-
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 -
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
- Thread starter jeavey
- Start date
- Status
D
Deleted member 4350
Guest
The dreaded question: how did everyone find BIOC? =D
Personally I thought the exam was fair (for the most part), bar the vitamins questions (rentinol equivalents? come on!). What did everyone put for that neuraminidase/hemagluttin one? What was comming off the protein? I said glycoprotein but I heard someone say it was sialic acid (which seems to make more sense).
Any questions you guys found difficult or unfair?
Personally I thought the exam was fair (for the most part), bar the vitamins questions (rentinol equivalents? come on!). What did everyone put for that neuraminidase/hemagluttin one? What was comming off the protein? I said glycoprotein but I heard someone say it was sialic acid (which seems to make more sense).
Any questions you guys found difficult or unfair?
Public Liability
Regular Member
That was a fair test, but what I want to know is if people found that harder then they expected. I certainly did.
D
Deleted member 4350
Guest
Definitely agree with you there Imad. I was expecting an easier exam for sure.
What did you guys write for the question about Type II muscle fibres? Also, question on inborn errors on metabolism.
Oh yeah, and the one about features of a coupled reaction.
Nah, that exam was alright. I think Tony likes (and encourages) questions where at first you think that you don't know the answer, but all becomes apparent if you think through it (his question in the CELS exam was also in this style I though).
Wrote heaps for retinol equivalents - considering that vitamin A was one of the two key vitamins in that lecture, not an unreasonable question.
Influenza virus - sialic acid on the surface, bound to haemagglutinin, with neuraminidase located on the virus (but not bound to sialic acid). That diagram was one of the only points to take out of the "swine flu" lecture, so you know...
Type II muscle fibres - wrote heaps. Specialised for anaerobic exercise, with the table showing: decreased citrate synthase/CPT (so not suited to aerobic exercise...), increased PFK and decreased hexokinase (increasing flux through glycolysis starting at G6P - a feature of anaerobic exercise), and lack of response to endurance training.
Inborn errors of metabolism - basically built around the example of PKU that they gave us - said what an inborn error of metabolism is, what the generic consequence is (build up of toxic metabolites) and hence the need to detect it early (so that action can be taken to reduce the consequences).
Coupled reaction - exergonic + endergonic reaction forced to occur as one spontaneous reaction via the action of an enzyme - exergonic provides driving energy for endergonic.
Yeah the aminotransferase question - I stopped thinking for a moment there and put an alcohol rather than an aldehyde group on the pyridoxal phosphate (even though I realised at the time that that meant a lack of hydrogen balance). Otherwise it was fine.
Can't really think of any very hard questions from the exam, though there were of course some explanations where I'm still not sure if I covered all the points required (especially when they were worth 3-4 marks). Overall, I think the best exam so far, and fitting for what has easily been the most worthwhile and satisfying paper this semester.
Wrote heaps for retinol equivalents - considering that vitamin A was one of the two key vitamins in that lecture, not an unreasonable question.
Influenza virus - sialic acid on the surface, bound to haemagglutinin, with neuraminidase located on the virus (but not bound to sialic acid). That diagram was one of the only points to take out of the "swine flu" lecture, so you know...
Type II muscle fibres - wrote heaps. Specialised for anaerobic exercise, with the table showing: decreased citrate synthase/CPT (so not suited to aerobic exercise...), increased PFK and decreased hexokinase (increasing flux through glycolysis starting at G6P - a feature of anaerobic exercise), and lack of response to endurance training.
Inborn errors of metabolism - basically built around the example of PKU that they gave us - said what an inborn error of metabolism is, what the generic consequence is (build up of toxic metabolites) and hence the need to detect it early (so that action can be taken to reduce the consequences).
Coupled reaction - exergonic + endergonic reaction forced to occur as one spontaneous reaction via the action of an enzyme - exergonic provides driving energy for endergonic.
Yeah the aminotransferase question - I stopped thinking for a moment there and put an alcohol rather than an aldehyde group on the pyridoxal phosphate (even though I realised at the time that that meant a lack of hydrogen balance). Otherwise it was fine.
