Polar opposite science experience

[cue]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

Hey I would appreciate any advice that anyone would have in response to my situation.

I went to college and graduated with a bachelors degree in business management. I have worked, grudgingly, in the corporate world since then, except for the last year and a half (more on that later). I had been in the workforce about a year when I realized that I wasn't really happy and began taking science courses at night at a local community college (the only four year university in my city was a private school that was too expensive). I completed general chem I&II, organic chem I&II, microbiology and physiology, all with a 4.00 GPA. I know that CC's have a bad rap but I really did not think that my courses were watered down and I felt like I learned a lot. My sister (who graduated with honors in biology) attended a big-12 school and she would periodically call to ask me questions on subject matter and I could always help her. Point being, I feel like I got a good background there.

I spoke to several colleges about what it would take to complete a second bachelors degree and ended up returning to school full time. I did so with the promise of financial help from my parents (so I could save the loans for d-school). Unfortunately, they unexpectedly divorced a week into the semester so instead of completing a degree, I was actually only able to take two courses - neurobiology and an upper level biostatistics course. I made a C in neuro and an A in biostats.

I was enrolled in many other science courses before I had to drop them due to financial considerations. One concern that I had was that while I attended class before dropping, I found the classes to be taught in a very esoteric manner. Compared to, say, organic chemistry, I never knew exactly what it was that we were supposed to learn. In o-chem, you know that you need to learn the reactions, etc and you can practice them until you are blue in the face. Same thing in biostats: every time we left class, we knew what topic it was that we were supposed to master - be it anova, hypothesis testing, whatever. Neuro was the same way in terms of not knowing what it was that we were supposed to be learning. The difference in knowing what it was that you were supposed to know, versus the guesswork that was prevalent in the other courses, is why I feel I did better in biostats than neuro.

One particularly bad experience that I had was in histology. The professor was an MD who was teaching the class for the first time. I studied fervently for that class, and spent time reviewing various slides, etc. from other schools that posted them online (he would not let us review his slides outside of class). I thought I was prepared and actually managed to get a 55 on the first test. Suffice it to say, I ended up dropping the course.

My goal all along had been to apply to dental school and, as a backup, several MPH programs. I was accepted into an ivy league MPH program this fall and I have considered retaking some of the science courses because I am really still interested in dentistry. But, I have some concerns about things repeating themselves as they did at the other school and I don't want to tarnish my transcript. I have a case of cold feet, to say the least.

So, if anyone has any thoughts or opinions on this, I'd be grateful for them. I have talked to several science professors who say that the ambiguity I experienced is not typical but for obvious reasons, I am somewhat still skeptical.

 

[oclor]

In most college classes that I've taken, the professor teaches you stuff and then asks about something totally different. The classes in which you know what you are supposed to study are considered the easy classes. I think that you are expected to know everything that is taught and then apply it to answer questions that are not directly from the text, but rather require you to put concepts together yourself to answer.

I personally didn't get this until my sophomore year and that's why I had less than a 3.0 in my freshmen year. You can't say that I didn't do well because the professor didn't tell me what to study, because you have to teach yourself and expect questions on tests with answers that you didn't come across. I learned this the hard way. I also think that this is what differentiates a community college from a university.

If you can do well in tough classes where you are required to teach yourself material and put things together yourself in order to answer questions, then that shows what you are capable of. Anyone can memorize material and methods, but only the very best can go beyond and learn more than they are taught. I think dental schools look for those people.

 

[cue]

I appreciate your reply but respectfully disagree with some of what you said. I have a bachelors degree in management, which consisted of a number of upper division courses. I realize there is a difference between business and science, my point was that the ambiguity was much greater in the science courses than in anything I've ever experienced before. I've never expected material to be spoon fed to me. I just found it more difficult to figure out exactly what it was that we were supposed to know - a novel feeling for me, to say the least.

Also, the CC courses too did not require pure rote memorization - a great deal of it was application too. Biostats was the same way. You learn a technique and apply it to different situations and data sets. Just wondered if anyone else has ever felt that their upper div science courses were vague and if so, how they responded to it.

 

[Montserrat]

I appreciate your reply but respectfully disagree with some of what you said. I have a bachelors degree in management, which consisted of a number of upper division courses. I realize there is a difference between business and science, my point was that the ambiguity was much greater in the science courses than in anything I've ever experienced before. I've never expected material to be spoon fed to me. I just found it more difficult to figure out exactly what it was that we were supposed to know - a novel feeling for me, to say the least.

Also, the CC courses too did not require pure rote memorization - a great deal of it was application too. Biostats was the same way. You learn a technique and apply it to different situations and data sets. Just wondered if anyone else has ever felt that their upper div science courses were vague and if so, how they responded to it.

Biostatistics is not a good yardstick for assessing variability in application of requisite knowledge in upper division biology courses. I went far out of my way to do well in upper division science courses, and the only time things were vague was when my professor accidentally ordered the incorrect textbook for class.

More than likely, vagueness is the fault of the student and incomplete mastery of the section topic. The more you delve into applied biochem, physiology, immunology, and pathology, the murkier questions can become both in detail and solution. Oftentimes, the questions were asked in such a fashion where a solution wasn't an absolute answer, but the choice that was least wrong. This isn't a fault of the sciences - it's the defining difference between finance and didactics. The only way to deal with it is to work harder, acknowledge you can get better, and accept the reality that your classes can and will kick your arse if you fail to prepare for everything.

 

[cue]

You may very well be right, perhaps there was more that I could have done. I do not blame the professor for the ambiguity - all I said was that there was more ambiguity in those courses than I've experienced before. That may very well be the nature of upper division science courses and if so, that's fine. I just wanted to get other's take on what their experience was like before I spent anymore time and money continuing down that path.