Is bio that easy?

[stonecold]

hi all,

i tried doing physics today, and after 5 hours, i still absolutely hate it.
then i went on the vcaa website, and looked at a past physics exam and it made me hate it even more.
then out of curiosity, i went and checked out a bio exam 1 for 2008.  it looked so easy that i did the multi choice part, and got well over 75% of the questions right.  i was like wow, this is relatively easy, and will probably help with chem as well.

so do you think i should change?  i actually seem to appreciate bio a lot more now that i understand the chemical concepts behind it (from unit 1,2 and 3 chem).  plus i really enjoy reading/remembering info now, whereas i used to prefer problem solving, but now problems make me go meh, boring!  Do you know what it takes to get an SS of above 40 in terms of marks lost in exams.  I hear you can lose quite a few and still score high.

also, it will help out with my mbbs at uni should i get in.

thoughts would be much appreciated.

[crappy]

Bio is a hard subject from what I've heard, thats why the A+ cutoff mark for exam one last year was 80%. But if you can get above 75% on the MC without even doing the subject then I guess you should pick it, you also sound much more passionate about it then physics.  If you hate physics then you shouldn't do it, simple as that. Do the subjects that you like.

Then again, physics is a maths based subject, and if your good at basic arithmetic then it shouldn't be much of a problem. What do you hate about it? the watered down maths components or electricity?

[slothpomba]

Have you done unit 1 & 2 bio, because if you havent 75% is rather impressive how did you manage to know all that. (Oh, right just noticed multiple choice)

I personally don't believe biology is a hard subject i rather enjoy it, on the scale of subjects id put it in the medium side (towards the easy side though). Maybe it's just because of the way i learn or the absolutely fantastic teacher i had but i actually enjoyed showing up to class instead of dreading it like methods.

There aren't many procedures as such that you have to learn (eg. how to write equations or draw diagrams or things like that) as far as i can tell from yr 11 bio, it's mainly just learning and understanding facts.

All in all, if you don't like physics, if in fact you hate it and don't need it, why would you keep doing it. If i were you and had the opportunity to cut it lose and find a subject you might like better and do better in than why not?

(I hate math myself which is why i guess i dislike methods and chemistry, procedural subjects like that)

[simonhu81292]

stonecold... i reckon you can get a 40+ in bio..since you like reading and remembering the info... understanding each concept... like in chem...
so if you think you like bio more than physics
 ::)go for it
is all about your own way ... :smitten:
MBBS is my dream course as well
 

[stonecold]

thanks for the replies.

basically, once upon a time i was really interested in aeronautics and wanted to do aerospace engineering or possibly be a pilot.  that is no longer the case.

the maths in physics doesn't really bother me, i like simple maths, which is why i did further.  i just find some the concepts very difficult to understand, and the way some of the questions are worded is very ambiguous.
some concepts of motion really are rather confusing, especially tension and this circular motion stuff.

as for bio, i've only done it in science (up to year 10) and it still just seems really simple and meshes in well with chem.

basically i used to like physics, but now something has changed and i find bio much easier to understand and more interesting, even though i have never really done it before in any kind of detail.

[simonhu81292]

well... have you looked at the unit 3/4 bio text book yet?
i would say unit 3 is a bit similar to chem
but unit 4 is all concepts ... evolution and evidence to prove it ...i found that boring
 
hope this helps
 :angel:

[stonecold]

hehe, learnt evolution in year 9.

basic summary:
-charles darwins theory, disproving some other guy named jean baptist lemark's theory that if an animal required a certain characteristic it simply grow it.
-over time, the land selects for specific characteristics in creatures i.e. giraffes with long necks required to get food in tall trees will survive more than the ones who have shorter necks, and over time, future generations will have longer necks that are better suited to the environment.  birds with strong beaks for cracking seeds is another example.
-a bit like survival of the fittest, the weak die out, the strong live on.

is that sort of it?

