Is biology hard to learn? Who here is an expert and who here is self-taught in Biology?

I remember a thread a while back ranking difficulty of degrees. I think biology was near the easy side of the list, as applied sciences tend to be easier. physics, math, and engineering tend toward the difficult end. however, you should do what you are good at, and like.

maybe you should try taking an interests inventory test, like the Strong or MBTI. I wanted to be an engineer long before I took the test, and it turns out I fit the engineer profile almost perfectly. it is my #1 recommended field, physics is second.

What kind of question is that?
The question of a subject being easy or difficult to learn does not exist in a vacuum.
You have tendencies in yourself to be predisposed to learning certain topics rather than others.

If you are interested in biology, then it will be easy to learn.
If not, then it will be difficult.


One must also bear in mind that biology covers a huge area.
It goes from general principles to delving into chemistry and physics at certain points.
Your interests may phase in and out of this spectrum indicating that some portions are easier to learn than others.

I want to find out if its easy to learn biology in a relatively short time.

I want to find out if its easy to learn biology in a relatively short time.
Nicholas,

Your question is so vague as to be unanswerable. You will have to provide much more info in order to receive any sort of useful answer.

What do you mean by “learn biology”? Many many many people spend their entire careers “learning biology”, and upon retirement after 40 or so years of biology learning and research they would likely tell you that they really haven’t learnt all that much. There are massive gaps in our understanding of the biological world that are extremely difficult to fill. These days whole careers are spent trying to elucidate the tinniest individual pieces of the “biological puzzle”.

You appear to be 24 years of age. What sort of biology “learning” are you contemplating? I presume you are referring to some sort of undergraduate college-level biology course?


I remember a thread a while back ranking difficulty of degrees. I think biology was near the easy side of the list, as applied sciences tend to be easier. physics, math, and engineering tend toward the difficult end.
Oh puh-leeeeese, what a bunch of crap! http://deephousepage.com/smilies/tantrum.gif Stuck-up wanker physicists can jerk off and chant their mantra “All science is merely physics” as much as they like, but that ridiculous over-simplification doesn’t help to solve any biological problems. If biology is so easy then there wouldn’t be terrible problems like HIV and genetic diseases. But there are. The reason: because understanding biology and solving biological problems is f*cking hard!!! http://deephousepage.com/smilies/Yikes_anim.gif Just as hard as any research that any wanker physicist does.

/end rant

Actually some may argue that it is harder as almost any biological system is extremely complex (more complex than most physics disciplines deal with) and far less defined.
You can, up to some point, model a lot in physics, but try that in biology...

IF YOU REALLY get into it... biology.. the study of... is literally... like the study of a different universe.......

physics, chemistry.. electronics... all together... are not as complicated as biology.... assuming you actually want to understand and find answers...

the answers... are not readily availible.... hence the research.


i gave up on biology along time ago... and i stick with cosmology..... its easier.


besides... biology, requires cuting up animals... and stuff... and i dont like it.


-MT

What kind of question is that?
The question of a subject being easy or difficult to learn does not exist in a vacuum.
You have tendencies in yourself to be predisposed to learning certain topics rather than others.

If you are interested in biology, then it will be easy to learn.
If not, then it will be difficult.

this pretty well sums up the answer to your question nicholas

Oh puh-leeeeese, what a bunch of crap! Stuck-up wanker physicists can jerk off and chant their mantra “All science is merely physics” as much as they like, but that ridiculous over-simplification doesn’t help to solve any biological problems. If biology is so easy then there wouldn’t be terrible problems like HIV and genetic diseases. But there are. The reason: because understanding biology and solving biological problems is f*cking hard!!! Just as hard as any research that any wanker physicist does.
I was talking about the difficulty in getting a 4 year degree. I think it is likely easier (form the information I saw) to get a degree in biology than in engineering. for example, one of my engineering profs made the class so difficult that out of 2 sections of the class, 1 guy was passing at the final exam, and he was like super genius.

I was talking about the difficulty in getting a 4 year degree.
Yes, I know that’s what you were talking about, and I say that is a complete load of rubbish.

I think it is likely easier (form the information I saw) to get a degree in biology than in engineering.
The “information” you saw was biased nonsense.

for example, one of my engineering profs made the class so difficult that out of 2 sections of the class, 1 guy was passing at the final exam, and he was like super genius.
That’s not an example of engineering being “harder” than biology. It’s simply an example of a foolish professor setting difficult exams. You don’t think it is possible to set an extremely hard biological sciences exam where only a few people pass?

