you myself because without physics, chemistry and biology don't exist (biology should be considered a social science!):

Suppose that you have a degree in Physics, and that you are being interviewed for your first paying job. To get the interview going, the interviewer will ask, "So, you have a degree in Physics?" The best answer is, "No, I have a degree in How To Solve Problems".
There are two main reasons why it is essential to make physics a big part of your first degree.
First, physics teaches you how to be a good scientist. You learn how to work out what the problem is, and then, how to solve it. You will learn how to do experiments. You will learn how to design experiments, how to make measurements, and how to analyse your results.
Note one very important thing. You are learning how to be any type of Scientist, not just a Physicist.
Once you know Physics, you need only a very small amount of Local Knowledge to do science into diabetes, the fatigue of metals, the different states of water (still a very poorly understood liquid), or why a tail is more efficient than a propeller (and maybe put the "fish" back into efficiency for ships). You need only a few weeks of solid reading to get started in any other field. You will pick up the rest of the knowledge that you need as you go along.
The second important thing that Physics teaches you is the essential "mental toolbox" to be any kind of good scientist. It doesn't matter whether you are trying to make a sick pancreas "morph" into a healthy pancreas while it's still in the body of a diabetic, or whether you are trying to save fuel by designing a better plane wing.
Everything that we can measure is in some way dependent on the Four Forces that run the Universe.
They are the Gravity Force (that keeps the planets in their orbits), the Electromagnetic Force (radio, TV, etc), the Weak Nuclear Force (certain types of radioactivity), and the Strong Nuclear Force (holds the protons in the nucleus together). No matter what you are trying to investigate, it will be mediated by one, or more, of these forces. Knowing this makes your job as a scientist so much easier!

Do Physics ^^

 

[theind1996]

There is absolutely nothing to relate between biology and chemistry. Are you kidding?
Chemistry and Physics relate so much in the HSC, nuclear chemistry and Q2Q, equilibrium and lenz's law, etc..., in biology you don't even use chemical equations, biology is pure rote learning, i.e., memorising bullshit.
Also, physics is awesome, watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVxBdMxgVX0 (Part 1)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGWlT8SqXLM (Part 2)
Hopefully this is enough to convince you to choose physics, otherwise, I'll convince you myself because without physics, chemistry and biology don't exist (biology should be considered a social science!):

Suppose that you have a degree in Physics, and that you are being interviewed for your first paying job. To get the interview going, the interviewer will ask, "So, you have a degree in Physics?" The best answer is, "No, I have a degree in How To Solve Problems".
There are two main reasons why it is essential to make physics a big part of your first degree.
First, physics teaches you how to be a good scientist. You learn how to work out what the problem is, and then, how to solve it. You will learn how to do experiments. You will learn how to design experiments, how to make measurements, and how to analyse your results.
Note one very important thing. You are learning how to be any type of Scientist, not just a Physicist.
Once you know Physics, you need only a very small amount of Local Knowledge to do science into diabetes, the fatigue of metals, the different states of water (still a very poorly understood liquid), or why a tail is more efficient than a propeller (and maybe put the "fish" back into efficiency for ships). You need only a few weeks of solid reading to get started in any other field. You will pick up the rest of the knowledge that you need as you go along.
The second important thing that Physics teaches you is the essential "mental toolbox" to be any kind of good scientist. It doesn't matter whether you are trying to make a sick pancreas "morph" into a healthy pancreas while it's still in the body of a diabetic, or whether you are trying to save fuel by designing a better plane wing.
Everything that we can measure is in some way dependent on the Four Forces that run the Universe.
They are the Gravity Force (that keeps the planets in their orbits), the Electromagnetic Force (radio, TV, etc), the Weak Nuclear Force (certain types of radioactivity), and the Strong Nuclear Force (holds the protons in the nucleus together). No matter what you are trying to investigate, it will be mediated by one, or more, of these forces. Knowing this makes your job as a scientist so much easier!

That's if you find a job lol.

 

[The Matrix]

That's if you find a job lol.