[vexx]

^ haha the evolution in bio is like (from shinny )


Evolution—The Evidence
Introduction
EVOLUTION: "All the changes that have transformed life on Earth from its earliest beginnings to the diversity that exists today."
The currently accepted theories of evolution have been developed and refined by biologists as evidence has become available to support and extend the mechanisms first proposed by Alfred Wallace and Charles Darwin. Earlier explanations, especially those of Lamarck are not well supported by the current evidence and are generally not accepted by current scientists. The evidence upon which the current theories of evolution are based is varied in its origins, and it is this multi-faceted approach which, taken together, provides the strength of the theory.
If your personal views on evolution are very different from the current scientific beliefs you are, of course, perfectly entitled to hold such views! You are, however, urged to adopt a pragmatic approach to your study of this part of the VCE course and to try to understand the current scientific explanations—that is what you need to gain marks on GA 3 questions!
The Fossil Record
FOSSIL
STRATIGRAPHY
RADIO-ISOTOPES
BIOGEOGRAPHY
ANATOMY
EMBRYOLOGY
BIOCHEMISTRY

EVOLUTION: "Evolution is the accumulation of inheritable changes within populations over time."
The agents of evolution include:
* natural selection
* mutation
* genetic drift
* migration
* non-random mating.
Of these, only natural selection leads to adaptations in populations within their changing environments. The others merely produce new opportunities for natural selection to work. However, without mutations to provide the raw material on which natural selection can work, the variability in populations would be strictly limited. With this in mind, it is possible to trace the evolutionary pathways taken from ancient ancestral species to the present day species. Whilst the biochemical thread of evidence is only possible to trace in current species, the combined information of the ancient fossil evidence and our understanding of relationships between present species together provides powerful support for the modern theory of evolution.
Divergent Evolution....

... and it continues forever.

its like a huuuge amount if information we have to memorise/know. thankfully i have it summarised from shinny's notes somewhere on this forum. so it's not too bad... :\

[stonecold]

hehe, like how much,  a chapter or two of the textbook?  shouldn't be too bad...
still better than finding the tension force in a string

i saw the first question on the physics paper from 08, and i had no clue what to do, after i just learnt it like an hour earlier
so bio is basically regurgitating info onto a paper and referring to your knowledge to answer practical questions that you will be asked?

do you do the genetic stuff like punnet squares, dominant and recessive genes, co dominace and incomplete dominance?
i hope so, i remember all of the stuff.

on the other hand i just remembered cell division stages: interphase, prophase, mataphase, anaphase and telophase.  right?
not so much fun! lol

[superflya]

u'll get the hang of physics, all u need is someone to show u the basics and then ull be able to do most if not all of the exam and the good thing is there isnt a massive variety of questions they can ask for physics unlike bio.

[stonecold]

i'm sorta thinking of doing both.  my cord won't really like it though!
i did really good at physics in year 11, got the physics award for my year, but i am just worried because i am supposed to be good at it, yet there is a lot of stuff i don't really understand properly.

[simonhu81292]

let it flow....
you know a lot about bio already and as you said you got the physics award... so i think you are capable for for both
in your sig.. you are aiming for a 40+ in physics that would be like a 42+ for bio (i think)
there might be something else that's affecting you 
you still got a week to decide .... :buck2:
 :smitten:

[stonecold]

thanks simon, ill definitely think hard.

i get a lot of conflicting reports on bio though.  like the A+ cutoff for last years exam 1 was 80%.  imo that is very generous, especially after having done further where the exam 1 a+ cutoff was like 37/40.

that having been said, i know a couple of people who i consider to be very smart and they just managed 40 and 39.
I don't know,  it is hard to gauge. i guess it happens with most subjects though.

[simonhu81292]

i believe you can do it... i wasn't at school for a whole term and i managed a 37..lol
"dreams" :smitten:
 

[stonecold]

i've decided i will do both physics and bio at the start of the year, and see which i prefer.  if i see potential in both of them, then i guess ill do them both, otherwise i'll pick just one.

i've only got 3 days of school each week so i have plenty of time to fit everything in.