McMaster undergrad course reviews

[mattg]

I am really bored at work, so I decided I'm going to write a review of every course I ever took at Mac lol... as a retiring premed ( ), I know how valuable peers' course reviews are in trying to decide which courses to take. I remember in first year and somewhat second year, there were a few rich resources (i.e. mac-central.com, learnlink) that were very helpful. However, these resources seemed to have died in the past few years, and course reviews are pretty sparse.

 

I realize that a ton of these reviews will be probably be obsolete, as the prof may have changed, or the course outline, or whatever, but nevertheless... I'll give the prof and year beside each course anyways

 

I guess I'll rate (1) workload (2) difficulty (3) enjoyment (4) prof

 

Not sure if anyone else will want to add to this thread (probably not lol... it'll be a huge post - probably a multi-post post.. but like i said, I'm bored at work:rolleyes: )... nevertheless, here is my opinion on 40 courses, organized by year I took them:

 

edit: I am not going to review my first year courses actually... since everyone has to take them, and they're basic science courses, there's not much point... I guess because it was an elective, I will mention Sociology 1A06 - 2006/07 - Behnke-Cook... hated it... don't know why I took a full year socio course... really cool teacher, but at least I realized that I hate sociology... I guess it was a good intro if you're into sociology, but I personally hate the subject... essay was marked relatively difficultly... tests were all MCQ, not bad... however, the textbook questions were so random... she would literally ask about a number in the legend of a graph/diagram... and every other page had one... so, yea, I didn't enjoy it

[rant]

I am an undergrad at Mac, so I will definitely contribute. I would love to hear your opinion on the courses you have taken! Thank you for taking the time!

[mattg]

Hth Sci 4bb3 - Neuroimmunology (2009 - Foster)

workload=4.5/5 (no tests/exam... no textbook... but weekly tutorial for which you were "supposed to" have read 3, sometimes lengthy, journal articles which students then presented/discussed... most people just skimmed the journals before class most of the time... nevertheless, the class was filled with papers, tutorials, debates, discussions, presentations, projects... a lot to do each week)

difficulty=2/5 (a lot of work, but not marked hard... it is a small class, and Jane is the kind of prof that doesn't care about maintaining any specfic average... i guess the topic may be difficult if you have zero background in immunology, but a background is neuro isn't really neccessary... however, know that the course is essentially entirely based on journal articles, and there is a ton of journal reading/reviewing, which I guess may make it much more difficult for those without experience with journals... should be an A if you put in the work)

enjoyment=3/5 (I enjoy the topic... Jane is a cool teacher... debates are fun... I always avoided presentations and such before this class, but this course helped me improve my presenting skills)

prof=3.5/5 cool prof... likes to facilitate discussion... doesn't mind giving good marks

 

Hth Sci 4v03 - Human Control of Movement (2009 - Galea)

workload=2.5/5 (pretty average workload... a couple of tests and an exam... unneccessary textbook... biweekly labs - reports were easy to write up)

difficulty=2.5/5 (tests were pretty straight-forward if you knew the material... labs were marked easily)

enjoyment=4.5/5 (i'm really interested in the topic, so i enjoyed it... a good mix of science and clinical info... labs were cool...)

prof=3/5 (okay prof)

 

Psych 2b03 - Personality (2009 - Day)

workload=2.5/5 (lectures + textbook... 2 tests, 1 exam, all MCQ... can study a couple days before the test and be fine... good filler course)

difficulty=2.5/5 (some people think dr. day's tests are tricky... I think if you are relatively smart, and know the material well, they are completely fine... although you should know the material very well)

enjoyment=4.5/5 (really interesting class... i think most people are interested in personality to some degree)

prof=5/5 (Dr. Day is by far the best lecturerer at Mac... really cool, very comfortable speaking, funny, good stories, extremely knowledgable on any subject he's teaching, tons of personal experiences integrated into teaching, and really entertaining... the only prof i've had at Mac where I have taken courses so that I could have him as a prof... has been pulling off suspenders + socks and sandals for decades)