WTF? first off all, you do a combined degree, physics/med, physics/engineering, etc... secondly you do postgraduate studies to specialise.
Physics gives you so many skills essential to life, way more important than the BULLSHIT you learn in Legal Studies, Economics, Biology and all these stupid ROTE LEARNING subjects. People with a physics degree can work in so many different disciplines due to the skills they have like problem solving and critical thinking, they can also do research.
I'm not saying do physics in the HSC to do physics degree at uni, that was an analogy... so why did you make a comment telling me that people with physics degrees don't get jobs, and end the sentence with L.O.L. that's kinda stupid because it is obviously an analogy to the fact that physics gives you problem solving and critical thinking skills...

 

[enoilgam]

Legal studies and most other humanities arent rote learning subjects (the essays require you to apply and evaluate content). Also, legal and especially eco have a lot of relevance in life - suffice to say that some of most valuable things I learnt at school were from those two subjects.

 

[The Matrix]

Legal studies and most other humanities arent rote learning subjects (the essays require you to apply and evaluate content).

Well, I've never done any humanities except for biology so I might not be completely correct...

 

[lolcakes52]

Biology isn't a humanities subject.

In year 12, if you want to get the highest conceivable atar with only medium effort (in comparison with the workload of something like modern history), your subjects should look like this:

3unit english (At least advanced)
4unit maths (A low mark in four unit is amazing as a 60 in four unit is better than an 85 in 2 unit)

and two of the following:

Chemistry (Best scaling 2unit course)
Physics (With 4unit maths this is a breeze)
Economics (Haven't done this but it is the best scaling humanities subject)

As you want to get into medicine the only real way to prepare yourself is early exposure. Biology is not a requirement for medicine in any sense. Physics and Chemistry are both things that are needed for Medicine as well as some maths. Drug ingestion, the methods of immune responses etc are easier to understand with prior maths, physics and chemistry knowledge.

But this isn't about preparing yourself as much as asking yourself whether you want to do low scaling subjects and risk a small error jeopardising your future or to suffer through harder subjects and know that your work is going to give you results that you need.

 

[AruzelTheDragon]

Although physics scales well, you need to be able to do reasonably well in it. I know nothing about you, so I can't make an accurate judgement about your skills but you need to be realistic about how hard you work, what your studying is like and if you can maintain that for two years. (in prelim, it doesn't matter that much but it does give you the foundations to the HSC, in both knowledge and developing the studying skills).
I regret the way I've approached the HSC. I've always wanted to be a writer/ publisher and writing is what I do and is my skill/passion. But for some reason in year 10 I decided I wanted to be a vet. For my prelim courses I picked advanced English, extension1 english, Modern History, mathematics, chemistry, physics and studies of religion1. And I regret that. ( it should have been legal instead of chem, and ancient or senior science instead of physics and just pure and simple general maths) Halfway through year 11 I realised that I was being unrealistic, even though I loved animals I couldn't put in the effort to do well in maths, chem and physics nor were my skills in that area.
For my HSC, I changed so many subjects its not funny. I only need an atar of 60 for my course, and I can get that easily based on my assessment scores (I hope) but that mentality means i've been kicked out of extension 2 English for lack of work. I regret the way i've approached this, and although I can't give a definite recommendation for either biology or physics, I guess what i'm trying to say is to sit down and seriously consider the workload you need against the workload you want and can do. Maybe (if you do well in it) bio could be your relaxing subject. It strikes me that you would do well in it (so it would boost your atar anyway), and really all you have to do is remember. (no offence intended to any lovers)
But I don't think you would choose 3U of maths and chem if you weren't gifted there, so you would most likely do well in physics (again, assumptions). But, from experience, you most likely would have to work that bit harder.
I would recommend going to library or talking to seniors at your school and just skimming through their textbooks to see the content. Both courses qualify you into getting into the degree (provided you get the atar). And if you want you can do a bridging course before you go into uni and do the other one if you really want
But above all, don't fret if you don't get the atar you need for the dream course first time round. The HSC runs every year, yes it would be nice to get it right the first time, but you're a teenager and anything could happen. Your career path could change, you could have a change of mentality and so on.
I don't know where i'm going with this any more haha, what ever you choose just make sure you get the work done, don't stress because there are other ways into uni and there is (believe it or not) life after the HSC. Most importantly, have fun and stay true to yourself!
I'm going to stop before this becomes to much about mushy feelings and stuff, I hope that sort of helped you.

