Help deciding

[caharris]

So, I'm getting ready to start my senior year of high school, where I've signed up to take (on-level) chemistry and physics, as well as trig and calc (which isn't a class anymore so my teacher said he'd teach it to me after school) among other classes. I have an interest in neuroscience (research), theoretical physics, and cosmology. I haven't gotten my SAT scores back and I've yet to take the ACT.

 

So, in my quest to see which field I would do best in, is there anything you guys can tell me about each? Like what college classes or books I should read to help me along?

 

Thanks for your time.

-Chris

[CharonY]

Well actually I would turn the table and ask you what kind of career you aspire to. Then we could tell you if a given career track (as far as we know) may align with that. Real jobs and often even academic jobs are not necessarily locked down on a topic.

[caharris]

Well that's really what I need help deciding on. I have those three main interests (neuroscience, theoretical physics, and cosmology) but unfortunately, I don't know anyone who has studied any of these so I can't ask anyone about them. I do like studying the same things as Hawking, Einstein and Pinker, and I would love to help work on things like consciousness and get an even better understanding of the big bang theory, as well as work on teleportation (I saw the thread on here, which is actually what sparked my interest).

 

I see that you are a biology expert, so, if I may ask, what drew you to biology over some other type of science that you may have had?

[Genecks]

What college classes and books you read will depend on the major you choose. A biochemistry major would be involved with math, physics, biology, and chemistry. What will you be best at? Well, that depends on how well you absorb the topics being discussed. If you find you can easily remember reaction mechanisms, then you may be good at studying chemistry. If you're good at remembering aspects of cells, then you might like biology.. etc. etc. etc.

[DJBruce]

If I were you I would apply to colleges undecided, and during your first and possibly even your second year explore classes in the different areas you might be interested. This would give you time to think about it and experience more advanced material in each area. Also if your three main interests are neuroscience, theoretical physics, and cosmology I believe an undergraduate degree in physics would prepare you well for a graduate degree in theoretical physics or cosmology.

 

As for what books you should look at are you looking for textbooks or more fun pop-sci books?

 

By the way what does "on level" mean?

[caharris]

On-level meaning not honors or advance placement.

 

As for the books, I'd much rather have textbooks over the latter (though I did like Lawrence Krauss' Star Trek books). I'm currently going through "The Road to Reality" by Roger Penrose, "How the Mind Works" by Steven Pinker, and "On the Shoulders of Giants" by Hawking. Granted, I'm going through them slowly, but I'm still trying.

 

If I go to a college undecided, will that put me back a year, or is the first year of college general classes regardless?

 

It's not that I can't understand something once I read it a few times or have someone teach it to me, I just like them all

[Genecks]

To answer your question, I think that would depend on the university/college. Many universities don't want you in certain classes unless it's required of your major. This is setup so that people can graduate sooner and deal with less BS. So, unless you're a biology major, you're probably not going to get priority registration for a cell biology class. Furthermore, if you're not a biology major, you might not even be allowed to sign up for it. For what I remember, at UIC, people have been allowed to take first-year biology courses as elective. But I believe biology majors get first pick...and the availability slots fill up really, really quick. And then the rest is for jim, jack, jill, and sue. I think it'd be wise to ask a university advisor about the registration statistics for certain courses. Asking questions, such as "if i'm undecided, what's the probability of me getting into X,Y,Z course(s) if I'm not of that major that needs that course to fulfill degree requirements?" Things similar to that. A good amount of the time they'll have a general idea, I think. Sometimes advisors are so annoying, ignorant, or stupid that you want to slap them. Try not to do that. Keep drilling them with new or similar questions or just ask the advisor who might know the answers to your questions. Perhaps the instructors themselves would know the chances of you getting slotted into a class.

 

There have been many times I've gone to an advisor and thought, "You're an idiot. You have failed to answer any of my legitimate questions for which I seek advice and counsel. Why am I here again?" Someone usually has the answer... you gotta figure out who...

 

If you take mathematics, physics, and electives your first year... I think you can get away with being on track until you make a decision. However, not taking a biology course during that first year could change your opinions on whether or not to be a biology major. Then again, you might be able to take biology courses as electives or something similar...

 

If you do take mathematics, physics, and biology during your first year, you're going to be crushed with reading and constant studying. You won't have much fun with it. Well, fun doesn't really exist when you're serious all the time. Even if you're not out to have fun (only strongly wanting the degree and to deal with as little BS as possible), you'll find the coursework immediately difficult. College/University level work is much more difficult than high school work. The best or quickest things to do is seek help from those who are willing to give it to you.

