<p>When you say "im in calc3", does that mean you got a 5 on the bc calc test or that you somehow already signed up, cause i was under the impression that sign-up for classes wasnt until orientation week.</p>
<p>just be like me and sign up for the harder level physics instead. that will solve everything, i promise.</p>
<p>The website really isn't equipped for searching for classes next year for incoming freshmen, considering it says 11 kids are enrolled in Physics 1601 when there can't be, as freshmen haven't registered yet. It's definitely possible, as they encourage everyone taking intensive g-chem to be taking physics 1601 or higher.</p>
<p>1) yea, if 2 classes are scheduled for the same time, you're just SOL</p>
<p>2) unless you got 5's on both AP Chem and AP Phys, i wouldnt recommend taking 1600 and intensive g-chem. both are a hell of a lot of work and the small bonus you get out of taking 1600 as opposed to 1400 is useless (unless you want to be a phys/app.phys major [that's who the class was made for anyways])</p>
<p>3) taking both intensive chem and the next higher phys (2400? 2100?) is absolutely insane. prepare to have no life</p>
<p>4) you can place yourself into whatever calc you want r3v</p>
<p>I disagree with skraylor - I took 1600 and intensive g-chem and it was definitely the best of both worlds. many, many SEAS kids do so (well, enough that it's common - the intensive chem class probably only has ~120 people or so).</p>
<p>If the two classes are scheduled for the same time, that's a real big issue, because many people usually take those two classes. I would actually be proactive about this - call up each department, speak to the dept secretary or something, and inform them of this scheduling mix-up. They likely didn't talk to each other before making the schedules. Just make sure it's not phrased as blame, just informing them of this problem that has arisen and seeing if they want to do anything about it. You might also call FYSAAC (the first-year/sophomore academic advising center) and say "yeah, i'm an incoming first-year, but I researched the course schedules ahead of time, and myself and a lot of other people in my situation are getting screwed, so you might want to know..." etc.</p>
<p>Be proactive and A) you'll get noticed and get some credit for it that may pay off down the road, and B) you'll get to take the courses you want, which is nice.</p>
<p>Thanks for the advice Denzera. I sent an E-mail to FYSAAC and will go from there.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I disagree with skraylor - I took 1600 and intensive g-chem and it was definitely the best of both worlds. many, many SEAS kids do so (well, enough that it's common - the intensive chem class probably only has ~120 people or so).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>i'm in the c2002 camp where the extra .5 credit is not worth the extra work. i'll admit that, from what i hear and understand, the 1600 teachers tend to be better lecturers than the 1400 ones but I dont think that makes up for the disproportionate amount of work involved in the problem sets/tests.</p>
<p>I don't think the differential in workload is noticeable, really. Psets took me between 4 and 8 hours every week, from what I recall. At least, for 1601-1602. 2601 is another story, that class will eat you for breakfast. Seriously, they'll never find your body. But freshman year, I don't think it's that big a deal. I think there's a bigger difference in intensity between regular and intensive g-chem (but of course, you save a semester...)</p>
<p>
[quote]
Psets took me between 4 and 8 hours every week, from what I recall
[/quote]
</p>
<p>i think that's about right. i remember the first 3 psets taking about that long....however, the 1400 psets took between 30 mins-2 hours...</p>
<p>i suppose its just a matter of how much work one wants to do</p>
<p>They were at the same time last year as well, so I just took 1400 Phys even though it was basically like repeating AP Physics. Whatever. No big deal. Then I realized after I took I-G Chem that I didn't really want to do chemistry anymore ever, so the whole thing was pointless I guess...
If you didn't take AP Physics though, I'd go with 1400 perhaps. It was boring for me and I didn't attend most of the lectures, but that's because I had taken essentially the same course the year before, with the same textbook, except in a class of 12... so it wasn't a big deal. But taking 1600 won't save you any time or anything, and since you haven't taken AP Physics, I'd take 1400.</p>
<p>Man, I planned never to read these boards again, but I was just so bored at work that I felt the need to check at least once.</p>
<p>that's probably true, if you haven't done AP physics in high school, 1400 will be a big jump for you. but if you have, then 1400 will be a total repeat of your class, so you might as well take 1600 and do a few things more rigorously (and get better professors)</p>
<p>So basically I got an e-mail back and it said that the schedule is as is. I think Parsons is teaching 1400 this year, and he gets rave reviews on culpa, so I'm going to try to take his class.</p>
<p>Parsons was the effing man in fall 2002, at any rate. He kicks serious ass.</p>