 

[russ3l]

Although physics scales well, you need to be able to do reasonably well in it. I know nothing about you, so I can't make an accurate judgement about your skills but you need to be realistic about how hard you work, what your studying is like and if you can maintain that for two years. (in prelim, it doesn't matter that much but it does give you the foundations to the HSC, in both knowledge and developing the studying skills).
I regret the way I've approached the HSC. I've always wanted to be a writer/ publisher and writing is what I do and is my skill/passion. But for some reason in year 10 I decided I wanted to be a vet. For my prelim courses I picked advanced English, extension1 english, Modern History, mathematics, chemistry, physics and studies of religion1. And I regret that. ( it should have been legal instead of chem, and ancient or senior science instead of physics and just pure and simple general maths) Halfway through year 11 I realised that I was being unrealistic, even though I loved animals I couldn't put in the effort to do well in maths, chem and physics nor were my skills in that area.
For my HSC, I changed so many subjects its not funny. I only need an atar of 60 for my course, and I can get that easily based on my assessment scores (I hope) but that mentality means i've been kicked out of extension 2 English for lack of work. I regret the way i've approached this, and although I can't give a definite recommendation for either biology or physics, I guess what i'm trying to say is to sit down and seriously consider the workload you need against the workload you want and can do. Maybe (if you do well in it) bio could be your relaxing subject. It strikes me that you would do well in it (so it would boost your atar anyway), and really all you have to do is remember. (no offence intended to any lovers)
But I don't think you would choose 3U of maths and chem if you weren't gifted there, so you would most likely do well in physics (again, assumptions). But, from experience, you most likely would have to work that bit harder.
I would recommend going to library or talking to seniors at your school and just skimming through their textbooks to see the content. Both courses qualify you into getting into the degree (provided you get the atar). And if you want you can do a bridging course before you go into uni and do the other one if you really want
But above all, don't fret if you don't get the atar you need for the dream course first time round. The HSC runs every year, yes it would be nice to get it right the first time, but you're a teenager and anything could happen. Your career path could change, you could have a change of mentality and so on.
I don't know where i'm going with this any more haha, what ever you choose just make sure you get the work done, don't stress because there are other ways into uni and there is (believe it or not) life after the HSC. Most importantly, have fun and stay true to yourself!
I'm going to stop before this becomes to much about mushy feelings and stuff, I hope that sort of helped you.

Your post was truly inspiring being a year 10 student, I feel as though you've opened my eyes to the real world. Good luck with your HSC.

 

[AruzelTheDragon]

Your post was truly inspiring being a year 10 student, I feel as though you've opened my eyes to the real world. Good luck with your HSC.

this just made messing up and disappointing people worthwhile haha, thank-you

 

[FallingNightSky]

Physics gives you so many skills essential to life, way more important than the BULLSHIT you learn in Legal Studies, Economics, Biology and all these stupid ROTE LEARNING subjects. .

wtf youre so ignorant if youve never done any humanity subjects then why talk about it, who said its rote learning. So facepalm

 

[theind1996]

WTF? first off all, you do a combined degree, physics/med, physics/engineering, etc... secondly you do postgraduate studies to specialise.
Physics gives you so many skills essential to life, way more important than the BULLSHIT you learn in Legal Studies, Economics, Biology and all these stupid ROTE LEARNING subjects. People with a physics degree can work in so many different disciplines due to the skills they have like problem solving and critical thinking, they can also do research.
I'm not saying do physics in the HSC to do physics degree at uni, that was an analogy... so why did you make a comment telling me that people with physics degrees don't get jobs, and end the sentence with L.O.L. that's kinda stupid because it is obviously an analogy to the fact that physics gives you problem solving and critical thinking skills...