 

I actively study neuroscience along with many other things. I'll be pursuing graduate study in neuroscience (or something hopefully very similar). From my opinion, if you're interested in physics, chemistry, and biology, I'd think you'd move toward biochemistry. Really, I think if I could turn back the clock, I'd been a biochemistry major and saved myself a lot of money and problems. Maybe I would have double majored and earned a second bachelors degree in engineering or physics (I like engineering more). From there, I would have gone onto graduate school in neuroscience.

 

It's hard to say what you ought to do. You have to make that decision. And that decision will more than likely reflect upon your beliefs about your abilities and how you see the world and yourself in the world. It may also reflect how you hope to see yourself in the future for better or perhaps situations where you work a job that wasn't your goal but you're willing to accept it as it is. Also, albeit early in the game, I think many people choose their major because they plan on going to professional school (graduate school / medical school).

 

So, where do you see yourself five to six years from now?

 

What kind of research would you like to be doing?

What kind of life would you be willing to live?

 

Since you'll be a straight-up freshman, you've got the ability to actually double major and pull it off without too many problems. I'm a senior at UIC, so I can't easily double major in something, such as engineering. I could stay a while and attempt a degree in physics... but that would more than likely take two years.. Why? Well, because I would need to get pre-requisites out of the way... Sure, it's a year worth of classes... but I have to finish the pre-reqs first... and doing so cannot be accomplished in a year's time. I think it would actually be easier for me to get a second bachelors in economics... and I don't really have a need for that... It wouldn't be worth my money. I'd go to a nearby university for a second bachelors at that. This recession really calls for people to save money.

 

Since you're brand new, you could take the pre-reqs for courses as you move through your first two years.

 

Also, you might be able to get a B.S. in General Science or something like that... Maybe see if something like that is offered.

 

You want a book?

Buy this book: http://www.amazon.com/Study-Smarter-Harder-Self-Counsel-Business/dp/1551800594

 

Keep organized, keep a schedule, study hard, and review/recall often.

Study the course material rather than looking into things you weren't told to do or were not hinted at to do.

Edited June 18, 2010 by Genecks

[caharris]

I hadn't thought of taking science classes as electives at college. That may very well be something that I look into. I'm friends with the head of the science department at a local college (KSU) and they've apparently gotten better science resources in recent years, but he's been in China for a while so I haven't been able to speak to him about it.

 

You mentioned, Genecks, double majoring. Since neuroscience is one of my interests and you've already taken quite a few classes for it, would you say that they were, not necessarily too difficult, but very time consuming? I'd hate to half-a$$ a degree just because I couldn't make a decision...

 

To answer your questions, in five or so years (I would be almost 23) I imagine myself working on the next higher-up degree for whatever path I had chosen.

 

If I chose neuroscience, I'd probably work with either neuro-genesis, or consciousness/behaviors.

If I took a comological path, I would probably end up working on the relevance of m-theory to certain things.

[timo]

I cannot give a good advice but there is a problem with most of these "help me decide on a scientific career path" that also applies here and that you probably should be aware of: You do know next to nothing about your stated field of interest (at least the physics part). You are interested in your imagination of the fields, not the field itself. Granted, there is little you can do about that but you should at least be aware of it and make your decisions on a broader level like how you'd like your work-routine to look like.

 

For example: I do computer simulations involving random events to some extent. The majority of my time is spent on programming the simulation and analyzing the results. Whether the simulation I set up is about

- the generation of artificial black holes in particle colliders (particle physics),

- the formation of galaxies under the influence of various types of dark matter (atrophysics),

- the transition of water molecules from a liquid to a gaseous state (soft-matter physics),

- the diffusion of defects in a crystal structure (solid state physics),

- or people trying to escape a burning building (non-linear dynamics)

is pretty irrelevant for most of my work. And I could see myself being interested in all of these examples so it wouldn't really matter which simulation I actually do write (except that I prefer writing my own code over working in a collaboration).

 

And if you're looking for something to impress women then go for firefighter or paramedic

Edited June 19, 2010 by timo

[caharris]

That is true, I don't know too much about either, though I do read both physics papers and neuroscience papers almost all day. I have always wondered the specifics about how people go about doing the research (especially the math involved).

[Genecks]

I hadn't thought of taking science classes as electives at college. That may very well be something that I look into. I'm friends with the head of the science department at a local college (KSU) and they've apparently gotten better science resources in recent years, but he's been in China for a while so I haven't been able to speak to him about it.

 

Funny. One of my neuroscience advisors is in China at the moment (left around May, I think). Maybe there is some scientific event going on there at the moment that lures in intellectuals? I don't know.

 

You mentioned, Genecks, double majoring. Since neuroscience is one of my interests and you've already taken quite a few classes for it, would you say that they were, not necessarily too difficult, but very time consuming?