 

Hth Sci 4vv3 - Space Exploration and Remote Care Medicine (2009 - Williams)

workload=4/5 (they may change it for coming years, as this was the first year the course was offered, and a lot of people complained... but there was a ton of annoying research-based journal writing... 3+ pages every week... no tests/exam... a couple of presentations)

difficulty=0/5 (that said about the copious amount of writing... the grading of these papers were the biggest joke I have seen throughout my undergrad career... almost everyone got a 97%+... it is very hard not to get an A+ in this course... biggest bird I've ever taken)

enjoyment=2/5 (the tutorials were a waste of time - everyone reading their journal entries - but mandatory... i didn't go to many classes, as it was 8:30am, but I would have liked to... Dave is a really good lecturer, and obviously the topic is really cool... but the 8:30 killed it for me)

prof=4.5/5 (Dave Williams is a Canadian astronaut / ER doctor... obviosuly a huge stud lol, and really cool... will probably never get an oppurtunity for a prof with those credentials again in your life)

 

Biochem 3n03 - Biochem of Nutrition (2010 - MacDonald)

workload=3 (2 tests, no exam, big final project, small papers every couple of weeks... the biweekly papers are really fast/easy, and you can work with others if you want... the final projects is fairly big, but it is with a large group (apprx. 8)... i think most people started a couple weeks before it was due... in general though, considerably more writing than you would expect from a typical biochem course... that said, aside from the big final project, most papers are simple and can be banged off in a night)

difficulty=2 (material fairly simple, papers were marked easily, and final paper was marked very easily to the best of my knowledge (i.e. ours was crap due to some butchers in the group, and we got a 97%... pretty bird for a 3rd year / biochem course)

enjoyment=2 (pretty boring)

prof=4 (nice woman... says a lot of useless things... lectures are pretty slow)

 

Psych 3j03 - Visual Neuroscience (2010 - Ullal)

workload=3.5 (2 tests, an exam, all short answer, a paper, and a presentation... no textbook... some supplemtary journal articles, but not required reading... just know the lectures, and know them well... if you don't go to lecture, you'll do terrible on the lecture slides alone... the material is fairly 'heavy', and most people would probably benifit from reviewing notes throughout the course / keeping up)

difficulty=4 (tests were fine in my opinion... if you are smart, know the lectures and know how to answer short answer questions and you'll be fine... but i think a lot of people had difficulty with this course... material is largely journal-based and fairly heavy/advanced... i would advise to only take it if you are genuinely interested in the topic)

enjoyment=4.5 (i really enjoy the topic, and it reviewed a lot of interesting, recent research and such... fascinating course for me... absoluetly bombed my presentation lol, but still managed an A+, so don't worry about the presentation - note: my group was literally bottom 2 in the class lol)

prof=4 (I really like Ullal... a bit of an accent, but it's fine... really nice guy, and loves neuroscience... for some reason, he seems to get terrible ratings on RateMyProf - i don't know what that's about... his tests aren't easy per se, but i don't see a problem with them)

 

Psych 3cc3 - Forensic Psych (2010 - Day)

pretty much all of Dr. Day's classes are similar... see above rating of Personality... in terms of interest, I found this class really interesting, and I think it is a subject that interests a lot of people

 

Science 4C09 - Independent Study (i.e. Life Science thesis) (supervisor = Boris Sakic)

In terms of the course itself, the life sci thesis is extremely loose... I have a feeling it will change in the coming years... but currently, essentially no outline, just do whatever your prof wants and he/she can grade you however he/she'd like

With regards to Dr. Sakic (in case anyone in the future ever wanted to do a thesis with him), he is a really cool guy. Studies neuroimmunology of lupus, using the MRL mouse model. Will let you work at your own pace - no strict hours. Really helpful as a supervisor... will meet with you every few weeks to discuss progress or whatever... will help guide you in writing... appreciates hard work... says "as long as you finish and get your paper in by the deadline [April], and it is a good paper, you will get an A/A+".... doesn't take off unnessary marks for crap like some supervisors

