/sci/ - Science & Math

Do you consider biology enjoyable?

>>1634898
It's interesting, but i don't know if i actually want to do it for a living. Then again, i'm not even starting college until september, so i should probably consider it.

>>1634900
Well, all engineering requires higher maths. Chemistry and physics do too. Biology still does, but less.

>>1634904
Hm. I've always wanted to be a physicist, but i've known from the get-go that requires a LOT of math. It's not that i don't like it, it's just that i''m easily distracted and hate having to do and re-do huge strings of equations checking for little errors and shit. I just don't have a natural interest in it like i do for other things.

tl;dr i'm still unsure but thanks for the suggestions.

>>1634898
This. I'm a neuroscience major about to get my BS and publish some research as a first author, and the worst math I've encountered in my actual research has been analyses of covariance (statistics, not that it matters since I have a computer that does all that shit for me). Most people I talk to say the same although my roommate bragged about how his research required him to run through trig functions because apparently he had to triangulate the position of a rat at a given time in some test.

There are patches in biology where you might want to be handy with integrals, but those are rare, short lived, usually only seen in classes, and you'll only encounter heavy amounts of it if you intentionally seek it out (like that masochistic bastard at my college who signed up for a "math in neuroscience" seminar that got cancelled because he was the only guy who signed up for it.

i bet you came from /b/, btw nice trololo and stuff.

>>1634924
What kinds of jobs could i get if i pursued a biology major?

>it's just that i''m easily distracted
You'll want to work on this. No matter what science you go into, getting easily distracted can lead to lot of bad things like low test scores, botched experiments, and angry research mentors.

>and hate having to do and re-do huge strings of equations checking for little errors and shit.
Welcome to science. Checking shit is like half of what you do and the other half is re-doing what you just checked. Again, it's not just limited to physics and chemistry, you see this in all of the sciences, even the social sciences. With my once I finish a statistical anlysis for just measure for one group of animals in an experiment, I have to stop, go through, and check the means that the program gave me against the means that my spreadsheet gave me. I think have to go and check that the numbers on the spreadsheet match up on the OTHER spreadsheet where the first one got its data from. And then I check those numbers against yet even more spreadsheets before finally checking them against the raw, handwritten data.

psychology

>>1634937
er, i came from /b/ when this board was created. I didn't come recently, if that's what you're implying

>>1634951
I know i need to work on the easily distracted thing, and i try. But when i'm actually doing experiments and recording data, i'm usually okay. The distraction is just more on math tests when i want to do anything but the 16th equation that takes the entire page to work out.

As for the reviewing for tiny errors, again, for some reason, it's pretty much only equations that bother me here. I have no problem going through data and cross checking it against everything else. I suppose it's just that i love science but my brain turns off once you get into higher math.

>>1634963
No.

>>it's just that i''m easily distracted
Considering visiting a psychiatrist.
I did and it litterally changed my life.

>>1634999
i'm not THAT easily distracted.