Transition year subject choice, which science?

itsduffy

Anybody else stuck on deciding wicih science subject to choose, chemistry, physics or biology? Im fairly okay on each, i got a B in my junior cert and know i should keep on one, but which?:rolleyes:

Ompala

Do all 3, science ftw

But seriously, depends, if you like formulas and numbers then you will be definitely like physics the most, then to a lesser extent chemistry.
Biology is by far the largest syllabus to get through, but has easiest content. Chemistry has the smallest but is the most difficult of the 3.
Physics is a nice medium between the two, can't say anything about Ag Science though.

itsduffy

All 3! u want to do something in science then? hmm im not that bad at maths but i dont find physics interesting so it doesnt make me want to study it, if u get me? I could work with biology being long if the content is okay i guess! Thanks

Ompala

I did the leaving 2 years ago with all 3, now studying engineering.

You are absolutely right though, if you don't like it then don't study it (not always possible however!)

Content in biology is grand, and the human biology chapters are very interesting. Remember though you can always swap subjects if ya really, really hate any of them.

EoghanIRL

I do all 3 . Do them all

itsduffy

Are yous doing a language aswell? Dont think ill do the three as i want to keep on music for the leaving cert but thanks for the advice :

Mr Pseudonym

Ompala wrote: »

Do all 3, science ftw

But seriously, depends, if you like formulas and numbers then you will be definitely like physics the most, then to a lesser extent chemistry.
Biology is by far the largest syllabus to get through, but has easiest content. Chemistry has the smallest but is the most difficult of the 3.
Physics is a nice medium between the two, can't say anything about Ag Science though.

I would strongly urge Biology. I didn't do it (!), but it has a preposterously high A-rate considering that it is the most popular non-core subject - at 17%, it's twice that of Geography, which has a similar sized cohort (ofc, it's likely that the Biology cohort is somewhat more academic).

Chem might be the most difficult of the three, but not, IMO, because the content is the most challenging. Mainly because the length of the Chem course is much closer to Bio than it is to Physics, and it rewards those who work very hard. The learning of definitions is much more onerous than for Physics, and the marking scheme is very stringent.

If LC Physics is taught well, it's the most interesting of the three, IMO. Although it contains no calculus any more, and the maths is nothing more complicated than what you'd see at JC (though, obv, it's applied in more challenging ways), those for whom it doesn't click could really struggle.

Ompala

Mr Pseudonym wrote: »

I would strongly urge Biology. I didn't do it (!), but it has a preposterously high A-rate considering that it is the most popular non-core subject - at 17%, it's twice that of Geography, which has a similar sized cohort (ofc, it's likely that the Biology cohort is somewhat more academic).

Chem might be the most difficult of the three, but not, IMO, because the content is the most challenging. Mainly because the length of the Chem course is much closer to Bio than it is to Physics, and it rewards those who work very hard. The learning of definitions is much more onerous than for Physics, and the marking scheme is very stringent.

If LC Physics is taught well, it's the most interesting of the three, IMO. Although it contains no calculus any more, and the maths is nothing more complicated than what you'd see at JC (though, obv, it's applied in more challenging ways), those for whom it doesn't click could really struggle.

Really? We had the chemistry course finished before our mocks :eek:
I just found it much tougher content wise myself, physics always seemed too dumbed down to me (I did app maths as well so really saw the gap between the two in mechanics).

Its a shame about calculus, can see why they don't have it due to ordinary level not doing any integration, but it significantly enhances your understanding of physics when you can make a link between the too.

Mr Pseudonym

Ompala wrote: »

Really? We had the chemistry course finished before our mocks :eek:
I just found it much tougher content wise myself, physics always seemed too dumbed down to me (I did app maths as well so really saw the gap between the two in mechanics).

Its a shame about calculus, can see why they don't have it due to ordinary level not doing any integration, but it significantly enhances your understanding of physics when you can make a link between the too.

I may be wrong about the length!! I was largely basing it on my belief that the Physics syllabus is much shorter than Chem's, and on friends' suggesting the similarity in length between Bio and Chem. I'm very surprised that you found the content inherently more challenging. I mean, what exactly?!! It is undoubtedly a subject that rewards work, and, I think, because it leaves a lot unexplained, fools some into thinking it's more tricky than it is. Though I don't think either is particularly challenging, relatively speaking, I would say Physics is more so.