AHAHAHAHAHA uMad brah?!

And you're clearly anti-humanities and pretty ignorant regarding them.

I'm pretty sure I'm speaking for Physics too, but there's plenty of ROTE-learning in HSC Chemistry - those 7 markers pop up pretty frequently.

And Economics isn't all rote-learning lol. (And Economics outscales Physics and Chemistry) - it's the most relevant of any HSC subject (besides maths) to real life - even if you don't pursue it at a tertiary level and it's very useful for degrees in Commerce and Actuarial.

 

[Eg155]

OP: If you are not naturally great at maths I advise you not to do physics. Although the maths is easy, it is the logic in the maths that creats problems. Usually 'mathematically' oriented people are great at figuring out how use the equations and such. If you are more of a humaities/english person stick to your intuitions and stay true to yourself. I did physics for a term and hated it because it seemed as though the preliminary course was irrelevant to what I want to do which is also medicine like you.
I was going to drop bio but I spoke to my bio teacher about it because she is a former doctor and he daughter is currently studying medicine. She said biology is very helpful, she understands more of what she is doing because she did biology comparatively to those who did not study it at all. Physics is quite irrelevant for the preparation for the course. Although physics is a better scaler people do get 99.95 atars with just chem and bio

 

[theind1996]

Biology isn't a humanities subject.

In year 12, if you want to get the highest conceivable atar with only medium effort (in comparison with the workload of something like modern history), your subjects should look like this:

3unit english (At least advanced)
4unit maths (A low mark in four unit is amazing as a 60 in four unit is better than an 85 in 2 unit)

and two of the following:

Chemistry (Best scaling 2unit course)
Physics (With 4unit maths this is a breeze)
Economics (Haven't done this but it is the best scaling humanities subject)

As you want to get into medicine the only real way to prepare yourself is early exposure. Biology is not a requirement for medicine in any sense. Physics and Chemistry are both things that are needed for Medicine as well as some maths. Drug ingestion, the methods of immune responses etc are easier to understand with prior maths, physics and chemistry knowledge.

But this isn't about preparing yourself as much as asking yourself whether you want to do low scaling subjects and risk a small error jeopardising your future or to suffer through harder subjects and know that your work is going to give you results that you need.

Eco outscales Chem.

But I totally agree with your last sentence.

 

[The Matrix]

AHAHAHAHAHA uMad brah?!

And you're clearly anti-humanities and pretty ignorant regarding them.

I'm pretty sure I'm speaking for Physics too, but there's plenty of ROTE-learning in HSC Chemistry - those 7 markers pop up pretty frequently.

And Economics isn't all rote-learning lol. (And Economics outscales Physics and Chemistry) - it's the most relevant of any HSC subject (besides maths) to real life - even if you don't pursue it at a tertiary level and it's very useful for degrees in Commerce and Actuarial.

I agree, I don't like the way Chemistry is structured in the HSC but you still need to understand the concept very well.
For example, I never memorised any long response answers for chemistry, I just understand the concepts behind it.

 

[enoilgam]

But this isn't about preparing yourself as much as asking yourself whether you want to do low scaling subjects and risk a small error jeopardising your future or to suffer through harder subjects and know that your work is going to give you results that you need.

I think this is true to an extent, but it depends on what you classify as a "low scaling subject" and the aims of individuals. If you mean something like general maths or visual arts then yes, you are probably correct in that if you want a high ATAR, you need to make sure that you do extremely well in such subjects and a small slip-up could hurt you. But subjects like the histories, legal, SOR and some languages arent that risky - remember scaling converges in the 90's and the difference in scaling between a subject like physics and legal studies in the low-mid 90s is not that much.

Also, not everyone aims nor has the potential for a high ATAR. If you want something around 90 or less, you dont really need to give scaling much consideration. You're better off doing subjects you enjoy and are good.