Can't really think of any very hard questions from the exam, though there were of course some explanations where I'm still not sure if I covered all the points required (especially when they were worth 3-4 marks). Overall, I think the best exam so far, and fitting for what has easily been the most worthwhile and satisfying paper this semester.
D
Deleted member 4350
Guest
Well said
Offers came out December 22nd last year. Enjoy your summer hols 
Yeah, phew, it's all over.
And to add to it, the epi exam was really satisfying (I think it's the best epi exam they've ever written - and I'm including the 2005-2007 exams in that), and so straightforward, with some questions that involved genuine understanding and thinking (like the double burden, primary vs secondary prevention and the "explain what p-values tell you about precision" questions - know quite a few people who didn't really perform there).
Um, I have heard that they can be really harsh in the marking though - certainly they have made it quite clear that they absolutely loath marking, so that would make sense. Anyone heard the same - skyglow what do you think? Just thinking - because they gave us some questions from the mid-semester last year (about 45 marks worth) and they were really easy, so maybe the results were so poor because of the marking...
Meh, it doesn't really matter now. A good month or so of no stress or worries are ahead! Does anyone know when the exam results are typically released - I doubt they will be out as fast as they were for last semester?
And to add to it, the epi exam was really satisfying (I think it's the best epi exam they've ever written - and I'm including the 2005-2007 exams in that), and so straightforward, with some questions that involved genuine understanding and thinking (like the double burden, primary vs secondary prevention and the "explain what p-values tell you about precision" questions - know quite a few people who didn't really perform there).
Um, I have heard that they can be really harsh in the marking though - certainly they have made it quite clear that they absolutely loath marking, so that would make sense. Anyone heard the same - skyglow what do you think? Just thinking - because they gave us some questions from the mid-semester last year (about 45 marks worth) and they were really easy, so maybe the results were so poor because of the marking...
Meh, it doesn't really matter now. A good month or so of no stress or worries are ahead! Does anyone know when the exam results are typically released - I doubt they will be out as fast as they were for last semester?
Public Liability
Regular Member
"Phew", is that all you're saying man?? 
Im jumping up and down, running down the hallway, and dancing everywhere due to sheer happiness (yy)
Im jumping up and down, running down the hallway, and dancing everywhere due to sheer happiness (yy)
If I remember correctly they came out about a month after we sat the exam, like late nov?
If I had to hazard a guess at why our year did so bad in HEAL, it basically follows the trend that any of the papers which require more understanding than memorisation have poor results because health sci students struggle with concepts. Anyone can put in the hard work and hours to memorise information for HUBS, but to understand some of the harder and new concepts in HEAL, and apply them to new situations, requires quite a bit of insight.
I found this when I was tutoring PHSI and HEAL. Having to explain things that you simply just "get" when you in a lecture made me realise I really take those sort of things for granted. It also made impatient and frustrated because I assumed others would just get it too.
I think another things that separates the 95+% student from say an 80% is how good they are at taking tests. I'm not talking about those little exam tips that are cited alot by lecturers/tutors. The 95+ student is able to understand precisely what is required of them in an exam.
When I sat the hsfy papers, I was confident enough in what I memorised and what I understood, so I didn't need to worry about what was the actual "answer". Instead, I spent nearly all of my time thinking about the "psychology" of the paper. What I mean is that I considered what the lecturer was thinking when they wrote that question. What was going through their mind when they wrote this question, why did they write this question, what do they want me to demonstrate? Similarly, when I write my answer I consider how the marker is going to react to my answer. Where am I going to get my ticks, how will I impress the marker, how will I show that I have understood what is required of me, what would the mark scheme look like so I come close to it as possible? I also sometimes consider what other students will probably be thinking when they read the question, and try to avoid the mistakes they will make and traps they will fall into.
