Differences between bachelor of biomed and bachelor of science?

[816]

For God's sakes do science instead of Biomed. The subjects are far harder in Biomed and they often mush together two large and complex subjects to make one super crazy subject that the entire cohort is afraid of failing. If i could choose again, id choose science.

I really really doubt that. And it's a weak argument to say that because they merge the subjects into one it makes it any harder than taking two separate subjects. I had some bioengineering major students from biomedicine in my subjects in undergrad who were considering engineering as a back-up to med. None of them did particularly well and they were pretty average in assignment work, so I can't picture that they somehow 'change' when taking biomed subjects.

[slothpomba]

Didn't Monash and Melbourne sign a 99-year agreement that Monash cannot shift to the undergrad-postgrad model for its degrees as Melbourne has?

I have no idea if thats true but logic tells you it isn't. At the end of the day, UoM and Monash are competing. Why would Monash sign a (more or less) perpetual agreement with a competitor locking it into something? Especially when Monash loses out and has nothing to gain, with UoM sacrificing nothing as well.

[thushan]

That would be, I presume, the entire two-tiered system. Nothing stops Monash from making Medicine only a graduate-only degree.

Even then, IF Monash ever ends up going MD, chances are I think it will use the UNCLE model (a 2 year Bachelor of Medical Science or Medical Studies or something like that with an overload - so completion of 24 units over 2 years instead of over 3 years), or it might do a 3+3 model.

And sloth, I've heard of that agreement too - the idea is that students have access to both models.

[816]

That would be, I presume, the entire two-tiered system. Nothing stops Monash from making Medicine only a graduate-only degree.

Even then, IF Monash ever ends up going MD, chances are I think it will use the UNCLE model (a 2 year Bachelor of Medical Science or Medical Studies or something like that with an overload - so completion of 24 units over 2 years instead of over 3 years), or it might do a 3+3 model.

And sloth, I've heard of that agreement too - the idea is that students have access to both models.

To be honest, I can't see Monash holding out with the undergrad MBBS model much longer, strictly because it's not nearly as profitable as Melbourne Uni's med degree.

There's always going to be a massive demand for medicine degrees. Consider as per the following:

1 unit = 1 unit of fees to simplify the numbers.

Monash has a 5 year degree for ~300 students or so so it makes 5 x 300 = 1500 units of fees.

Melbourne has a 3 year degree with approx 500 students = 1500 units of fees + 300 or so students x 4 years = 1200 units of fees. All up, 2700.

But Melbourne can also charge FFPs which bumps that up even further.

The net result is that Melbourne makes nearly double the money off its medical degree than Monash does. I think with time, that will ultimately push Monash to post-grad.

[thushan]

You're assuming that all of Melbourne's MD people are from...Melbourne. Not necessarily true.

Plus, if Monash were to have an MD, it CANNOT charge full fees I believe, according to Australian Medical Council. Melbourne can't increase its quota of full fee positions either.

[816]

You're assuming that all of Melbourne's MD people are from...Melbourne. Not necessarily true.

Plus, if Monash were to have an MD, it CANNOT charge full fees I believe, according to Australian Medical Council. Melbourne can't increase its quota of full fee positions either.

Where am I making that assumption?

Whoever fills the places, they still make 2700 units of fees comparing to Monash's 1500.

[golden]

I really really doubt that. And it's a weak argument to say that because they merge the subjects into one it makes it any harder than taking two separate subjects. I had some bioengineering major students from biomedicine in my subjects in undergrad who were considering engineering as a back-up to med. None of them did particularly well and they were pretty average in assignment work, so I can't picture that they somehow 'change' when taking biomed subjects.

I don't know whether it's actually harder, but I would say that it's a lot of work nonetheless, because with a subject like BIOM20001 they go through biochemistry, genetics, cell biology, immunology and microbiology and pathology in one where they have relatively few lectures each, making the course dense. They often do not finish their lectures, hence adding a 7th lecture for the week.
They need to get their material done in that short time because it is meant to set you up with the grounding for any of those pathways you choose, like how the 2 weeks of Immunology/Microbiology we did was meant to set us up for the second semester subject Microbes in contrast with the first semester subject Principles of Microbiology Immunology for science students. I would personally have preferred the semester long subject, because it would have been more concentrated on one field, but I felt that at the same time having a grounding of all these topics alongside direct integration of the information presented and tested (half of the exam was integrated knowledge in these fields) was quite useful despite 'only' being a second year subject (most biomed lecturers from first, second and third year once in a while hold a meeting or something discussing what and how they will present information etc).

