I'm going into lifesci level 1 and plan on going for biochem in level 2. When I picked my courses I chose maths 1ao3 and 1 aa3, but now I've read that 1bo3 is recomended. I just wanted to know if the recomendation is true, and if 1aa3 would be of any value in upper year biochem or pharmacology
Thanks for any thoughts on the matter

Yeah, I was looking at that to. I'm not taking it and because it is not required so I'm not worried about it. You can get in without it so no worries.
I am in life science 1 as well so I don't know if taking that additional math will help you a whole lot for level 2.

Doubtful...I'd switch up 1AA3 for 1B03. That's probably more likely to help you out.

1AA3 is a little too 'out there' for life sci. You wouldn't need to know about sequences and series (presumably...nothing you can't learn on your own anyway) or advanced integration techniques.

1B03 on the other hand is a bit more practical. You can use the stuff you learn almost everywhere in the sciences...anywhere you have systems of equations.

I took Math 1AA3. I doubt it's going to help me in future years, the material seems very non-sciency. I really wouldn't know how it would apply, except for maybe a few things but not much. I basically only took it because some optometry schools require a full year of calculus.

If you're thinking of going into pharmacy, as you're considering biochem and pharmacology, you need all three to apply at waterloo. But at u of t, you only need the ones you've chosen.

You don't need it for biochem, unless professional school requires.

neither Math 1AA3 or 1B03 have much content that you'll need in any later life science. If you have no intention of taking physical sciences (mainly higher level physics) or Maths in upper years then they're of no use to you unless your professional school requires it.

I took 1AA3 and it wasn't very useful for upper year courses.

I'd definitely check the requirements of any graduate schools that you're interested in applying to.