[batman]

Bio 2A03, as you can see from my ratings is one of those courses. You register for it, it seems supremely interesting, you're all hyped up to go, and then the course turns out to be the worst thing since food at Commons.

There are 3 tests for 32%, 5 labs for 24% (3 Formal - 18%, 2 Informal - 6%), and a final exam for 44%. Two lecturers, Dr Wilson and Dr McLelland will be teaching you, and Ray Procwat (great guy) is the Instructional Assistant.

Topics include:
1. Intro to Physiology ~ 6 Lectures
2. Circulation ~ 7 Lectures
3. Renal Function ~ 7 Lectures
4. Neurophysiology ~5 Lectures
5. Respiration ~ 5 Lectures
6. Endocrine System ~1.5 Lectures
7. Muscle ~1.5 Lectures

The lecturers are not very good. Dr Wilson is terrible, in my opinion at least. Her lecturing style is poor, because she is saying so much and you are trying to fill in the blanks and take in material at the same time. She then proceeds to test you on an extension of an application of a topic she said 5 words about. The averages on the tests for Winter 2009 Session which she had a predominant hand in were 55% and 58%. She refuses to answer most questions in class, and even when she does, she is rude and condescending, something which carries into her LearnLink responses. She had the audacity to post that we did not know our own learning styles and this is why we were doing poorly on her tests, and proceeded to post an article so we could do that. At 19,20,21 years old, we know what works and what doesn't. Anyways....

Dr McLelland comes in and seems a lot better, but overall he's a good, if not great lecturer. He's a little more clear, and doesn't really talk about too much extraneous stuff. His test questions are far fairer as well.

If you take this course, be prepared to take a beating in Wilson's section, because unless she changes drastically, it will be extremely difficult. Nothing like having a professor who thinks you're idiots.

The saving grace of this course is Mr Procwat who is a great guy, always willing to answer questions, very honest when he makes a mistake, etc.

Eh, I took a look at some of the tests for 2A03 this year and they were fair if you studied well. If you're into blatant memorizing without any critical thinking skills, I would suggest a different course.

The formal labs were a bit of a pain in the rear since they were a ton of work, but only worth about 4% each.

McClelland is awesome, so I think the professor rating should be higher.

Originally Posted by jesus

Eh, I took a look at some of the tests for 2A03 this year and they were fair if you studied well. If you're into blatant memorizing without any critical thinking skills, I would suggest a different course.

The formal labs were a bit of a pain in the rear since they were a ton of work, but only worth about 4% each.

McClelland is awesome, so I think the professor rating should be higher.

Test 1, 2, or 3? They got progressively better, I found.

I have no issue with application questions, just for a 'quiz', they were pushing it. All things considered, and considering how I did I shouldn't complain.

PS, keep the personal attacks out of your posts

Originally Posted by batman

Test 1, 2, or 3? They got progressively better, I found.

I have no issue with application questions, just for a 'quiz', they were pushing it. All things considered, and considering how I did I shouldn't complain.

PS, keep the personal attacks out of your posts

I took a look at all three of them. I'll admit that some of Wilson's questions were strange, but they were doable if you understood the material.

And with the "you" I wasn't pointing to you specifically, but to anyone who was interested in taking the course (and reading the reviews).

Originally Posted by jesus

I took a look at all three of them. I'll admit that some of Wilson's questions were strange, but they were doable if you understood the material.

And with the "you" I wasn't pointing to you specifically, but to anyone who was interested in taking the course (and reading the reviews).

Yeah, I think strange is a good way to describe them, a little wordy. Like, you had to sorta sit down and write out what you knew and work through them, I found.

Originally Posted by batman

Yeah, I think strange is a good way to describe them, a little wordy. Like, you had to sorta sit down and write out what you knew and work through them, I found.

True.

I forgot to mention this, but: McClelland won't be teaching next year for anyone wanting to take the course.

would you guys recommend the textbook for this course?
and how were the labs themselves?

Originally Posted by Kareko

would you guys recommend the textbook for this course?
and how were the labs themselves?

I heard Dr. Wilson is the only prof teaching it this coming year... so probably yes.

Originally Posted by sinthusized

I heard Dr. Wilson is the only prof teaching it this coming year... so probably yes.

yup..Mcclelland is on sabatical so it is just wilson i believe

If its only Dr. Wilson teaching then I definitely recommend the textbook. Her teaching and testing style in this course was very much a "know everything in lecture AND the textbook" style, so get the book. Its sometimes a little tedious to read, but it provides really good explanations for tough concepts. Physiology is something that you can find on the web, etc, but this textbook is really good. Plus it provides access to some online resources you couldn't otherwise get which were helpful at times.

are her lectures worth going to? not looking to miss all lectures or anything but in bio 1a03, i didn't understand dr wilson at the rate she was going and found it more worth my time to learn the material myself with text.

This course is probably the most interesting second year Bio I have taken. However, the downside is that the formal labs are marked quite hard. The tests were all MC and were somewhat challenging. They really focused on your understanding more than on memorization. You really had to be able to apply the concepts from class to do well on them. The final exam was a bit more decent and had some short answer questions.

Apparently Dr. Nurse and Dr. Wilson are going to be teaching this course next year. I don't know much about Dr. Nurse's teaching style, but I would totally agree with Batman about Dr. Wilson.

Originally Posted by sinthusized

are her lectures worth going to? not looking to miss all lectures or anything but in bio 1a03, i didn't understand dr wilson at the rate she was going and found it more worth my time to learn the material myself with text.

Absolutely have to go to Wilson's lectures. There are things she will say once that you'll never hear again and could show up on the tests, and her little inclass examples can be good.

I've heard Nurse's testing style is similar to Wilson, but lecture-wise is better.

Also, How awesome is it that somebody just said, I agree with Batman!

Bio 2A03 was the least pleasant course I took in second year. Classes were generally alright, you were expected to fill out lecture notes which for the most part were very useful. A set of complete notes can be found online if you have any competency with Google searching. These notes were an invaluable tool in studying.

When it comes to tests, there were 3 midterms and each one was cumulative. That means for these small tests we were expected to recollect our previous knowledge of certain organ systems for the current test. In order to keep up with this, review of the previous material was a necessity. I have to express my disdain for this test set-up, it was far too much work. The first two tests were particularly difficult, often including ambigious questions or questions beyond the scope of our understanding. Test averages were in the low to mid 50's. The third test was not so bad, and people generally did better. My advice to read the textbook for the new stuff and use your notes for the older material. Also you should pray. somtimes that helps

Labs were disappointing. There was a mix of formal and informal labs, with the formal labs requiring a labourous write-up. One lab focussed on material that we never saw in the lecture material, and to realistically get a good mark on the lab, one would of had to read the textbook chapter before hand (at least 40 pages). It is my understanding that most people achieved poor to average marks on labs.

The exam was not bad, that's all I'll say. Despite all the difficulties, I still did well in this course (which I suspect is due to some form of "bell-curving") and I found the material pretty interesting, but I know a lot of people who have personal regrets about taking this course.

Originally Posted by enigmatique

This course is probably the most interesting second year Bio I have taken. However, the downside is that the formal labs are marked quite hard. The tests were all MC and were somewhat challenging. They really focused on your understanding more than on memorization. You really had to be able to apply the concepts from class to do well on them. The final exam was a bit more decent and had some short answer questions.

Apparently Dr. Nurse and Dr. Wilson are going to be teaching this course next year. I don't know much about Dr. Nurse's teaching style, but I would totally agree with Batman about Dr. Wilson.

Nurse hates MC questions. For 3p03, there were none.

He might change his tests to short answer.