toughts on a biology degree?

[Anonymous No.16239809]

[Anonymous No.16239831]

Focus on biochemistry and/or genetics.
The future of humanity lays in manipulating genes to put biochemistry to use for human purposes. Once we have the ability to design our own enzymes, we'll effectively be able to use living organisms as chemical reactors to make whatever we want.
Imagine an enzyme that assembles carbon nanotubes or graphene monolayers, for instance.
Be apart of the future, anon.

[Anonymous No.16239841]

>>16239831
Ive thought about it. There also is a bachelor 'biochemistry and biotechnology' but im considering biology for now.

[Anonymous No.16239883]

>>16239809
Any bio major with strong math, statistics and programming skills has high employment rate both in academia and industry

Holds true for ecology, physiology, genetics, molecular biology, biochem, computational biology, neuro

[Cult of Passion No.16239885]

>>16239841
>biology
Like...Zoology?

[Anonymous No.16239891]

>>15833839
>Reminder: /sci/ is for discussing topics pertaining to science and mathematics, not for helping you with your homework or helping you figure out your career path.

>If you want advice regarding college/university or your career path, go to /adv/ - Advice.

[Anonymous No.16239892]

>>16239831
2D materials is a dying field desu and living organisms as chemical reactors is so onions and oversaturated.

join the condensed matter physics side so you can spend all your time with jeets and jews dumping ungodly amounts of funding trying to find the next crystal to act as the next giga nigga superconductor at ambient conditions

[Anonymous No.16239893]

>>16239891
stfu queer

[Anonymous No.16239917]

>>16239892
>2D materials is a dying field desu
Only because it's so difficult to make them at any kind of useful scale. If you could put yeast in a solution of nutrients and chemicals and have it assemble extremely long carbon nanotubes that would instantly unlock their use in a wide variety of applications.
>and living organisms as chemical reactors is so onions
What a shit-tier way of determining the value of something. "it's le s o i!!!"
>and oversaturated
Not really. Most bioengineering is focused on using already existing genes/enzymes to produce molecules that nature already makes, just more efficiently than you would otherwise be able to do with a fully synthetic approach.
What I am talking about is a step beyond that. Creating enzymes that do not exist in nature, that are able to perform reactions that nature doesn't already have the ability to perform.
Of course we're still decades away from that capability, but I can absolutely see us developing the technology within the century. Especially as machine learning gets more sophisticated - we'll be able to predict what a hypothetical enzyme will do with much more accuracy.

[Anonymous No.16239957]

>>16239809
>toughts on a biology degree?
A long career as a high-school teacher awaits you.

[Anonymous No.16240007]

>>16239917
>What a shit-tier way of determining the value of something. "it's le s o i!!!"

Thanks for reminding me of what onions is supposed to replace. I care so little about this conversation that the words I used to describe synthbio are basically anything connoting an ounce of contempt.

>2D materials would have potential if it were scalable!!!
cue literal decades of attempts to scale 2D materials research, to little avail. and i'm talking about the field being oversaturated as there are hundreds of thousands of people now working on the same fundamental issues with only a handful of people (i can only think of a handful who aren't frances arnold or her associates, and i worked in the field as an undergrad) making any progress whatsoever, *especially* when the enzyme research you mention is then split up into so many different research directions.

add on the fact that any interesting bioindustrial applications are outmoded immediately by anything done by any other method of synthesis for any of the bajillion other materials we have access to (incl. graphene and CNTs), for abundance and performance alike, and the field of synth bio is basically self-contained and will be.

you sound like some popsci pseud. don't be a popsci pseud. if OP is going to enter synth bio, they're going to be doing synth bio for synth biologists, not to save the fucking world.

[Anonymous No.16240062]

>>16240007
You're assuming that we CAN scale up 2d materials production without being able to assemble them atom-by-atom like enzymes would allow. With something like graphene you need a nearly perfect 2D lattice for it to be useful, and it's difficult to achieve that just by mixing some chemicals together. If you had enzymes that would build a graphene layer on a substrate then you would be able to make a perfectly 2 dimensional lattice with almost no defects.

[Anonymous No.16240160]

>>16240062
>you sound like some popsci pseud. don't be a popsci pseud.

