<p>I'm a bio major staring at my local CC this year and I have my two years all Planned out. I still have a grey area on whether to take Physics For engineering (Mechanics, Electricty and Magnetism) or Physics for Sciences with no calculus. I'm applying to the Top UC's: UCLA, CAL, UCI, and UCSD and was wondering if they prefer one over the other. I checked assist.org and it said I could take either of them. My question is would my application be more competative if I take the calculus based physics course over the no-calc physics course?</p>
<p>take the physics for sciences–> i believe it’s only a 2 part sequence. And it’s a lot easier according to my friends who are also Biology majors.
meanwhile, the physics for engineering is a 3 part sequence and super tough. </p>
<p>As a Biology major myself, I personally regretted taking the physics for engineering. For me, the first part (Forces) was okay. But the second part (Electricity and Magnetism) made me want to vomit upon the mentioning of the word “physics.” Also, by taking physics for sciences, it allows you to focus and study more on the prereqs of bio and chem.</p>
<p>If for sure you want to major in bio, then yes do the physics for science. However if you decide you don’t like bio and want to go into chemistry/physics/engineering you won’t be able to switch.</p>
<p>I would concentrate on bio/chemistry/IGETC first. Then if you have time take physics.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, it won’t make you more competitive. They probably wouldn’t even know or care.</p>
<p>I checked UCLA and they recommed I take a 1 year of physics with calculus.</p>
<p>well…i got this from assist.org in regards to transferring to UCLA…“At minimum, you should complete one year of biology with laboratory, one year of general chemistry with laboratory, one year of calculus and one semester of organic chemistry with laboratory. Completion of a second semester of organic chemistry or one year of calculus-based physics is strongly recommended.”
FYI: At my previous city college, in order to enroll in a physics for science class, you must have completed or be concurrently enrolled with the Calculus 1.
In my opinion, it is significantly more important for you to complete all of your chemistry (including O-CHEM) and biology prereqs in order to get a chance at UCLA and CAL. Meanwhile, it is a lot easier to get accepted into UCI and UCSD. Take it for what it’s worth: I’ve been accepted this past year to UCI and UCSD as a bio major without having to do O-Chem; however, i’ve gotten rejected by UCLA for such.</p>
<p>The problem is there are no one year Calculus based Physics sequences in the California higher education system (CCCs, CSUs and UCs) that I am aware of. There is a two semester non-calculus based sequence primarily for biology and other life science majors and a three semester Calculus-based sequence for Physical Science (Physics, Chemistry, Astronomy and Geology) and Engineering majors. Math, Physical Sciences and Engineering majors all take a three semester sequence in Calculus that is intended for students majoring in those subjects. Calculus I is a prerequisite and Calculus II is a co-requisite for the first semester of the three semester of the three semester Physics sequence. For this three semester Calculus sequence all the UCs and CSUs appear to use the same textbook by James Stewart. There may be one or two semester courses in Calculus for Life Science, Social Science, Economics and Business majors but they do not qualify as prerequisites for the Calculus based Physics sequence.</p>
<p>The two Physics sequences would definitely use different textbooks and the two semester non-calculus based sequence would certainly be less challenging than the Calculus based sequence. It appears that not all four year California public universities use the same Calculus based Physics textbook. My eldest son is a Geology major at CSU Sacramento where they use “Fundamentals of Physics” by Halliday and Resnick for their Calculus based Physics sequence while the website for U.C. Berkeley lists “University Physics” by Giancoli for its three semester Calculus based Physics sequence. This is a little surprising since the Giancoli text is generally considered to be more oriented towards Engineering majors and has slightly less challenging problems at the end of each chapter than the Halliday and Resnick text which is written primarily for Physics majors and includes many very difficult problems at the end of each chapter which can not be solved simply by plugging numbers into formulas or using the worked examples as templates. I would have expected a CSU to use a more “vocationally” oriented text while a UC would use a more generalist in Physics and Physical Sciences oriented book.</p>
<p>There is no straightfoward answer here.</p>
<p>One thing to consider is: how “tough” your particular physics dept. is. Our community college has possibly the toughest physics dept. with super-tough professors (and I’m an engineering major at that!). I’ve known many a hard science and engineering major that went to Santa Monica College just for the physics courses! The Calculus based sequence (4 semesters - mechanics; thermo/fluids; E&M; optics/modern physics) at my CC is challenging even for the science/engineering majors, so much so, that we have annual awards for 4 As, and another one for 3 As and 1 B (out of 200 people who complete the sequence each year only 3 to 4 students get each of these awards!!) …that sort of tells you how tough it is. Under these circumstances I would definitely NOT RECOMMEND the calculus based sequence for a BIOLOGY major. It is simply OVERKILL. It is better to get As in an easier sequence than get Bs or even a C in the super hard courses.</p>
<p>Secondly, you need to consider how good you are at higher level Math. At our school the problems on the tests can be very challenging (just doing the HW does not cut it 
) If advanced math, and applying it to physical phenomenon comes naturally to you, and you really excel at it, then it might be worth taking the Calculus based sequence! As an FYI: We use Physics for Scientists and Engineers by Serway and Jewett, and even though the text book is “average” in difficulty, the professors cover a reasonably good amount of additional material/problems not found in the text book (I’m not sure if this is the case only at our CC or done in most places)</p>
<p>And finally, as has been mentioned in posts above, it does not make you really that much more competitive per se (bottom line: better to get As in the easier sequence)</p>
<p>There is no straightfoward answer here.</p>
<p>One thing to consider is: how “tough” your particular physics dept. is. Our community college has possibly the toughest physics dept. with super-tough professors (and I’m an engineering major at that!). I’ve known many a hard science and engineering major that went to Santa Monica College just for the physics courses! The Calculus based sequence (4 semesters - mechanics; thermo/fluids; E&M; optics/modern physics) at my CC is challenging even for the science/engineering majors, so much so, that we have annual awards for 4 As, and another one for 3 As and 1 B (out of 200 people who complete the sequence each year only 3 to 4 students get each of these awards!!) …that sort of tells you how tough it is. Under these circumstances I would definitely NOT RECOMMEND the calculus based sequence for a BIOLOGY major. It is simply OVERKILL. It is better to get As in an easier sequence than get a Bs or even a C in the super hard courses.</p>
<p>Secondly, you need to consider how good you are at higher level Math. At our school the problems on the tests can be very challenging (just doing the HW does not cut it ) If advanced math, and applying it to physical phenomenon comes naturally to you, and you really excel at it, then it might be worth taking the Calculus based sequence!</p>