I think the main reason is that if they can only get about 4500 to do it when the maths is as basic as it is, imagine if they included calculus! Also, calculus was on the course (I think two syllabuses ago), but was removed to encourage more to do the subject - and I kinda think that was probably the correct decision (as much as it pains me to say). Despite the gulf in standard between Physics and App Maths, it annoys me that schools still discourage the non-mathematically able from doing Physics, yet extol the benefits of combining it with App Maths - as you implied, except for the equations of motion, and some very basic applications of them, there's no crossover. Physics is dumbed down, but I could imagine some, for instance, struggling with the manipulation of formulae...especially circ/planetary motion.

Ompala

Mr Pseudonym wrote: »

I may be wrong about the length!! I was largely basing it on my belief that the Physics syllabus is much shorter than Chem's, and on friends' suggesting the similarity in length between Bio and Chem. I'm very surprised that you found the content inherently more challenging. I mean, what exactly?!! It is undoubtedly a subject that rewards work, and, I think, because it leaves a lot unexplained, fools some into thinking it's more tricky than it is. Though I don't think either is particularly challenging, relatively speaking, I would say Physics is more so.

I think the main reason is that if they can only get about 4500 to do it when the maths is as basic as it is, imagine if they included calculus! Also, calculus was on the course (I think two syllabuses ago), but was removed to encourage more to do the subject - and I kinda think that was probably the correct decision (as much as it pains me to say). Despite the gulf in standard between Physics and App Maths, it annoys me that schools still discourage the non-mathematically able from doing Physics, yet extol the benefits of combining it with App Maths - as you implied, except for the equations of motion, and some very basic applications of them, there's no crossover. Physics is dumbed down, but I could imagine some, for instance, struggling with the manipulation of formulae...especially circ/planetary motion.

I think they all have, roughly about 400 pages in each textbook... but probably more "filler" in chemistry, so thats why I considered the course shorter.

As regards why I found it so difficult, you could be right in they leave a lot unexplained, and only have done modules in organic and physical chem in college has filled in the gaps. But at the time, probably the exact level of detail required was of a high standard, zero waffle was tolerated.

Physics was the opposite, if you were smart use the formulas they give you to work out some definitions, and a lot of the stuff logically followed... this rarely seemed to ever happen in chemistry! You are right though, some will always struggle.

There was a terrible attitude towards app maths I found, none had any interest even trying it in my place, and I ended up the only one in the year doing it. And its arguably the best subject for getting you to think outside the box as well.

As a matter of interest, do you find they aren't challenging now, or did you think the same at the time?

Mr Pseudonym

Ompala wrote: »

As a matter of interest, do you find they aren't challenging now, or did you think the same at the time?

I don't know what you're referring to.

Ompala

Mr Pseudonym wrote: »

I don't know what you're referring to.

Neither do I, 99% of the time :pac:

OP I did a language with mine.... it did not end well

Mr Pseudonym

Ompala wrote: »

Neither do I, 99% of the time.

Let this be the one percent, then - I was looking forward to giving my response!!

Bellaxo

Do Biology!!!!

EoghanIRL

itsduffy wrote: »

Are yous doing a language aswell? Dont think ill do the three as i want to keep on music for the leaving cert but thanks for the advice :

Yes I do german and love it.

Nobody can tell you what to choose but you . But I would consider questioning what you would use music for In the future. Perhaps a different subject would be more practical . I'm only saying this because I too was in your position two years ago. I was considering doing history . However I realised that I never want to do anything to do with an arts degree and that it is pretty useless later in life . That's why I picked all 3 sciences. I love science but so many college courses become available if you do them aswell.

robman60

You need to ask yourself two questions.

1. Am I interested in pursuing a science based course in future?
2. Am I doing a science to keep options open?7


When I was finished TY I was choosing a science to keep options open. Didn't get my first choice of biology and got chemistry instead. I would definitely not recommend chemistry unless you're passionate about science. I got an A in JC but LC chemistry is a whole other ball game.

