Is it true with enough work you can get through any class no matter how difficult?

[brianbellau]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Or are there some classes that either you're smart enough to do well in it, or you aren't. I'm currently taking a Complex Analysis class because I did good in Calc (stupid me) and it seems like no matter how much time I put into it (Upwards of 20 hours a week) I just do not get the concepts while others do. (4o on first midterm, after studying my ass off) Perhaps I'm not as mathematically inclined as I thought, is this going to be the same story in some upper div science classes like Pchem or Analytical Chem? Are there going to be some classes that no matter how much work you put into it, an A just won't be achievable?

 

[knv2u]

Depending on your knowledge base and the way you think/learn, I do think there are some limitations that require a lot of work if you can overcome the limitation at all. The higher your IQ and the higher quality of your knowledge base, this becomes less and less of an issue IMO.P.S. I think you should withdraw from your real analysis class.

 

[Gauss44]

It will depend on the individual.

 

[darkjedi]

There are definitely classes where you are either smart enough or you can't cut it. This becomes especially apparent in higher level mathematics and sciences like physics. Some people, no matter how much effort they put in, will never be able to make heads or tails of something ridiculous like nonlinear stochastic differential equations. Different people will have different strengths and weaknesses, find yours.

 

[Lya]

As a math major, I understand your pain. I once said in another thread that by the time I got to the second midterm in my real analysis course, I finally understood the materials from the first midterm. I never felt so dumb in my life until that course. I was humbled.

I have not taken pchem or analytic chem, but I doubt comparing these with a higher level math course is reasonable. Math is just at a different level. There are materials where just by going to see the professor during his or her office hour every now and then is just not going to help at all. For some people like me, it took quite a while to let some information sink in and really understand enough to do well in midterms.

With that said, if you have a low GPA, I would consider dropping that course. Getting into medical school is far more important than mathematical appreciations. However, if you have a high GPA and you think that getting a B in Complex Analysis is acceptable, I would highly consider keeping that course. It really forces you to think abstractly that many things we learn in previous math courses can be perceived very differently. For example, in certain cases (referring to Cauchy's formula), realizing that integration and differentiation are basically identical was just simply mind-blowing to me. People typically don't learn these stuff in calculus, unless they independently look into journals, papers or textbooks.

 

[baconshrimps]

There are definitely classes where you are either smart enough or you can't cut it. This becomes especially apparent in higher level mathematics and sciences like physics. Some people, no matter how much effort they put in, will never be able to make heads or tails of something ridiculous like nonlinear stochastic differential equations. Different people will have different strengths and weaknesses, find yours.

That's like day one level stuff bro, c'mon. Try and keep up with the rest of us.

 

[Lucca]

High level mathematics is a game of intuition and insane levels of abstraction. Those skills take years, perhaps even a decade, to build up. Sometimes you got it or you don't.

 

[BeancheBlanco]

Math major here. I couldn't do analysis (read: proofs). I think I got a 6% on the final (granted the average wasn't much higher). Not sure where I got those points but I remember not knowing how to do a single problem. I spent more time on that class than the rest of my classes combined. I mean, if I spent even more time I might've done a little better. Who knows. The gains from each day of studying were so low though. It definitely came MUCH easier for some people in that class. I could tell by the way they answered questions in class.

The crazy thing about is that you have so much information in your brain from that class. So much stuff that you studied and learned. And then the final exam is a set of 4 proofs where you either can follow the logic or you can't. There's no partial credit or anything because you have to know the entire proof before you can even start it.

Kind of stupid though when I spend like no time at all studying for upper level bio classes and get A's and then spend inordinate amounts of time on analysis and get C-'s. Those analysis skills couldn't be further from anything I need to know as a physician but that doesn't stop it from killing both by cGPA and sGPA. And don't give me any crap about it showing a poor work ethic.

 

[Lambda Phage]

Kind of stupid though when I spend like no time at all studying for upper level bio classes and get A's and then spend inordinate amounts of time on analysis and get C-'s. Those analysis skills couldn't be further from anything I need to know as a physician but that doesn't stop it from killing both by cGPA and sGPA. And don't give me any crap about it showing a poor work ethic.