[DOC_Ma]

I might do that for Waterloo too as I am bored as hell at work too:(

[mattg]

Biochem 3g03 - Biochem of Macromolecules (2008 - Yang)

workload= 1.5 (bird course... posts past tests and his current tests are all from the past tests, with different numbers, a 'not' thrown in, etc... test every 2 weeks... so I would do nothing for 2 weeks, and just read the 2/3 chapters in an all-nighter and look over the practice tests, and it was fine... no exam if you choose not to (i.e. alternate grading scheme)

difficulty= 1.5 (bird... i guess some people get confused when he changes numbers/words from the past tests... that's a pretty weak excuse though when the tests are 95% similar)

enjoyment= 1 (really boring... pure biochem of molecules... i took it because it heard it was a bird, and it was, but really boring material for me)

prof= 4 (really nice guy, cool guy, but lectures are useless... he says on the first day, "lectures are just for your entertainment", so although he is entertaining, i stopped going after a few

 

Psych 3n03 - Abnormal Psych (2009 - Day)

see Dr. Day, above (all of his classes are comparable in review)

 

Hth Sci 3i03 - Intro Immuno (2008 - various profs)

workload=3.5 (probably a good idea to keep up, as many people would have a hard time cramming this material... pretty dense material... a lot of people would go to tutorial and said they were really useful... a lot of people would read the text, but it wasn't neccessary... i just learned the lecture notes, and that was enough - as long as you can memorize/regurg)

difficulty=3.5 (pretty dense material... tests are pure memorization / regurgitation... not hard if you are good at that... exam was like 10- long answers + a lot of short answers, so you definitely had to know your stuff... but i think they marked easy probably... and from what i hear, it was take home this year)

enjoyment=3 (some things boring, some interesting... it's what you would expect with an intro to immuno course... covers a lot of what things are / what they do... not much clinical - there is a 4th year course for that)

prof=2 (i guess the lecturers are leaders in their field, but i found them to be boring speakers)

 

Kin 3e03 - Neural Control of Human Movement (2009 - Indian guy, gone)

outdated... the class structure was definitely unique to this prof... in general though, really interesting material if you like this stuff

 

Kin 3y03 - Nutrition (2009 - Phillips)

workload=2 (a couple of tests, an exam, a couple of assignments - one really long one... pretty average workload, not much)

difficulty=1.5 (pretty bird-ish... assignments are an auto 95+%... tests were all MCQ and basic)

enjoyment=4/5 (fun course... nutrition + a lot of application to sports)

prof=5/5 (absolute stud... cool guy and really funny... good teacher also)

 

Biochem 3h03 - Clinical Biochem (2009 - Hill/Macri)

workload=3 2 tests and an exam... all MCQ... learn the lectures and you're good... lectures are a bit dense though - especially Hill's half

difficulty= 3.5 (some people found the course difficult... I found that it was ideal... challenging enough to enjoy the tests, and fine if you knew the material)

enjoyment= 3.5 (started off boring, but turned out to be one of the most interesting classes... a lot of application to medicine... i was always bored in lectures, but when i would actually learn the material for the tests, it was really interesting)

profs= 2.5 (average profs... lectures were boring... Macri was kind of an annoying lecturer... hard to follow... got so off topic, and not in an interesting way - just in a can't-public-speak-way

 

Psych 2f03 - Intro to Neuroscience (2008 - Goldreich; 2009 as a TA)

workload=3.5 (a test, exam, some assignments, some inclass quick questions... not bad)

difficulty=3.5 (tests weren't straightforward per se... they required you really knew the material, and tested your ability to think about the material... note: Goldreich loves math, so there is a fair bit of math in the course... but it's not hard... really good level of challenge)

enjoyment=5 (I really enjoyed the course... loved the topics, and I really liked the appropriate level of challenge on the tests/asignments... I think with all of the MCQ regurg courses out there, it is always good to have a few courses that challenge your thinking... otherwise what is the point)

prof=4.5 (really good prof... amazing teacher... kind of geeky / really cheesy jokes... i can't tell if he actually thinks they're funny or knows that it is funny how bad they are)