As someone has already mentioned, the marking scheme is stringent as there are so many talented students who take chemistry. If I'm honest chemistry is the subject I'd advise people to avoid unless you're sure it's for you.

thelad95

itsduffy wrote: »

Anybody else stuck on deciding wicih science subject to choose, chemistry, physics or biology? Im fairly okay on each, i got a B in my junior cert and know i should keep on one, but which?:rolleyes:

Firstly, the way you have phrased this post suggests that you have to do a science which you don't.

Reading between the lines I take it you dont want to study science in college. Personally, I think Biology is excellent for points. Don't be put off by the 450+ pages in Biology textbooks they are all filled with unnecessary info. Also, 50% of the course make up around 80% of the paper but in saying that, there seems to be a trend developing of more more human Biology on the paper.
Ag science is meant to be relatively simple also but the project is meant to be a total headache.

itsduffy

Yes we dont have to keep on a science but its being heavily emphasised by my school just to keep my options open:)

A97

Do you like science? If you don't then don't do it as you won't pursue it later in life. There won't be many courses that you can't get into that you would want to get into. If you do, pick your favourite(s) along with the other subjects that you like. I do Biology and Physics, and they're the only two subjects that I consistently enjoy.

AulBiddy

I do Biology and Chemistry, I love biology it comes very easy to me and its so interesting! Some parts are a little bit difficult like genetics but once the penny drops it comes easy to you.

Chemistry is a whole different thing though. I was so looking forward to doing it in 4th year and this year it is one of my most hated subjects. Its quite difficult and it doesn't help that my teacher isn't too great either.. If you really like science as a challenge and if you have good maths you'll probably like it

I have no clue about physics but that's my input to the other two.
If you don't like science don't do it, do what you know you will excel in

Ompala

Mr Pseudonym wrote: »

Let this be the one percent, then - I was looking forward to giving my response!!

Go on, I am all ears

Mr Pseudonym

Ompala wrote: »

Go on, I am all ears

Haha! You said to me, "As a matter of interest, do you find they aren't challenging now, or did you think the same at the time?" I don't know what you're referring to! If you want, I can interpret it as I wish!!

Ompala

Mr Pseudonym wrote: »

Haha! You said to me, "As a matter of interest, do you find they aren't challenging now, or did you think the same at the time?" I don't know what you're referring to! If you want, I can interpret it as I wish!!

Ah ok, when you said that you didn't think either (Chemistry and Physics) were particularly challenging, what I am wondering, purely as a matter of interest is:

Did you find them particularly challenging at the time you did them for LC and just later on it all kinda just clicked and now looking back they really aren't as hard as you thought they were at the time,

Or

Did you always find them pretty grand the whole way along with few problems with them?

Mr Pseudonym

Ompala wrote: »

Ah ok, when you said that you didn't think either (Chemistry and Physics) were particularly challenging, what I am wondering, purely as a matter of interest is:

Did you find them particularly challenging at the time you did them for LC and just later on it all kinda just clicked and now looking back they really aren't as hard as you thought they were at the time,

Or

Did you always find them pretty grand the whole way along with few problems with them?

Oh, right - I understand. Well, like you, I did App Maths, which rendered everything we would touched in Physics unchallenging. I relied on Q5, the mechanics Q, particle phys (Q10?), and Q12 (where I did two mathematical sub-parts), for much of my marks. Although, I thought much of the non-mathematical parts were pretty standard, and was pretty content with other sections.

Chem is a different matter. Like I said, I spent more time on it than any other of my elective subjects. Discussing this is bringing back the pain of it! I liked stoichiometry, so was begging for a big question on that (didn't, though!). Again, I relied on a few topics (Atomic Theory and Organic Chem) for my marks, only this time it was by necessity. My problem was that I'd learn the stuff in, say, environmental chemistry, go into a class test, and then come out with a B/C, and not be quite sure why. I felt that my understanding was sound, but that the marking scheme was to the benefit of those who repeated, almost verbatim, what was in the notes.


Does any of that chime with you?