Amen, brother. I have a hard time imagining when I'll need the skills I haven't learned while integrating improper integrals.

 

[edgerock24]

Class seems like a gigantic waste of time anyways.

 

[BeancheBlanco]

Amen, brother. I have a hard time imagining when I'll need the skills I haven't learned while integrating improper integrals.

dawg, no disrespect but that's completely different. If you can't integrate improper integrals, I could see that as a knock on your ability to handle medical school. Same type of thinking is involved. That's like Calculus which is a pre-req isn't it? Analysis proofs are different.

 

[Cmdr_Shepard]

Quantum Mechanics. It's fairly safe to assume that most people don't/will never fully understand QM.

If ever there was a course where innate visuo-spatial/creative/mathematical/conceptual ability was required, that's it.

 

[Lambda Phage]

dawg, no disrespect but that's completely different. If you can't integrate improper integrals, I could see that as a knock on your ability to handle medical school. Same type of thinking is involved. That's like Calculus which is a pre-req isn't it? Analysis proofs are different.

I've aced every science course I've ever taken and scored a 35 on the MCAT (on an off day); I think I can handle medical school. 😉 But I appreciate your concern. Oh, and calculus II is most definitely not a pre-requisite course for medical school.

 

[BeancheBlanco]

I've aced every science course I've ever taken and scored a 35 on the MCAT (on an off day); I think I can handle medical school. 😉 But I appreciate your concern. Oh, and calculus II is most definitely not a pre-requisite course for medical school.

There's something about calculus that doesn't click with me for whatever reason, and regardless of how many practice problems I complete, I simply don't do well on exams.

Jeez, don't take it so personal. I wasn't taking a shot at you. I'm sure you are a very intelligent and hard working guy. I didn't say you weren't ready for medical school. I said that the skills learned in calculus can be important in medical school. If I were evaluating an applicant, I would consider his/her grade in calculus as important. Is it a deal-breaker? No. Are there other factors to consider? Obviously...many of them.

In reality, I was more annoyed that you compared calculus to analysis.

 

[Cmdr_Shepard]

Watch out everyone, he scored 35 on the MCAT on a frikken off day!

 

[Lambda Phage]

Watch out everyone, he scored 35 on the MCAT on a frikken off day!

In the real world, that's considered 'impressive'.

Anyway, good luck getting a valid response OP.

 

[Cmdr_Shepard]

It's alright I guess.

 

[Wasted Energy]

Quantum Mechanics. It's fairly safe to assume that most people don't/will never fully understand QM.

If ever there was a course where innate visuo-spatial/creative/mathematical/conceptual ability was required, that's it.

"If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics" - Richard Feynman

 

[Cmdr_Shepard]

Feynman is one of my heroes! I have all his books and physics lectures (the black and white ones from the 60's were excellent). Such a great teacher.

Actually, QM was the very last course I took in ugrad before graduating.

For fun of course!

 

[Wasted Energy]

Feynman is one of my heroes! I have all his books and physics lectures (the black and white ones from the 60's were excellent). Such a great teacher.

Actually, QM was the very last course I took in ugrad before graduating.

For fun of course!

Easily one of the most interesting/brilliant people of the twentieth century. As soon as I get some disposable income, I plan on buying all of his books as well. Right now I'll have to settle for the ones in the library 😀.

 

[bulldogmed]

I have not taken pchem or analytic chem, but I doubt comparing these with a higher level math course is reasonable. Math is just at a different level. There are materials where just by going to see the professor during his or her office hour every now and then is just not going to help at all. For some people like me, it took quite a while to let some information sink in and really understand enough to do well in midterms..

