I prefer physics.
Physics practical tasks were easily the best for me. Designing an experiment to fulfill the requirements of a task seemed much more interesting, but also more meaningful, than the practical tasks in chemistry and biology. Correctly measuring gravitational acceleration at the Earth's surface through a method of your own design is just far more rewarding than counting black corn kernels on a cob. Sorry biology.
I find physics to be a bit less arbitrary than chemistry and biology. I mean, the fact that you have to spend so much time learning to name things seems a bit stupid. I understand that it's useful and necessary, but in physics I could name the gravitational force "Scott's force" after my mate Scott who once fell off his chair and broke both his legs and I'm pretty sure my physics teacher wouldn't even take marks off if the method was correct.
EDIT: Also, weighing in on the psychology subject, I do think it's science, but I think it's a subset of biology. It seems a bit absurd to be saying it's a separate branch, when it really cannot compare with the depth and detail of other branches. I don't do psychology, so it's probably not entirely accurate, but surely a study of the way living things behave falls under the study of living things.