PATH20001: Exploring Human Disease - Science

CAL (10%), 2 x Midsemester tests (15% each = 30%), two hour final exam (60%).

Pathology is a fascinating subject, and is no doubt important if you wish to study health science, particularly medicine. Compared to other second year science subjects (such as BCMB20002 and PHYS20008), I felt that pathology was less conceptually driven and more reliant on rote learning. That is not to say, however, that the subject is entirely based on regurgitating facts.

The lectures were consistently informative, and did not require all the prescribed readings. Again in comparison to PHYS20008 where the readings were essential, I felt that pathology's readings provided more depth to the subject matter, but said depth was not directly assessed. The lecturers were all effective in explaining key concepts. Lecture topics included injury, inflammation, healing, infection, immunity, haemostasis, blood vessels (and associated disorders), genetic disorders, and cancer. Additionally, the last lecture tied together the underlying principles from the preceding topics to illustrate the multifaceted nature of pathology.

CAL classes were sometimes held at uni, but at other times, could be completed at home. Essentially, they were a way of reinforcing the lecture content with a series of questions followed by an online quiz. The quiz was usually five questions long and did not take long. Provided that you had attended the lectures and completed the CAL worksheet, the quiz itself was not too difficult.

Obviously, the common theme in mid-semester tests is to ascertain if students have retained and understood the information presented in lectures. Unsurprisingly, the mid-semesters did exactly that. They were fair in the sense of both time allocation and assessed content. The occasional question pertained to general knowledge, but the majority were firmly rooted in the lecture and CAL material.

The exam had three sections: A - multiple choice, B - extended multiple choice, and C - long answer. Section A was similar in form to the mid-semesters and had an emphasis on the lectures that were not previously assessed in the mid-semester tests. Section B was similar to section B of the ANAT20006 exam. Section C required you to answer one prompt from a bank of four. Long answer means a coherent answer, consisting of full sentences, paragraphs, etc. Overall, I found that reviewing the lecture notes and CAL questions was an effective way to prepare for the exam. I should note that unlike the mid-semester tests, time was slightly more of an issue in the final exam.

With a manageable workload, engaging content, and good lecturers, pathology was certainly a well-run subject.

Yes, with screen capture.

Vicki Lawson, Vera Ignjatovic, Chris Hopkins, Tom Karagiannis, Theo Mantamadiotis, Fred Hollande, and Melissa Davis.

No. A sample exam for sections A and B of the exam was supplied.

4 out of 5.

Robbins and Cotran Pathologic Basis of Disease. The textbook is probably useful only if you plan on continuing with pathology in third year. Otherwise, the lecture material should suffice.

3 x 1 hour lectures per week, 1 x 1 hour CAL per week.

2014, Semester 2.

H1

Ongoing tutorial/Computer Aided Learning (CAL) tests (10%), Two 50 min written examinations around weeks 5 and 10 (30%), A 2 hour written examination during the Exam period (60%)

The CALs were pretty useful in clearing up some confusing stuff in the lectures, such as time sequences and definitions, which may not be too clear in the lectures. You do them for one week (most require the software on Uni computers, some don't) and you got a week to do an online 5 pt quiz. This should be a simple 8-10%.

This subject was done rather well. The lectures were decent (except perhaps the Genetics ones, probs why I couldn't remember the guy's name) for the most part, and the CALs did well to support the understanding of the lecture contents, as well as adding in some more interesting knowledge.

The two 50 min quizzes were laughably easy, it is pretty to score H1s on these little fellas even if you just reviewed your stuff one or two times. This is especially useful for boosting your scores, as each quiz is worth 15%. Each quiz has a set of lectures and CALs from which the questions originate from. Some of the questions might be based on trivia, so be careful.
The exam is tougher, but nothing impossible. The MCQ section (A) is visibly more challenging, but nothing harder than your average exam MCQ. Questions here are based on all of the content of the subject. Section B consists of several fill in the blanks and short answer questions. Try not to slip here and catch up on all the trivia and knowledge of the several processes learned in this subject. Section C is an essay section, having you write an essay format answer into a booklet (which should extend around 2 pages or more). You can select one question to answer on out of 5 (based on the different sections of this subject's content). It's possible for you to study hard on a particular process (e.g. inflammation, healing, clotting) to answer it with the most detail while neglecting (though not entirely) other stuff that is relatively mind-numbing (e.g. genetics) and get the job done. Just be careful as it's worth 30% of the whole paper, meaning 18% of your whole grade!

Yes, with screen capture.

Vicki Lawson, Vera Ignjatovic, Fred Hollande, one more guy whose name I can't recall/the Genetics guy.

As I said before, most of the lectures were decent, although most of Vicki's lectures were taken out from the textbook, although that means you can read the textbook if you didn't understand what she said. Stuff with cell to cell reactions and signals were probably the most confusing of the lot, but the content is manageable. The content is largely split into many parts: Basic cell injury, inflammation, infection and the responses, hypersensitivities/autoimmunities, blood clotting and thrombo+embolism, genetic disorders & technology, cancer & neoplasms, cardiac disorders.

The content of the blood clotting and thrombo+embolism sections were slightly confusing, although they too were manageable, although some details like morphology need to be remembered in particular, as with most other pathology lectures. The cancer lectures were surprisingly (relatively) easy and simple; i expected more from such a concept.

The genetics lectures, however, were rather dull in comparison, I felt like I could understand more from doing the CALs, although the lectures should still be attended there are some parts not on the slides (mentioned verbally) that could come up in the exam. The cardiac disorders section was also rather challenging due to the confusing names of some things and the detail that had to be remembered. You may want to put some extra effort into it.

Yes. One with only the non-MCQ sections.

4 Out of 5

Kumar V. et al., Robbins and Cotran Pathologic Basis of Disease, latest edition, Saunders Elsevier.
Useful for clarify confusing stuff in the lectures because the lectures just take off this book (For the most part, esp. Vicki's ones), though whether you wanna get it is up to you.

29 lectures (on avg 3 per week, not including review ones) and 10 hours of (1 per week) tutorial/ computer aided learning sessions.

Sem 2, 2013

80