I was a chem major and I finished 3 semesters of calc, 2 of physics. Analytical chem isn't hard to understand. It's more a lab techniques class than anything. pchem was the toughest class I had in undergrad. But I got through it with a lot of practice problems. The last bit of calc III got me though. Maybe it was because I didn't care enough, but I stopped understanding and just tried to memorize, which didn't really help. Math is a different level, I wouldn't want to study the upper levels. Calculus is enough for me. I do think every college major should have to take calc I. That would definitely cut down on the some of the "studies" BS degrees out there.

 

[CSqueed]

This thread is Bull****. Reason why: You can never get an A in an advance writing class depending on the professor if you aren't a great creative writer.

 

[jjmusicman29]

Some people would need to study more hours a week than exist in a week to grasp a concept enough to ace a test on that subject.

Also some classes like creative writing are totally hit or miss depending on your professor and how he likes your work.

 

[PhysioMD]

-

 

[studpremed]

In my opinion, in response to your title, you can't work hard if you don't enjoy it. I was terrible at calculus (I) and I found it extremely extremely boring. I bombed the final and got a C in the class. However I found Calculus (II) so much more fun. I would spent hours nerding out on Calc (II) problems in my school library and got an A in the class. It boosted my self confidence since Calculus (II) is notoriously difficult in my school.
The point I'm trying to make is that if you enjoy learning mathematical concepts stick with it cause you won't get a chance to learn it in med school. But if your passion is more towards medicine, then work hard on the pre-reqs and protect your GPA first. Not everyone can appreciate higher division math.

 

[CSqueed]

In my opinion, in response to your title, you can't work hard if you don't enjoy it. I was terrible at calculus (I) and I found it extremely extremely boring. I bombed the final and got a C in the class. However I found Calculus (II) so much more fun. I would spent hours nerding out on Calc (II) problems in my school library and got an A in the class. It boosted my self confidence since Calculus (II) is notoriously difficult in my school.
The point I'm trying to make is that if you enjoy learning mathematical concepts stick with it cause you won't get a chance to learn it in med school. But if your passion is more towards medicine, then work hard on the pre-reqs and protect your GPA first. Not everyone can appreciate higher division math.

Calling major BS. Some of us had to muscle it through some classes we probably don't give a horse's *** about, but still force out the A.

 

[studpremed]

Calling major BS. Some of us had to muscle it through some classes we probably don't give a horse's *** about, but still force out the A.

I think you misinterpret what I was saying. I never said he can't get an A cause he doesn't enjoy it. I'm encouraging him to stick with the class if he really does enjoy the subject but if he doesn't then protect the GPA first. The broader point I was making is that it's easier to work hard, even in classes you don't care about, if you have a specific goal or passion for.

 

[listener23]

There are definitely classes where you are either smart enough or you can't cut it. This becomes especially apparent in higher level mathematics and sciences like physics. Some people, no matter how much effort they put in, will never be able to make heads or tails of something ridiculous like nonlinear stochastic differential equations. Different people will have different strengths and weaknesses, find yours.

Do you think is apparent when it comes to getting a 30 on the MCAT?

 

[XmedBarney]

Short answer: Yes, it's possible that you aren't intellectually equipped for the material.

Long answer: Many people have referenced how Upper-division Math and Physics courses will cut down people like crazy. As a Math/Phys. major I concur, but it's not an all inclusive set, and different people have different types intellectual limitations. For example, I found the concepts in Biology/chem courses trivially easy to understand, but it took me a hell of a lot of work to remember every concept, idea and fact. My success(relatively) in courses that involve high degrees of abstraction did not translate to having a superior working memory, there was a definite challenge for me. Similarly, we can all learn to write cogent and concise essays with enough effort, but most of us will never be a master wordsmith.

So I would say that, it's important to recognize the possibility of our own intellectual limitations and perhaps even err on the side of caution when
considering courses that might be too difficult. It's important to do research and look at the kind of work that a course requires before jumping into a
potential quagmire.

 

[darkjedi]

Do you think is apparent when it comes to getting a 30 on the MCAT?

