<p>Hi, I am applying to Chicago and am wondering if it is a good fit for me. I will likely pursue a major in either biology or biomedical engineering and possibly go to medical school after completing my undergraduate studies. What does University of Chicago (and the city of Chicago) have that will help me as a pre-med student?</p>
<p>See the online catalog. It’s pretty well spelled out there. </p>
<p>One thing the catalog does not mention is the ease undergrads have in getting into labs to assist or do research. My D started in a lab her first year shortly after O week, and continued for 4 years. even got a modest stipend some of the time. </p>
<p>Other than that, your education is what you make of it.</p>
<p>There’ve been a lot of people saying that U of C isn’t great for a pre-med, and I tend to agree up to a certain point. I wasn’t pre-med when I was there, and I only considered med school around end of my fourth year and then seriously only after graduation. However, I was a bio major. Right now I’m interviewing for med school and on the interview trail, I haven’t met very many students from U of C. These are mostly top 20 med schools. I’ve noticed Hopkins, Yale, Wash U, Harvard, the California schools placing a lot of pre-meds into great med school. Anyway what I want to say is that if you want to get into a good med school, it’s possible from U of C, but if you’re aiming for the absolute top notch, most competitive to get into, med schools, (like Harvard, Hopkins, etc), then you’re probably better off at another school like Wash U. </p>
<p>HOWEVER, I do think that while U of C classes are rigorous, and that there aren’t really any blow off classes, a lot of people seem to exaggerate the level of difficulty. I skipped gen chem, so I can’t comment, but I took OChem and the 2nd and 3rd quarter was honors, and while it was hard, it WASN’T excruciatingly hard as a lot of people make it out to be. Same with physics. I took the mid-level physics for chem and some physics majors. It wasn’t that bad. I’ve seen the homework for the physics sequence geared more towards bio majors, and it was totally doable. I took 15 upper level bio courses and none of them, with the exception of possibly one grad level class, was terribly difficult. I think U of C offers a lot of resources for people who really want to succeed. Between going to the Harper library tutors (free, and available almost every week night and Sundays), my prof’s office hours, my TA’s office hours and studying with my friends, I felt like I got more than enough help to do well in classes. I also found people at U of C to be really cooperative, not cut throat. So anyway, I really think that people are over exaggerating the level of difficulty of U of C classes. It’s true that there aren’t really any blow of classes where you can do nothing and get an A. But a lot of classes fall into the “work steadily, put in effort, be diligent and you’ll be fine” type. Also, keep in mind that while the quarter system goes by really quickly, a full course load is either 3 or 4 classes, so if you’re really stressed out, just take 3 classes. </p>
<p>I do think U of C is trying to vamp up their pre-professional resources for students. CCiHP isn’t great, but I can see that they’re really trying to improve and place more students into the top schools.</p>
<p>If you’re planning to major in biology, take AP Bio and get a 5 so you can take AP5 Bio your first year. It will make things a lot easier (3 quarter AP5 sequence vs. 5 quarter fundamentals sequence with two mandatory preparatory classes in the spring of your first year).</p>
<p>Of course, AP5 is also significantly harder than the 180s or 190s, with a heavy emphasis on research (it’s not really a premed-oriented class), and I know at least one kid who gave up on being premed because he couldn’t hack it there. But yes, it’s a lot less coursework to wrestle with.</p>
<p>The new bio requirements make my head spin, to be honest.</p>
<p>The current bio requirements, assuming I understand them correctly, don’t make sense to me. Am I missing something? Here are the requirements, I think: </p>
<pre><code> A kid with a 5 in AP bio takes a three course “AP5” bio sequence their first year.
A kid without a 5 in AP bio takes 2 “prep” courses in the spring of their first year, starts a 5 course bio sequence in the fall of their second year.
A kid with a 5 in AP bio who for some reason didn’t take the “AP5” sequence the first year is stuck with the 5+2 sequence since “AP5” is only open to first years.
