Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Neuroscience in UCD?
Options
-
24-11-2013 9:27pm#1
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
beardedmaster wrote: »What don't/didn't you like about neuro?
The year I started was the first year of general entry into science for everyone (no subject picking on CAO), so it's possible that being the "trial run year" affected our course. I'll outline my issues with the four years anyway:
I found first year incredibly dull. My hand was forced into taking subjects I had zero interest in and which didn't benefit my desired path, such as geology and biology modules about animal lineage, zoology and incessant talk of worms. Classes were huge and impersonal, labs were dull and tedious, and I wasn't studying topics of interest or future benefit to me (bar one or two things).
In second year I had to take 4 streams because of overlap between them. I was only interested in pharmacology and neuroscience, yet still had to suffer and struggle through physiology and genetics. I felt it wasteful and tiring. We could have been doing modules of actual interest and benefit. We were also the trial year for one or two modules that I won't name. For a certain module even other lecturers were at their wits end by the poor organisation by the coordinator.
Third year, in terms of topics being relevant etc, was a bit better. Of course, this is because one actually specialises at this point. However, the year was far from faultless. It was very tough and stressful. Labs weren't organised well so they ended up on top of each other, making life more difficult than necessary. They often weren't well outlined either, so students (and demonstrators, not always their fault) generally didn't know what was going on or what was expected of us.
Heading into 4th year we were supposed to be given our final year project details in May/June but got them in August. In 4th year you do either a lab based project or a literature review project. It's been noted by students that the lecturers (on a whole) seem a lot more focused on the lab people than the lit review people. I must say my supervisor has been excellent in fairness, credit where credit is due. Though I still agree that us lit reviewers seemed a little left out.
I'll be able to give a more informed opinion on the actual 4th year classes once I've finished the next semester. So far though, they haven't been great. I'm avoiding specifics here, because it wouldn't be appropriate to finger point. One was dull, difficult and taught very hurriedly (meaning it was basically self taught, making the workload huge). One had half the module seem very thrown together, lectures weren't really lectures; only a few notes and a massive reading list were given. One which wasn't previously done by neuro students wasn't really catered to us, in that a huge amount of previous (non-neuro) knowledge was assumed, but was impossible for us to learn ourselves in one semester.
More general issues over the 4 years that students have noted are:
Illinformed/misinformed lab demonstrators - one will say one thing to you, another will say something else. There can also be massive variation in their grading; meaning where one might give a B, another might give a D, which is very unfair. I'm not picking on the demonstrators, they're generally really cool and it's not their fault, it's poor organisation of the labs. Though I do take issue with a demonstrator who had to google a simple question I asked in first year (what is the interphase in cell division). And one who was looking for a rat's stomach for several minutes underneath its ribs, until it was kindly suggested to them that the stomach isn't usually above the liver
.
Poor lecture notes - now, I know these are technically at the discretion of the lecturer, but when a lecture is rushed through so fast that you actually can't take down sufficient notes, you expect the slides to be helpful, or at least legible. I've had slides where the text/diagrams/graphs are so small that they are illegible and are blurry when zoomed in. We were told to somehow learn and be able to replicate diagrams/graphs like this. I really don't see how that could be possible.
Changing exams without prior notice - there have been exams where students were (explicitly) told certain layouts/marking that weren't implimented. Once it was said there would be two essays in the final exam, but on the day it turned out to be three. In one it was said that there was no negative marking, but on the day there suddenly was (-0.5 instead of -0.2 for a 5 option MCQ, which in itself is incredibly unfair, if you understand how neg marking works). And being told there will be multiple shorter questions, but on the day turned into essay questions.
Whether purposeful or unintentional, this kind of thing really isn't fair, it throws off the student for no good reason.
Content (specifically neuro content) - The class has never been shown a human brain. You do little/no: neuro anatomy, neuropsychology, cognition, behaviour, etc. Basically you do neural development, ascending/descending tracts, boring muscle stuff, memory (a little on learning), ion channels/membrane biology, and god damned Alzheimer's disease; over and over again you do friggin Alzheimer's disease! No seriously, UCD has an obsession with Alzheimer's disease.
Finally:
Being put off science - Less than a fifth of people in neuro this year want to continue in neuroscience or related science areas, and a number left after third year. Take from that what you will.
Hope that clarifies a few things. I hate to come across as a Negative Nancy, but after four years and thousands and thousands of euro spent on a college life and education, I feel like stupid and fixable things like this make the course a complete balls.
It's probably best if I don't get into a rant about everything that is wrong about UCD as a whole (THEY WILL TAKE YOUR MONEY AND SANITY AT EVERY OPPORTUNITY), because that's for another thread.
Best of luck in your studies, whatever you are/will be doing.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
Ill informed lab demonstrators:beardedmaster wrote: »This is all new to me. I never experienced anything of this like at all.
This is 100% true. I could list the modules that it happened in, but I'd rather not start naming names online.
Poor lecture notes:beardedmaster wrote: »See above. Never had any problem with lecture notes.
Again, 100% true. I can upload screenshots of slides, but again I'm afraid of naming names (it's obvious what lecturers the slides belong to).
Changing marking:beardedmaster wrote: »If that is the case, that's pretty bad. I find it hard it believe though.
I'm hardly lying. The one were we were told the exam was two essays and it turned out to be three was unbelievable. I went into the hall in the RDS and couldnt understand why there were three answer books. Everyone around me was confused aswell. Turned over the paper and there it said to answer three. This was a module taken by multiple streams and everyone was pretty pissed off about it.
The one were the short answer questions turned into an essay happened to us last week. The lecturer responsible has been known to tell a few fibs to us before.
Really the worst was the negative marking one. I swear on my life we sat down to take the midterm and (s)he said "Oh, I decided to apply negative marking. And to be honest you should be able to narrow it down to two answers, so it's -0.5".
I promise you am not lying or exaggerating.beardedmaster wrote: »There was at least 2 psychology modules as options for Neuro students when I was there, and there was most definitely a module where students learned a good deal of neuroanatomy, and included examining brain and spinal cord specimens in the dissection room - it was awesome. Alzheimer's disease is a key research focus worldwide at the moment, as something needs to be done about it fairly sharpish. Also, if you notice, the title of the 4th year semester 1 Neuropharm module is about Neurodegenerative diseases, which Alzheimer's most definitely is.
Key words I'm afraid: "when I was there". The psychology options were removed. We haven't done neuroanatomy or any disections, and haven't had the option. I'm not dissing Alzheimer's research as such, just getting weary of studying they same thing over and over. The title of the 4th year sem1 neuropharm module is now Advanced Neuropharmacology, and it's no longer just about neurodegeneration, I did the exam yesterday.beardedmaster wrote: »People complain about this one so much. I never had to pay any money for extra stuff, at any point. Didn't fail any exams, which might've helped.
[A little off topic, but the student centre levy is €231; Res fines (which are handed out like sweeties) are €100-€300; exam repeats are €230 each; lab coats are €30, disection kits €~15, chemistry kit are €50, lab manuals are, as of two years ago, either €5-€10 or print and bind them yourself, etc. etc.]
I know UCD has a great reputation, and in the past science here was brilliant. But honestly the standard has dropped so much. The course is a bit of a shambles. The class as a whole are very worn out and will be very happy to see the back of neuro!
I hope I don't come across as attacking, but I'm not exaggerating or telling untruths. I really think people should see what they're getting into and see the side of things not portrayed in the lovely shiny prospectus. 0 -
-
Advertisement