<p>So I'm choosing my IB subjects and I'm having trouble deciding whether or not I should take IB SL bio (I'm already taking Chem HL). The thing is, if I don't take bio for IB it means I'll never have studied biology during my high school years, since I'm doing the IGCSE curriculum now and I take physics and chemistry as my sciences. <a href="http://www.stanford.edu/dept/uga/basics/selection/prepare.html">http://www.stanford.edu/dept/uga/basics/selection/prepare.html</a> says 'Science: three or more years of laboratory science (including biology, chemistry and physics).' Would it look bad if I didn't take biology at all? Or is Chemistry at HL good enough? </p>
<p>It is 3 years of sciences - each year you studied counts.</p>
<p>If you studied 2 years of Chemistry and one year of Physics in high school, that is 3 years. Whether schools care that you have never studied biology throughout high school is a different story. In our high schools they require students to take an year of biology before attempting chemistry.</p>
<p>You’ll have taken 4 years of science if you plan on taking only higher level chemistry. So there is no need to take standard level biology for the sake of colleges. I go to a British school myself, not taking all three sciences in high school will not hinder your chances the slightest because of the difference in the British curriculum and the American curriculum. </p>
<p>@texaspg sorry I don’t really understand what you’re trying to say… since I take the IGCSEs it means I’ll have studied physics and chem for two years, and I’m taking HL chem for the next two years 
Also thanks @pink997! I think I’ll pass on SL bio. </p>