Probably best to have science in order to keep your options open as you said, in general there are a larger number of masters you can follow with etc.
If I want to do.. only up to bachelor degree, should I choose science instead of biomed?
but then if I get high enough score to get into biomed... wouldn't the score go to waste if I don't put biomed on top of science..? :'(
but then if I get high enough score to get into biomed... wouldn't the score go to waste if I don't put biomed on top of science..? :'(
by the time it's 2nd/3rd year, most Biomedicine students will find themselves doing subjects with those in Science anyway.
We've had some people drop out of Biomedicine already because they quickly realised that they were interested in other fields, rather than biomedical research and the like.
If you're not 100% set on biomedical research or something to do with healthcare (Medicine, Dentistry, Physio, etc), you should do Science. Because at lease you keep your options open in other fields, such as Chemistry or Physics or Geology, etc. You can still study the life sciences in a Science degree too - by the time it's 2nd/3rd year, most Biomedicine students will find themselves doing subjects with those in Science anyway.
The cohort is a good thing though - it's very family like and closely knit, since there's only like 400 people in the degree.
most Biomedicine students will find themselves doing subjects with those in Science anyway.
If I want to do.. only up to bachelor degree, should I choose science instead of biomed?
but then if I get high enough score to get into biomed... wouldn't the score go to waste if I don't put biomed on top of science..? :'(
Also consider doing biomedicine at Monash if you are thinking about doing med later. I can't speak for UOM (so do not know how they give their offers) but for monash post graduate pathway, they give majority of places to the biomedicine students studying at monash. This is what i heard from someone studying at gippsland medical school.
I think that change is for 2015 entry, so definitely Monash Biomed > Monash Sci.
Also consider doing biomedicine at Monash if you are thinking about doing med later. I can't speak for UOM (so do not know how they give their offers) but for monash post graduate pathway, they give majority of places to the biomedicine students studying at monash. This is what i heard from someone studying at gippsland medical school.
I think that change is for 2015 entry, so definitely Monash Biomed > Monash Sci.
I think that change is for 2015 entry, so definitely Monash Biomed > Monash Sci.
Sorry, I'm not sure if I'm quite following this. What do you mean?
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.
Apparently theres a provisional entry scheme for med that theyre trying to implement at monash
Has anyone heard of Monash moving to MD only? My mate there doing BSc said that he heard something about it.
Has anyone heard of Monash moving to MD only? My mate there doing BSc said that he heard something about it.
The Biology subject we do first year is much better because it skips over plants and allows you to go a little more in depth with human stuff.
Also consider doing biomedicine at Monash if you are thinking about doing med later. I can't speak for UOM (so do not know how they give their offers) but for monash post graduate pathway, they give majority of places to the biomedicine students studying at monash. This is what i heard from someone studying at gippsland medical school.Yup, at Open Day they said as of 2014 graduate MBBS at Monash will take at least 50/75 from Monash Biomed.
Some people wouldn't count learning as a downside :P
If its anything like monash (and i assume it is) it is really only a week or two out of the entire course. Just because it might not be necessarily useful doesn't mean it cant be enjoyable or important to learn. Same with stuff like evolution or animal diversity.
I think there's a new graduate pathway into med. being implemented for monash's biomed. cohort starting 2014. On open day, they mentioned that this pathway will allow 2nd year biomed. students, who maintain an average of atleast 70, to simply take the MMI interviews (no GAMSAT) and possibly receive a conditional offer for a graduate entry into med. depending on the combination of their uni. average & interview score ; students who receive the conditional offer will do selected subjects in their third year in Biomed. and start Med. the year after.
The amount of spots that'll be offered through this pathway are still being confirmed, according to Monash's Biomed. lecture on open day.
There are rumours, but not anytime relevant for members here.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Where am I making that assumption?
Whoever fills the places, they still make 2700 units of fees comparing to Monash's 1500.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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'.
LOL yeah you're pretty close to the top mate :P Thanks for making noobs like me feel bad :P
Pretty simple question to answer, to Biomedicine students, do you notice a 'spike' in your grades when comparing biomedicine and non-biomedicine subjects?Hell yes. hopefully that suffices
Hell yes. hopefully that suffices
You all complain about 'Chem for Biomedicine' and yet like 5 people 85+'ed that. Maths subjects, however, seem to be far harder.
Amen.
Thanks for making noobs like me feel bad :P
The first year core subjects aren't amazingly difficult.
When 39% of people are getting H1s, I figured that the faculty would've moderated the marks.