The subject is too broad. What kind of Biology? Molecular,Cell etc etc....
It's all about your will to learn, it can be easy if your passionate about it but hard if your doing it "just cause"

Biology is too difficult for me. That's why I'm doing physics.

Physics?? That's sooo 1990's. Biology is all the rave in Paris. Everybody's doint it..

Guess I'm old-fashioned then.

Old fashioned?? That's soooo 1800's. Arrogant is the way to go...everybody's doing it...

all things in the class room may be equal between biology and engineering, but biology is not going to have nearly as hard or time consuming homework. engineering students have classes, labs, and homework from both. just the extra time involved would have to put engineering above biology. try having 4 classes that are lecture and lab, while all the labs give outside of lab homework. there is no way that is as common in biology.

Um, any good bio course will have plenty of lab work. In physics you gan get away with doing less labs, but as far as I know there isn't really such a thing as a theoretical biologist.

Biology has just as much homework. You think about it as much outside the classroom as you do in it. It follows you around and makes you think about it where ever you look.. Physics you can leave in the classroom....

Biology has just as much homework. You think about it as much outside the classroom as you do in it. It follows you around and makes you think about it where ever you look..
What makes you think physics is any different?
Physics you can leave in the classroom....
I don't.

Physics and biology are sciences with the same basic goals - just with different specializations. For me the biggest difference is that biology deals with a level of complexity that makes mathematical refinement of the subject more cumbersome and less useful. This makes it more difficult to make accurate deductions or predictions, so I'd expect there to be more trial-and-error in biology than in physics (though some branches of physics are more experimental than others).

Physics you can leave in the classroom....
Physics IS the world - which is why the real biologists do physical biology...
e.g. http://www.ncbs.res.in/~events/physbio.html
And real chemists do physical chemistry.
/arrogance.

Um, any good bio course will have plenty of lab work. In physics you gan get away with doing less labs, but as far as I know there isn't really such a thing as a theoretical biologist.
what? ALL engineering classes have labs, and they all have plenty of work to do outside the lab. does every bio class have a lab? even 101? I doubt it. EGR 101 had at least 10 hours of homework from the lab alone (not to mention the class), and then there was in lab, and in class work.

Biology has just as much homework. You think about it as much outside the classroom as you do in it. It follows you around and makes you think about it where ever you look.. Physics you can leave in the classroom....
the 3 physics classes I have taken were not nearly as homework intensive as my engineering classes. moreover, its not like you don't think about engineering all the time. go to my microcontroller thread if you don't believe me.

Course Details:
This course is on General and Physical aspects of Biology and the necessary minimum of mathematical apparatus required for it.
I am bringing attention to the word ASPECTS OF BIOLOGY - Biology IS the word

???wtf??? did you try and post a link?

what? ALL engineering classes have labs, and they all have plenty of work to do outside the lab. does every bio class have a lab? even 101? I doubt it. EGR 101 had at least 10 hours of homework from the lab alone (not to mention the class), and then there was in lab, and in class work.
I was comparing biology and physics - ie. two sciences. I wouldn't really classify engineering as science, though its certainly closely related.

Maybe you'd like to compare the workload of students taking engineering and medicine?

I am bringing attention to the word ASPECTS OF BIOLOGY - Biology IS the word
Hi Kat. Yup, in that INTRODUCTORY course. A lot of biologists are looking at possible quantum effects - http://www.psrast.org/defknquant.htm
Biology and chemistry all boil down in the end to physics.
With the added bonus that no sub-atomic particle is full of icky bits and blood.
(Still keeping up the arrogance :D )

hmm, fractal geometry might be hard, what is the prereq?

No idea, the only ref I could find quickly was for the Open University (UK postal courses, not a bad rep) and that's a post-grad thing.
But google gave a couple of US universities, might be worth checking out, along with:
http://www.maa.org/reviews/fractalsmathed.html

http://classes.yale.edu/Fractals/ - this looks like an on-line book/ course, so it should give some indication of what's involved.

man, I just looked up the math requirements (for bio) at my university, and you don't even have to take calc 1!!!!!111oneoneone.

call me when you take diff-eq ;)

Hi Oli, will you ever let me winn one??? Yes, yes, sub-atomic particles are not icky but who cares about sub-atomic particles??
(i'm asking for a beating aren't i??)
I am on team Biology all the way..........

