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 -...

Click here to read the entire review

I took it 2nd term in 2009/2010 with dr.wilson and dr.nurse
Wilson taught the first 3 topics: intro, cardiovascular system and the renal/urinary system. I think she's a great lecturer, she doesn't go so fast that i can't type what shes saying (mb a little harder for taking notes with pen/pencil). I find the she answers questions well despite some saying that she sounds condescending.

Nurse taught neuro, respiratory, muscles, hormones. His lecturing style was almost the same except he didn't have "Think, Pair, Share" that Dr.Wilson had every few lecture as practice questions. His voice is low though and it sounds like he mumbles when he drops it even lower so you have to listen very carefully.


I found the material overall really interesting cuz i liked the topics and i found that it covered material taught in gr 12 in more detail.

I thought the labs were brutal. So unorganized and the lab TAs were horrible too. Well mine was and when I spoke with other students it sounded like their TA was either the same or even worse than mine. You'd walk in to the lab and the TA doesn't brief you on anything and says GO. like that would have been fine if the lab manuals were of sufficient detail...

The formal lab reports took wayyy to long for the amt they're worth and the page limit was ridiculous. They expect you to answer 10+ questions in paragraph form in 2 pages double spaced. Either you go over the limit and lose marks that way or forgo some details to fit it into 2 pages. The in-class labs were alright. Most of the answers were pretty straight from the textbook. Then when I asked my TA a questions, he'd go "what do you think?".. geez if i knew i wouldn't be asking (sorry for the attack at the TA but he was very unhelpful)

I thought the tests were fair, mb a few were worded weirdly. In the 3rd test, many of Nurse's questions composed of 3 choices then choice d and e were either like a and b or b and c.. so you really gotta know your stuff cuz process of elimination is a little bit more tricky.

I also took the course in term 2 of 2010 with Dr. Wilson and Dr. Nurse.

Instructors
Dr. Wilson was a good lecturer and was generally a positive experience. I didn't really find her condescending. I liked that Dr. Wilson had application questions in the lectures which gave an idea of the style of questions for the midterm. Dr. Wilson's were more application based and were a bit challenging. I would give her an 8/10.

Dr. Nurse was an okay lecturer but he is kind of quite and is difficult to hear. I found that his lectures didn't really add much to the text book in general and so wasn't really worthwhile to attend lectures sometimes. Dr. Nurse's questions were more knowledge based on test. I would give him a 7/10.


Labs (5 labs including 3 formal labs. Total 30%)

I agree that the labs were unorganized as much of the equipment never
worked. My TA was also not the most knowledgeable TA and since I had the first week of labs, we sometimes skipped complete sections without the TA realizing it however my TA was accommodating for that. My TA did walk us through the lab, was responsive on ELM and was very liberal in marking however I know that some TA's were very harsh in marking.

The formal labs did have a lot of requirements but honestly.. they were due at 5:30 PM and I would start the bulk of the lab work at around 10:30 AM of the due date and did very well. I agree that the page limits were ridiculous and your writing quality probably suffered (though my TA didn't take marks off for that). Sometimes the answers for questions were hard to find in a journal search but I would recommend to find the answer in a related concept discussed in class and just site the text book.

Tests (3X10% = 30%)

I thought the test were challenging and that Dr. Wilson in particular should brush up on her grammar to avoid some ambiguity in the questions. They were tricky and the supervising TAs could not help explain some of the ambiguous questions. The tests were cumulative and I disliked that they could not post the previous questions online (a bit inconvenient).

Exam (40%)
The exam in general was knowledge based however some questions were very specific. The exam was cumulative. I found the text book to be helpful for learning the concepts.



Overall I thought this was a challenging yet interesting course. At times, it was frustrating to keep up with. I noticed that kin 1Y03, 1YY3 and bio 1a03 suffice as the prerequisites for upper year physiology courses and are rated more favorably than bio 2a03. I guess I would recommend taking that option if possible.

I figured I would wait until I saw my final mark before writing this review, so its a bit late. But better late then never!

Overall, I liked this course. It had flaws, but its one of the only classes where I think the material will stay with me for quite a while.

Pretty much everything that can be said about Dr. Wilson and Dr. Nurse has been said, so I won't spend too much time on them. Personally I love Dr. Wilson, but that isn't a commonly held opinion. Dr. Nurse seemed really nice, but he wasn't the greatest lecturer. Going to class is probably still recommended, but if you have a bit of background in anatomy it definitely isn't required to get a good mark.

The required text book- Principles of Human Physiology by Stanford and Germann is one of the greatest texts you will ever get. Normally I don't recommend buying the textbook, but this one is phenomenal. It has great pictures and diagrams, great flow charts, good practice questions, etc. If you get the media edition, it also has online activities and a lab simulator (that includes several of the labs we do). Its pricey, but probably more worthwhile than any other text I've bought yet.

The tests are a bit weird. They're only an hour long, and they're only worth 10% a piece, so they aren't a huge deal. Yet they seem to be one of the more stressful tests to write. While learning the general concepts will probably get you through 80% of them, you get tested on some really specific details. Once you learn to watch out for that though, they aren't too difficult.

