<p>Do we need to know calculus in order take Chem 101? I'll be taking a chem course at Penn this summer, and there was a choice between Chem 100 and Chem 101. </p>
<p>I don’t recall there being significant amounts of calculus, though there was a slide on Schroedinger’s equation.</p>
<p>I don’t know how much the syllabus has changed over the past 3 years but: </p>
<p>Chem 101-006 Suggested Problems from Zuhmdal’s Chemical Principles, 6th Edition
Fall 2011
Chapter 5: 1, 4, 7, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 20; 22, 24, 26, 29, 30, 35, 39, 56, 57, 58, 60, 68, 70, 71, 83, 85, 86, 87, 90, 93
Chapter 3: 57, 58, 60, 61, 66, 67
Chapter 2: 24, 25, 27, 29
Chapter 12: 1, 2, 5, 7, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19; 21, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 42, 43, 45, 46, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 58, 59, 60, 62, 63, 65, 66, 75, 80, 109, 112, 128
Chapter 13: 12, 17, 51, 52, 54, 67, 75, 88, 90
Chapter 14: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8; 9, 12, 13, 14, 17, 22, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 36, 41, 42, 43, 45, 46, 49
Chapter 16: 4, 5; 11, 12, 14</p>
<p>if you have Zumdahl, perhaps this will give you an idea. I could not find an old exam. </p>
<p>Chem101 is generally the course that is needed for pre-med classes, and since it’s pretty terrible during the year, it’s possible that during the summer, with the right professor, it might be easier. This is because a lot of non-Penn students take summer classes at Penn, making it easier to compete. However, I never took Chem101 during the summer, so seek second opinions.</p>
<p>It definitely helps your conceptual understanding to know calculus.</p>
<p>I heard Chem 101 is not that bad depending on the Professor. </p>
<p>Poeme have you actually taken any of these pre-med requirement classes that you keep saying are not that bad or are you basing this off of the opinions of your Vagelos friends who are among the most scientifically gifted people at Penn?</p>
<p>I know more than just people in Vagelos, it just happens that my closest friends were all in it (most just graduated but I have several friends who are going to be seniors). Also, many of the people I know in Vagelos are not geared towards chemistry or bio (even though they are good at them), they are into physics.</p>
<p>Actually, I placed out of Chem 101, took Math 114 and 240, and took the honors versions of Chem 102 and intro physics. Honors chem and physics have much harder material than the regular versions. The grading is easier, but that’s because the people in those courses are among the best science students at Penn. One former premed I knew thought he would take Phys 171 to get a higher grade than he did in Phys 150. He deeply regretted his decision as Phys 170 and 171 are among the most difficult and work intensive courses at Penn and not at all for people who prefer rote learning.</p>
<p>I never said anything about the difficulty of the premed courses (although I have heard orgo was a ton of work and could be very difficult for those who were not inclined towards it), I only said that the grading was not as unfair as a lot of Penn premeds make it out to be. It is definitely much less harsh than a school like MIT or UChicago which truly do not have grade inflation.</p>
<p>I will say the material in intro chem, physics, bio is not that hard though, that mostly comes down to your performance on tests which. From what I have observed, many of the people who do well on tests do so through brute force or efficient studying rather than having more intuition like you need in the upper level science classes.</p>
<p>Honestly, many of the premeds taking courses freshman year are weeded out for a reason. They may even be happy they were in the future since medicine is an incredibly tough career path. It requires a ton of perseverance for extremely delayed gratification. If you are not becoming a doctor for good reasons, you will truly hate your job.</p>
<p>Not all premeds at Penn have the stereotypical premed attitude (which is incredibly obnoxious and taints the intellectual environment here). Many of them really do enjoy learning and science. I have noticed those kids are usually the most successful when applying to med school even though a few have admitted to getting a few B+s along the way. This is because they do great research and have shown that they can handle tough courses. </p>
<p>I really don’t understand why med school admissions is so GPA obsessed because my father (who is professor at a top fifteen medical school) says that humanities majors often struggle in med school classes. The engineers and hard science majors, though they often have lower GPAs are better prepared. When looking for residents, engineering actually is quite impressive.</p>
