Hey guys, so I am a sophomore pre-dent at URI and am wondering if I should take calc or not? I have taken college algebra already and am currently in pre-calc. Basically I suck as math! ehhh. Pre-calc is going better than algebra did, mostly because I actually try now. I will either get an A- or A in pre-calc depending on final. In college algebra i got a B-. My GPA is okay, currently a 3.78. I have completed general chem I and II and bio I and II; A's in all of those except A- in bio I. I have been looking at schools, and am especially interested in Tufts. And they dont even require calc! So should i take it? Math really gives me headaches and if I dont need it I dont want to take it. Also since I am an exercise science major will my kinesiology classes count towards my science gap? Because i realize the math classes do, but not sure about the kin. classes? My BCP gpa will probably end up higher than my science gpa if the kin classes dont count for the science. 👎. Ahh alright thanks for the input guys!!
-
CycleTrack and SDN are teaming up to make medical school admissions more transparent and accessible! Read the announcement to learn how we’re supporting the future of CycleTrack’s free application-tracking tools .
Advice needed
Started by bambam92
Get help with your application
Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.
The two schools that I remember off the top of my head that require calc are Boston and Harvard. If you are interested in Tufts, I suspect you may apply to your other Boston schools so you might actually want to take Calc.
If you have no interest in Boston or Harvard, don't take it. You don't need it. (however there may be another school or two I am not aware of that requires calc, double check those schools in which you are inetersted in).
If you have no interest in Boston or Harvard, don't take it. You don't need it. (however there may be another school or two I am not aware of that requires calc, double check those schools in which you are inetersted in).
http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showpost.php?p=10556202&postcount=13
Keep your options open. Take it. I took it and it was the worst grade I ever got in college, a B. I think it was worth it. It makes you think differently. I think I acquired a more appreciative taste for problem-solving as a result.
Here's a passage I just read in my Psychology textbook [The Science of Psychology: An Appreciative View by Laura A. King] and you can take it for whatever it's worth.
"Carol Dweck (2006) recently used the term mindset to describe the way our beliefs about ability dictate what goals we set for ourselves, what we think we can learn, and ultimately what we do. Dweck and her colleagues have conducted a number of studies illustrating how our mindset is a powerful influence on whether we reach our potential (Dweck, 2002a, 2002b, 2006 Dweck & Leggett, 2000).
One aspect of their research focuses on how individuals define intellectual ability. Dweck and her colleagues found that some children defined intelligence as fixed (Dweck & Leggett, 2000). These children believed that when it comes to academic ability, either you have it or you do not. For these kids, having to work hard to achieve academic goals is a sign that you are just not gifted. Dweck calls such a belief about intelligence an entity theory. In contrast, other children defined intelligence as something that a person could increase and improve upon. For these kids, effort was just a sign of learning what you need to know. Dweck refers to this type of belief as an incremental theory, which emphasizes that we can become more intelligent by gaining skills and mastering difficult tasks.
These two definitions of ability have implications for the meaning of failure. From the perspective of entity theory, failure means lack of ability. But from the vantage point of incremental theory, failure tells the person what he or she still needs to learn. When faced with a challenging academic task (math problem that were beyond their age level), the children in Dweck's studies responded quite differently. Children whose views reflected an entity theory were threatened by the difficult task, withdrew from it, and were more likely to criticize the task and put themselves down. Indeed, Dweck described these children as showing learned helplessness, which is the phenomenon of learning through experience that outcomes are not controllable. In Dweck's studies, the children had come to believe that outcomes in their lives were simply not in their control.
In contrast, the children who revealed incremental views of intelligence seemed to be energized by the challenging tasks. They remained focused and persisted in trying to solve the "impossible" problems. Amazingly, some of them actually did -- they achieved the impossible. Dweck has referred to entity beliefs of ability as 'beliefs that makes smart people dumb'."
One aspect of their research focuses on how individuals define intellectual ability. Dweck and her colleagues found that some children defined intelligence as fixed (Dweck & Leggett, 2000). These children believed that when it comes to academic ability, either you have it or you do not. For these kids, having to work hard to achieve academic goals is a sign that you are just not gifted. Dweck calls such a belief about intelligence an entity theory. In contrast, other children defined intelligence as something that a person could increase and improve upon. For these kids, effort was just a sign of learning what you need to know. Dweck refers to this type of belief as an incremental theory, which emphasizes that we can become more intelligent by gaining skills and mastering difficult tasks.
These two definitions of ability have implications for the meaning of failure. From the perspective of entity theory, failure means lack of ability. But from the vantage point of incremental theory, failure tells the person what he or she still needs to learn. When faced with a challenging academic task (math problem that were beyond their age level), the children in Dweck's studies responded quite differently. Children whose views reflected an entity theory were threatened by the difficult task, withdrew from it, and were more likely to criticize the task and put themselves down. Indeed, Dweck described these children as showing learned helplessness, which is the phenomenon of learning through experience that outcomes are not controllable. In Dweck's studies, the children had come to believe that outcomes in their lives were simply not in their control.
In contrast, the children who revealed incremental views of intelligence seemed to be energized by the challenging tasks. They remained focused and persisted in trying to solve the "impossible" problems. Amazingly, some of them actually did -- they achieved the impossible. Dweck has referred to entity beliefs of ability as 'beliefs that makes smart people dumb'."
My guess is the kinesiology classes will be included in the science GPA but not BCP, unless their abbreviation is BIO, PHYS, or CHEM, (but not KIN).
Also I would also take calc. You don't want to have to bank on only getting into certain schools. (Besides, a dental education at Tufts will probably cost half a million dollars by then).
Ask around and find the best calc. teacher. I had an amazing teacher and actually discovered I was good at math because of him and calc.
Might I also recommend that you take it in the summer? Doing math everyday makes a huge difference in how much you can retain throughout the course.
Also I would also take calc. You don't want to have to bank on only getting into certain schools. (Besides, a dental education at Tufts will probably cost half a million dollars by then).
Ask around and find the best calc. teacher. I had an amazing teacher and actually discovered I was good at math because of him and calc.
Might I also recommend that you take it in the summer? Doing math everyday makes a huge difference in how much you can retain throughout the course.
I didn't take precalc...But I think calc was easier then algebra. Still trying to figure out how that works, lol.
This is pretty useful if you're curious about what is and isn't a science.
http://www.adea.org/dental_educatio...ons/Documents/ADEA AADSAS Course Subjects.pdf
http://www.adea.org/dental_educatio...ons/Documents/ADEA AADSAS Course Subjects.pdf
