LC Subjects for Medicine?

Hey all, I'm in 5th yr atm and considering Medicine as a possible course for 2010 CAO. I really enjoy science and working with people, and find human biology fascinating, so that's why I'm interested in Medicine. However I don't take Chemistry as a subject. I have Biology and Physics, but I'm concerned that Chemistry is too big a part of Medicine for me to cope with not having done it? I do really well in Biology and Physics (A1 and A2 at Christmas), and didn't have any issues with Chemistry at Junior but all my friends who do it say it's really difficult.

If I decide to do Medicine anyway, would I need to do a premed year like in UCD just to get my Chemistry up?

ayumi

did you try looking at the ucd website and see if they have info or email them or the cao website you can email them too ask them,they have pdf file on HPAT on the website

challengemaster

Chemistry is easy if you're gifted at science. A lot of it is really, just learn it once and thats it. Any maths involved is basic 1st year maths, tbh. Just application of formulae.

Isn't bio/chem covered in first year of medicine anyway?

Naikon

challengemaster wrote: »

Chemistry is easy if you're gifted at science. A lot of it is really, just learn it once and thats it. Any maths involved is basic 1st year maths, tbh. Just application of formulae.

Isn't bio/chem covered in first year of medicine anyway?

I was never a real maths guru, but Physics was the easiest Science subject of the lot.
You would be well able for higher level even with Ordinary level maths.
Chemistry is an absolute nightmare if you don't have a real interest in it.

Mind you it's less applicable to medicine than biology/chemistry.

Physics += 1

sillymoo

If you do not have chemistry you will not be accepted into the 5 year course in UCD or RCSI. You will have to do premed.

TCD - HB3 + HC3 In two of physics, chemistry, biology, physics/chemistry or agricultural science
If you do not have a qualification in physics you must present mathematics at OC3/HD3 or better.

NUIG - GY501 Medicine (5 year)
In addition to above requirements: HC3 in two of Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Physics/Chemistry, Agricultural Science.

Could not find much on UCC.

Kwekubo

Only Galway, RCSI and UCD have premed year options, UCC and Trinity have 5-year programmes for all entrants. Requirements here. If you're doing Biology and Physics now and are happy with both those subjects, then I'd say you should stick with them. Chemistry would certainly prove more useful in the future, but I don't think you would be at a significant disadvantage compared with others on the course.

sillymoo

TBH it is really useful to have chemistry in med but of you dont have it dont worry Stick to biology and physics and maybe do the 6 year programme, where you will have a good grasp of it by the time you start biochemistry and pharmacology etc. If you do the 5 year course without chemistry it is hard but managable.

Fad

If you dont have Chemistty, dont take it up now!

I love it, but its all lies! (Well simplified to the point of lying, except Organin Chem apparently)

Fad

Fad wrote: »

If you dont have Chemistty, dont take it up now!

I love it, but its all lies! (Well simplified to the point of lying, except Organin Chem apparently)

Yah, the atomic theory, oxidation/reduction, bonding etc. stuff is all terribly simplified. The organic is pretty much normal.

Ha yeah, I was shocked when my friend told me that electrons don't have shells. Damn lying Junior Cert!

It really boils down to whether or not I need premed. I'd prefer TCD cause its more accessible to be but at the end of the day it might be better to do premed? I'll have to chat to my careers folk at school. I've a year to decide anyway!

Piste

Hey there, you'll be grand taking up chemistry in college. Sure you seem really interested in science so chemistry should be no bother to you

JSK 252

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Yah, the atomic theory, oxidation/reduction, bonding etc. stuff is all terribly simplified. The organic is pretty much normal.

I completely disagree. Its simplified to the extent of students who will not proceed any further with chemistry after leaving certificate. There has to be threshold in the syllabus for all concerned or otherwise we wouldnt have to go to college!

JSK 252

JSK 252 wrote: »

I completely disagree. Its simplified to the extent of students who will not proceed any further with chemistry after leaving certificate. There has to be threshold in the syllabus for all concerned or otherwise we wouldnt have to go to college!

I know that. But, that's irrelevant to the point I was making. The atomic theory views that are thought in LC chemistry are outdated by nearly a century of science. Oxidation/reduction and the theory of bonding are thought so simply that they're just plain wrong. The course is simplfied terribly - anyone going to study physics, or indeed chemistry in college is in for a shock after LC chemistry. Organic is ok though, as that's pretty much the same as college.

JSK 252

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

I know that. But, that's irrelevant to the point I was making. The atomic theory views that are thought in LC chemistry are outdated by nearly a century of science. Oxidation/reduction and the theory of bonding are thought so simply that they're just plain wrong. The course is simplfied terribly - anyone going to study physics, or indeed chemistry in college is in for a shock after LC chemistry. Organic is ok though, as that's pretty much the same as college.

My sister did physical chemistry as part of her pharmacy degree in first year and she said it was the same as leaving cert atomic theory etc.

sillymoo

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Organic is ok though, as that's pretty much the same as college.