 

Psych 2e03 - Sensory Proceesses (2008 - Ullal)

workload=2 (no textbook... 2 tests, 1 small paper, an exam... just know the lectures... i found it to be quite easy, pretty basic)

difficulty=2 (again, just know the lectures... tests are very straight forward... MCQ are a joke... short answer were worded awkwardly, but pretty basic nevertheless... definitely an intro-like course)

enjoyment=4 (interesting intro to the topic)

prof=see previous post on Ullal

 

Hth Sci 2g03 - Epidemiology (2008 - guy with black hair)

workload=2 (not much... learn the lectures and you're good... not much to learn - only 2 hours/week)

difficulty=2 (bird course... a bit of math, a bit of memorizing formula/study types... tests were all MCQ, and fairly straight-forward/easy... tests were prety enjoyable to write)

enjoyment=2

prof=2.5

 

Human 2c03 - Critical Thinking (2009 - really skinny white guy)

workload=1.5 (this class was weird in that there was almost no material - each lecture could be condensed to like 5 sentences - yet you had to know it well and put in some time to practice... overall though, light workload... 2 tests and and exam)

difficulty=3.5 (personally i found it to be a bird course... but a fair number of people did not do well, despite studying... even though it sounds trivial, if you are a critical thinker, you will do well, if you are not, you will not... like i said, there is almost nothing to know - it is very easy to learn the foundation of the course... but it just depends on your critical thinking ability, as tests are purely defining sentences in arguments and such... tests were all MCQ... easy to lose marks... not many answers were obvious)

enjoyment=4 (i really enjoyed the tests, because i enjoy critical thinking)

prof=3 (average prof, kind of a weird guy)

[nature]

mattg, note the grade you received in each course as well, this woudl aslso be good to know

[greeny]

For someone who likes to complain about the health sciences program a lot you sure took a lot of health sci courses.

[infinity28]

Great Work. I wish someone could do this for queens

[mattg]

Biochem 2ee3 - Intro to Biochem (2007 - Zhorov)

workload=2.5 just MCQ tests/exam... just memorize the notes... i don't know what is going on with the textbook... on the first test, i didn't buy it, hoping there would be no questions, and there were a few, which i missed... so i bought the text for $180 and there were no textbook questions forthe next test/exam, so i dunno... at least the same text is used for biochem 3g03, which is 100% textbook based)

difficulty=2 (pretty bird-ish for a biochem course... pure regurgitation... just memorize the lecture notes)

enjoyment=2 (boring material)

prof=2.5 (thick russian accent... just reads his slides)

 

Bio 2b03 - Cell Bio (2007 - Dej)

workload=4 (it always takes longer for me to learn cell bio, with all of the names of molecules and enzymes and crap... so this course took a bit of studying - more so than my typical day before study lol... if i can recall, it was tests + labs + a lab book test... labs were pretty tedious as well)

difficulty=4 (probably the hardest course of 2nd year for me, just because I really do not enjoy the topic... but if you study, tests are fine... in general, the course isn't easy, but it's not bad

enjoyment=2 (i hate the topic... really boring for me... tedious details that don't interest me)

prof=3.5 Dej is really nice, and really helpful to students.

 

Geo 2g03 - Natural Disasters (2007)

probably outdated

 

Music 2ii3 - Post-WWII Popular Music (2008 - Fast)

workload=1.5 (textbook was a waste of money... just take notes in class, and memorize the notes... note: if you don't go to class, you will literally fail... notes are not posted, and textbook is useless)

difficulty=1.5 (Bird... tests were all MCQ... directly from the notes)

enjoyment=4.5 (Really fun class, and cool to learn about music... got me interested in a lot of my favourite bands now from the 60's/70's)

prof=3 (I didn't like her... she was kind of bipolar, and a big feminist... but she was interesting usually, and knew what she was talking about)

