|
3A03 - Updated (Fall 2014)
Alright so here was the mark breakdown:
4 midterms, top 3 of 4 marks count (3 x 18%) - 54%
Essay 1 - 8%
Essay 2 - 9%
Symposium - 20%
Tutorial - 9%
NO EXAM
The midterms contained a multiple choice section (20 marks) and a short answer section (25 marks). The multiple choice was very fair and the average was quite high (80% or higher) however the short answer marks were significantly lower (average approximately 60%). Thankfully, these marks seemed to increase (for myself and for other people I knew in the course) with each midterm and the lowest mark was dropped so there was a little room for error. I found that the questions were easier to predict and answer the more tests you had under your belt. Each midterm covered a different "module" (4 or 5 lectures) and the four modules that we covered included Neurological and neurodegenerative disorders (background, ALS, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's), CV and respiratory disorders (background, asthma, congenital heart disease and atherosclerosis), Cancer (background, breast cancer, leukemia and a guest lecture about drug development as it related to leukemia) and Tropical diseases (ebola, scabies, chagas disease and ascariasis). These were all fairly interesting topics and I really enjoyed the lecture style of Dr. da Silva.. BUT it is important to note that she is planning on covering different diseases every year, so it is unlikely that these particular examples will be repeated next year.
The essays were 500 words each, so approximately 2/2.5 pages double spaced. There were four topics to choose from for each essay and sign up was done through avenue. Each topic included four questions that needed to be covered/answered throughout the essay, so it was a little difficult to keep the essay at the appropriate word count. Being concise is the key and although it was challenging, I found that they were marked fairly and it was a useful exercise in learning to be thorough but to the point.
The symposium seemed like a lot of work but it was done in groups of 3 or 4 and once the work was divided up, it was very reasonable. There was a list of 10 diseases, again sign up was done via avenue, and for each disease, the etiology, epidemiology and pathophysiology had to be discussed, as well as the first therapeutic designed to treat the disease/alleviate the associated symptoms and a current therapeutic. These two drugs (or treatment options) had to be compared (efficacy, side effects, etc.) with particular emphasis on peer reviewed literature and studies conducted on the chosen drugs. An abstract was due worth 2% of the final mark, and the poster and presentation (which was done for either Dr. da Silva, Sunita or one of the TAs who were walking around during the symposium) accounted for the remaining 18%. Not sure how the marking was because we were given no feedback (was considered our exam).
The tutorials were designed to get us thinking about a career and academic plan for the future. We had to do minute papers (short reflections) at the end of (most of) the tutorials, as well as a group reflection (done in class) and an individual reflection (done outside of class time). The intentions behind these tutorials was very good - to expose students interested in health and disease to other careers or occupations besides medicine/physician - but they were not the most enjoyable or useful for me personally. I think they will fine-tune these tutorials in the future, as I get the impression that this was the first year they were incorporated into the course.
If you have any other questions, let me know.
|