The threshold is probably lower, but I imagine there is some population cutoff where some people will never be able to break 30 no matter how much they study. While the MCAT is a material based test, the ability to effectively store concepts and apply them is very much based in intelligence. It's not a direct measure of intelligence by any means, but it is certainly correlated.

 

[listener23]

The threshold is probably lower, but I imagine there is some population cutoff where some people will never be able to break 30 no matter how much they study. While the MCAT is a material based test, the ability to effectively store concepts and apply them is very much based in intelligence. It's not a direct measure of intelligence by any means, but it is certainly correlated.

so what around a 27?

 

[fuzzytoad]

Quantum Mechanics. It's fairly safe to assume that most people don't/will never fully understand QM.

If ever there was a course where innate visuo-spatial/creative/mathematical/conceptual ability was required, that's it.

Most undergrad quantum mechanics can be understood if you understand linear algebra. As much as I revere Feynman, he studied QM when it was a relatively young field and I feel confident to claim that there are physicists in this world who "understand QM". Not that that's anyway relatable to the kind of stuff you do in undergrad. Once you get to quantum field theory things get ****ed fast. And I mean fast.

Back on topic though, for the most part I find my experiences in line with XmedBarney's. In general I feel that to understand the material itself can be done with brute force. A mathematician once said that all theorems are trivial (since once they are proven, the steps are self-evident) and I tend to agree. On the other hand, reaching those solutions from problems you've never seen before (which you will do if your program has any teeth) would require keeping many levels of abstraction in mind, and some people may not be able to do that (without years of build-up).

I think the more relevant courses are art/music/writing etc. Innate artistic potential is, imo, rarer that the abstractive horsepower needed to succeed in any undergraduate STEM course. Except analysis. Analysis is just ****ed.

@Lambda Phage dude...comparing analysis to calc II is like comparing college football to playing pass in the park - no one is claiming you need it for med school and I'm sure you're fully capable, but the former is almost an art-form in the level of abstract thinking and creativity required, while the latter is basically just following instructions (albeit convoluted ones at times)

 

[darkjedi]

so what around a 27?

Again, I'm sure at any score above baseline you will have a population of people who are incapable of getting higher than a certain score. Intelligence is on a bell curve like most population level statistics. Just as there are crazy people that can score like 43's on their MCATs consistently, there will likely be some people who can't score any higher than low 20's.

 

[XmedBarney]

Most undergrad quantum mechanics can be understood if you understand linear algebra. As much as I revere Feynman, he studied QM when it was a relatively young field and I feel confident to claim that there are physicists in this world who "understand QM". Not that that's anyway relatable to the kind of stuff you do in undergrad. Once you get to quantum field theory things get ****** fast. And I mean fast.

Well the quote was well after Feynman's days as a student, and by then, elementary quantum theory was on a very solid mathematical footing. I do understand what you say about QM being understood, QM is understood in the sense that I can solve problems using QM, but there is no real physical intuition about it unlike classical mechanics or even Relativity. As far as mathematical sophistication is concerned Analytical Mechanics and E&M are both more involved than QM.

 

[fuzzytoad]

Well the quote was well after Feynman's days as a student, and by then, elementary quantum theory was on a very solid mathematical footing. I do understand what you say about QM being understood, QM is understood in the sense that I can solve problems using QM, but there is no real physical intuition about it unlike classical mechanics or even Relativity. As far as mathematical sophistication is concerned Analytical Mechanics and E&M are both more involved than QM.

By QM I am referring to all of it's implications as well, which includes E&M though quantum electrodynamics, as well as the standard model. That pretty much encompasses everything that isn't general relativity, and it is by a wide (W I D E) margin the most predictively powerful theory in all of science. The question of whether it follows "physical intuition" only says something about our intuitions - not how nature works. You can ask "is the wave function real or just a mathematical abstraction" and no one can give you an answer. Are gluons real or just a theory we invent to describe how a certain force is propagated. We could ask the same for an electric field, and since quantum field theory says that electrons are just a vibrational mode of this field, they are fair game too. These are philosophical questions - not scientific ones. In the end science is only concerned with constructs that model what can be observed, and in this respect quantum mechanics is well understood indeed. Perhaps you had something else in mind - if so my apologies for misinterpreting.

