Is getting a biology degree just entirely memorization? I mean

Is getting a mathematics degree just entirely memorization?

I mean they might have to know how to do log/exponent questions for answering questions about population, but I mean couldn't someone with an photographic memory just read a mathematics textbook to ace a mathematics exam?

Whos more of a scientists? An engineer or a mathematician?

Math involves having to use logic. You can't just memorize a math textbook and expect to ace a math test. You have to be able to apply it.

Were as biology is literally just all facts and data.

Also mathematicians are above scientists which means they are by default above engineers.

biology involves having to use logic. You can't just memorize a biology textbook and expect to ace a biology test. You have to be able to apply it.

Were as math is literally just all facts and data.

Also biology are above scientists which means they are by default above engineers.

>>7766755

dubs aside thats all false.

>>7766758
Since math is so superior.
Prove that is all false through a proof :^)

>>7766750
>Were as biology is literally just all facts and data.
Oh, is that all? I guess that's why so many engineers spend their weekends revolutionizing biology for the inferior soft science people.

This thread is retarded. Engineering isn't even really science, it's just people that put whatever answer the physicists say is correct.

>>7766770

Since X is soo good prove Y.

It doesn't work that way you little engineer.

>>7766740
I agree that's what I would think if my only experience of biology was basic HS biology whose tests consist of multiple choice questions. In that case, memorization is all that's needed.

On the other hand, a biology (non-premed, actual scientific program) degree in a good uni will involve all of the aforementioned memorization as you observed, coupled with the ability to understand what's actually going on and the ability to apply the knowledge to conceive and solve deeper and way more complex problems as you specialize. Most of this board's math/phys/eng majors' only biology experience has been the miserable high school one though, so it's understandable (but not excusable) that they would propose what you said in your post. Cheers.

>>7766779

I'm taking a first year biology course next semester. Is it essentially just HS bio but with more information crammed into it?

>>7766776
>implying I'm an engineer

If you are that shit at trying to determining the first principles, you'll never make it as a mathematician

>>7766787

Nuclear engineers are still engineers.

Theres no word you can put in front of an engineer to make him a scientists.

Sorry

>>7766786
Unfortunately studying at a top uni seems to be a prerequisite for good bio programs. You have to check what kind of programs each uni has to see if it's actually decent. Keep in mind though that some modules will have to include pure memorization as this is what sets the basis for later research, where you will actually be able to apply your knowledge. But as I said, how the uni trains you, what kind of exercises they give you to apply and think with the information you have learned is all dependent on the program that has been set, so I really can't offer any more info on your situation than that.

I got my degree in biology, which can be done through pure memorization, especially with pre-med courses (I was not on a pre-med track, but took several courses designed for that as part of my degree). The guy I did research under even called biology a vocabulary degree. You can pass the classes through memorization, but if you want to do any research you'll want to have other skills besides that.

>>7766924
This. Having a biology degree does not mean you have the skills to be an excellent biologist. Just like many other fields of science, a good biologist has a wealth of skills beyond petty memorization.

File: purity.png (32KB, 740x308px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 740x308px

Engineering is no science on its own, it's just an umbrella term for different applications of sciences in the field of technology.
This means that engineers (have to) know some science, but that does not make them scientists.
It's odd that some want to measure "how much of a science" something is by the amount of math involved. Technicians and bankers also apply math every day, does that make them scientists?
As for the question on what skills you need to get a biology, I think that highly depends on where you study. It certainly involves more pure memorization then, say, a math degree.
Anyway, biologists are of course scientists.
They make hypotheses to explain (a certain region of) the universe and they then check if the implications of those hypotheses are in accordance with the reality.

forgot a word "[...] to get a biology _degree_ [...]"

Biology is in the process of becoming a hard science, give it time. For centuries Physics has been a motivator for many great mathematicians and mathematical Physics is extremely rich and well developed.

Today mathematical Biology is starting to take that role, which corresponds with the development of theories of dynamical systems, combinatorics, chaos theory, and others much like mathematical Physics had differential Geometry, Tensor Analysis, Operator/functional theory and if you go back enough the development of differential/integral theory.

>>7766774
Who the fuck said anything about engineering?

Engineering has fuck all to do with actual mathematics. Are you in high school?

>>7766787
>implying I'm an engineer
>says something literally only an engineer would say
You don't even know what math is do you? Do you?

Is getting a physics degree just entirely memorization?

I mean they might have to know how to do log/exponent questions for answering questions about population, but I mean couldn't someone with an photographic memory just read a physics textbook to ace a physics exam?

Whos more of a scientists? An engineer or a physicist?

Is getting a chemistry degree just entirely memorization?

I mean they might have to know how to do log/exponent questions for answering questions about population, but I mean couldn't someone with an photographic memory just read a chemistry textbook to ace a chemistry exam?

Whos more of a scientists? An engineer or a chemist?

3/4 of this thread is one butthurt biologist

Biology is rote memorization in the same sense that mathematics is rote memorization (because all you do is memorize defitions hurrr).

Don't listen to trolls like this who obviously never had a molecular biology course.
>>7766924
>>7766960

File: Math = memorization.jpg (77KB, 1876x265px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 1876x265px

>>7767999
But according to math majors, math is memorization.