Kat, if you want to win one you have to fight harder... (I vaguely remember someone's comment about being challenged? Hmmm?)
Everyone should care about subatomic particles - everything's made out of them (and you can get them to go bang :D ).
Go physics, go physics, go physics. *cheerleader squad leaves the field*
Cato, my maths is waaay behind me now. Only do it for fun and work.

what is your degree oli?

Oli -
Awww.... i give up to easy.
I hate Physics, it's all like cooking to me, you have to have all the right ingreadients to make something work, where as Biology is constantly changing and adapting, you can throw in a little bit of this and a little bit of that and voila... something new has arisen
**boo's physics cheerleading squad***

you have to have all the right ingreadients to make something work
But physics tells you how and why it works.

Cato: haven't got one - couldn't be arsed. I did a first year paper, supposed to be a four-hour exam. After 40 minutes I was looking for the questions I'd missed. Hadn't missed any, got up, walked out. 93% pass. Never bothered with qualifications since.

Biology is as hard of a subject as you want to make it to be able to understand it completely: and that is something that you can never do! I dare say that it is now the fastest growing information science there is today and has branched off into so many distinct fields - ecology, evolution, evo-devo, microbial, genetics, cytogenetics, cellular, molecular, virology, agrostology, ichthyology, herpetology, ornithology, endocrinology, limnology, entomology, zoology, paleontology, biotechnology, nanogenetic research, ad infinitum - that no one can learn it all! Delve in, try to specialize and concentrate on one particular area of interest, and enjoy. The skies the limit and you will never be sorry for what you learn.

Oli: I agree with you completely. I started my career with a year-and-a-half of physics and calculus before switching majors numerous times and very much admire the indepth analytical mind that is necessary to conquer physics: regretably something I lack.

Physics, astrophysics, nuclear physics are all paths to understanding our world and we are not ignorant of these sciences in biology. The Laws of Thermodynamics, Heisenberg's Uncertainy Principle, and Probability Stats are as equally important in our understanding of the origins of life, evo-devo and population genetics as they are in pure theoretical physics. A multi-disciplinary approach is now necessary to understand any field to its fullest.

Biology is hard, but people think it is easy.

I personally enjoyed biology as a subject until it got to the yucky parts!!!

indepth analytical mind that is necessary to conquer physics: regretably something I lack.
I'm not sure I agree completely - if a subject grabs you by the balls then it insinuates itself so far into your head you can't help think about - day and night.
The analysis comes as a consequence of wanting to know. Don't limit your options.
Physics isn't there to be conquered, how did you get that idea? (Poor teachers, I suspect), it's there to be found, to ask IT to teach YOU about the world, to give you a set of eyes for looking at everything you thought you knew. If physics isn't your bag then find something that is, but whatever you pick choose it because the subject really says something to you.
Er, oh yeah /paean

Biology versus physics:

There is a lot to learn in biology. A lot of disparate facts. There are literally millions of species of living things. As you get into the levels of decomposition, down into the organs and then into the cells and then into the enzymes, your perspective keeps shifting and the organization system is different. Each organism has a large number of different internal systems. Groups of organisms form communities and ecosystems. You have to be good at remembering lots and lots and lots of stuff to be a good biologist.

On the plus side, biology does not require a lot of technical aptitude. There's very little math and deductive logic to it as the hard sciences go.

Physics, on the other hand, is a very elegant discipline. The laws of physics comprise a very small paradigm. There isn't much to memorize.

On the minus side, physics is very cerebral and requires prodigious abilities in analysis and calculation. You have to be able to do differential calculus with your eyes closed to be a good physicist.

Or you could choose chemistry, which combines the difficulties of both of them. :)

Which one is easier depends on the type of skills and interest you have. I was cursed with an interest in biology but no memorization abilitiy, and an aptitude for physics but no passion for it. As it turned out I nonetheless found physics to be both easier and more fascinating in the long run. And gave up on both of them, got an easy degree in accounting, and spent my life regretting not majoring in music.

This thread (http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=1092960#post1092960) is a perfect example of how difficult biology really is.

People are using biology here to give support to their own political beliefs, but any logical analysis of their biological views shows that they do not grasp the manner on which a biologist has to think.

This is what I mean by 'biology is hard, but people think it is easy'.

It's easy to follow biology news for instance. Biological papers are often easily translated into 'interesting' and 'insightful' news. But if you would give someone the original article to read most people have to stop after a few sentences. It's just too difficult.

