Chemistry or History?

[mepilokisazt]

Hello. I am a sophomore in MYP and I have to think about classes for next year. I've always thought I would do HL Physics, Maths, Psychology, and English and SL Japanese and History. However, I recently found out that my school will allow me to take Psychology in the place of history. If I did that, I would do SL English and change my sixth subject to HL Chemistry. I am trying to decide which plan would be better for me. On one hand, I don't particularly like history, but I really liked chemistry. Plus, my chemistry teacher really liked me and wants me to take IB Chemistry. In her words, "I don't recommend double sciences to everybody, but I know you can do it." On the other hand, I have already taken chemistry. I like the idea of a well-rounded education, which history would provide to me. Also, I've heard that taking three technical courses at HL (Chemistry, Psychology, and Physics) would be suicide, especially combined with HL Maths. Some input here would be helpful. Should I go for my interest in broad education and not rocking the educational boat, or should I go for my interest in Chemistry? I might also mention that I find history fascinating in its own way.

[flinquinnster]

Okay, my recommendation is that you should take chemistry, and then do Chem/Physics/Psych/Maths HL and English/Japanese SL to begin with.

1. Double sciences isn't impossible, many people can take it. Especially if you like science, double science is probably wiser than double humanities, particularly if you're not fond of memorising However, as you have noted, physics/chem HL is going to be challenging. However, it seems that this is plausible - leading me on to reason 2...

2. You like chemistry and you seem to be quite good at it. And a teacher also agrees, which is usually a good sign. Would this chem teacher be taking you for IB chem?

3. Technically, psychology is not a Group 4 subject for diploma, it is a Group 3 subject - this means that it is not a technical study of psychology focused on science, but it is humanities/social-science based. So really, it shouldn't be extra workload for the 'sciences' load.

4. Your diploma is already quite well-rounded. No need to worry about taking history in an attempt to 'balance' it, because personally, if you do take the subject choices you've suggested above, you would be ultra-impressive to me. IB already configures the diploma to be 'well-rounded', whatever focus you take.

However, I do understand your concerns about the workload of Chem/Physics/Maths/Psych HL, because that is seriously intense on the science/maths side of things. My advice is to choose one out of Chem/Physics/Maths to drop to SL (you can keep Psych HL because that's not so science-y) after you've tried out a few weeks/months. It all depends on how much you like a subject and how hard you are willing to work. All 3 are difficult, though I would be inclined to say that Physics HL > Maths HL > Chem HL (but that is my subjective view).

I've never taken Chem, but I started with Physics HL and Maths HL, and I quickly decided that Physics is really hard for me, so I decided to do Maths HL and put a lot of time on that. I guess I also decided to take Maths HL to balance out English/Geography HL, so I get why you might worry about your proposed subject configuration.

But, having said all the above, if you want to be super strategic, maybe taking History SL instead of Chem will help alleviate some of your workload, and allow you to focus on Maths/Physics. That seems super devious and perhaps may not work out, but hey, it may also work out.

[CkyBlue]

Can you explain what you think a "broad education" would accomplish? I have never really thought this was the way to go in school. When considering your IB subject choices, you should take into consideration what you want to do after secondary school. If you have high hopes of a certain career, a specialized subject choice is a much better decision than being an "all-round" student; for me, it would help a bit in university. In reality, most of us forget what we learn in school that is not relevant to our careers (not to mention the things in which we don't have a future interest).

Many post-secondary institutions actually need a specialized subject choice in secondary school from a student for them to even be admitted into the program. All the engineering disciplines at my university required chemistry for a student to be considered an applicant. Most of the students in my cohort took a double science(but not with Math or Physics HL) and ended up in engineering or life science. Start thinking about where your subject choices can get you, and if those places are some that interest you.

While all of the above being said, you should know your own limitations. Is it possible to drop one of your courses to SL, or will you be able to manage it? You should ideally figure all of this out while being able to keep up the consequences of your subject choices. Taking chemistry at the HL makes your career path look sciency, definitely(looks perfect for engineering IMO). With history, it seems like you'll be able have some other career paths, but none of which seem to be a very good fit. It looks to me that you're choosing between something you like, and something you like, and is practical.

