<p>I know someone who took 5 classes in a quarter. It pretty much monoplizes your time. Not recommended.</p>
<p>You pay extra tuition for the 5th though if for some reason you ended up with a really easy schedule, a 5th wouldnt be so bad for a quarter (If I had an easier math professor, I could take another class this quarter though it would have to be an easy one like the ones I am already taking)</p>
<p>It's really not necessary to take 5 classes in a quarter. You need 42 credits to graduate, which means you can take 3 classes half of your quarter and 4 classes the other half and still graduate on time. Bio-Chem is one of the more requirment-heavy majors, but it's still not necessary to take 5 at once. Between Bio-Chem and the Core, I think Bio-Chem majors have about 33 required classes (from the course catalog). You'll still have room for between 9 and 15 electives (more if you get any placement credit in math). As long as you get started with the proper sequences in your first year, 4 courses a quarter should put you in good shape. And it costs more to take 5.</p>
<p>Cool. What are you supposed to do for sequences starting as a freshman? I notice you need A LOT of science (duh)... and by that I mean you need to take a full year of calc (no big, prolly test out of some,) 9 or 10 quarters of chem, a year of physics, and 5 bio classes. What is the reccomended sequence (assuming I don't place out, for safety's sake)? It seems like I would have to take calc, chem, and bio at the same time. That seems like a bunch if it is also with socials or hums....</p>
<p>Actually, one needs only to take two quarters of calc, or so I have heard. It is feasible to simply pass out of it if one is not interested in math, though the honors calc sequence is also an option for those interested.</p>
<p>I don't really know the Biochem program, but from the course catalog, here's what I can gather</p>
<p>First year would be CHEM and CALC for sure, along with HUM. Then you'd be well-advised to take care of various language and art/music/drama requirments. [BIO has a CHEM 111-113 prerequisite, so you wouldn't take it until 2nd year, it seems]</p>
<p>Second year looks pretty rigid: O-CHEM, BIO, and MATH along with SOSC (not required but most people do it 1st or 2nd year). </p>
<p>Third year would bring PHYS, CIV, the various other BIO and CHEM requirements, and an open space each quarter.</p>
<p>Fourth year would be CHEM all year, a quarter of BIO CHEM and possibly 8 open spaces for other classes. </p>
<p>The CIV and other BIO and CHEM classes could fit in either 3rd or 4th year, and the open spaces would shift accordingly.</p>
<p>This is basically just from the course catalog. I'm not exactly sure where MATH 200-201 fit, so I put them in 2nd year. Physics could also be in the first year, although CALC/CHEM/PHYSICS would drive most people insane. You'd then need to do the art/music/drama in Year 3, unless placement tests opened up a quarter in 1st year. I'm most definitely not a Biochem major, so there could be important considerations that are missing.</p>
<p>Great! THanks. I noticed that a bunch of stuff would need to be taken concurrently, and your setup seems to be better than the one I cam up with. Very helpful!</p>
<p>Also, how difficult is it to test out of the PE requirement? I am a running fiend and I lift weights; basically, I know PE would be easy but I don't want to take it if I don't have to (because I am assuming you pay for these classes?)</p>
<p>Almost everyone tests out of 1 quarter of P.E.. Many test out of 2, some out of three. It seems kinda random. Flexibility is a big part of the test, and the reason that many seemingly fit guys end up taking a quarter of P.E. If you run a lot, then you'll almost surely get out of 2 quarters, if not all three.</p>
<p>That seems like an awful lot of almost unnecessary science courses. Especially if there are people going to the school for english/writing/arts.</p>
<p>
[quote]
That seems like an awful lot of almost unnecessary science courses. Especially if there are people going to the school for english/writing/arts.
[/quote]
Those are the core requirements. Classics majors have to take all that science and math, and physics majors have to take all that humanities and social science. If you don't like it, well, I'd pick another school!</p>
<p>
[quote]
Also, how difficult is it to test out of the PE requirement?
