• Welcome to MSO!
    We are an online community for current and prospective medical, dental and allied health students and early career professionals from Australia and New Zealand.

    Please read: About MSO | Annual Welcome and Important Information | MSO Rules

    Quick Links To Forums
    Tests/Interviews: UCAT | GAMSAT | Interviews
    Entrance Discussion: Graduate Medicine | Undergraduate Medicine | Dentistry

  • Register with us

    Please consider registering on MSO. Benefits of registering are:
    • Able to post and participate in the forum
    • After 10 posts: Private Message Other Users
    • After 25 posts: Access to the Chatbox
    • After 100 posts: Custom user titles and Ad-free experience

    If you would like to get involved with MSO or have ideas, suggestions, comments, criticisms or other feedback please Contact Us

Otago HSFY chat - archive

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yeah neuronal communication does use neurotransmitters but C said
"neuronal communication involves use of chemicals through the blood"

which implies that the pathway is the bloodstream, and im sure thats only for hormonal?
 
Been a while since i posted anythng. Good to see all the new hsfys active. I hope you guys went well on your hubs test today always good to nail the first one. To all the 2009 HSFYs i was suprised to find out (by one of the course conveners) that if you scored above 87% for heal 192 you where in the top 50.
 
Yeah in our year for the terms test, only 23 people got 90% or above, and I'm pretty sure the final was harder than the terms test.
 
gtr8 said:
To all the 2009 HSFYs i was suprised to find out (by one of the course conveners) that if you scored above 87% for heal 192 you where in the top 50.
Click to expand...

Oh wow. I'm amazed by 2 things - firstly that the mark distribution was that bad (though I had a strong suspicion that it was the worst out of all the HSFY papers) and secondly that you actually managed to get that information out of the HEAL192 staff!

The BIOC192 marks were also pretty bad before scaling. It seems the difference was that HEAL192 didn't see the need to scale (that and the many other flaws of HEAL192 compared to BIOC192).
 
greenglacier said:
I think you mean muscle fibres (sorry, just had to point this out).
Click to expand...

Bah, not sure why I typed that! I did mean muscle fibers, thanks.

I'm pretty sure the communication systems question was what we think - that chemicals in the blood are not used... The only other plausible option (to me) implied that target cells do not need nerve receptors to communicate through the nervous system, which clearly isn't true!

Regarding your point about the reference range question kojiko, I'm scared now! I can't remember the question that well, which one was it? There were two questions on controlled variables (i think?)

One about variance between readings in healthy individuals, and another simply asking how the reference range for a controlled variable is ascertained... (all the answers had std deviations, variances, etc..)
 
Last edited:
ChickenPie said:
I'm pretty sure the communication systems question was what we think - that chemicals in the blood are not used... The only other plausible option implied that cells do not need nerve receptors to communicate through the nervous system.
Click to expand...

I haven't seen the question, but if indeed the statement was "nervous communication pathways involve chemicals travelling through the blood", then that sounds to me like the examiner was thinking "I'll give them a false statement by describing the endocrine system rather than the nervous system". I can understand why some of you HSFYers are getting a little worried about it, but it would take a rather tenuous line of reasoning to argue for such a statement being true.
 
Nervous communication does not involve chemicals travelling through the blood as GG said. Although, adrenaline travels in the bloodstream as well but in that case it doesn't count as a neurotransmitter but a hormone I think.

The main message here is that everyone should take a deep breath and relax for a few days before getting right into studying for the upcoming CELS test. This test is over and no matter how much time you spend thinking about it now, nothing will change. So a couple of deep breaths and let's all move on to the next big test. :)

Hope everyone agrees with this.
 
ChickenPie said:
Bah, not sure why I typed that! I did mean muscle fibers, thanks.

I'm pretty sure the communication systems question was what we think - that chemicals in the blood are not used... The only other plausible option (to me) implied that target cells do not need nerve receptors to communicate through the nervous system, which clearly isn't true!

Regarding your point about the reference range question kojiko, I'm scared now! I can't remember the question that well, which one was it? There were two questions on controlled variables (i think?)

One about variance between readings in healthy individuals, and another simply asking how the reference range for a controlled variable is ascertained... (all the answers had std deviations, variances, etc..)
Click to expand...

Hey man sorry I didnt mean to scare you (because im scaring myself now haha) Imonaboat is right.. we should stop thinking about this itd suck to screw CELS and it sounds really scarey (60marks)

but yeah there were 2 questions; 1 being
how a reference range is defined = 2stds within the mean
and the other was
which of the following cannot be responsible for variation in a controlled variable in healthy individuals
a) genetic differences
b) genetic day to day
c) regular fluctuations
d) random fluctuations
e) reference range

also I changed one of my answers but I dont think i rubbed out my original answer that well it was still looking a little shaded but the new box i shaded was way darker but now im worried the computer will scan that as two answers! how sensative is the system? anyone know?
 