I dont think thats true, has LC chemistry changed since 2004? I got a bit of a shock when I got to college with the organic chemistry. I found it much much harded than the LC. Did not help that the lecturer was from Iceland and I had no idea what he was saying

JSK 252

JSK 252 wrote: »

My sister did physical chemistry as part of her pharmacy degree in first year and she said it was the same as leaving cert atomic theory etc.

I presume that's because somebody doing pharmacy wouldn't need to know the intricate workings of the atomic structure; the same level of complexity as LC, only in more detail, would probably suffice. But, that doesn't make it any more correct.

sillymoo wrote: »

I dont think thats true, has LC chemistry changed since 2004? I got a bit of a shock when I got to college with the organic chemistry. I found it much much harded than the LC. Did not help that the lecturer was from Iceland and I had no idea what he was saying

Oh I've no doubt it's a lot harder, but, the general theory is the same.

rainbowtrout

sillymoo wrote: »

I dont think thats true, has LC chemistry changed since 2004? I got a bit of a shock when I got to college with the organic chemistry. I found it much much harded than the LC. Did not help that the lecturer was from Iceland and I had no idea what he was saying

No it hasn't. The new course only came in in 2002

JSK 252

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

I presume that's because somebody doing pharmacy wouldn't need to know the intricate workings of the atomic structure; the same level of complexity as LC, only in more detail, would probably suffice. But, that doesn't make it any more correct.

The intricate processes of atomic structure are quite important for the physical properties of pharmaceutical compounds whether be it in tablet form, topical solution or powder.:)

JSK 252

JSK 252 wrote: »

The intricate processes of atomic structure are quite important for the physical properties of pharmaceutical compounds whether be it in tablet form, topical solution or powder.:)

I'd agree that it is, but, it isn't necessary to know the details for pharmacy. A pharmacy student/pharmacist needs to know that something works in a certain way; they don't necessarily need to know how it works, just that it does. So in that way, they wouldn't care for the intricate workings of the atomic structure; but, they'd care for knowing that when you carry out a certain process, you get a certain result. I can't see a pharmacist having a detailed knowledge of atomic theory, or indeed to get to the core of chemistry, a knowledge of quantum electrodynamics.

blipp

You don't need chemistry to study medicine although it would certainly be helpful. But the amount that would actually be of benefit is quite small and could be picked up with a decent basic text. The issue is getting into the course without chemistry. I am not fully aware of the entry requirements now with the new HPAT but last year, in order to get into a 5-year programme, chemistry was essential.

JSK 252

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

I'd agree that it is, but, it isn't necessary to know the details for pharmacy. A pharmacy student/pharmacist needs to know that something works in a certain way; they don't necessarily need to know how it works, just that it does. So in that way, they wouldn't care for the intricate workings of the atomic structure; but, they'd care for knowing that when you carry out a certain process, you get a certain result. I can't see a pharmacist having a detailed knowledge of atomic theory, or indeed to get to the core of chemistry, a knowledge of quantum electrodynamics.

I'll get back to you on this if I get into pharmacy in UCC in august!

Fingers ****ing crossed!

I wouldnt want this discussion to end!

blipp

blipp wrote: »

You don't need chemistry to study medicine although it would certainly be helpful. But the amount that would actually be of benefit is quite small and could be picked up with a decent basic text. The issue is getting into the course without chemistry. I am not fully aware of the entry requirements now with the new HPAT but last year, in order to get into a 5-year programme, chemistry was essential.

Yeah it's the same setup that you need Chemistry to get into the 5 yr course in UCD, but it's not that way for Trinity. That's where I'm confused, UCD clearly deems Chemsitry essential for the Medicine course, but Trinners doesn't?

lilith

ucd has a five and six year course, you wont be considered for the 5 year unless you have a C (minimum) in chemistry
Trinity only has a five year course and chemistry is not required
however chemistry at college is much harder than lc chemistry even in premed year, and if you have no chemistry it's obviously even harder
and in trinity they just start straight into biochemistry and you have to catch up yourself, i think
although at this point i wouldnt advise taking up a new subject
but in any case, why would you not want to do the six year course?

Crystler

lilith wrote: »

ucd has a five and six year course, you wont be considered for the 5 year unless you have a C (minimum) in chemistry
Trinity only has a five year course and chemistry is not required
however chemistry at college is much harder than lc chemistry even in premed year, and if you have no chemistry it's obviously even harder
and in trinity they just start straight into biochemistry and you have to catch up yourself, i think
although at this point i wouldnt advise taking up a new subject
but in any case, why would you not want to do the six year course?

From what I have gathered from people I have talked to, Pre-med is really just there to get to know your community. All you do is go over mainly what you learned at LC level. I personally think that It's a waste of time to spend a year re-learning stuff you just finished last year, and get complacent and cocky over doing well/better (possibly) than the rest of your class. As you've already gotten the good marks to skip the year.

Anywho, it's all moot if you haven't sat the HPAT exam anyways.