Any undergrad coursework that doesn't involve creative problem solving and design question essentially boils down to memorization.

I don't see why you can't admit that biology is memorization, it's not necessarily a bad thing. Most people suck at memorization.

>>7767708
>>7767711
>trying to make this a screenshot meme
>not changing the word "population"

>>7768004
>capping a /sci/ post and using it as evidence

if you're going through your analysis book and memorizing proofs line-by-line you're a fucking retard

nobody is going to ever ask you to regurgitate those proofs on a test (or ever) anyway, and if you take 10 minutes and understand conceptually what the proof is doing you can rebuild it yourself anyway

You do have to memorize definitions, but the amount of definitions introduced at any one time in a math course is very small, never more than two or three. you shouldn't even have to try.

>>7766740
>Is getting a biology degree just entirely memorization?
At the undergraduate level, more or less. The more you get into it, the more you can use general patterns to make predictions, and the models become better and better. It's even better when you look at biophysics, biochemistry or certain branches of microbiology.
>Whos more of a scientists? An engineer or a biologist?
Biologists. By definition a scientist should be someone who's expanding the collective knowledge of the human race, whereas engineers, for the most part, simply apply knowledge that is already established.

Biochemistry senior here.

My gen bio I and II, cell biology, and genetics courses were all mostly memorization. Genetics was the only outlier.

I don't know what upper level bio classes are but I've heard a few are called "human systems"? I'm assuming that's just either retarded memorization of chemical processes (essentially useless) or more memorizing of how biological systems in humans work.

You see, as soon as biologists start talking about the problems they work through, you get into Biochem and chem. Those are not biology. Biochem and chem are chemical sciences.

Do away with biology as a degree. If you want someone to do a biologists job, get a biochemist to crack open a bio textbook.

File: fixed.png (89KB, 949x316px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 949x316px

>>7766994
The box can also be a circle.

>>7768004
>real analysis is memorization

if you did this, if you memorized your way through analysis 1 (which can be done) then you wasted a whole semester and will need to relearn it.

>>7767999
I never mentioned math...? I feel that it's a completely different line of thinking. All I said was that you can pass biology courses, including molecular, with just memorization. I'm glad you're still enjoying your sad little 2010 hurr durr trollz experience though, those days were fun.

Anyway, this won't guarantee that you will find success in the field, or even remember that material after the test. If you seriously want to pursue a career as a biologist, you'll need an advanced degree which will require more skills than memorization. If your goal is to become a lab tech, you can probably get away with memorizing your way through an undergrad degree though.

>>7768061
Biochem here too, although I'm doing a math minor

I took a bunch of AP bio courses and community college courses in high school and in there it was mostly memorization interspersed with system building. Genetics had a little bit of probabilities but in general it had to do with systems that change the expression of genes.

The statement that "as soon as biologists start talking about the problems they work through, you get into Biochem and chem" while somewhat true is in itself a useless statement. When I am doing chemistry and I try to figure out why my product is being fucky I use physics and physical chemistry to determine energies and hell I even use a molecular modeling program for quantum calculations so I got CS in there too.

Biology is the study of systems that we are not capable of easily quantifying yet. Generalizations can be made in certain areas such as chi squared analysis for allele frequencies but then you get harder things to figure out like the complexity inherent in the human eye and how it relates to the nervous system and it's development from a bundle of cells into a fully functioning sensory organ.

It may seem soft but fuck if it ain't effective and important for medicine and our daily lives.

>>7768026
trust me, child, the day i try to make a "screenshot meme" will be the day i off myself

>>7768131
>calling someone child
Go die

>>7768157
when someone expresses him/herself in an immature and contemptibly stupid manner they deserve to be called a child, child

now go play with your ti-84 and fap to anime, kid

What the fuck does it matter? A biologist can't been an engineer and vice versa.

Maybe the degree is a lot of memorization. So what? I guess the memorized knowledge is to be used some day. Or am I wrong?

>>7766740
>an photographic memory
Kill yourself

>>7766740
>>7768186
eidetic memory is found in toddlers/babies. Probably a form of survival instinct ie recognizing the mother.

then your brain develops and you learn to forget things that are not important

hence, most adults with "photographic" memory are retarded, because their brains are not developed

im not even sure there IS a confirmed case of eidetic memory in healthy adults

>biology
>science
pick one

File: 1434166288133.jpg (84KB, 533x700px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 533x700px

>>7768370

Learning the skill of biology is in learning how to discover new things. How was A and B discovered and how can I discover the next X and Y? It's the practice of complex problem solving that requires you to know the foundations in order for you to further the knowledge. It's like learning the rules of a board game, sure you have to remember things but once you start applying them it becomes second nature.

>It doesn't require hard maths
>therefore It's a meme

>>7768399
And once you discover it how can you apply it into something useful. If you can do that then you have advanced the human race and can make shit loads of money.
For example be a biologist that researches hot waters, find thermus aquaticus a microbe who can live in high temperatures, isolate the enzyme that can replicate DNA at this temperature, apply that to replicating DNA in a laboratory and bam you have PCR which has been a huge breakthrough. Next time a criminal is busted due to DNA evidence or a cancer gene detected that allows for prophylactic life saving mastectomy is ALL BECAUSE A HIPPIE SCIENTIST WAS LOOKING FOR BACTERIA IN THERMAL POOLS.