Moreover most people do not understand the deep logic behind biological principles. Is there a reason why most people do not understant the theory of evolution? A theory that has been around for more than a century. It's because it requires a rational effort of logical thinking that is beyond many. Even people who claim to know the theory often never exceed a basic level missing out on important aspects.

The technical aptitude is also underrated, as can be seen from fraggle's post. Go to a molecular lab without a technical aptitude. You will not last long.

In my discipline I not only need a technical aptitude (molecular biology), I need surgical skills (microsurgery is daily business for us), I need a good understanding of the subject (literature and experience) and I need logical skills. A combination of skills that is 'hard' to achieve.

If we talk about biology as a course then it is easy. The same is valid for physics.

Go to a molecular lab without a technical aptitude. You will not last long.

I work in a molecular ecology lab, and my techinical aptitude is about a C in a 101 chemistry course. I've worked there for almost three years, and they want to keep me for another four.

And man, I'm like M13R, M13F, T3, T7? Wtf? All I know is that a T7 tail only works well on the 700 channel. Or was that the 800?

*Goes back to loading tips*

But then, there's a difference between a scientist and a lab technician.

Is biology hard to learn? Who here is an expert and who here is self-taught in Biology?
I learned a little biology last year in school and looked up a little bit online. To learn everything that biology encompasses? I would image it'd be hard. There's already a ridiculous amount of information to know, plus, like most science, it's constantly changing.

But then, there's a difference between a scientist and a lab technician.

Probably. Although not always. But it is the same for physics. Some people just press the on button of the particle accelerator.

I've noticed that there's a certain science-mindedness that's important to have. The value of following procedure, protocol, recipes, etc. right down to the 100th of a microliter. Knowing that every step is important as the last.

Grad students can be pretty careless with data. It always irritates me when I see someone cutting corners, not sterilizing something well enough or being sloppy. That little bit of contamination can throw off a lot, especially in population studies.

Actually not every step is equally important. Sometimes it says PBS 10 minutes and it is 10 minutes, other times it says 10 minutes and it can be 24 hours and 1 minute.

You have to know where you can be 'free'. That comes with knowing what you are doing. So if I don't know what I am doing, I stick to the protocol as if they are words uttered by baby jesus himself.

You have to know where you can be 'free'. That comes with knowing what you are doing.

That's very true. My lab does mostly microsat work, so I can leave samples extracting from 4 days to 3 weeks and the DNA won't be in too small of fragments to work with. However, as we work with very similar species, avoiding cross contamination is crucial, so washing dishes, flame sterilization, etc, has to be properly followed.

Actually not every step is equally important. Sometimes it says PBS 10 minutes and it is 10 minutes, other times it says 10 minutes and it can be 24 hours and 1 minute.

But it's important to be careful about each step and record what you do (as of course you know). There's a difference between being familiar with what you're doing and knowing what corners can be cut, and writing down where you skimped on reagents, and just cutting corners.

Mistakes amplify, as each step follows on previous ones. The linear nature makes messing up early of just as or greater importance than messing up later, as both mistakes stack.

True.

And of course we are now talking about protocols that are actually working. It's more of a problem if you have to set up a new technique. A friend worked almost year of getting a certain technique to work. And then there is still some time needed to optimize it. It requires the techical aptitude, knowledge, perseverance.

Moreover things always look easy in publications. That's because only the succesful experiments ever see the light of day. Most work fails and goes into a drawer.

But in all I think we have seen plenty of examples now that biology is not 'easy' as a scientific discipline.

I've been considering lately delving more into various fields in science than I usually have before. If I were to do some elementary self-study in biology, would it be best for me to divide my attention up and apply it to a couple different fields, such as zoology and botany, or marine and terrestrial biology, or micro- and macrobiology? And I've been considering using Wikibooks; are there other resources that are just as good or better? And is it worth it to invest in good college-level textbooks to help me?

Don't they have a library where you live?

Good place to pick up interesting books.

Mixing a solution in the lab - PBS/TBS - is no different than following a mathematical equation to it's end. The more careful and meticulous you are, the more assured you are of accurate results at the end, so that you can then look at extraneous factors to see what went wrong if the results differ from what is expected.

I don't see that biology is any harder than any other subject. As in any other subject, the more you put your mind to it, the more careful you are - in technique or reasoning - the more viable the results will be. You get out what you put in.