Ompala

Mr Pseudonym wrote: »

Oh, right - I understand. Well, like you, I did App Maths, which rendered everything we would touched in Physics unchallenging. I relied on Q5, the mechanics Q, particle phys (Q10?), and Q12 (where I did two mathematical sub-parts), for much of my marks. Although, I thought much of the non-mathematical parts were pretty standard, and was pretty content with other sections.

If there was a guide on how app maths students tackle the physics paper, this would be it. Exactly how I did it as well, and countless others. 1-3 in experiments and not a fan of Q4, electricity, you be the same?

Mr Pseudonym wrote: »

Chem is a different matter. Like I said, I spent more time on it than any other of my elective subjects. Discussing this is bringing back the pain of it! I liked stoichiometry, so was begging for a big question on that (didn't, though!). Again, I relied on a few topics (Atomic Theory and Organic Chem) for my marks, only this time it was by necessity. My problem was that I'd learn the stuff in, say, environmental chemistry, go into a class test, and then come out with a B/C, and not be quite sure why. I felt that my understanding was sound, but that the marking scheme was to the benefit of those who repeated, almost verbatim, what was in the notes.

Yeah I did a lot of that as well, students tend to love organic, most interesting part of the course imo, and very accessible because it is systematic (naming etc.). One thing I do remember, is learning stuff off by heart, and a week later having completely forgotten it! Loved Stoichiometry myself, a good grounding in that is essential.

You are right discussing it does being back the pain, and makes me feel old even though I only did the LC 2 years ago

Mr Pseudonym

Ompala wrote: »

If there was a guide on how app maths students tackle the physics paper, this would be it. Exactly how I did it as well, and countless others. 1-3 in experiments and not a fan of Q4, electricity, you be the same?

I just whipped out my old physics notes! Looking at them now, I quite liked some of the other sections: especially mathematics of electricity and circuit diagrams, constructing equations in Heat, and others. I agree that I didn't like the Electricity experiments (tbh, I didn't like any). I just chose those questions because they were my favs, and seemed the easiest way to maximise marks.

Yeah I did a lot of that as well, students tend to love organic, most interesting part of the course imo, and very accessible because it is systematic (naming etc.). One thing I do remember, is learning stuff off by heart, and a week later having completely forgotten it! Loved Stoichiometry myself, a good grounding in that is essential.

You are right discussing it does being back the pain, and makes me feel old even though I only did the LC 2 years ago

I don't miss Chem one bit! But, how I miss App Maths!! Is it not the most enjoyable and engrossing of the subjects on the LC?! Every now and then, I catch myself deriving the Projectiles equations, or devising a fiendishly complex dynamics question!

Ompala

Mr Pseudonym wrote: »

I just whipped out my old physics notes! Looking at them now, I quite liked some of the other sections: especially mathematics of electricity and circuit diagrams, constructing equations in Heat, and others. I agree that I didn't like the Electricity experiments (tbh, I didn't like any). I just chose those questions because they were my favs, and seemed the easiest way to maximise marks.

After studying heat transfer, I am not that much of a fan of heat anymore, and never liked electricity, it was interesting, but I knew I would never do it on the paper.

Mr Pseudonym wrote: »

I don't miss Chem one bit! But, how I miss App Maths!! Is it not the most enjoyable and engrossing of the subjects on the LC?! Every now and then, I catch myself deriving the Projectiles equations, or devising a fiendishly complex dynamics question!

I don't miss physics at all tbh, my lecturer last year destroyed the subject on me. Yep, and every single student of it says the same!

HugsiePie

Mr Pseudonym wrote: »

I would strongly urge Biology. I didn't do it (!), but it has a preposterously high A-rate considering that it is the most popular non-core subject - at 17%, it's twice that of Geography, which has a similar sized cohort (ofc, it's likely that the Biology cohort is somewhat more academic).

Chem might be the most difficult of the three, but not, IMO, because the content is the most challenging. Mainly because the length of the Chem course is much closer to Bio than it is to Physics, and it rewards those who work very hard. The learning of definitions is much more onerous than for Physics, and the marking scheme is very stringent.

If LC Physics is taught well, it's the most interesting of the three, IMO. Although it contains no calculus any more, and the maths is nothing more complicated than what you'd see at JC (though, obv, it's applied in more challenging ways), those for whom it doesn't click could really struggle.