I study. A lot. In fact I usually take about 30 minutes break a day. Today was a one off because I accidentally forgot my iPad at home and --> could not study on the train. If you're going to sit there and tell me my course is 'easy', well then okay, but I'm going to tell you otherwise. I wouldn't work as hard as I do if I didn't feel challenged. Getting a mark above 90 is about detail, not concepts and not understanding when you take a major like mine or any other Biologically oriented major for the most part. Memorising that detail will be the same whether you do Biomed or Science. Furthermore, since most of you try to get into Medicine, where it actually counts most towards your GPA you are literally in a cohort with Science students. So, apparently, you should see that as an advantage because those Science students are terribly underprepared what with their easy foundation subjects leading up to their major? You should be laughing.
We all have shit to do. Get it done and stop complaining.
Well well well, was speaking to a girl I know and she supplied me with this:Failing this subject has the consequences that you may not be able to continue the course if I am not mistaken. If you are at risk of failing, there are usually fall back mechanisms. Hence the spike in the P if I am not mistaken.
2013 Mollecular and Ceullar Biomedicine results:
H1 21.0%
H2A 9.8%
H2B 13.5%
H3 11.1%
P 31.7%
N 11.6%
11.6% fail rate is pretty small. Not sure what the fail rate for eng comp/eng mech/FoEN/EngMATH but when I did it, I'd say it was a lot higher for 11.6% in all of them.
21.0% is a very high H1 rate as well. You don't get that in Real Analysis that's for sure.
Well well well, was speaking to a girl I know and she supplied me with this:
2013 Mollecular and Ceullar Biomedicine results:
H1 21.0%
H2A 9.8%
H2B 13.5%
H3 11.1%
P 31.7%
N 11.6%
11.6% fail rate is pretty small. Not sure what the fail rate for eng comp/eng mech/FoEN/EngMATH but when I did it, I'd say it was a lot higher for 11.6% in all of them.
21.0% is a very high H1 rate as well. You don't get that in Real Analysis that's for sure.
Failing this subject has the consequences that you may not be able to continue the course if I am not mistaken. If you are at risk of failing, there are usually fall back mechanisms. Hence the spike in the P if I am not mistaken.
I study. A lot. In fact I usually take about 30 minutes break a day.
That is pretty much every subject at any university, lol.
There is no bell-curve in maths subjects, I've had that confirmed, they're just insanely hard.
Absolutely get in contact with them! Better to hear any information from the actual institution than anyone else
I don't have much to add to your academic prowess simpak (I've posted about that already), but kudos for typing such a coherent (and lenghty) post whilst drunk! :D
I'm a big advocate of taking significant breaks from study to do other things. Out of interest, simpak, how well do you feel you cope with so little time away from study? Is it just a routine you've gotten used to over time?
if 11.6% is a normal fail rate, then ok. it still seems high to me.
That is pretty much every subject at any university, lol.So are you saying that if you fail a course in any subject in every university you won't be able to continue your course?
Chemistry 2 definitely has a high fail rate. I know a girl who has failed it twice and potentially thrice!
I hope she went to the learning centre!
golden nobody kicks you out of Biomedicine if you fail a subject you just get held back. And in answer to your question, I have several friends that have failed subjects at a variety of universities (Melbourne, Monash, Latrobe) and all of them have seen their course extended in some way. I think that's what 816 was trying to say :)Lol, that is what I meant, thanks for the correction. I didn't literally mean that if you failed a subject you will have to disregard all of your years behind you (for what I was talking about) :D and gg to all that has been up until this point.
Chemistry 2 definitely has a high fail rate. I know a girl who has failed it twice and potentially thrice!
11.6% is a disastrously low fail rate.
ENGR20004 - Engineering Mechanics - 35% fail rate the semester before I did it
MAST20029 - Engineering Mathematics - ~25% fail rate if I remember from the first lecture last sem
ELEN20005 - Foundation of Electrical Networks - I did it in summer and ~80% of the people there were repeats.
Also to note, I thought H1s were reserved for the top 5-7%. 21% H1 grade is a huge proportion of the class imo.
I heard that accounting usually has a 30-40% fail rate.
As for med...we had about a 5% fail rate, and for each of our exams we usually have about 10% of the cohort getting above 80 and about 4% above 85.
As for med...we had about a 5% fail rate, and for each of our exams we usually have about 10% of the cohort getting above 80 and about 4% above 85.
Also, being such similar courses (BSc(biology major) and BBiomed), obviously there is going to be some rivalry as to which one is better. The real question is who gives a fuck?Well, people who want to learn more about the courses may wonder what the differences are between the courses, but not really which one is a superior course etc.
The first year core subjects aren't amazingly difficult. For our cohort, lots of people (by lots I think maybe half of the cohort or more) seem to have gotten H1 in Biomolecules, 39% got H1 for Maths, EDDA has 120 marks but is only calculated out of 100 marks (so you have a 20 mark buffer for 100%), and I'd say a decent number would've gotten a H1 in Chemistry too. First year cores are not that bad.