That said, QM raises very interesting questions about the nature of mathematics and reality - something that Feynman himself has often discussed. Glad you brought it up.

 

[moisne]

Or are there some classes that either you're smart enough to , do well in it, or you aren't. I'm currently taking a Complex Analysis class because I did good in Calc (stupid me) and it seems like no matter how much time I put into it (Upwards of 20 hours a week) I just do not get the concepts while others do. (4o on first midterm, after studying my ass off) Perhaps I'm not as mathematically inclined as I thought, is this going to be the same story in some upper div science classes like Pchem or Analytical Chem? Are there going to be some classes that no matter how much work you put into it, an A just won't be achievable?

Yes - for some people there is a limitation.

I'm very good at math and practical science. PChem was hell. I don't even understand it to this day. Albeit I did not study more than 5 hours a week for that class - but compared to my other classes (1 hr/week max) it was very hard.

I had classmates who would study pchem all day long and still barely get a C

 

[Cmdr_Shepard]

@fuzzytoad

I think he was probably referring to whether our view of the nature of the universe (through the lens of QM) is the truth, in which case our model reflects the underlying physical reality, or whether the true nature of the universe is out of our grasp and the model we use gives us accurate predictions because we haven't tested it in a way that would show the universe's true nature. In other words, are we still approximating the physical reality of the universe with QM and all of the models that follow?

Probably*Probably.

 

[fuzzytoad]

@fuzzytoad

I think he was probably referring to whether our view of the nature of the universe (through the lens of QM) is the truth, in which case our model reflects the underlying physical reality, or whether the true nature of the universe is out of our grasp and the model we use gives us accurate predictions because we haven't tested it in a way that would show the universe's true nature. In other words, are we still approximating the physical reality of the universe with QM and all of the models that follow?

Probably*Probably.

Yes, I gathered as much. What I am saying is that there is fundamentally no distinction (in science) between a theory that gives accurate predictions of reality, and reality. You could make the argument that any scientific theory is just some approximation of reality until we do an experiment that would show the "universe's true nature". So lets say tomorrow we do an experiment that proves that QM is flawed - we could still argue that there might be another experiment to prove that theory flawed as well.

I think what makes quantum hard to understand for most is the fact that there is no "physical" interpretation for a wave function. It's like a jeopardy wheel in constant motion and we only get to see what happens when it stops - never the wheel itself. So people ask: is the wheel real? In QM, there is something called Bell's theorem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bells_Theorem) that proves that the only way to explain all the phenomenon we observe in QM is with something functionally equivalent to a wave function. So maybe its a bunch of monkeys throwing darts on the board and not a wheel after all. But nature says we never get to see (also a consequence of Bell's Theorem), so what's there is really a philosophical question and in the end we should just call it a wave function and be happy with that.

You see, this idea of "the true nature of the universe" is like asking whether or not we can ever objectively know if we live in a computer simulation (see Descartes, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_in_vat). The best we can do is run experiments, use the results of those experiments to find patterns, construct rules for how those patterns behave, and call them theories.

Truth is a topic for philosophy. In science there are only hypotheses.

 

[medschoolmyname]

math was definetly not my strongest subject but i was thankfully able to get through it. LIke others have said some people have the intellectual acuity where this isnt a problem and others not so much, but you could always trying to change your study habits. And academic success has little to do with doing well on exams like MCAT. i mean i got a 3.9 gpa, but only a 30 mcat. most ppl tell me thats kind of weird, but the way the mcat is structured it just doesn't allow me to demonstrate my abilities to the fullest. hope you do well!

 

[Cmdr_Shepard]

Yes, I gathered as much. What I am saying is that there is fundamentally no distinction (in science) between a theory that gives accurate predictions of reality, and reality. You could make the argument that any scientific theory is just some approximation of reality until we do an experiment that would show the "universe's true nature". So lets say tomorrow we do an experiment that proves that QM is flawed - we could still argue that there might be another experiment to prove that theory flawed as well.