Im sorry but I have some serious problems with your post

Last year biology had the lowest A grades out of the "usual" (the 3 most commonly offered in schools-Bio, Chem and Physics) Science subjects - and its A rate is infact decreasing, IDK if this is intentional or not. This is just more so a point not to read into A grade rates so much.

Chemistry rewards those who work at hard at it, but so does every other subject, when it comes down to OVERALL performance there is more than luck to it. You can work hard at something and still fail miserably (or atleast not get out what you put in, and sometimes it just comes down to youre not greatly suited to said subject)

Sorry, I just wanted to set that straight cause Im the sort of person who cant help but pick at a scab despite the fact it does no good :rolleyes:

Now to the op, it really depends what your good at and what you like, LC bio is more complex than JC bio but its no polar opposite. There is maths and a lot of comprehension to Chemistry, and its not exactly the easiest thing to understand, I highly suggest looking through a text book, if youre dead set on taking 1, I'd advise chemistry or physics if youre fond of maths, whilst not great level of maths are needed for said subjects, I have personally found that said subjects tend to suit those who are more so mathematically gifted, of course there are always the exceptions, but Id like you to present you with a small statistic and you can make of it what you will. Those in my school who sat physics and received A1s in said subject were the only people in their class to achieve A1s in HL maths. Get from that what you will, these were also the same people who achieved A1s in chemistry. IDK about physics but for chemistry I would strongly recommend reading over and LEARNING the material each night ensuring you 100% comprehend it, I should take my own advice, Im studying it in college

It is the general consensus that Bio is the easier of the 3, I personally belive it to be the easiest to grasp of the 3, the language does not appear as "technical" as the other 2, you can relate alot of it to your real every day life for eg you can sometimes feel the peristalsis in your body, but how often do you actually think about sound waves or radiation. Thats just a personal opinion. It really depends what you want to do in LC and where your strengths lie, if you want to study science in college I would strongly recommend 2 sciences for LC-trust me on that one, coming from personal experience there

HugsiePie

thelad95 wrote: »

Firstly, the way you have phrased this post suggests that you have to do a science which you don't.

Reading between the lines I take it you dont want to study science in college. Personally, I think Biology is excellent for points. Don't be put off by the 450+ pages in Biology textbooks they are all filled with unnecessary info. Also, 50% of the course make up around 80% of the paper but in saying that, there seems to be a trend developing of more more human Biology on the paper.
Ag science is meant to be relatively simple also but the project is meant to be a total headache.

I have to disagree with this sorry-last year there was outcry at the lack of human bio on the paper, it was highly ecology focused and the year previous to that plants played a heavy emphasis on the paper.

Mr Pseudonym

HugsiePie wrote: »

Im sorry but I have some serious problems with your post

Last year biology had the lowest A grades out of the "usual" (the 3 most commonly offered in schools-Bio, Chem and Physics) Science subjects - and its A rate is infact decreasing, IDK if this is intentional or not. This is just more so a point not to read into A grade rates so much.

Chemistry rewards those who work at hard at it, but so does every other subject, when it comes down to OVERALL performance there is more than luck to it. You can work hard at something and still fail miserably (or atleast not get out what you put in, and sometimes it just comes down to youre not greatly suited to said subject)

Well, allow me to respond in kind!

Biology is the most popular non-core subject, with over twice the combined Physics/Chemistry cohort. Therefore, that it should have an A-rate only four percentage points (~20%) less than Physics/Chemistry (which traditionally attract talented students) is quite remarkable. Compare it (16%) with the next two most popular electives - Geog and Bus: 11% and 9%, respectively. Regarding the reduction this year: I agree it is curious, but don't think it appropriate to interpret a trend on the basis of one year.

My claim was not the banal point that Chemistry rewards those who work hard; it was that it does so to detriment of those of those who had real understanding of it. I know there's a difference between "colourless" and "clear", but what's the point in giving no marks for the latter: the student understood what was s/he was being asked for?

I got an A1 in Chem, and while that doesn't necessitate that I'm "greatly suited" to it, it does indicate some level of ability.