 

[theind1996]

I agree, I don't like the way Chemistry is structured in the HSC but you still need to understand the concept very well.
For example, I never memorised any long response questions for chemistry, I just understand the concepts behind it.

Yep, but asserting that other subjects are rote-learning without doing them is plain ignorant.

What you said about Chem is clearly evident for Economics essays - you need to be able to understand (not always memorise) the theory and apply it with statistics etc.

With Chem, there's not really any concepts behind some of the 7 markers.

E.g. in Prelim, the history of Metals, the chronological ages, recycling of metals etc. Even in HSC, in Production of Materials: "3.1.8 Assess the potential of ethanol as an alternative fuel and discuss the advantages and disadvantages of its use."

It's easier to memorise and churn out rote-learned responses (obviously answering the question) rather than thinking over the question for too long.

Think of it as, "Oh, this question's asking for this dotpoint and this verb - I can write about point X, Y and Z". If you've memorised responses, tilt them to the question and you're set.

You can have a lot more time to spend on "harder" questions.

Sorry for off-topic discussion mods.

 

[enoilgam]

Sorry for off-topic discussion mods.

I think we have gone a little off-topic, but its still very much relevant for the OP and their dilemma so I think it is ok to continue the discussion.

 

[theind1996]

I think we have gone a little off-topic, but its still very much relevant for the OP and there dilemma so I think it is ok to continue the discussion.

Their.

 

[The Matrix]

Yep, but asserting that other subjects are rote-learning without doing them is plain ignorant.

What you said about Chem is clearly evident for Economics essays - you need to be able to understand (not always memorise) the theory and apply it with statistics etc.

With Chem, there's not really any concepts behind some of the 7 markers.

E.g. in Prelim, the history of Metals, the chronological ages, recycling of metals etc. Even in HSC, in Production of Materials: "3.1.8 Assess the potential of ethanol as an alternative fuel and discuss the advantages and disadvantages of its use."

It's easier to memorise and churn out rote-learned responses (obviously answering the question) rather than thinking over the question for too long.

Think of it as, "Oh, this question's asking for this dotpoint and this verb - I can write about point X, Y and Z". If you've memorised responses, tilt them to the question and you're set.

You can have a lot more time to spend on "harder" questions.

Sorry for off-topic discussion mods.

Ethanol is not currently viable as an alternative fuel for mass consumption. At the moment, methods of producing ethanol are expensive compared with the price of obtaining non-renewable supplies such as coal oil and natural gas. This was clearly illustrated by the failed Brazilian attempt to use ethanol in the 1970's and 1980's. However, as supplies of fossil fuels decline and/or taxes imposed on their use increase, or if cheaper alternative methods of producing ethanol from biological sources are found, then ethanol may become more competitive.

The most common source of ethanol is the hydration of ethylene (a by-produvt of catalytic cracking of crude oil). However, ethanol obtained by this method is less efficient than other fuels, e.g. petrol, which produces more energy per gram and costs less to extract. The main advantage of ethanol as a fuel produced this way is that is produces a cleaner burn (that is, less soot is produces).
Ethanol can also be produced by fermentation of glucose and it is this form that it is often seen as a "greener" fuel. The advantage of this method is that it doesn't use fossil fuels but rather takes glucose from naturally concentrated sources such as sugar cane and sugar beet. The burning of ethanol produced this way has the potential to be greenhouse-neutral, in that the CO₂ produced by the burning of this ethanol is used in it's synthesis.

However, the disadvantages of this method far outweigh the advantages. The growing of suitable glucose-rich plants occupies large amounts of land for the amount of ethanol produced and may require clearing of much more land which leads to detrimental effect on the environment like land degradation, salinity, erosion, and all this things we learn in year 10 geography. Energy inputs, which are greenhouse-unfriendly including mechanical planting and harvesting, burning cane for harvesting, and more importantly the energy required to distil the ethanol from the fermentation mixture is very high due to the high heat capacities of water and ethanol. The wasted from large fermentations plants include smelly liquors and other solid waste which are expensive and difficult to dispose of.

