Can I Learn Biophysics Without Biology Courses?

  • Thread starter Thread starter cscott
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Biophysics
AI Thread Summary
First-year physics majors are required to take an additional year of science, and there is a discussion about the implications of choosing chemistry over biology, particularly for those interested in biophysics. Concerns are raised about the lack of biology courses and how that might affect graduate school applications and readiness. It is suggested that students can still pursue biophysics by taking biology courses later or even self-studying the basics. The specific area of biophysics one wants to specialize in—such as theoretical, experimental, or medical applications—may influence the importance of prior biology knowledge. Additionally, students may have opportunities to take undergraduate courses during graduate studies to fill knowledge gaps. The conversation also highlights that skills learned in chemistry, like spectroscopy, can be applicable in biophysics, indicating that foundational knowledge in chemistry may still be beneficial.
cscott
Messages
778
Reaction score
1
First year physics majors here are required to take one year of another science. I chose chemistry, but now I wish I had chosen biology. Say, if I got to grad school and had an interest in biophysics would I be sunk because I haven't taken a single bio course since senior year, high school? Would I just end up taking some bio courses from that department before? Can you learn biophysics without taking any formal courses (perhaps assuming you're willing to put in some time to learn basics on your own)? Would computational biophysics make a difference?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I'd say it depends on what biophysics you want to specialise in at grad school, eg. theoretical, dynamical systems, experimental, laser, medical applications...

This seems more important than doing a generic biology course.
 
What year are you now? Would you be able to take a bio course before graduation? Look at the requirements for the grad schools you are considering. Also, chances are that you'd be able to take some undergrad classes in graduate school to make up some topics that you may need.
 
I'm still first year, so I really haven't been exposed to enough physics to make my choice yet but I have already made the mistake of taking chem instead of bio. I guess if I really have the interest in it I will take the bio courses and maybe spend an extra year (this isn't what I wanted though since I'm already 5 years with co-op at UW)!
 
cscott said:
I'm still first year, so I really haven't been exposed to enough physics to make my choice yet but I have already made the mistake of taking chem instead of bio. I guess if I really have the interest in it I will take the bio courses and maybe spend an extra year (this isn't what I wanted though since I'm already 5 years with co-op at UW)!
From what I see as I walk around my building - learning techniques such as spectroscopy, in Chemistry, could be used in the context of biophysics at a later stage.

(Of course, lasers would be the common spectroscopy tool for the latter - but learning the basics won't do you any harm.)
 
TL;DR Summary: I want to do a PhD in applied math but I hate group theory, is this a big problem? Hello, I am a second-year math and physics double major with a minor in data science. I just finished group theory (today actually), and it was my least favorite class in all of university so far. It doesn't interest me, and I am also very bad at it compared to other math courses I have done. The other courses I have done are calculus I-III, ODEs, Linear Algebra, and Prob/Stats. Is it a...
I’ve been looking through the curricula of several European theoretical/mathematical physics MSc programs (ETH, Oxford, Cambridge, LMU, ENS Paris, etc), and I’m struck by how little emphasis they place on advanced fundamental courses. Nearly everything seems to be research-adjacent: string theory, quantum field theory, quantum optics, cosmology, soft matter physics, black hole radiation, etc. What I don’t see are the kinds of “second-pass fundamentals” I was hoping for, things like...

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
3K
Back
Top