When I read other people's answers, it seems like people read the question and think it is a prompt for them to write about what they know on that topic. The skill in exam taking lies instead in being able to decipher those instructions from the lecturer, which are given in the form of questions (and can be very vague/cryptic at times). Alot of students are not confident enough in their preparation, so worry about what is the "right" answer. They need to have more solid preparation, and take the time to really consider the psychology behind the questions.
That's why you often hear lecturers and other people saying "answer the question!" over and over again. On a basic level, this is students who put down info that is completely unrelated to the question. On a more sophisticated level, "answering the question" is very difficult because it requires you to be able to understand how the lecturer thinks.
These exam taking skills definitely come from extensive experience in taking exams which are similar in style to health sci ones. Cambridge exams were great preparation for this because the same exam taking skills are required to achieve high percentages. Pouring over endless years of past papers, and gaining a ton of exposure to questions and more importantly what the mark schemes. Students can work on it by making sure their preparation is solid so they can focus their attention in the exam to thinking more deeply about the questions. But really, the major hurdle is the preparation, because alot of students struggle with the memorisation component, and also lack the insight to really understand the concepts.
It's especially important in exams like last year's HEAL test and final exam, where some questions were written poorly and you were left thinking "what on earth do you they want me to write?" That, along with the students struggling with the concepts, is what I think resulted in fairly poor results in that paper.
If I had to hazard a guess at why our year did so bad in HEAL, it basically follows the trend that any of the papers which require more understanding than memorisation have poor results because health sci students struggle with concepts. Anyone can put in the hard work and hours to memorise information for HUBS, but to understand some of the harder and new concepts in HEAL, and apply them to new situations, requires quite a bit of insight.
I found this when I was tutoring PHSI and HEAL. Having to explain things that you simply just "get" when you in a lecture made me realise I really take those sort of things for granted. It also made impatient and frustrated because I assumed others would just get it too.
I think another things that separates the 95+% student from say an 80% is how good they are at taking tests. I'm not talking about those little exam tips that are cited alot by lecturers/tutors. The 95+ student is able to understand precisely what is required of them in an exam.
When I sat the hsfy papers, I was confident enough in what I memorised and what I understood, so I didn't need to worry about what was the actual "answer". Instead, I spent nearly all of my time thinking about the "psychology" of the paper. What I mean is that I considered what the lecturer was thinking when they wrote that question. What was going through their mind when they wrote this question, why did they write this question, what do they want me to demonstrate? Similarly, when I write my answer I consider how the marker is going to react to my answer. Where am I going to get my ticks, how will I impress the marker, how will I show that I have understood what is required of me, what would the mark scheme look like so I come close to it as possible? I also sometimes consider what other students will probably be thinking when they read the question, and try to avoid the mistakes they will make and traps they will fall into.
When I read other people's answers, it seems like people read the question and think it is a prompt for them to write about what they know on that topic. The skill in exam taking lies instead in being able to decipher those instructions from the lecturer, which are given in the form of questions (and can be very vague/cryptic at times). Alot of students are not confident enough in their preparation, so worry about what is the "right" answer. They need to have more solid preparation, and take the time to really consider the psychology behind the questions.
That's why you often hear lecturers and other people saying "answer the question!" over and over again. On a basic level, this is students who put down info that is completely unrelated to the question. On a more sophisticated level, "answering the question" is very difficult because it requires you to be able to understand how the lecturer thinks.
These exam taking skills definitely come from extensive experience in taking exams which are similar in style to health sci ones. Cambridge exams were great preparation for this because the same exam taking skills are required to achieve high percentages. Pouring over endless years of past papers, and gaining a ton of exposure to questions and more importantly what the mark schemes. Students can work on it by making sure their preparation is solid so they can focus their attention in the exam to thinking more deeply about the questions. But really, the major hurdle is the preparation, because alot of students struggle with the memorisation component, and also lack the insight to really understand the concepts.
It's especially important in exams like last year's HEAL test and final exam, where some questions were written poorly and you were left thinking "what on earth do you they want me to write?" That, along with the students struggling with the concepts, is what I think resulted in fairly poor results in that paper.