In the end, this idea of "the true nature of the universe" is like asking whether or not we can ever objectively know if we live in a computer simulation (see Descartes, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_in_vat). The best we can do is run experiments, use the results of those experiments to find patterns, construct rules for how those patterns behave, and call them theories.

Truth is a topic for philosophy. In science there are only hypotheses.

I agree with all of that! I like your style fuzzytoad.

Deep down I like to believe that science and philosophy often answer similar questions, so that when we do an experiment that shows a hypothesis to be correct, or gives more weight to a theory, we are also revealing something about reality's physical makeup that is objectively true.

But certainly it's difficult to know the true nature of reality and whether or not we're all being simulated. Especially since our instruments would always be just slightly unable to probe the underlying simulation (as they are simulations themselves).

Regarding QM/QFT, I can absolutely appreciate their accuracy, tested so far very well with our instruments, but I look forward to the day we have instruments powerful enough to properly distinguish between the many competing quantum gravity models (as I understand it, the merger of QM and GR will soon be upon us?).

Would be a good day for science and philosophy both.

 

[487806]

Class seems like a gigantic waste of time anyways.

Yes because clearly you are knowledgeable in this matter.

Or are there some classes that either you're smart enough to do well in it, or you aren't. I'm currently taking a Complex Analysis class because I did good in Calc (stupid me) and it seems like no matter how much time I put into it (Upwards of 20 hours a week) I just do not get the concepts while others do. (4o on first midterm, after studying my ass off) Perhaps I'm not as mathematically inclined as I thought, is this going to be the same story in some upper div science classes like Pchem or Analytical Chem? Are there going to be some classes that no matter how much work you put into it, an A just won't be achievable?

Well you made the mistake in majoring in math. I'll be pretty honest. Math isn't for everyone. For me, the major is frankly stupid since I'm confined to wasting my time proving abstract nonsense with no physical applications. At least philosophy is much more interesting because it's actually relevant rather than showing why a certain sequence uniformly converges. Your complex analysis class is probably a proof-based class, which sucks because the real beauty of the class is its applications. I think it is because of your naivete that math is cool as a major, when in reality, it's really terrible.

Physical sciences are difficult but they're on a different league than math. I guess in your case, it's tough luck. Upper level courses aren't a joke so I guess you had the short end of the stick. Sorry, but work hard to try to do well overall.

 

[487806]

@Lambda Phage dude...comparing analysis to calc II is like comparing college football to playing pass in the park - no one is claiming you need it for med school and I'm sure you're fully capable, but the former is almost an art-form in the level of abstract thinking and creativity required, while the latter is basically just following instructions (albeit convoluted ones at times)

Agreed 100%. People should really stop commenting in subjects they don't have the slightest clue. It just exposes their sheer ignorance.

Quantum Mechanics. It's fairly safe to assume that most people don't/will never fully understand QM.

If ever there was a course where innate visuo-spatial/creative/mathematical/conceptual ability was required, that's it.

We can say the same about general relativity

/jargon debate

 

[Cmdr_Shepard]

Really? I'd say GR is much more intuitive than QM. If you can visualize 3D warping, and understand the notions of acceleration and time dilation, I'd say GR is half way understood! Haha.

But seriously, I find GR easier to grasp than QM.

I purposely didn't mention the math because IMO they both have difficult math to work through.

 

[bulldogmed]

Long answer: Many people have referenced how Upper-division Math and Physics courses will cut down people like crazy. As a Math/Phys. major I concur, but it's not an all inclusive set, and different people have different types intellectual limitations. For example, I found the concepts in Biology/chem courses trivially easy to understand, but it took me a hell of a lot of work to remember every concept, idea and fact. My success(relatively) in courses that involve high degrees of abstraction did not translate to having a superior working memory, there was a definite challenge for me. Similarly, we can all learn to write cogent and concise essays with enough effort, but most of us will never be a master wordsmith.

