Hardest Science A-level (UK)

[Cloud]

Whenever I look around the web I see articles on fewer and fewer poeple taking science A-levels and more opting for psychology.

 

But why? More to the point - Which science AS/A2 is the hardest ?

 

Biology

Chemistry

Physics

Computing (if you consider this a science)

__________________________________________________________

 

I've been predicted a grade A (at GCSE level Double science) but am not motivated enough to pursue to A-level. Most of the pupils in my double science class are opting to take media, philosophy, psychology and the likes of that at A-level. (soft - non technical fields)

 

From personal experience

- please discuss.

 

Thanks

[the tree]

Phsycology is not a soft-science and from what I hear, it's not that easy either.

Which science is harder really depends on the individual, if your good with maths then physics will be a lot easier but if your maths is lacking then you're more likely to struggle.

Computing, in the sense that it's taught at 6th form/college is by no means scientific, it's a lot more like buisness studies a lot of the time. If you want to get something technical from computing look into Cisco's iPro course.

[5614]

I am taking phys and chem AS Level currently (along with maths/further maths/ICT) so if you wanna ask anything then go for it.

 

I'd say that:

 

Physics: The actual concepts is nothing too hard. Taking AS Level maths does help a lot as a lot of the mechanics in physics (like Newton's Laws and working out forces and stuff) is also repeated in maths (that is maths - mechanics, not maths - statistics). The hard part is the questions, nearly everyone knows their stuff and the formulae, but the questions you get, they don't just give you 3 numbers for you to put into an equation, they make it more complicated, it's hard to explain.

 

Chemistry: Nothing too bad, IMO it's easier than physics.

 

Biology: I'm not taking bio but have friends who are. From what I've heard they're doing a lot of 'chemistry' in biology. Like they are studying the chemical structures of sugars (I think it was) and other organic compounds. Other than that I really don't know.

 

=====

 

I thought computing was a programming course?

 

=====

 

A* grade in double science is a challenge, it's one of the hardest A*s to get as the courseworks are easy to lose marks on (although now the c/work is changing, that won't effect you though), there are lots of modules which you need to do well on and the final exam, it really isn't that hard, but you need to be strong on all 3, if you're weaker on just 1 it could drag your overall mark down.

 

=====

 

If you have any specific questions then feel free to ask.

[silkworm]

Everything is physics, so it would most likely be the most difficult due to the complexity required to use physics to explain something less fundamental, ie biology. Physics is of course heavily reliant on mathematics as it's language as well (where less fundamental sciences can afford to be more narrative) and that frightens some people. Of course there is a lot of chemistry in biology, because biology is a reader's digest version of chemistry, which is a reader's digest version of physics.

[Bluenoise]

Of course there is a lot of chemistry in biology, because biology is a reader's digest version of chemistry, which is a reader's digest version of physics.

 

Uhhhh no.

 

Chemistry deals with many things that do not involve or require physics to explain. Just like biology deals with many things that do not involve or require chemistry to explain.

And as well mathamatics deals with many things that aren't necessary for physics.

 

Saying chemistry is the reader's digest version of physics ignors the existant of most of the content of chemistry. As does saying the same for biology from chemistry, as would math to physics etc.

 

I remember a quote it went something like this. Biochemistry think they're smarter than biologist chemists always think they're smarter than biochemists, physists think they're smarter than chemists, mathamaticians think they're smarter than physisits, and philosophers used to think they're smarter than everyone untill it was realalised they really don't know anything about anything anyways.

 

Everything is physics, so it would most likely be the most difficult due to the complexity required to use physics to explain something less fundamental, ie biology.

 

Well that's exactley why people don't use physics to explain things like that. It is a very idealistic view to think you can. It's a pretty stupid waste of their time. Sure theoretically you could explain the evolution of mouse fur color using quantum mechanics. The real use of physics in biology occurs when the two genras overlap. Like lets say effects of radiation, speed of a cheeta running etc...

 

The different sciences tend to require different combinations of skills as well, some people are good at some some are better at others. Like physics needs math skills, chemistry need spatial skills, biology needs memory skills. There is definate overlap but you can't say one is harder than the other.

 

Like I know poeple who had to drop out of chemistry and go into physics because they just couldn't handle the spatial 3d aspect that gets to be so necessary to much of it. Just like I know people who had to leave physics because they couldn't handle the math. etc... Now this isn't to say that you don't need math to do chemistry or spatial visualization to do physics, just not as much so.

 

Look everything is only as hard as you want to make it. No one can handle the full complexity of any science.

[5614]

"All science is either physics or stamp collecting"

--Ernest Rutherford

 

Commenting on that maths, I think if you are ok at GCSE algebra then that is most stuff sorted. You need to be able to rearrange equations with quite a few variables in it. In the mechanics unit there is a lot of triangles involved, so if you're good at pythag (a² + b² = c²) and basic trig (ie. sinθ = Opp/Hyp).