 

Are things difficult? I would say that as I've studied cognition, neuroscience, and learning, I find it easier for me to pick up a scientific topic and learn it. In general, I would say that most college classes are time consuming rather than difficult. Once in a while, you'll come across an assignment that is "difficult." And this would mean that it's very cryptic, trying to figure out how to answer/reply to the assignment is difficult. But when you start to notice that how you go about answering/replying to such assignments starts with going back to everything you've learned so far in the class (and perhaps basics of testing the theories/concepts you've learned), then completing such cryptic assignments becomes somewhat easier. If you want to know more about what it means to test a theory/concept, then you'll want to read into the philosophy of science.

 

In general, the difficulty comes with time. You'll be strapped for time a lot, and that will be what makes things difficult. It's about figuring out how to allot time. Studying the right way also helps. I find that "memorizing/understanding lecture at the least" is a good way to get at least 70% on an exam. At least, that's at the university I'm at. Back at my community college, they'd often spring questions on the exams that were problems from the book. That's a sharp difference, though. I find that the university I'm at does not do that so much. However, the last class I took, the exam had two essay-like problems. These came directly out of the study guide. So, anyone who took a look at the problems, did them, understood them, etc.. was able to answer them on the exam. That was a microeconomics class (got out of it last week); but that kind of stuff can happen in any class.

 

 

To answer your questions, in five or so years (I would be almost 23) I imagine myself working on the next higher-up degree for whatever path I had chosen...

 

If I chose neuroscience, I'd probably work with either neuro-genesis, or consciousness/behaviors...

 

Yeah, neurogenesis is awesome. Many new developments started spring up in the early 2000s. We're still trying to understand various pharmalogical aspects of drugs on neurogenesis, such as SSRIs and their involvement in neurogenesis. If you're interested in neurogenesis and intelligence, you might want to read about neural darwinism and plasticity. More brains cells does not necessarily mean higher intelligence.

 

As I've studied neuroscience, I've noticed there are some sharp differences in the disciplines. This could be a contemporary issue, or it could be an issue to stay. In other words, if something relates to the biology of the brain, you're going toward the realm of neurobiology. This involves cellular mechanisms and so forth. If you're studying cognition/behavior, then you're moving toward the psychology of neurobiology... And this means you'd be probably working with psychologists who have a passion to understand the mechanisms of the brain. Nonetheless, both people are working with the biology.

 

As I've experienced it, however, the people studying the direct biology have Ph.Ds in biology. Those working with the behavior/cognition of the brain have Ph.Ds in psychology. But the psychologists do indeed play with the biochemistry. My point is that if you're moving toward cognition/behavior, you might be shuffled in with psychology majors rather than biology majors.

 

Me? I'm going against the grain. I firmly believe in getting a Ph.D in Neuroscience with a biological emphasis on cognition/behavior. Sure, it's psychology, but I want there to be more emphasis on biology and physical structures. I don't think there were too many Ph.D neuroscience programs two decades ago. So, there were more than likely people who took the biology route and others who took the psychology route. Thus, that would explain why you see two different fields of people working on similar things.

 

That is true, I don't know too much about either, though I do read both physics papers and neuroscience papers almost all day. I have always wondered the specifics about how people go about doing the research (especially the math involved).

 

 

That's good. I did the same thing while starting up. I wanted to get a feel for where the world stood in terms of current research and what was left to accomplish. When you get into the college/university system, you'll more than likely want to knock that off and focus on studies and your exams. That's just my word of caution from the experiences I've had.

 

As a final note, I'll have to agree with timo.

 

I don't mean to degrade people. I think we need more people with a passion for science rather than pre-meds walking around wanting money. It's difficult to say where scientists will end up in the future. Money is getting tight, and the ability to get funding to do what you want is diminishing.

 

But until you've spent time around enough scientists and started looking at the sociology of science, you might not understand what you're getting into.

 

As I've learned it, I'm getting into a situation where I might not get tenure (I knew that years ago), I might not get into a decent academic institution that studies biology in relation to cognition and intelligence (it's still a growing field, and perhaps people don't want to fund it as much), and I'll have to learn to persuade people to give me funding.

 

Getting a Ph.D may be the least of a person's worries (although the battle is tough). The next battle is establishing oneself as a scientist in the world (and it can become a make/break situation).

 

But as I like to believe, as long as you keep doing your best, you'll get better. And try to keep a journal of what makes you better as you discover new abilities and things that help you do better in life.

 

If anything else, after working hard toward something, you become an expert and can help others perhaps attempt to accomplish goals that you could not accomplish by yourself.