It's the 2nd/3rd year cores that a lot of people seem to struggle with though
40% of students getting H1 is a disgrace. They should make the subject harder IMO.Well it's first year bio, it's practically the same from course to course. It's just that you're more likely to be comparing from groups with different distributions as an average statement. Making it harder is going to make the system weirder.
It mostly just exists because people in Biomedicine somehow believe having a double subject worth 25 points which is pretty much just like doing two separate subjects but in one thing which is worth more and therefore you take 3 subjects is 'harder' than doing the two subject separately. No dice, it's really not.Harder, maybe not, work load, maybe as I have mentioned previously, is a possibly yes. At the end of the day, I think that it's only just as far as BIOM20001 is concerned in my experience (2nd year) [of which people may not agree with which is totally fine], because HSF (another double subject) is exactly the same as the Science equivalents, with a few removed things here and there patching it up with other parts. Hence I do not believe that it is worth arguing/comparing even if it is harder/easier/the same because this is just one subject; I do not know how this is meant to totally reflect a course.
We are equals, it is possible for Science and Biomedicine students to coexist when Biomedicine students don't insist on acting as if they are 'superior'. And before people get pissy at me over that comment, note that I don't think that most Biomedicine students think in this way at all. Most of the ones I plan on associating with anyway. Just some of them, and they tend to be the ones that have the most opinions in these debates.I think it's disgusting for anyone to think/act as if they are superior. But there are people like this in every course.
Just because the content may differ (slightly) or you have a more integrated subject (isn't this why you were doing Biomedicine in the first place?) doesn't mean that it's harder at all.I'm not going to read back on posts as seriously cbs but I don't think anyone here strongly argued that slightly different content was a justification as to why the subject was harder, nor integration. I am getting a bit confused. I apologise. I have been suboptimal for the duration of this day.
Wrt people getting 98 ATARs failing, what even are you trying to say? You need a 98 ATAR to get into the course. Plenty of people fail Science subjects too. More people fail Science subjects because more people are enrolled in Science. Like, statistically, someone is going to fail for one reason or another. No matter how 'smart' they are meant to be. Who cares what your ATAR is?Tick.
Who mentioned me! I'd say it's not a good reader of stuff in general because Stonecold is smarter than me!!! So if his subject were harder then he would get around the same mark as me because it's harder but I am dumber and my subject would be easier --> same mark. I have always considered Stonecold and I to be equals in terms of the similar coursework we do (intelligent, no, I am much less equipped). I'm sure he would consider us to be the same. The third year Biomedicine students I know have issues with their course but those issues don't really come down to how 'hard' they feel equivalent subjects are. Sometimes they feel their weird Biomed only subjects eg M2M are hard on them, but you can't compare that to Science. It's like comparing apples and oranges. There is no equivalent. To flesh out the sample set, Stonecold and I both got 96 in those BIOM200whatever/MIIM200whatever subjects and 96 in Immunology. However, my inability to finish exams in time saw us separated on Bacteriology which is the other continuation of that subject ;)I agree. Also, using stonecold and mavisgibbons as a reason to explain the courses at the end of the day makes no sense to me lol. Legends at the game, yes, but in terms of viability as a representative reason as to justify the whole course in totality of which are Science and Biomedicine is ~~~.
This thread is cute. Fail rates in a vacuum are not a good indicator of the difficulty of the course. The average (Melbourne) biomedicine degree is more challenging than the average science degree. People care way too much about this.
(and of course the cohort has a high level of motivation)Which is why they got into Med in the first place. It's the same with biomed over science (mostly), given the ATAR discrepancies. I do realise there are plenty of science students who could have gotten into biomed if they wanted, but it's a minority of a sizeable cohort.
This thread is cute. Fail rates in a vacuum are not a good indicator of the difficulty of the course. The average (Melbourne) biomedicine degree is more challenging than the average science degree. People care way too much about this.
Why are anecdotes more valid than actual data like the spread of marks?
I say "average" because there's some variability in every degree. The capstone and core subjects were more challenging than a similar year science subject in a similar field (this is obviously a personal opinion, but it's based on comparison to experiences and opinions of a couple of good friends).
Pass rates, fail rates and H1 rates are not defining indicators of how 'hard' or 'easy' a course is and are bad ways to assess this in the absence of other considerations. Saying that because more people get above 80 in course X, it is easier than course Y is a non sequitur.
People care way too much about this.
lol, that is such bullshit from Monash. I used to respect the university for having some sort of 'common-sense' that UoM seemed to lack in favour of the dollar. I retract that, they're just as money-orientated.