</code></pre>
<ol>
<li><p>What’s the logic behind restricting the AP5 sequence to first years? Clearly, the sequential requirements of a science major can cause problems for a student that decides later to major in a science field, but the shorter “AP5” course actually mitigates that–why not let qualified students take it whenever they want?</p></li>
<li><p>These requirements make a single AP course be worth 4 UChicago courses. That doesn’t make sense </p></li>
<li><p>Why would UChicago make an AP test score the only way to qualify for a research focused track in bio. Why not a placement test, or good performance in the “prep” course, or winning a science fair with a bio project…?</p></li>
</ol>
<p>I haven’t paid attention to bio requirements in a couple of years, but I think you are wrong. The AP5 sequence is a three-quarter intro sequence, and substitutes for a five-quarter intro sequence. That’s all. The 5 on the AP test is worth two quarters, but only if you complete the other three. Not such a big deal. And it’s by no means “the only way to qualify for a research focused track in bio”. However did you get that impression? Many students take research-focused tracks in bio without taking the AP5 course.</p>
<p>As to why they only open that course to first years, and why there are no other ways to qualify for it: Beats me. Probably they feel ambivalent about it, and want to keep the size down. Given the vast number of pre-meds at the start of first year, I doubt they have a problem with people not getting an early enough start on bio courses to be able to complete the major, and I KNOW they are not exactly desperate for yet more bio majors.</p>
<p>As for the new requirements, what seems to be happening is that the second part of the main introductory sequence is more flexible, and there are also options to go more or less quant-y (by a course or two). It sure doesn’t look revolutionary.</p>
<p>If you haven’t looked at it in a couple of years, you are obviously not familiar with the current requirements. This is from the catalog:</p>
<p>Beginning with students matriculating in Autumn 2010, all first-year students who wish to major in Biological Sciences must take the following two courses during Spring Quarter of their first year as prerequisites for the Fundamentals courses.
20150. A Serious Introduction to Biology for Majors: From LUCA to the University of Chicago. PQ: CHEM 10100-10200 or CHEM 11100-11200 or CHEM 12100-12200.
[…]
20151. Introduction to Quantitative Modeling in Biology. PQ: CHEM 10100-10200 or CHEM 11100-11200 or CHEM 12100-12200.
[…]</p>
<p>Then, they are still required to take the 5 course Fundamentals sequence. </p>
<p>Since the “AP5” sequence can only be taken by first years, these courses cannot be prereqs for that. This put the number of “fundamental” courses for first years with a 5 on an AP test need to take at 3 (which they finish up in the first year), while the number of courses for everyone else is 7 (which they finish up in the winter quarter of their third year)</p>
<p>The AP5 sequence, as I’ve heard it described is research oriented–students read research papers, and such–while in the other courses they have a more traditional course. Of course, all bio majors who want to should be able to do research eventually, but the AP5 students would clearly get more of it–both directly in the course, and also by being WAY ahead of the others in the sequencing of their classes, so could presumably have opportunities for more advanced research as well.</p>
<p>Students should be able to take courses they are qualified for without arbitrary restrictions, and the university should strive to meet whatever demand there is. I really don’t care how the dept “feels” about a course, or how popular the major is.</p>
<p>I looked at the catalog. You are getting confused between the old and the new requirements. The old fundamentals sequence is five quarters 181-185 (or a parallel honors course), with three-quarter AP5 course as a substitute. The way it was set up, most people couldn’t start the sequence until their second year, and didn’t finish it until winter quarter third year. (Which in turn made it nearly impossible for bio majors to study abroad.) The new expectation is a double course in first-year spring (151-152), followed by a three-quarter sequence second year (181-183, with a number of substitution options), or the 3-quarter AP5 sequence first year (which now seems to have a whole bunch of cool options for the third course). As before, the AP5 sequence only cuts down the requirement by two quarters, and (unlike other fields) you only get the credit if you complete three other courses. The real advantage of being in the AP5 sequence is that you get to finish fundamentals at the end of first year rather than the end of second year, which has to be a big deal in terms of flexibility. It also looks like the requirement to get into the AP5 sequence is a 5 on the AP plus passing an assessment test.</p>
<p>It does seem true that they have essentially made it impossible for anyone to be a bio major without knowing by the end of his second quarter in college at the latest that he wants to do that. And he could wait that long only if he had hedged his bets by taking Gen Chem and Calculus in his first two quarters. Which lots and lots of students do, but still . . . And students who want the AP5 sequence leg up need to know THAT during O-week. I agree with questioning the philosophical appropriateness of closing doors so early.</p>
<p>And you coulde take a break from your studies to see the Museum of Medicince and Surgical Science further north.</p>
<p>I will be forever grateful that when I took the AP5 sequence it was only 2 quarters! Anyway I do agree that the AP5 sequence has slightly more research focus, especialy depending on what your third quarter course is. I’ve noticed that a lot of upper level bio electives also require you to read research papers. I think this isn’t necessarily to make people more “research focused”, but rather that it’s the U of C approach of making students think more critically through reading primary texts. Just like in Socs and Civ, we read mostly primary texts rather than textbooks, so in science courses they incorporate science papers, sometimes as supplements to the textbooks, and sometimes as the main source of study material. I really do think of this as a strength of the school. Even MDs I’ve talked to have stressed how important it is to be able to read and dissect research papers, because that’s really where all the new knowledge is being stored.</p>
<p>@JHS–yes, you are right. Thanks.</p>