 

Orgo 2oa3/2ob3 - Organic Chem I/II (2007-08 Harrison)

workload=3.5 (more practice than actual learning... just do as much practice as you need so that you are able to "speak the language of orgo"

difficulty=3 (i guess this hugely varies between people... i found it challenging, but not so much that it was "hard"... if you are a good thinker, and understand everything, you should be fine

enjoyment=4.5 (I probably just lost any credibility I had with that rating lol... i dunno, I really liked orgo... really demanded that you think, obviously, which I like)

prof=4 (cool British guy... funny... good moustache... good teacher)

 

Phys 1bb3 - Intro Physics II (2008 - Nejat)

workload=3 (normal amount of work you would expect from physics... labs are a bit tedious... CAPA is fun, if they still do that)

difficulty=3 (not bad if you know what you're doing)

enjoyment=4.5 (depends on how much you like physics... i like the problem solving of physics)

prof=3 (nice guy... entertaining and enthusiastic... but in terms of teaching, pretty useless

 

Kin 1y03/1yy3 - Intro to Human Anatomy and Physiology (2007-08 MacDonald/Parise)

workload=2.5 (a fair amount to learn, but it is just quizzes, free lab marks, and an exam... as longas you keep up, it's fine)

difficulty=2 (not bad)

enjoyment=5 (loved the course... if you are planning on going into med, and not in health sci, I would highly recommend taking this first or second year... it is what the title is... an intro to anatomy/phys)

prof=5 (Parise is a really cool guy... MacDonald is a good prof as well... both are very good teachers)

Psych 1aa3 - Intro Psych II (2008 - Kim)

workload=2.5 textbook useless... learn the lecture notes... standard

difficulty=3 (not sure if they still do those journal reviews or whatever... first one raped everyone, and next 2 were marked easier... picked best 2 of 3... tests were all MCQ, and made you think / apply the knowledge, which are the types of tests I enjoy writing... some people found it quite difficult though if i recall

enjoyment=4.5 (really interesting material... and i enjoyed the thinking involved in the tests)

prof=2 (what can you really say... he was on a computer, reading a script... why not just give us handouts?)

[mattg]

For someone who likes to complain about the health sciences program a lot you sure took a lot of health sci courses.

 

I took I believe 5 or 6 in my university career...

 

and I don't at all "complain" about health science... I have said many times, i think it is a great program and has great courses - probably the best premed program in canada... i simply enjoy debating whether or not their grades are easier to come by... that is the reason I took 2 of the health sci courses - for easy marks... the other 3/4 I took because I found them interesting

 

so i'm not sure what your point is... I assume it is that I'm a hypocrit... yet like I said, I don't bash health sci courses by any means... I simply debate the fact that it is easier to succeed in Mac health science than in most other programs... what do you expect, that I should shun their courses out of principal? I enjoy many of the courses... and if I was in health sci, I believe I would support people who say that it is easier to succeed... as it definitely is in my experience and from what I have seen of people in health sci

[mattg]

mattg, note the grade you received in each course as well, this woudl aslso be good to know

 

I doubt that is helpful:

29 A+'s and an A (in Orgo I)

 

lol, sorry... but i tried to differentiate ease to get a good mark via 'difficulty'

[mattg]

if anyone has any questions about specific courses/profs, just let me know

 

also, if anyone else from Mac wants to post their reviews as well, it would probably be helpful to undergrads... like I said, for whatever reason the course review resources have been rapidly declining over the past few years... and it's always a good resource to have as an undergrad trying to choose courses

[Cyradis]

Hey I'm finding myself pretty bored at work too - I'll add to this topic sometime in the next few days too! A good number of courses we took overlap though.