[silkworm]

Bluenoise, I wasn't talking about convenience or about everyone being a unique and beautiful snowflake. What I was talking about was that everything that occurs can be explained at their most fundamental level, and the most fundamental level is investigated with physics. Period. If you don't see the power in that, I don't know what to do for you. The further away you get from the fundamentals, the more generalizing you get, the more mistakes are made, and pretty soon all you're doing is participating in trivia. Physics taken to its potential is more complex than anything, I wouldn't say anything is difficult, but nothing can be as complex as physics in that application, but physics in that application can be the only chance at a solid and valid explaination, because at that point "random" would only mean you got lazy.

[Bluenoise]

So you think every chemist and biologist is lazy because there isn't a human being/computer capable of contemplating the full complexity of physics involved in understanding biology?

 

*edit*

 

I'm guessing you're pretty young since you seem to have a very idealistic view of this. This has nothing to do with convience or lazyness. It's a matter of necessity, and realism. Of what's possible and what's not.

[silkworm]

I was talking about physics as a discipline in relation to nature, not commenting about the work ethic of any general group of people. Yes, I am young. I'm hot too. What's your point?

 

Looks like I struck a chord here, but I am not lying to you or saying anything radical. Without chemistry biology would pretty much just be catagorizing. Without physics none of it would have any legs and everything would be "magical." Everything is physics. I'm sorry if this is a problem for you. I'm just telling the truth.

 

I was trying to answer the question in the thread and my answer was everything is physics and using physics to explain the less fundamental parts of science is as complex as you can get, meaning it's the most "difficult" due to the complexity involved, although it is the most powerful because it is truly fundamental.

[rakuenso]

He means that your ego is too big for your brain.

 

Just because you can explain some biology concepts in terms of physics doesn't mean that it's beneficial , nor does it necessarily clarify anything. Physics answers the "how", not the "Why"? It's obvious that you've never stepped your foot into the world of evolutionary biology. Even when it comes to technical stuff, physics becomes pretty useless when trying to analyze huge macromolecules like DNA. To come up with a system that analyzes all of the forces involved even in a basic prokaryote is unfeasible and rather stupid to even try. Nor does it benefit anyone.

 

I wouldn't call physics "the most difficult" nor the most "fundamental", to biologists, chemists, and engineers even, physics is just a tool.

 

"The further away you get from the fundamentals, the more generalizing you get, the more mistakes are made, and pretty soon all you're doing is participating in trivia."

 

That's the dumbest piece of crap i've heard in a while.

[silkworm]

Where did my ego come into anything? I'm not talking about myself. I'm talking about physics. I'm sorry you guys are feeling insecure, but I'm not attacking you. I'm talking about physics as a discipline and the fact it looks at nature at its most fundamental.

 

It's obvious that you've never stepped your foot into the world of evolutionary biology.

 

Sorry, you're wrong. By your tone you sound like one of those cats who believe in orthogenesis. There is no why (as you seem to mean it) that isn't corrupted by us by dramatic or otherwise distorted overtones, and really any why (other than the first one of course) is really just a summation of the hows. I only used those terms because you did.

 

physics becomes pretty useless when trying to analyze huge macromolecules like DNA.

 

I won't make similar assumptions about you as you did me, but I'm beginning to wonder.

[prion]

"consilience" anyone?

[rakuenso]

Sorry, you're wrong. By your tone you sound like one of those cats who believe in orthogenesis. There is no why (as you seem to mean it) that isn't corrupted by us by dramatic or otherwise distorted overtones, and really any why (other than the first one of course) is really just a summation of the hows. I only used those terms because you did.

 

What does orthogenesis have anything to do with this? I never said that biology isn't not subject to natural selection, get your definitions straight first. The reason I said "why" to start with was to clarify that things like natural selection answered the "why" questions.

 

I won't make similar assumptions about you as you did me, but I'm beginning to wonder.

 

You're the one who said that physics is the fundamentals of everything, and how physics is "everything"

[Dave]

There's no need for mud slinging folks. Please watch your language and keep to the forum rules, otherwise I'm going to have to fling some warnings about.

 

PS: I've removed parts of the last two posts because they're clearly very silly. Please don't post stuff like that on here.

[silkworm]

You're the one who said that physics is the fundamentals of everything, and how physics is "everything"

 

Remember I'm the one who told you. I'm not about ego, but if you're going to attack me I want you to remember that I'm the one who told you. I don't have to debate or defend my statement because it's as true as nature. If you and I were the only two people left on Earth and we both voted against my statement it would still be true. Sorry.

 

Sorry everybody.

 

Sorry cookiemonster. I lied about that. I don't even know her. I was just fighting fire with fire.

