<p>Hi all, i'd really appreciate a little advice regarding grad school admissions. I'm a rising junior, and right now i'm particularly interested in Molecular/Cell Biology, so i've recently been looking at different programs and what sort of research each has going on.</p>
<p>Most of the websites have a section listing recommended undergraduate preparation. All of these lists include physical chemistry.</p>
<p>I really plan on going the molecular biology/genetics route at this point, and i don't really know that the course will be useful for me, and to be honest, i don't have much of an interest in taking the course. Still, i am hoping to be competitive for top programs/advisors (I know they don't necessarily go hand in hand), and am willing to suffer through it if I have to.</p>
<p>I've only seen a few that even list physical chemistry at all, and most of those say "(recommended)", which means it's not required. (And there are many schools that don't go into much detail or list any prerequisites.) If you don't want to take it, I don't think it'll be a big issue; if they want you to take it, you can take it your first semester in the graduate program.</p>
<p>EDIT: I just looked at a few schools to confirm, and the only one that mentioned physical chemistry was Berkeley. Harvard, Yale, and University of Washington didn't mention it. Which schools are you looking at?</p>
<p>I was in a similar situation my junior year. My research adviser recommended taking a year-long series in physical chemistry, even though I'm in developmental biology and I wasn't stoked about it. A generation ago (and before) pchem was essential for day-to-day lab work, which is probably why some professors still "strongly recommend" it. The old fogies on admissions committees might prefer students who have taken pchem because, trapped in a time warp as professors are wont to be, they might not realize that the material is less relevant to biology now. Or they might prefer students who have taken "rigorous" courses (i.e., the same courses they took as undergraduates, when biology was still a fledgling science). However I doubt that anyone would read a transcript closely enough to notice whether pchem was on there or not.</p>
<p>I did end up taking the year-long pchem sequence for the same reason you mentioned: I thought it was an implicit requirement for top schools. It was more interesting than I thought it would be, FWIW.</p>
<p>Oh, I loved pchem! Far superior to ochem. I feel that much of the thermo and kinetics is relevant to my thinking in developmental/neuro, even if I'm not actually doing pchem-like problems. It's good for my intuition.</p>
<p>My feeling is that it's usually wise to treat "recommended" parts of the application as "required" parts, if you're applying for competitive programs. But that's not a hard and fast rule.</p>
<p>I think that like almost all parts of a grad school application, the relative weight of having done or not done anything relies on the strength of the rest of the application.</p>
<p>Heck, I got into nearly every developmental biology PhD program to which I applied without having ever taken a course actually called "Developmental Biology" let alone pchem (but I did write a masters thesis in developmental biology so take that anecdote for what it is worth).</p>
<p>That said, since you have plenty of time left, as long as you can do well in pchem, it can only strengthen your app, so why not take it? Personally, I hate thermo and kinetics, so I understand where you are coming from.</p>
<p>The three laws of thermodynamics (paraphrased): 1) You cannot win, you can only break even. 2) You cannot actually even break even, unless you are at absolute zero. 3) You cannot reach absolute zero.</p>
<p>"The three laws of thermodynamics (paraphrased): 1) You cannot win, you can only break even. 2) You cannot actually even break even, unless you are at absolute zero. 3) You cannot reach absolute zero."</p>
<p>sarbruis
i just looked at Harvard's website for molecular and cellular biology:
The courses listed below are not to be regarded as prerequisites for admission to graduate study, but most admitted students have completed these courses during their undergraduate years.
Biology —
Biochemistry
Organic chemistry
Physical chemistry
Laboratory in biology, biochemistry, or instrumental analysis
Physics — A general elementary course in physics
Mathematics — A basic knowledge of differential and integral calculus.
Competence in elementary programming is also desirable. </p>
<p>I've also looked at a few others that I think had it, possibly including MIT.</p>
<p>I do realize I have a lot of time left, but I guess i'm a bit worried because my junior year schedule is already pretty jam packed, and i'm hoping to devote most of my schedule senior year to research/writing a thesis. Still, i think i can work p-chem in if i have to.</p>
<p>Okay. I was looking in the wrong place, I guess. I was trying to find it on the Harvard MCB website (and not the general grad school site), and even after looking again couldn't find it.</p>
<p>this is basically what's wrong with biology today -- there is a lack of emphasis on mathematically intensive courses. if you ask me, this is why the people making real contributions to modern biology are physicists and mathematicians. biology is taught and practiced in such a manner that there is no real emphasis on formal thinking and analysis. biology is often about how hard you work (lab technique, luck, and an annoying emphasis on details) than about how smart you are.</p>
<p>i've also found that most undergraduate biology courses are basically useless. other than learning the basics of cell biology and genetics, there's not much else worth learning in biology as an undergrad. plus, biology changes so quickly that most of the courses you take as an undergrad will be vastly different in content as a grad student.</p>
<p>
[quote]
he old fogies on admissions committees might prefer students who have taken pchem because, trapped in a time warp as professors are wont to be, they might not realize that the material is less relevant to biology now.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You really think that pchem is <em>less</em> relevant to bio now?</p>
<p>I agree with molliebatmit's comments about the relevance of pchem and about treating recommended stuff as required.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You really think that pchem is <em>less</em> relevant to bio now?
[/quote]
Yes. Many of the daily activities of a '70s cell biologist that required pchem knowledge have been automated, replaced, or rendered obsolete by data analysis software, pre-formulated kits, and access to detailed protocols. Around the start of junior year I asked the grad students in my lab about taking pchem: many hadn't and yet were succeeding in their research. In the past, pchem was requisite knowledge in developmental biology...now, apparently not.</p>
<p>Mollieb mentioned thermo and kinetics as reasons for appreciating pchem. I saw these topics treated in depth in other courses so I don't associate them much with pchem. For reference, [url=<a href="http://www.its.caltech.edu/%7Echem21a/%5Dhere's%5B/url">http://www.its.caltech.edu/~chem21a/]here's[/url</a>] what my first term of pchem was like. Some problems were easy and some quite hard, but in all cases it's not relevant to the work I do every day. I further pray that quantum never becomes relevant to my work...but that's a matter of personal preference.</p>
<p>You're ridiculous. The entire field of systems biology (and, I would argue, biology as a whole) is more or less based on statistical physics. Sure, you don't need to know pchem or any physics to be a biologist, but you'll be left in the dust if you don't.</p>
<p>Not to intrude on this debate- but this thread was really created for the purpose of molecular/cell biology and genetics. I won't be going anywhere near systems biology.</p>
<p>the point is that "mcb" is becoming increasingly quantitative and you'd be better served by taking as many quant courses as possible. you can pick up the biology on the way...it's not that hard.</p>
<p>If you plan on doing anything associated with computational biology, then take p chem. Even though the course may seem useless when you're taking (as it did to me) when you get to graduate school and read more scientific papers you will notice that many of the concepts are useful. This is especially true for biochemistry, molecular modeling, simulations, or anything were computational work may be involved.</p>
<p>If you're strong in chemistry take it. If not, pass. Even though the course is useful, if you don't do well in it, it could hurt you. P chem is a very difficult course.</p>
<p>I never took pchem- or even orgo and I got into every graduate school, including mit, harvard (systems + bbs), berkeley etc. So if you're prepared in other ways, i dont think that it will matter.</p>
<p>research experience and letters of recommendation are the two most important I think. You need to show that you are prepared for graduate school and ready to succeed. You also probably want to take at least a couple of quantitative courses to show that you have a familiarity with quantitative science, which is where science is heading in the future.</p>