[igeorgex]

Biochem 3n03 - Biochem of Nutrition (2010 - MacDonald)

workload=3 (2 tests, no exam, big final project, small papers every couple of weeks... the biweekly papers are really fast/easy, and you can work with others if you want... the final projects is fairly big, but it is with a large group (apprx. 8)... i think most people started a couple weeks before it was due)

difficulty=2 (material fairly simple, papers were marked easily, and final paper was marked very easily to the best of my knowledge (i.e. ours was crap due to some butchers in the group, and we got a 97%... pretty bird for a 3rd year / biochem course)

enjoyment=2 (pretty boring)

prof=4 (nice woman... says a lot of useless things... lectures are pretty slow)

 

Hth Sci 3i03 - Intro Immuno (2008 - various profs)

workload=3.5 (probably a good idea to keep up, as many people would have a hard time cramming this material... pretty dense material... a lot of people would go to tutorial and said they were really useful... a lot of people would read the text, but it wasn't neccessary... i just learned the lecture notes, and that was enough - as long as you can memorize/regurg)

difficulty=3.5 (pretty dense material... tests are pure memorization / regurgitation... not hard if you are good at that... exam was like 10- long answers + a lot of short answers, so you definitely had to know your stuff... but i think they marked easy probably... and from what i hear, it was take home this year)

enjoyment=3 (some things boring, some interesting... it's what you would expect with an intro to immuno course... covers a lot of what things are / what they do... not much clinical - there is a 4th year course for that)

prof=2 (i guess the lecturers are leaders in their field, but i found them to be boring speakers)

 

Just to note a few things:

 

Biochem Nutrition 3N03 is actually pretty writing-heavy. It's not the typical biochem course with a few midterms and a final, but rather 5-6 'concept' papers throughout the term, an op-ed piece, and the final project is basically dissection of a few different journal articles and writing about them. If you dislike writing or aren't very proficient in it, then I don't think this would be the best course for you.

 

Into to Immuno 3I03 has undergone a MAJOR change when it comes to the evaluation. There is now a Problem Based Learning (PBL) component, where you work with a group of about 4-5 people on a topic in immunology (vaccines, pregnancy, HIV, etc...) and need to understand the problem and present it to the class. It was worth quite a bit, and the question period facilitated by the TAs was brutal. Also, the final take-home exam this year was marked RIDICULOUSLY. Students who were getting 90+ in the course until that point got 50s and 60s on the exam. Pretty severe and the main course facilitator (Dr. Kaushic) was pretty adamant against changing any marks based on alternative acceptable answers. Also, the questions took most students like a week to thoroughly tackle and address.

 

Music 2II3 (I forgot to quote it) taught by Dr. Fast this past year DID have textbook questions on the midterms. Like 4 textbook based questions on each midterm (which is 10% of the midterm).

 

----

 

Mattg, looks like we both took Biochem 3N03 and Hth Sci 2G03 at the same times weird

[mattg]

Just to note a few things:

 

Biochem Nutrition 3N03 is actually pretty writing-heavy. It's not the typical biochem course with a few midterms and a final, but rather 5-6 'concept' papers throughout the term, an op-ed piece, and the final project is basically dissection of a few different journal articles and writing about them. If you dislike writing or aren't very proficient in it, then I don't think this would be the best course for you.

 

That's true... i just added that it was a lot of writing

[rant]

I doubt that is helpful:

29 A+'s and an A (in Orgo I)

 

lol, sorry... but i tried to differentiate ease to get a good mark via 'difficulty'

 

29 A+s... wow. I took Dr. Kim's course (PYSCH 1X03) and walked out of that genocide with an A-. His tests were extremely challenging. And I did about 35% better than the rest of the people I knew in the course.

 

Any other tips for others striving for 29 A+s at Mac?

 

Thank you so much for posting the info.

[Caliver]

Thanks mattg! much appreciated.

Could you explain further about some of the psych courses (i.e. 2e03 and 2f03)?

What's the "math" part of 2f03? and I heard Ullal is somewhat infamous for testing the tiniest details ever.. is that true? and.. will you be able to survive just with the lecture material?

 

I am not really confident in doing well in psych courses for some reason..

 

Anyways,

Thanks!

[mattg]

What's the "math" part of 2f03?

