In the last several decades, there has been a shift in the mindset of research structure from classical "systems or integrative biology" to more molecular focused "-omics" study. A recent topic of debate in physiological societies has been whether or not the "-omic" revolution has delivered in its promises in both clinical medicine and advancing the field of physiology. More importantly, the question arises as to whether a return to "systems biology" and/or "integrative biology" is necessary to form translational connections between laboratories and clinics and be able to use the new information to directly impact healthcare. The purpose of the present study was to assess the perspectives on the discipline of physiology from undergraduate physiology majors by determining their preference for areas of study between "-omic"-type lessons and systems-based course work. Seventy-nine millennial undergraduate students (45 male students and 34 female students) were asked to provide a free response answer on where their interests specifically lie along the continuum of molecular to integrative. This set of students is representative of a varied curriculum taking classes that stress "-omic"-type education (cellular/molecular biology) as well as integrative systems biology. The class in which this survey was administered is titled "Capstone Laboratory in Physiology" and is a senior-level course often taken by students in their last semester of undergraduate studies. Approximately 80% of these students state a career plan in healthcare with the majority being premedicine. Student responses were initially broken down into the following three categories: preference for integrative or systems physiology, molecular or "-omics" physiology, or indifferent between the two/enjoy both equally.