Last edited:
I can't remember all the options, but judging by how you've explained it, you answer sounds correct... urgh!

I'm going to take I'mOnABoat's advice anyway and stop talking and thinking about it!

When can we expect our marks back?
 
kojiko said:
Hey man sorry I didnt mean to scare you (because im scaring myself now haha) Imonaboat is right.. we should stop thinking about this itd suck to screw CELS and it sounds really scarey (60marks)

but yeah there were 2 questions; 1 being
how a reference range is defined = 2stds within the mean
and the other was
which of the following cannot be responsible for variation in a controlled variable in healthy individuals
a) genetic differences
b) genetic day to day
c) regular fluctuations
d) random fluctuations
e) reference range

also I changed one of my answers but I dont think i rubbed out my original answer that well it was still looking a little shaded but the new box i shaded was way darker but now im worried the computer will scan that as two answers! how sensative is the system? anyone know?
Click to expand...

If the CELS test is out of 60 marks (it was out of 35 last year, but this one sounds like it may include more material) then I would view that as a good thing, because it means a minor error has far less effect on your overall percentage mark for the test (especially considering that CELS often give out half marks in the tests).

As long as you realise that this isn't school anymore, and that the lecturers will test on the minor details, and study with this in mind then the CELS test isn't really anything to get frightened about (at least, not if it is at the same level as last year's one). Just do the study group worksheets carefully - the questions and model answers give you a very good idea of what to expect. Also look at the 2007 final exam, because that tested the material tested in your upcoming mid-semester exam (along with everything you'll be taught later on).

I wouldn't worry if the box you rubbed out looks a little shaded still - I never managed to completely rub out the markings when I changed my answer, and it didn't affect the machine as far as I know. As long as the new answer was shaded in very clearly you should be alright.

Interesting that you got 5 options for each of the questions in the HUBS test - there were only 4 last year. This seems to support the impression I'm getting that the test got a major overhaul this year.



EDIT - Marks for HUBS tests generally take between a week and a half and a fortnight to come back. Our first one last year took 3 weeks, but that's because the code for what letter to shade for each question book colour was different in our booklets from on the OHT they showed us. Because of the resulting confusion the HUBS staff had to match everyone's question and answer sheets to make sure they had shaded the right letter, so it was quite a long time before the tests could even get marked. At the same time, you might also be delayed by the easter holiday (I think most of the time in marking is due to administrative and checking stuff, because it'll only take a couple of days for the machine to read all the answer sheets).
 
Last edited:
Hey guys!

Just dropping by to see how everyone is doing. I hope the 2nd year medders are enjoying it =) You're living the dream buddies :P

I'm really enjoying 2nd year Biomed - especially my Pharmacology paper. The lecturer is brilliant (his name is Martin Le Nedelec and I think you guys have him for some lectures - correct me if I'm wrong). First 10 lectures for physiology and anatomy have been revision of HUBS and CELS basically (with a bit of BIOC as well). I'm also taking a microbiology paper (MICR221 - Microbes to Medicine) which has been really interesting but very difficult at the same time. I've been trudging through countless hours of memorisation for that paper because a lot of it is simple concepts with a crap load of facts to memorise - even more than HUBS!). I have a 15% term's test coming up tomorrow for Micro - wish me luck!

Anyways, I'll be checking these forums every now and then to see how everyone is doing.

P.S. It's good to see this thread is still alive ;P
 
Hey CELS went alright I hope anyway haha we'll see tomorrow
such a relief getting it done 5% is quite alot for an online test
Do you mind me asking which question you think you got wrong??
 
Kojiko- not at all... The question asking methods of identifying 3D structures- we put 4 answers and from what I heard the same question was in last year's test, and it has 3 correct answers.

Oh well, we get partial marks so it's not too bad, I just hope we don't lose many more marks.

I'm having trouble accessing blackboard, I guess it's just the morning.
 
Marks are out! Just like I said, got one question partially wrong, and lost 1/3rd of a mark....

Still good I suppose! Can't wait for HUBS results now!
 
Last edited:
I looked at how people so got into doing well in the cels glm, and I was seeing things like 40 people all with their laptops doing it together. When they lose merely half a percent they seemed to want to pull their hair out.

Yet I hear these guys saying they haven't even started their prep for the cels mid sem yet.

I hope the health sci's here always have the big goal in their minds, and are patient and not get so carried away with these relatively little tests.

My dad said success comes with being tight with every mark you can earn, but what I saw was ridiculous.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

M
What does 'General Registration' look like in Australia for PGY1/2?
Replies
2
Views
895
MMD
M
Back
Top