Anyway, I do not know too much about all of this stuff, and I am open to discussions or refutations.

[thushan]

Where am I making that assumption?

Whoever fills the places, they still make 2700 units of fees comparing to Monash's 1500.

Ah. Fair.

Even then, Monash also has a Biomedical Science degree with a certain intake too...

Point is, either way, both unis have their degrees:

Bachelor of Biomedicine - Bachelor of Biomedical Science
Bachelor of Medicine/Bachelor of Surgery (U'Grad + Grad) - Doctor of Medicine

Those have relatively independent intakes across unis. Remember Monash also has graduate medicine - albeit with a significantly smaller intake.

[abeybaby]

I really really doubt that. And it's a weak argument to say that because they merge the subjects into one it makes it any harder than taking two separate subjects. I had some bioengineering major students from biomedicine in my subjects in undergrad who were considering engineering as a back-up to med. None of them did particularly well and they were pretty average in assignment work, so I can't picture that they somehow 'change' when taking biomed subjects.

Ive been trying to find the average marks for subjects in biomed vs average marks for their singular counterparts. unfortunately, i cant find them anywhere, so all i can say is that the double subjects were (and still are) incredibly hard, and when comparing what the science students have been telling me about their equivalent subjects with how i (and my friends) feel about the biomed subjects, i would say they are much harder.
BIOM20001 for example, 3 of my friends (atars if 98-99) failed that subject. Last semester, we had a subject which had a mid-semester test with an average of i think it was 60%. I know this isnt concrete data, but this is how i feel, and i think its a valid feeling.

[vox nihili]

Ive been trying to find the average marks for subjects in biomed vs average marks for their singular counterparts. unfortunately, i cant find them anywhere, so all i can say is that the double subjects were (and still are) incredibly hard, and when comparing what the science students have been telling me about their equivalent subjects with how i (and my friends) feel about the biomed subjects, i would say they are much harder.
BIOM20001 for example, 3 of my friends (atars if 98-99) failed that subject. Last semester, we had a subject which had a mid-semester test with an average of i think it was 60%. I know this isnt concrete data, but this is how i feel, and i think its a valid feeling.

As a first year Biomed student....shit.

[816]

Ive been trying to find the average marks for subjects in biomed vs average marks for their singular counterparts. unfortunately, i cant find them anywhere, so all i can say is that the double subjects were (and still are) incredibly hard, and when comparing what the science students have been telling me about their equivalent subjects with how i (and my friends) feel about the biomed subjects, i would say they are much harder.
BIOM20001 for example, 3 of my friends (atars if 98-99) failed that subject. Last semester, we had a subject which had a mid-semester test with an average of i think it was 60%. I know this isnt concrete data, but this is how i feel, and i think its a valid feeling.

Atars honestly don't mean shit. Most of the time it just means, 'I went to a private school'. I got a >99 ATAR and I get beaten by people who got ATARs in the 80s.

Stonecold and Simpak seem to get similar grades across the equivlanet subjects and identical grades in subjects that they both get so I'd say the subjects are about the same.

[thushan]

Atars honestly don't mean shit. Most of the time it just means, 'I went to a private school'. I got a >99 ATAR and I get beaten by people who got ATARs in the 80s.

Stonecold and Simpak seem to get similar grades across the equivlanet subjects and identical grades in subjects that they both get so I'd say the subjects are about the same.

Concur. I got the highest ATAR, but I'm nowhere near the top of my cohort in Med. My ATAR was due to experience, the nature of my subjects and pushy parents.

[pi]

Stonecold and Simpak seem to get similar grades across the equivlanet subjects and identical grades in subjects that they both get so I'd say the subjects are about the same.

In fairness, those two could probably get 90+ in any biology-ish unit in any course, they just work that hard and are just that good at what they do. Probably not the best examples to prove a point

Concur. I got the highest ATAR, but I'm nowhere near the top of my cohort in Med. My ATAR was due to experience, the nature of my subjects and pushy parents.

LOL yeah you're pretty close to the top mate Thanks for making noobs like me feel bad

[abeybaby]

Yes, i very much agree that Atar is quite a poor predictor of university success, but its the only predictor i can offer to people when trying to convey the difficulty of BIOM20001

[golden]

Atars honestly don't mean shit. Most of the time it just means, 'I went to a private school'. I got a >99 ATAR and I get beaten by people who got ATARs in the 80s.

Stonecold and Simpak seem to get similar grades across the equivlanet subjects and identical grades in subjects that they both get so I'd say the subjects are about the same.

That is just one sample 'set'.