Future research that could enhance current technology include improving the efficiency of solar powered distillation processes, genetic engineering of bacteria/enzymes to increase the concentration of ethanol produced in fermentation to higher than 15%, and developing mechanisms for the decomposition of cellulose to produce glucose economically (current enzyme/acid digestion of cellulose to produce glucose is extremely expensive. New technologies might focus on looking for alternative pathways to produce ethanol directly from cellulose.



If you write this in the test or something similar you get 8/8 for this question!

I don't see the need to memorise this, just understand the structure of the response and concepts behind all the advantages and disadvantages, i.e. why we need to distil ethanol from fermentation and why is this process considered a disadvantage; ethanol produced from fermentation is less than 15% concentrated because if it exceeds 15%, the yeast enzymes (catalyst) will be damaged and will no longer be able to break down glucose forming ethanol, also, fractional distillation requires fossil fuels which is ironic since we are trying to develop alternative resources to reduce the strain on fossil fuels, also, the heat capacity of ethanol is high, so large amounts on energy are required to distil it and increase the concentration from 15% to 99.7% ...

 

[theind1996]

Ethanol is not currently viable as an alternative fuel for mass consumption. At the moment, methods of producing ethanol are expensive compared with the price of obtaining non-renewable supplies such as coal oil and natural gas. This was clearly illustrated by the failed Brazilian attempt to use ethanol in the 1970's and 1980's. However, as supplies of fossil fuels decline and/or taxes imposed on their use increase, or if cheaper alternative methods of producing ethanol from biological sources are found, then ethanol may become more competitive.

The most common source of ethanol is the hydration of ethylene (a by-produvt of catalytic cracking of crude oil). However, ethanol obtained by this method is less efficient than other fuels, e.g. petrol, which produces more energy per gram and costs less to extract. The main advantage of ethanol as a fuel produced this way is that is produces a cleaner burn (that is, less soot is produces).
Ethanol can also be produced by fermentation of glucose and it is this form that it is often seen as a "greener" fuel. The advantage of this method is that it doesn't use fossil fuels but rather takes glucose from naturally concentrated sources such as sugar cane and sugar beet. The burning of ethanol produced this way has the potential to be greenhouse-neutral, in that the CO₂ produced by the burning of this ethanol is used in it's synthesis.

However, the disadvantages of this method far outweigh the advantages. The growing of suitable glucose-rich plants occupies large amounts of land for the amount of ethanol produced and may require clearing of much more land which leads to detrimental effect on the environment like land degradation, salinity, erosion, and all this things we learn in year 10 geography. Energy inputs, which are greenhouse-unfriendly including mechanical planting and harvesting, burning cane for harvesting, and more importantly the energy required to distil the ethanol from the fermentation mixture is very high due to the high heat capacities of water and ethanol. The wasted from large fermentations plants include smelly liquors and other solid waste which are expensive and difficult to dispose of.

Future research that could enhance current technology include improving the efficiency of solar powered distillation processes, genetic engineering of bacteria/enzymes to increase the concentration of ethanol produced in fermentation to higher than 15%, and developing mechanisms for the decomposition of cellulose to produce glucose economically (current enzyme/acid digestion of cellulose to produce glucose is extremely expensive. New technologies might focus on looking for alternative pathways to produce ethanol directly from cellulose.



If you write this in the test or something similar you get 8/8 for this question!

I don't see the need to memorise this, just understand the structure of the response and concepts behind all the advantages and disadvantages, i.e. why we need to distil ethanol from fermentation and why is this process considered a disadvantage; ethanol produced from fermentation is less than 15% concentrated because if it exceeds 15%, the yeast enzymes (catalyst) will be damaged and will no longer be able to break down glucose forming ethanol, also, fractional distillation requires fossil fuels which is ironic since we are trying to develop alternative resources to reduce the strain on fossil fuels, also, the heat capacity of ethanol is high, so large amounts on energy are required to distil it and increase the concentration from 15% to 99.7% ...

K lol I just gave an example. I'm not up to that dot point yet but I just found it as an example.