[/quote]
It's not too hard, especially if you're already in good shape. You don't pay for PE classes; in fact, you can take as many as you want. Some of them are a lot of fun, like archery or ballroom dancing, and a lot of people I know take PE classes as a way to work in regularly scheduled exercise. My girlfriend took step aerobics every quarter her third and fourth year, for example. I took yoga myself and loved it.</p>
<p>Don't forget about the swim test, either. If you're a certified lifeguard or scuba diver you do not have to take it. Otherwise, come to o-week with a swim cap and suit prepared to do some laps in the pool.</p>
<p>Is there a competitive archery team, as in outside of class? What about martial arts?</p>
<p>I don't believe there is a competitive archery team, however there are all sorts of martial arts clubs on campus -- Aikido, Judo, Tae Kwon Do, Juijitsu, Karate, Gingarte Capoeira, etc.</p>
<p>The University also sponsors a Wushu (Chinese Martial Arts) team that competes with other universities. The University may even be the host of the national collegiate Wushu championships in 2007.</p>
<p>so are a lot of the UChic classes comparable to IB classes or to AP classes? (Basically, I feel that IB classes are more discussion-writing oriented while APs are more about knowing & testing the material) I mean, with the reading, discussion & paper-writing/problem sets: What i want to know is WHY are these classes different from easier schools? What makes them harder? More time spent on reading/writing? Or is it that they move quickly & expect a great deal of individual research?</p>
<p>AP classes are supposed to be a first-year course in the intended subject matter. I would be willing to say that even the lowest level class in a given subject is more difficult than this. For example, the 130s calculus sequence is the "easiest" of the three, but covers much more than would be covered in a typical BC class. It certainly covers more than is on the BC test.</p>
<p>There are some things which are true of college in general. More of your work is independent. People expect you do quality work on time without nagging or reminders.</p>
<p>But Chicago I think has both a striking depth and breadth. The former is a function of the school's commitment to giving students a serious education. They want you to have a real, honest understanding of the material. There are no classes I would call "weed out" classes here at Chicago.</p>
<p>What's more, the quarter system speeds things up. There are actually classes where you'll be covering 1.5 times the material in a year, compared to a school on the semester system. Ten weeks isn't a lot of time, so you have to start off right. Falling behind can be disastrous, so you have to work hard from the start of the quarter right to the end.</p>
<p>Finally, there's the perceived "grade deflation." What this really means is that an A is honestly an A. If someone gets an A in a class you know they really understand the material. That means if you want to get those high marks you got in high school then you're going to have to not only put in a good effort but actually meet the high expectations of those teaching the class.</p>
<p>I'd say those are the most general reasons why Chicago is more difficult than most schools. Basically it boils down to the fact that they're serious about giving their students a good, solid education. Think of it as academic boot camp, only it lasts four years. I know that's what it felt like the first two quarters of my first year.</p>
<p>wow thanks for the info, Diocletian (on this post and to my own question you answered as well)</p>
<p>In support of what Diocletion has said, I asked my S who is taking a summer course at a well known east coast school this summer if he saw a difference between there and UofC. He said the difference wasn't so much in the texts used, the problem sets assigned, or other material, but what one was supposed to do with it. First he said the lectures at Chicago were much more precise, and the terms better defined. Lectures at Chicago challenge students to go beyond what is said, or to analyze and discuss what might be presented as an aside; students want to know how it impacts the understanding of what they are studying. He finds he has to "work in" the rationale for his statements into discussions, whereas at Chicago one is expected to explicitly state the rationale and support for one's assertions, even if those to whom one is speaking are in agreement with what is being said. Finally, exploration of the why of say chemistry or physics is expected at Chicago not just the how. Students at Chicago, for the most part, are not simply figuring out how to do the minimum to get the best grade in order to move toward a career goal, but tend to be consumed with the subject matter and the joy of learning it. He said there was a noticeable difference in intensity and intellectual demand, resulting in much less mental stress. </p>
<p>He also said the students where from the school were much more fashion conscious. As one other UofC student also attending the summer program said, "I really miss seeing a huge hyper-nerdy student dashing madly across campus. Everyone here seems fit and far too well dressed."</p>