<p>I think we are presenting opinions at two different extremes. </p>
<p>Anyway, it’s absolutely understandable that those with advanced science majors simultaneously have lower GPAs and are better prepared. The major concern is, due to the opacity of premed admissions, are students who choose learning over GPA sacrificing their chances at the medical schools of their choice? Is choosing learning over GPA a luxury only those who are very strong and confident in science can afford? Or a luxury only those who have wealthy families and a backup plan can afford?</p>
<p>I think so long as medical schools use GPA as a criteria, when GPA is not really indicative nationally, but only, at best, by school, this dilemma is going to arise. </p>
<p>The stereotypical premed attitude is obnoxious, but I can sympathize with it considering the cutthroat system we are thrown into. The curve doesn’t encourage learning. It encourages competition. I learned far better in the smaller seminars that were not curved and where professors actually cared if you were doing well. </p>
<p>
I don’t think you’re giving the admissions committees at top medical schools enough credit. They don’t just look at GPAs on a national basis without regard to where those GPAs were earned. Just like top law schools, business schools, and other graduate and professional schools, top med schools are fairly savvy when it comes to evaluating the rigor, competitiveness, and grading standards of top undergraduate schools and the various majors they offer. Just as top undergrad schools are able to put into perspective the tens of thousands of GPAs they evaluate each admissions season, based on the specific courses and particular high schools behind those GPAs.</p>
<p>If that weren’t the case, you wouldn’t see top undergrad schools–including Penn–so well represented at top medical and other professional and grad schools.</p>
<p>I agree they do that, but how do you compare GPA between schools in a way that is truly accurate? There is no reassurance from adcoms (that I know of) that they have this all figured out. Any admissions process that is opaque is more likely to have its failings. </p>
<p>In the case of colleges, which are significantly more segregated by merit than high schools, it bothers me that no clear national standardization of GPAs is made accessible to the public. In colleges, when students can pick the difficulty of their courses, it bothers me that no system of standardizing of how course difficulty is accounted for is made accessible to the public. </p>
<p>Make skilled student endure grade deflation in this kind of system and cue the stress and the GPA-centered premed attitude. It’s only reasonable. </p>
<p>Considering the sheer volume of applications, as a cynic, I find it hard to believe they give this much thought. So long as the student can pay tuition and has generally the highest numbers, who cares?</p>
<p>While I definitely don’t think curves are a good thing, I think that 30% As is reasonable (I think it is lower in orgo, the number I heard quoted was 20%). I have taken science classes that were not curved which all had around 30% As. I think the rigidity of the premed curve is the biggest issue. While the orgo curve is very harsh, a B average in intro chem seems plausible even without a curve.</p>
<p>@blueee, majoring in the physical sciences is actually much more lucrative than majoring in bio or the humanities and social sciences. People in science majors can get jobs that pay very well, better than most undergrads in the college. Majoring in the sciences is not a luxury in any way, shape, or form. Many people in the physical sciences who do not have a perfect record and are closer to ~3.5 can get jobs in fields like tech startups, programming, consulting, etc.</p>
<p>Additionally, if you go the PhD route in the sciences, you are not paying for grad school, you GET PAID to go to school. I am starting grad school in the fall, and unlike med students who will be paying $50,000 per year, I am earning $39,000 (a few thousand extra from an award) a year with my tuition paid for. That puts me $89,000 ahead for each year.</p>
<p>
Obviously, the top medical schools care, or else they’d be full of students who graduated with 4.0’s from less competitive colleges, which they’re not. Again, I don’t think you’re giving enough credit to medical schools that have been doing this for many decades and, in the case of some, centuries. The numbers are merely a means to an end, and their goal is to get the most qualified, gifted, and motivated entering class they can, and not just the class with the highest average GPA and MCAT score. Common sense says that they wouldn’t be as successful and prominent as they are if that weren’t the case.</p>