I'm guessing you didn't take P-chem. Applied thermodynamics and Quantum Mechanics was exceeding difficult to understand.

 

[fuzzytoad]

I agree with all of that! I like your style fuzzytoad.

Deep down I like to believe that science and philosophy often answer similar questions, so that when we do an experiment that shows a hypothesis to be correct, or gives more weight to a theory, we are also revealing something about reality's physical makeup that is objectively true.

But certainly it's difficult to know the true nature of reality and whether or not we're all being simulated. Especially since our instruments would always be just slightly unable to probe the underlying simulation (as they are simulations themselves).

Regarding QM/QFT, I can absolutely appreciate their accuracy, tested so far very well with our instruments, but I look forward to the day we have instruments powerful enough to properly distinguish between the many competing quantum gravity models (as I understand it, the merger of QM and GR will soon be upon us?).

Would be a good day for science and philosophy both.

It's not a coincidence that scientists were called natural philosophers before the 19th century. We decided to partition the two to allow the former to focus on things that could be verified experimentally. I think you must be a math/phys student, because these are topics we discuss all the time 🙂 To be honest though, I don't think QM/GR will be reconciled anytime soon, but if it did, we will have likely found the holy grail of science.

Getting back on topic, I don't think there is any undergraduate course that some one couldn't do well in if they didn't try hard enough. Of course, an indicator of success is how well you did in prerequisites, so by "work hard", I don't just mean in the course - I mean in all the courses you would need to build up the knowledge required to learn it as well. You could be the smartest guy in the world but never have a clue in GR if you didn't put in the effort differential geometry.

In principle though, I'd say I agree with most people here.

 

[deleted407021]

There are obviously variations between different courses and the way people react to the material presented in them. I know of several chem majors who can rock P-Chem but when asked to write essays, they come back with something I would written in 6th grade. All of my humanities/english professors have complemented me on the strength of my writing but I still need to remediate my algebra skills. I had a bad foundation in mathematics while others have had similar issues with reading comprehension and writing. The same goes for the entire range of academic disciplines. This principle will determine how hard you have to work to be successful in a given course. Its called aptitude.

 

[XmedBarney]

I'm guessing you didn't take P-chem. Applied thermodynamics and Quantum Mechanics was exceeding difficult to understand.

I don't want to **** on other people's work, but P-chem is more like quantum lite. and Stat. Mech lite. I have plenty of chem. major friends and seen their classwork. And Q.Mech is not the hardest part of an UG curriculum in physics, that credit goes to E&M.

 

[fuzzytoad]

I don't want to **** on other people's work, but P-chem is more like quantum lite. and Stat. Mech lite. I have plenty of chem. major friends and seen their classwork. And Q.Mech is not the hardest part of an UG curriculum in physics, that credit goes to E&M.

I think the difficulty of upper year physics completely depends on the profs and program. GR, EM, Solid State, QM, and particle physics can all be difficult depending on what the prof teaches in class. In my upper year QM our prof decided to teach a semester on quantum computing, and it turned out to be the easiest course of that semester. Next semester we did path integral formulation and our heads were just about exploding. The only challenging part of my EM class was Lienard-Wiechert potentials and that was only because the integrals were monstrous. There is a huge variation of difficulty between topics in these fields and it's more or less up to what your program teaches you. Also, depending on whether differential geometry and group theory is a prereq for your degree, GR and particle physics respectively can be very, very, very difficult (as they require very different formalism than one is used to from 1-3 year).

 

[orangeman25]

Hard work can only take you so far (albeit pretty darn far). Talent, which is much more rare, takes you the rest of the way.

 

[Lambda Phage]

My working memory is better than my problem solving skills. I can memorize extensive biochemical pathways after having seen them 2-3 times, but classes that require tons of problems solving are a bit more challenging for me. I think most biology majors are the same way: we try to memorize everything instead of thinking of how the things we know can be applied to novel situations. It's something many people need to work on, myself included. And hopefully I can improve that over the next year or so before starting medical school...