The labs were bogus, and my only real complaint about the course. TA quality always has an effect on how well your labs go, but even with a TA that I liked I found I was doing poorly. My TA spent a lot of time going over the lab before we did it, but quite often the equipment had been set out wrong before hand, making it difficult to complete them on time. Experimental error due to the apparatus was probably the most used phrase in my reports >.< I also found the marking to be quite tough, but that's probably dependent on the TA you have. Use LOTS of graphs and charts, it is very helpful with the page limits. I think if the length restrictions weren't as intense I would have done quite a bit better though.

The exam was essentially a longer version of the tests, so use those as a guide for assessing the difficulty of the exam. If you're scoring low on the tests, you'll need to spend a lot more time studying for the exam.

While taking the Kins instead of this course allows you to access the upper Physio courses, I would recommend both if you can find the room. They should probably be anti-requisites to be honest, so much of the material is the same. You'll do quite well in one if you've already done well in the other.

Fall/Winter 2009/2010 (Course Outline Attached)

Professors:
Wilson: Talks extremely slow, pauses every couple words and right before finishing her sentences.
Nurse: Talks slow, big improvement from Wilson but still not very interesting.

Material:
Pretty interesting. Renal System, Respiratory, Circulation and some basic stuff.

Testing:
Very specific, difficult. Even after knowing the specificity of the tests, it was still hard to do well in the following tests.

Labs:
Short, kind of interesting. Marking was pretty tough, hard to get 80s on the formal lab reports.

I think the key to suceeding in this course is to constantly review the material even though the concepts are straight forward and logical. This will make it easier to learn the details and "absorb" more information. And when you think you understand the material, ask yourself questions about it to make sure that you know it inside and out.

I actually enjoyed Dr. Wilson as a prof. and she explained the key concepts well. I personally found that some of her questions were based on the memorization of a certain fact or graph. Although, I have to admit that some of her questions were very ambiguous.

I liked Dr. Nurse as well because he explained the general picture and the key concepts very well and attempted to link the systems. The tests were straight forward if studied for properly and yes, they were perhaps the most stressful leading up to writing it probably because we were scared about what they would ask.

The point is to be thorough when studying for this test and to not have the mentality that a certain piece of information is "pointless" and won't be tested on - everything is testable. It is definitely possible to get a double digit in this course.

As for the labs, the marking was not consistent what so ever across the sections. And like previously mentioned, it really does depend on your T.A. and their marking difficulty. They are the same weight as the 3 tests (30%) so they are equally just as important, but can be frustrating to do well on. Also, the equipment was often faulty so that did not help.

Next year, Dr. Mcclelland is the only prof that is teaching this course so I have no idea how the course will be.

Any tips on how to do well in the course, specifically for the labs & tests?
Thanks !

Originally Posted by ~*Sara*~

Any tips on how to do well in the course, specifically for the labs & tests?
Thanks !

Hey here are my tips

Tests: because there are a lot of application type questions for the tests, it good to talk about the materials and ask questions (hypothetical ones) with a friend. Utlize elm discussions too... the elm ta guy was pretty good at explaining things

Labs: make sure you follow the requirements. Be straight forward and use acronyms because the page limits don't allow you do a fluid, essay-style write up. Use tables and graphs when appropriate. There are some tricky questions but those are generally an application of a concept learned in class so keep that in mind. It's also good to write up with someone you know in the lab but be careful about plagiarism. Hope that helps!

What is mcclleland like? he/she is now teaching this course

I think Mcclelland used to teach the course with Wilson in past years, but took this year off. I'd heard he was pretty good, and definitely had easier questions than Wilson.

Although, its still possible you guys will have another prof, at this point a lot of courses only list one prof but will have another added in.

How possible is a 10+ in the course? And how did you guys find the final exam?

Thanks again!

I found the exam to be roughly on par, maybe slightly more tough, than the tests for this class. We actually ended up with more time per question for the exam, although we had many more questions. Some of the questions were a bit tricky, and there are quite a few questions that require memorizing specific things instead of general concepts, but overall it isn't too bad.

It's possible to get a 10, but I think that who marks your labs (worth 30% total) can be a huge part of that.

No offense, I don't like when people ask "How easy is it to get a double digit grade in this course?"

Its all subjective, I find Bio pretty easy... so if someone asked me how easy it is to get a 10 in bio 1a03 or 1m03 Id say it wouldnt be too difficult.

If you asked someone else they might say the course is brutal.

Its all how much effort YOU put into the course.

Originally Posted by BluandExile

No offense, I don't like when people ask "How easy is it to get a double digit grade in this course?"

Its all subjective, I find Bio pretty easy... so if someone asked me how easy it is to get a 10 in bio 1a03 or 1m03 Id say it wouldnt be too difficult.

If you asked someone else they might say the course is brutal.

Its all how much effort YOU put into the course.

Of course, that's a given.
But seeing more than one point of view is the whole purpose of posting it on the forum. Most second year biology students take similar courses so although yes it IS subjective, getting various points of views is not entirely useless.

I ended up getting somewhere between an 80 and 88 on the final exam. It actually brought up my mark quite a bit. I don't remember if it was easy or not though, all I remember was studying A LOT.

I'm thinking of either taking Bio 2A03 or 2B03, which one would be easier/better to take??