Finally, I'd like to say that although people think HL chemistry isn't particularly easy(I actually thought it was, though) HL history can be argued to be just as difficult. There are even things that overlap between the two sciences, especially when you start studying specific options. While taking history would make your subject choices seem relatively mutually exclusive(I think this is what you wanted), I hope I've caused you to have some second thoughts otherwise.

My two cents. Hope this helps.

[mepilokisazt]

The reason I want a broad education is because I want to experience everything on the spectrum. I'll have plenty of time to develop sciency interests when I'm in college, and I don't want to get into a super-competitive program like engineering. I want to know how do history papers, as opposed to two lab based sciences and another class that basically uses the scientific method (psychology). Plus, why would I want to learn something twice and give up learning about something I've never thought about before? I am not so sure what I want to do with my life yet, and exposing myself to a wide variety of options might help me decide.

[-._._.-]

While taking 4 HL subjects look good, it's not something I would like to try. If you want to try history out, how about going for history at SL? I come from an IGCSE background and SL Chemistry is similar to IGCSE Chemistry, but you'll learn stuff in HL. It's not totally a repetition of IGCSE. I'm not sure about MYP though. You may not need Math HL for Physics HL, but these two usually come together. I don't take Psychology and cannot really advise you on that.

If you know what you want to pursue in the future, then pick your subjects and their levels accordingly. But since you are not sure what you want to do, how about taking chemistry instead of history since it complements physics and maths?

Also, you might want to consider which would be easier for extra reading. For example, it's easier for you to read up on history by yourself since it is your interest, but for chemistry, there may be some more technical aspects that would be better if it is taught to you. (I'm not sure about this point)

I would suggest taking Psychology at SL. It certainly does sound interesting.

[Emmi]

I took both HL history and got a 6 and HL chemistry and got a 5, so let me offer you some advice.

I took HL history because my school required it, and HL chemistry because initially I wanted to become a pharmacist when I was picking subjects (which ended up switching to chemist and now I'm sitting here doing chemical engineering). Both are hard subjects. HL history is hard because of the vast amount of information that you have to learn. However, what makes it easy is that if you can learn how to write an essay and learn how to analyze early on, it's basically applying those skills to a new period of history. HL chemistry is hard because of all the content, and some of that content is HARD. I for the life of me could not understand Born-Haber cycles at all during IB (I get them now though ), which is a HL topic. Some people have trouble with the organic chemistry portion (I never did, maybe that's why I thought I'd be a pharmacist lol).

If you take HL history, the exam format is as such:

Paper 1 is a one hour exam on sources. It's an hour long. SL and HL takes this.

Paper 2 is a 1.5 hour exam where you study two options (such as single-party states, causes of war, the cold war, etc) and you write one essay per option. SL and HL takes this.

Paper 3 is HL only and it's 2.5 hours long. You have to write three essays chosen on a regional topic (such as the Americas, Europe, etc). You are given like 25 essay choices and you pick 3 to do. It's long and awful and boring and ugh.

The IA is the same but for SL I think it's worth like 25% whereas in HL it's 20%.

If you take HL chemistry, the exam format for SL and HL is the same, but the HL exam is a bit longer (especially Paper 2) and it's harder. The IA is the same.

Think about what you want to do and what you like. HL math and physics sounds like something you'd take if you wanted to be an engineer. Both HL chem and history are a lot of work but they use analytic skills, which if you have will make it a bit easier for you. If the school you want to go to requires certain subjects, you should pick those first and foremost. But if you get a choice, take whichever you think you'd enjoy most (since it will last two years). Good luck

[mepilokisazt]

Thanks. I actually was going to take SL History, as I'm aware it's a lot of work. I guess my problem is that my interests are very broad and almost any subject interests me. I will probably end up asking people at my school about Chemistry and History, if they took it.