>>7768414
it's true though

Is a biophysics a meme field?

>>7768426
My program includes biophysics and so I had to take a course in it last semester but it isn't my direct field. I can't really advocate for or against it, or really have an opinion, but it seemed like a lot of using physics topics, mostly optics and thermodynamics (manipulating xrays, fluorescence, aspects of microscopy) to find crystal structures of small molecules like proteins. Kind of cool, but a little over my head being from a basic bio background. Luckily there was no tests, only homework grades so I did ok.

>>7766774
>I guess that's why so many engineers spend their weekends revolutionizing biology for the inferior soft science people.

That's exactly what happened. Modern genomics, bioinformatics, molecular biology, computational biochemistry, and biophysics would not exist if weren't for advances in instrumentation.

>>7766786
Yes, and it'll be taught much more differently.

The lab will also be painful

>>7768426
no

File: 1451363320005.jpg (468KB, 1180x1080px) Image search: [Google]

468KB, 1180x1080px

Biology only really kicks into gear as a real science once you actually get into research. Unless you volunteer, undergrads don't do research. If they themselves don't really know it, then I'm not surprised that /sci/ is full non-bio undergrads who are only a little more ignorant.

There is just too much shit to cover in undergrad and no time or rationale to do so. Biology is so incredibly broad that it is impossible to give actual working knowledge of every facet, and even if you did, as a research biologist they'd shed 90+% of everything you taught them as forever-useless. Not every biologist will need to be an expert in, for example protein surface electrostatics, and you also absolutely cannot predict from undergrads who out of that crowd will -ever- need that in their careers. You could have two researchers in the same lab on the same project, and one person might really want a map and another would disagree.

If you view bio undergrad lab courses as retarded, easy as tying shoes, well, usually they are. Things like making stocks, making/seeding plates, fixing/staining samples, titrating etc are the most basic things you can possibly do but also are cheap, safe and hard to fuck up. That's because schools have no time or money or risk to do much else. You might do a gel like once or twice, on something useless. How can you expect kids to -not- waste $500 worth of antibody in one go because they set the pipet wrong? How can you be sure you'll -never- get a kid stupid enough to eat phalloidin when you told him it came from poison mushrooms and he wanted to like trip so hard man? Students could easily fuck up cell lines, making it hard to give letter grades when everyone's project died, etc. There are also biohazard and clearance/training hurdles (radiation work, IACUC etc) making so much relevant stuff just out of the question for students. It also takes years to really master a model organism even if it's yeast or worms ... not really feasible for undergrads.

>>7766740
I have a biology degree (bachelor's). It is alot of memorization, but there's a gajillion things to remember so it makes it easy to get confused or forget things. You're better off trying to truly understand the topics instead of memorize them, but that can require alot of extra effort that many people can't, or won't, put forth.

people bandy about the memorisation thing and brush it off as if there was no memorisation involved in learning any other science, let's just stop with the hypocrisy and ignorance, and instead let's try to make this place into a proper science board

I am not a biology major but I can imagine that it is not JUST memorization. Memorization is probably a small part of it.

During high school when i had my two biology courses, we surely had memorization but there were definitely a lot of analyzing based on the things you have memorized and problem solving. We had laboration every class and the theory was set on the side for us to learn so we had a good teacher.

>>7768424
then how are things like cs memes? CS requires lots of hard math

>>7771380

The only things I remember about my high school biology are:
1) that the teacher was a complete douche (he kept his job because of his coaching, not his teaching),
2) that my lab partner was more interested in what nutty things he could do in the lab instead of what we were supposed to be doing, and
3) that out substitute teacher made me set another student back on the floor one day and then stay in the classroom five minutes to give him and his buddies a chance to get away.

>>7768165
can i fap to loli?

>>7768370
/thread

4th year majoring in Evolution, Behavior and Ecology
My degree is fucking easy. I have learned some specific stuff about various animals and plants but the professors have always told me that the details aren't important, its the logic behind it that's important.
For example:
>Ghost crabs build piles of sand outside their holes which attract females
>This is actually the ritualization of the process of digging out their homes because the sand would pile up anyway
>The piles of sand were initially just a pile of sand at first but
>The process became increasingly stereotyped over time and now has a meaning separate from its original meaning
This last line is most important because you can use this same logic for other shit and the name of the crab isn't important

>>7768370
I pick biology where I can study humanity and save some lives, while you scribble hypthetical pointless math problems on your little chalkboard.

>>7766740
Are you fucking retarded? A biology degree is about understanding logic and how to employ experimentation to support your claims. Unless you're a taxonomist in which case you get to write in latin all day and yeah, it's all memorization.

>>7768004
Why does nobody realize that both memory and logic are important for being in a scientific field? Jesus Christ, if you're so insecure that you need to ask for help on the internet maybe you don't really want to be in science. Like fuck just do it already, it's easy