[Klaynos]

"All science is either physics or stamp collecting"

--Ernest Rutherford

 

Commenting on that maths' date=' I think if you are ok at GCSE algebra then that is most stuff sorted. You need to be able to rearrange equations with quite a few variables in it. In the mechanics unit there is a lot of triangles involved, so if you're good at pythag (a² + b² = c²) and basic trig (ie. sinθ = Opp/Hyp).[/quote']

 

*smirk@maths comment* I take it you havn't done ODE's or

 

I'm just going to add my few comments and that is that yes physics is the fundementals of everything, chemistry = electron energies, fundemental forces etc... BUT that does not mean that chemistry is easier than physics, just that it is a level above, a physcist would have to work everything out from the fundementals, which with todays computing may be impossible in many many situations, where as a chemist would already have the higher level rules.

 

Physics is the study of the physical world, that is everything...

 

BTW there is a BIG difference between A-level ICT and A-level computing, computing is alot closer to computer science than ICT but isn't really taught as a science...

[Bluenoise]

^^^ Exactley.

 

Saying a physics test is harder than a biology test, because you could use physical fundamentals to explain biology making physics more vast, is like saying swimming a race in the pacific is harder than swimming a race in the atlantic because the pacific is bigger. (yeah it's not a very good analogy but I think you get the point)

 

These are two science with complexities far vaster than anything you or anyone else will ever handle. Meaning you'd have to be some sort of god to be able to notice the difference in difficulty (if there is one) because you will never get there anyways.

 

I was trying to answer the question in the thread and my answer was everything is physics and using physics to explain the less fundamental parts of science is as complex as you can get, meaning it's the most "difficult" due to the complexity involved, although it is the most powerful because it is truly fundamental.

 

also more fundamental does not equal more complex.

 

Take a turing machine for example, the way it works is extreemly simple, however the level above of the things it can represent are infinitly more complex. However the basic workings are about the simplest thing. Of course physics isn't simple. But being on a higher or lower level doesn't make something more complex.

[Airmid]

Science is the art of asking the right questions.

 

To illustrate I'll use bits of Darwin's Origin of Species. During his travels, Darwin was amazed by the variability of plants and animals he encountered. He considered the equally amazing variation seen in domestic breeds, and asked himself if those two phenomena were related. He first examined the relationship between species and domestic breeds in general, but couldn't reach a definite conclusion. He then decided to take up pidgeon breeding as a case study. He asked himself, if it would be possible that all domestic breeds originated from a single wild species. After investigation of the characteristics of domestic pidgeons and the history of pidgeon breeding he became convinced that that was the case.

Then he asked himself: by what means did the huge variety of pidgeon breeds come into existence? After consideration, he concluded that selection of specific traits by breeders was responsible for all the different pidgeon breeds. And this allowed him to formulate the concept of natural selection, and we all know what came from this....

 

In my opinion, this example shows that Darwin had the knack of asking the right questions. The answers to the questions led to the theory of evolution, of course, but those answers wouldn't have been found if he hadn't asked himself the question first. To ask the right questions wasn't a "mystical" talent of Darwin's, but he was able to do so because he had a thorough knowledge of for instance pidgeon breeding.

 

And this, in my view, is the relation between, for example, biology and physics. It's the study of biology that allows a scientist to ask the right questions about living beings. The answers to those questions might be supplied by physics, of course, so physics is very important indeed to a biologist. But a physicist wouldn't have been able to ask the right questions in biology, just like biologists wouldn't be able to ask the right questions in the field of physics.

 

Airmid.

[silkworm]

Take a turing machine for example, the way it works is extreemly simple, however the level above of the things it can represent are infinitly more complex. However the basic workings are about the simplest thing. Of course physics isn't simple. But being on a higher or lower level doesn't make something more complex.

 

Horrible analogy and you're missing my point. When you have the fundamentals and are explaining something less fundamental with fundamentals the explaination then becomes the sum of fundamental explainations, and that will always be more complex because you have more things the deal with.

[5614]

@Klaynos: There is little complex maths involved in Physics AS or A Level Physics. Yes I have done ODEs (as well as other types differential equations) but that is in Further Maths. I cannot find the most up to date Physics Specification, but on the Edexcel site you can find the 2003 spec which does NOT require any differential equations for AS or A Level Physics.

 

In fact when we were first learning about calculus we asked our Physics teacher if we would do any and he said "no, it's been taken out of the syllabus" and I was thinking, 'yep, dumbing down'.

 

And come on guys, we all know that Physics is the only real science, stop arguing about it!

[Sayonara]

Horrible analogy and you're missing my point. When you have the fundamentals and are explaining something less fundamental with fundamentals the explaination then becomes the sum of fundamental explainations, and that will always be more complex because you have more things the deal with.

That may well be so, but it doesn't mean a physicist will automatically be able to complete a biology exam by computation from fundamentals, as Klaynos implies.

 

The fact that we know that physical processes guide biological processes does not allow a student to describe the histological characteristics of different kinds of cells, or explain how intraspecific competition modulates breeding patterns, or demonstrate how we can artificially interrupt the life history of crop pathogens.