I missed this interesting discussion at Larry Moran's Sandwalk: Are biochemistry programs too hard compared to other biology majors? Larry says his biochemistry program is losing students to other biology majors that don't require as much physics and chemistry - hard subjects by any standard. Is this a problem? If you want a career in biology, I think the answer is yes. You're selling yourself short if you skip quantitative science classes at just that time when many grad schools and biomedical departments are recognizing that we have a great need for molecular biologists with the ability to do quantitative research. The days of non-quantitative biology are drawing to a close - if you're starting a biology career now, you need to not just think about what senior biologists (who may not have had much quantitative training) are doing today, but also about what senior people will be doing 20 years from now. Unless you want to outsource all of your data analysis and theory to someone else, you'd better learn your calculus, stats, linear algebra, and physical chemistry (or genetics - another traditionally quantitative field). We're swimming in data, often generated by scientists who have no idea how to use it. If you're picking your undergrad classes now, don't shy away from the hard classes, or you'll really regret it later. But it's not all the students' fault, I think. We need to incorporate training in chemistry, thermodynamics, etc. with cutting-edge biological problems. Too often undergrad classes in these subjects focus on really old problems, and thus students don't see the relevance. You can't get rid of old pedagogical examples entirely of course - they are really useful, but, biology students should learn their p-chem in the context of modern biological problems. This is exactly what Princeton is trying to do in their very interesting 'integrated science' curriculum. Maybe I'm biased because I'm a biochemist, but the writing is on the wall - don't skip the quantitative courses.