Oh physics...and calculus

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

skuskin

New Member
10+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2006
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Which physics should I take, trig based or calculus based? Do med schools require one or the other, or is one just "highly reccomended?" And if you can take trig based physics, how important is it to take calculus? So many questions....

Thanks!
 
skuskin said:
Which physics should I take, trig based or calculus based? Do med schools require one or the other, or is one just "highly reccomended?" And if you can take trig based physics, how important is it to take calculus? So many questions....

Thanks!

Trig/algebra based is just fine. You definitely don't need calculus for it. However, some schools do require calculus as a pre-req.
 
I think that taking calculus is important and required by many schools now. As for physics.....only trig based is required, but if you are a chemistry major it might be helpful to take the calculus based. *I do not believe med schools give any kind of "bonus points" for taking the calculus based physics. (I took the trig based)
 
So I might be a bit biased since I started college as a physics major and therefore kind of love it (romantically), but I think that calculus-based physics is actually easier than 'easier' physics. 'Easier' physics kind of says "so this is what happens, and here is a magic formula that pops out a numerical answer." Calculus was arguably invented to solve physics problems, so the transition between disciplines is not awkard but seamless. Calculus-based physics is more in depth, but more intuitive and thorough.

An analogous situation might be deciding whether is better to spend a week memorizing 100 orgo reaction mechanisms or spend it understanding the electophilic/neutrophilic mumbojumbo that actually governs any given reaction. The time might be a wash either way, but one will leave you bursting at the seams with formulas that you'll forget instantly, the other will leave you with a firm understanding from which deriving those formulas is second nature.

Anyway, that was way too long and kind of off target, but that's what you get when an ivy league buttmunch is bored at work.
 
This is a repost from an earlier topic. In addition to what follows, I would also like to stress that what Eamonn said above is correct... it's really not possible to have a solid understanding of physics without the math.

Anyway:



I'm sure this is variable by school, but these are my own thoughts based on my own university. Perhaps some of you will have amazing teachers in the algebra-based courses, but the fact of the matter is your classmates in algebra-based physics are probably neither interested in nor particularly good at solving physics problems, so the teachers must place a limit on the depth of the material which they teach. Material will go up to what the MCAT expects of you, but not beyond.

Many students just don't understand the concepts like they should; they solve problems by writing down all the given variables and hunting through their mental catalogue of equations for one that will fit to find the unknown.

The math is not the difficult part of a calc-based physics course; the difficulty is in being forced to truly understand the concepts. It's not because of the fact that calculus is thrown into the mix! You'll never do anything more complicated than chain rule. It's because the course is filled with people who care about physics, so the questions posed to you require you to pay attention and fully understand concepts. Problems are nearly universally more difficult than equivalent problems in the algebra-based course.

Here's the thing: when you take a course beyond the scope of what you "need to know," the material that you "need to know" becomes infinitely easier to handle when you go back to it. I have friends who complain about their physics tests, but I can get near perfect scores on them when I'm handed a blank copy after they get them back. It certainly isn't because I'm naturally great at physics... quite the contrary, physics is far and away my weakest subject, despite the fact that math is one of my strongest.

The way I see it, if you consider yourself intelligent enough and motivated enough to be a candidate for medical school, you can handle calc-based physics without putting a dent in your GPA... and the difficulty will benefit you when the MCAT comes around.
 
Eamonn said:
So I might be a bit biased since I started college as a physics major and therefore kind of love it (romantically), but I think that calculus-based physics is actually easier than 'easier' physics. 'Easier' physics kind of says "so this is what happens, and here is a magic formula that pops out a numerical answer." Calculus was arguably invented to solve physics problems, so the transition between disciplines is not awkard but seamless. Calculus-based physics is more in depth, but more intuitive and thorough.

If only it were this simple. I agree that if the only difference between the 2 classes is one uses calc, the other doesn't and you know the calc the calc one will be easier. However some schools(Ok, I'm thinking BU) offer more than one kind of "calc based physics".(Guess how I know about this, go on, guess.) So if you're taking the hardest "calc" physics it isn't simply solving problems, the point of the course is to generate the equation necessary to solve a problem.(And believe me when you have 4 or 5 problems like this per test it gets really hard. Oh the plus side you don't need a calculator because there are no numbers, just variables and constants. Oh and for the truely sick of mind I still remember one of the questions from one of the tests. Anybody want to see it? Don't worry, the test is well over a decade old, I seriously doubt the prof is even still there.)
 
Eamonn said:
...understanding the electophilic/neutrophilic mumbojumbo...

:laugh:
 
Top