[Vote third party No.16240170]

>>16239809
I normally don't say this as a suicide prevention method, but if it's acquired knowledge, the ai will do for you

Everything, to the point you won't do shit and they may not pay you

[Anonymous No.16240459]

>>16239809
depends on the school, if you asked people to arrange STEM disciplines from the most thinking based to most memorization based I think the average would be:
math, physics, chemistry, biology
but the truth is few get to the level where biology becomes truly "thinking". It demands more knowledge and broader view. Compared to chemists, biologists don't get educated according to the reality of their field. In my university both structural biology and biochemistry is done by the chemists, the faculty of biology does zoology and alike, and molecular biology, cell biology...
experimental biology is a field unlike any other, be it molecular or electron microscopy + fluorescent cell imagining, but usually the education is so poor, and most of your peers will be aimless women and men, that it'll be hard to feel accomplished. For the last 3 years I have felt constsntly behind, held back by my environment. To be competent you'll have to self study a lot more than in other disciplines, while your peers do not care at best, and see you as a freak at worst. The social aspect of science matters more than you'd think. And at least for me, not being able to find likeminded individuals for the last 3 years made me wanna drop out or switch majors.
> I am having a pretty bad time. The lab work is a terrible bore, it is impossible to feel that I am learning anything…. The lectures are vile
and this is one of the top biology schools in the country, thats just how it is. They butchered it

[Anonymous No.16240462]

>>16240459
>and this is one of the top biology schools in the country, thats just how it is. They butchered it
Who butchered it? Women? Jews? Or anything else

[Anonymous No.16240467]

>>16239809
A biology degree is a versatile degree. I recommend taking the biomedical engineering path if you are a genius (biotech enginerring is gentler), biochemistry if you are skilled or bioinformatics if you are good at analysis. Biophysics is a good option only if you are good at everything. Never leave the postgrads, otherwise you will end up being a teacher.

[Anonymous No.16240633]

>>16240459
(i'm not the OP)
I'll start my bachelor in biology this year, and my objective is to become a researcher. The uni where i'll go is kind of shitty, so i'll have to do a lot of self study. I'll go in a top tier uni later for my master's degree.

How do you conduct self study at uni?

[Anonymous No.16240711]

>>16239809
If you are actually competent enough to excel at the concepts, that degree hits all the med school pre-requirements. 70% of your fellow bio majors are going to be premed anyway.

[Anonymous No.16240775]

>>16240462
at my uni it was the 3 terms of office going to an incompetent literature academic, with no published research. Coupled with changing policies for rating the university. between 2000 and 2010 many big courses were split into smaller ones, some of which became optional, eg. zoology used to be a full year subject, with more classes per week that I had, and many professors say they didn't had the time to cover mammals. I had 1 semester, with less classes per week. Same with biochemistry, no physics, no math beyond logarithm, chemistry is covered in one semester (inorganic, analytical and organic). Apparently a faculty gets good rep from govt by having a "diverse educational possibilities" which in practice means half of your classes are electives
>>16240467
biophysics and bioinf is not biology, those guys don't have a lot of biology experience, but they get better general/academic education. My friend who'll start molecular biophysics PhD this year, says his undergrad was mostly about spectroscopy+molecular structure determination. I belive it was a tighter, more successful curriculum, but it's not biology. Bioinformatics either half ass both bio and inf, or disproportionately focus on "comp sci with a twist". Modern molecular biologist can't really get by without bioinformatics, hence bio BSc and bioinf MSc tends to be better choice than going one or the other way.
>>16240711
> amerimutt detected
in EU thera premed does not exist, but biology is one of the options for failed medschool applicants. Hence 1st year tends to be littered with guys who're there to grind a bit and try their shot at the standardized pre-uni exam.
>>16240633
it's impossible to know whether uni is bad or not unless you have reliable inside infromation. My uni is apparently top 4 (tied) in the country (top 3 if you exclude technical schools), and the faculty of biology is 3rd best in the country. It is also on the list of 10 most active research universities in the country. cont.

[Anonymous No.16240790]

>>16240775
So women+jews. Deadly combo

[Anonymous No.16240838]

>>16240775
what country?

[Anonymous No.16240894]

>>16240775
>>16240633
but the idea is, that it's not a bad university by official metrics, yet I don't have a high opinion of it, and doubt higher scoring ones are generally any better. As for self studying. It's complicated. I haven't found a satisfactory answer myself. Albert's Molecular Cell Biology and Stryer's Biochemistry cover most of the curriculum. Although, my main gripe with bio curriculum — besides being too focused on variety rather than depth — is that it does not reflect the reality of bio research (which no undergrad does, but bio especially). I believe, like with flossing or brushing teeth, just doing it, in however unstructured or unskillful way is already good. But I say you better get comfortable with:
> learning something from papers
> few of your peers being interested or knowing about it
> finding out there's a chapter about in in Albert's Molecular Cell Biology
>>16240838
picrel

[Anonymous No.16240902]

>>16239809
>toughts on a biology degree
With a math or some kind of engineering degree, you'll feel that you're doing math or engineering, but with biology, it will never feel like you're doing anything except memorizing trivia. If you're going to buck the /sci/ trend, at least do something like chemistry.

[Anonymous No.16240907]

>>16240790
pretty much, the tranny + women geniuses narrative as been pushed so much in the last 5 years. We almost got out, but no one wanted to candidate for president position. The jewish feminist witch won again, due to zero competition (I don't know how that can be legal).
>>16240902
to add to this, it is true, but it's not the inherent problem of biology, it's the problem of how biology education works.