What constitutes a science course?

[Muscles00GT]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Sounds like a simple question, but I'm just curious what exactly constitutes a science course? Is it those courses that are just part of the science department? (i.e. BIO, CHEM, PHYSICS). I'm taking a course for my major (kinesiology) and although it's not part of the science department, it's an upper level neuroscience class that's required for my major. I'm assuming this wouldn't count in my science GPA since it's not exactly a "BIO" labeled course?

 

[Jpc984]

Does the course title have Neuroscience? If it does, I think it would count as Bio.

If it doesn't, it would be in "Other Science", thus counting towards your science grade.

 

[Muscles00GT]

Does the course title have Neuroscience? If it does, I think it would count as Bio.

If it doesn't, it would be in "Other Science", thus counting towards your science grade.

The course is titled, "THE NEUROBIOLOGY OF MOTOR CONTROL AND DEVELOPMENT"

And the text we are using is titled, "Neuroscience"

 

[Jpc984]

I would call it biology. I took a genetics course through the Agronomy department and it was no problem.

 

[SmallTownEMT]

Are you filling out your AACOMAS application now? If you have any doubt I would just shoot a quick email over to them. When I had questions in the past they had a very good response time.

 

[TexasTriathlete]

Is it the gray and green one with a brain or something on the cover?

I had that for vert phys.

 

[Muscles00GT]

Are you filling out your AACOMAS application now? If you have any doubt I would just shoot a quick email over to them. When I had questions in the past they had a very good response time.

Not filling the AACOMAS out now..still have about a year or so before I start filling out the application; however, I'll send them an e-mail just out of curiosity. Thanks!

Jpc894- Thanks. Hopefully it does count as it will help raise my sGPA

TexasTriathlete- It's actually a brand new textbook. It's white and has a large brain on the front cover.

 

[TexasTriathlete]

I just realized that some of the most brilliant scientists at my school (U of Texas) are the most boring lecturers.

George Bittner, whose class uses the aforementioned book, is a neuron guru from way back. Tons of stuff on neurons regenerating, etc., but his lectures are worse than death.

Austin Riggs, who is a hemoglobin guru, and been published about a trillion times, looks like the guy on indiana jones and the last crusade after he drank from the wrong grail, his overheads and course packet are almost un-readable, and you can't understand anything he says.

The grand master of all boring lectures is John Ivy. He is the department chair of kinesiology, and he knows more about the GLUT4 transporter than everyone else on the planet put together and multiplied by 1000. Tons of other great research too, and he is one of the guys who invented Accelerade, which is the best sports drink on the market.