Mainly the Nernst equation and Goldman equation... so you will have to know how to manipulate log equations and be able to critically think about what different parts of these equations really mean and what can be inferred from them. He also likes to throw in a lot of other (relatively simple) math calculations for no reason really other than he likes math.

 

 

and I heard Ullal is somewhat infamous for testing the tiniest details ever.. is that true? and.. will you be able to survive just with the lecture material?

I have heard that for years as well... I never really got it... I mean, I guess for example he may ask a short answer question that requires you know all of the details of a single slide, but that's not really unreasonable... anything he tests, he sufficiently covered... other than maybe one or two MCQ that I have noticed, he won't really ask you to recall some word he said in passing... I dunno, I actually found his tests pretty easy.

Yea you will be able to survive with just the lecture material - that is all that he tests. Just make sure you go to class, because his notes are pretty sparse, so you have to write down what he says, or else you will have nothing to study essentially. The textbook in 2e03 is a complete waste - worst buy of uni for me. He says it is recommended, but if you ask him, he will tell you it is useless (i don't know why it is recommended)... you will find maybe 3 or 4 pages in it that coincide with his lectures the entire term... useless

[Caliver]

I am quite interested in psych 2f03 but I am still undecided between the course and biochem 2ee3.. I do think 2f03 is quite interesting but im afraid I won't do well in the course whereas biochem 2ee3 is sort of "known" as a bird course...

really. not sure.. it's so hard to pick electives!

[miss_indep]

mattg, I PM'ed you

 

I am quite interested in psych 2f03 but I am still undecided between the course and biochem 2ee3.. I do think 2f03 is quite interesting but im afraid I won't do well in the course whereas biochem 2ee3 is sort of "known" as a bird course...

really. not sure.. it's so hard to pick electives!

 

I hate picking courses too, it gets harder every year.

[hope]

I am quite interested in psych 2f03 but I am still undecided between the course and biochem 2ee3.. I do think 2f03 is quite interesting but im afraid I won't do well in the course whereas biochem 2ee3 is sort of "known" as a bird course...

really. not sure.. it's so hard to pick electives!

 

I took Biochem 2EE3. Most useless course I took in university, hands down...Literally, I memorized for like four days before the exams hardcore (this is one course where MEMORIZING is more helpful than UNDERSTANDING). Then, as soon as I finished my exam and handed in that piece of paper, it was like the information was erased from my brain.

 

Best piece of advice anyone can give first years (or any other years): take courses you're interested in. Yeah, prereqs matter (e.g. why I took biochem) but at least make your life a bit enjoyable by not following what everyone else says is an easy elective but what you think you might actually enjoy learning.

 

I learned from this in first year. I have never been a math person but I took calc because "everyone said it's an easy 12".....Well, it wasn't for me. I took other electives that I had an interest in and I did WAY better because I enjoyed studying the material and doing the assignments (e.g. the dreaded psych - I actually did well compared to a lot of my friends that bombed or despised it.......but did amazing in calc, physics, econ, or whatever else with numbers). To each their own!

[onamountain]

I am quite interested in psych 2f03 but I am still undecided between the course and biochem 2ee3.. I do think 2f03 is quite interesting but im afraid I won't do well in the course whereas biochem 2ee3 is sort of "known" as a bird course...

really. not sure.. it's so hard to pick electives!

 

Uhmmm. Maybe some people think of biochem 2ee3 as a bird course, but just as hope said: if you aren't really interested in the course content, it's not worth it. I've done better in supposedly killer courses. One good thing about 2ee3 is that it's useful for fulfilling prereqs at some schools. Overall I don't regret taking it, since I learned about some things that haven't come up in any of my other courses. Still, if not for prereqs I wouldn't really recommend it.

[mattg]

29 A+s... wow. I took Dr. Kim's course (PYSCH 1X03) and walked out of that genocide with an A-. His tests were extremely challenging. And I did about 35% better than the rest of the people I knew in the course.