Last edited:
Public Liability
Regular Member
Aww crap, I wrote a deep long essay in respone to skyglow, but when I clicked to post, mso had somehow already logged me out and it vanished!
I'm not writing it again but what I want to point out is that it is actually very hard to do what you suggested (i.e. get in the mind of the examiners and have extensive prepartion etc), as many people unfortunatly aren't as determined, focused, or believe in themselves like you.
I feel I can speak on their behalf, as I used to be like that in my NCEA days. This year, I felt I changed for the better because I began to really believe in myself (yeah I know its sounding like a cliche), but the point I want to make is that people should keep 'fighting' despite rough times.
I'm assuming you faced many battles inside throughout the years?
I'm not writing it again but what I want to point out is that it is actually very hard to do what you suggested (i.e. get in the mind of the examiners and have extensive prepartion etc), as many people unfortunatly aren't as determined, focused, or believe in themselves like you.
I feel I can speak on their behalf, as I used to be like that in my NCEA days. This year, I felt I changed for the better because I began to really believe in myself (yeah I know its sounding like a cliche), but the point I want to make is that people should keep 'fighting' despite rough times.
I'm assuming you faced many battles inside throughout the years?
Well noone was really that motivated in high school. In my health sci year there were definitely struggles with having the motivation to trudge on through the work. I was very far from being focussed and determined. Alot of the time I would be driven more by the panick on realising how much there was to do and how little itme was left. Same story for this year too. What got me through health sci was having done cambridge, who's syllabus covered alot of the material already, so being prepared for the exam was not very difficult. I could spend most of my time trying to gain that last 5% in the exam instead.
Public Liability
Regular Member
That's the key. For most of us, the adrenaline starts pumping only a week before the exams, or for some even a few days before it.
Epi was definately an easy and manageable exam overall, and I was delighted at the way they made the difficult questions hard - for example do you remember that confidence intervals MCQ, where the options were "4.6 is the best estimate of the odds ratio", and "95% of the time, an odds ratio will lie within its confidence interval"? A nice little trick there...
Looking forward to going home - arriving back tomorrow
In terms of this business of motivation - yeah it really does vary. Last year I worked very hard at school because I was really determined to do well in scholarship, so this year wasn't actually a huge step up (certainly I was well used to 12 hour study days around exams). At the same time, there was the additional motivation this year of panic, and the huge amount of content - I do not have a great desire to enter discussion on the relative merits of the education systems (just let it be said that I am strongly in favour of NCEA), but the people I met who had done cambridge definately knew a lot more of the stuff before this year...
Looking forward to going home - arriving back tomorrow
In terms of this business of motivation - yeah it really does vary. Last year I worked very hard at school because I was really determined to do well in scholarship, so this year wasn't actually a huge step up (certainly I was well used to 12 hour study days around exams). At the same time, there was the additional motivation this year of panic, and the huge amount of content - I do not have a great desire to enter discussion on the relative merits of the education systems (just let it be said that I am strongly in favour of NCEA), but the people I met who had done cambridge definately knew a lot more of the stuff before this year...
Well I put "4.6 is the best estimate", because it is true, and because the other option didn't state 95% confidence - it could have been referring to a 90% CI for all we know.
Public Liability
Regular Member
Whoa nice spotting! I didn't even notice that, can you remember what the exact question was?
Don't remember the exact question, just that it was early on, and referring to an odds ratio estimate of 4.6, and the surrounding 95% CI. Pretty much irrelevant now - all that's left is to wait for the results. I just said it to give an example of the way in which many of the harder questions were (in my opinion) harder in a reasonable way (another case would be how the double burden question asked why it was more severe among the poor - NOT among the developing nations - subtle difference, but one requiring a bit more consideration).
None of the rubbish that was all too present in the first terms test whereby the hard questions were hard in the sense that they required you to know stupid and irrelevant little details.
None of the rubbish that was all too present in the first terms test whereby the hard questions were hard in the sense that they required you to know stupid and irrelevant little details.
- Status