Yea, I remember a lot of people getting raped on those tests lol... I guess it's because a lot people in university get so conditioned to regurgitating, that when a test really makes you apply concepts practically, and the questions are challenging, a lot of people are really not used to it... the exam was a joke though - definitely Dr. Kim trying to bring the average up to a reasonable level

 

and the first assignment my year had like a 50% average for no apparent reason lol... i think the marking got easier though

 

Any other tips for others striving for 29 A+s at Mac?

I dunno, I would say this (I just told it to someone in PM):

Know what type of course structures you prefer and excel in. I much prefer tests/exams to presentations/projects/assignments, etc. Not only do I find that it takes less overall time, but it is usually less subjective, and I just find that I can do really well on tests. Know what type of structure you prefer, and pick most courses involving a subject that you think you will enjoy, in the context of the class structure you prefer. Some people many not agree, and may just say to pick what you are interested in, period, but that's my opinion. I still say pick what you are interested in, but in that context.

 

Learn how to study with the test in mind. Also, make sure you understand why everything is and how things are connected, rather than just assume things and try to memorize sentences. Even if you understand the sentence itself, it is important to put it into context in your mind...

 

i dunno... know how you learn best and do that lol

 

Thank you so much for posting the info.

np:)

[mattg]

I am quite interested in psych 2f03 but I am still undecided between the course and biochem 2ee3.. I do think 2f03 is quite interesting but im afraid I won't do well in the course whereas biochem 2ee3 is sort of "known" as a bird course...

really. not sure.. it's so hard to pick electives!

 

It's up to you.

 

Biochem 2ee3 is absolute memorization/regurgitation of lecture notes. The material is pretty boring. But if you are able to memorize/regurg well, it is a pretty easy A (with a couple days of studying for each test). If you plan on taking Biochem 3g03, I believe this course (with a B+) is required as a prereq. A lot of people take biochem 3g03 because it is a pure bird course (but again, very boring).

 

I will also say this though. A lot of people say that biochem 2ee3 is a bird course, but don't get a 12. It is more of a "yea, it's a really easy course, I should've gotten a 12"... if Zhorov is still running it the same as he did 2 years ago, it is 2 tests, 30% each, 25 MCQ... there is very little leeway to make mistakes and maintain a 12 (i.e. 3 questions wrong and you're already out of 12... 4 and you're out of 11... it's a steep gradient)... that said, I would say it is a definite bird course as far as science goes, and a 10-12 is guaranteed if you learn the notes.

 

If you are interested in psych, or neuroscience specifically, then you will need 2f03 (or 2e03 for some) as a prereq for a lot of 3rd year neuroscience-related psych courses, so maybe that is something to consider if you are interested in the topic. If you are interested in the topic, and good at critical thinking, than 2f03 is not bad, and you will probably enjoy it. But it is not the typical course in that it is not memorization/regurgitation at all... you really have to understand everything very well.

 

In terms of workload, 2f03 will be more than 2ee3. biochem 2ee3 will probably be 'easier', but 2f03 isn't hard, like I said, if you are a critical thinker and enjoy the topic. psych2f03 is much more interesting in my opinion, and almost everyone will tell you biochem 2ee3 is really boring. Consider also which course you want to take in 3rd year, since biochem 2ee3 is a prereq to most 3rd year biochems, and psych2f03 is a prereq to many 3rd year neuroscience-ish psychs.

 

Personally, I would say go for 2f03 if you are interested, as it is a really good intro course to neuroscience, and Goldreich is a good prof. Biochem 2ee3 is a really dry course, and you will hate it. But like I said, it is probably an easier mark (I know a lot of people say that if you don't enjoy a course, it is not going to be easy... but I mean, if you learn the lecture notes, which aren't difficult, and regurg them, it's an A... though you will not enjoy learning them lol). So it's up to you. Good luck

[NLS]

"Dave Williams is a Canadian astronaut / ER doctor... obviosuly a huge stud lol, and really cool... will probably never get an oppurtunity for a prof with those credentials again in your life"

 

..wow