And a university is a business, after all.Uhm it is?
Just I've known ~20 or so Biomed students (from high school and uni) and they weren't a particularly talented bunch. Above average, yes, but no so much that 20%+ of them should get H1s. I have a feeling they actually make it easier to get H1s in Biomed because they know everyone wants med.
Uhm it is?
They are being run as such due to pressure by the Federal government, but they shouldn't be.
Both my friend and I emailed Monash and they have gotten back to my friend, but not me yet. Monash has confirmed that students who enter their Biomedical Science degree in 2014 will be able to obtain a conditional offer for Medicine/Surgery based on their first year marks and an interview. 150 students will be interviewed, but the other details are still being worked out.
Why are anecdotes more valid than actual data like the spread of marks?
For obvious reasons the argument in itself is not conclusive.
Just I've known ~20 or so Biomed students (from high school and uni) and they weren't a particularly talented bunch. Above average, yes, but no so much that 20%+ of them should get H1s. I have a feeling they actually make it easier to get H1s in Biomed because they know everyone wants med.
Rubbish really. Especially considering that our third year subjects, where the GPA matters the most, are identical to the science ones.
Actually...I wouldn't blame them so much. Apparently Gippsland Medical School has blown their budget on their delivery of the MBBS.
And a university is a business, after all.
The data posted (I have no idea where it came from, but I'll accept it for argument's sake) doesn't demonstrate that one course is more or less challenging than the other. If the disagreement was over me saying that nobody gets H1s or that everybody fails subjects, it would be substantially more relevant. I absolutely disagree that you can look at data on pass/fail rates and draw conclusions about subject difficulty, without taking context into account. Private schools produce better marks than public schools, but presumably the subjects taught there aren't of a lesser difficulty or assessed easier (yes, the analogy is inexact, but all analogies are).
I cannot tell what you are trying to say here, but I thought I was the one being criticized for making sweeping generalizations based on no evidence.
Except the biomedicine exclusive ones?
I think a far more pertinent fact is that Gippsland was sold to Ballarat Uni, and this is having all sorts of under the hood issues with delivery of the MBBS course apparently. I was talking to a doc last night in downtime and he elaborated a bit.
Except the biomedicine exclusive ones?
Shouldn't it be 50% coming from Science, since the 2nd & 3rd year Biomedicine cores count as a double subject.
Wouldn't it be too late? It's for first year students starting next year.
Yes, all three possibilities. The two capstones, which are the bane of Biomed according to everyone I've spoken too (and which, in science, can be replaced by easier, relatively speaking, science subjects) and the one possible subject that is particularly to Defence and Disease. Otherwise, 75% of the third year GPA is coming from science anyway.
I don't see why you'd want to go through the hassle of transferring, given you don't get a guaranteed place, you just get an increased chance for a single university. If it was a guarantee, people would probably take it, but for a marginal advantage it just seems not worth moving universities.
That's completely different to what you said, which was that the third year subjects in biomedicine are identical to the science ones. The capstone subjects can't be replaced by science subjects, since they have no equivalent subjects in science. The semester 1 capstone is excellent, the semester 2 capstone is average.
That's completely different to what you said, which was that the third year subjects in biomedicine are identical to the science ones. The capstone subjects can't be replaced by science subjects, since they have no equivalent subjects in science. The semester 1 capstone is excellent, the semester 2 capstone is average.Fair enough, I should have been more specific. The subjects that form a major are identical. Science students get the choice of doing an elective, Biomed students have to do the capstone subjects.
That would be enough motivating for me.
+1, if it were me I would probably transfer if I could.
Hi [removed],
The information you have heard is correct. The selectors for the Graduate Medicine program are still working out the finer details. However, the students entering BBiomedSc in 2014 will have an opportunity to receive a conditional offer for a place in the Graduate Medicine program. They will look at the student’s academic results and will plan to interview approximately 150 students. I understand that these students will not need to sit the GAMSAT. Given that selection into the Medicine component will be conducted by staff associated with the Graduate Medicine program, it would be best to direct further questions to them.
Kind regards,
[removed]
Got some news!
It's officially confirmed guys.
Ugh. I disapproved of this when Melbourne did it and I disapprove of it now that Monash are chasing Melbourne's structure to attract VCE students without regard for the actual undergraduate -> postgraduate system.
It won't leave you with any more options if you just do a major that is also available in Biomedicine.That being said, you do have the option to do a lot of elective subjects in Science that you couldn't in Biomed even if you were majoring in the same thing. Or you could do a double major in something not available in Biomed.
That being said, you do have the option to do a lot of elective subjects in Science that you couldn't in Biomed even if you were majoring in the same thing. Or you could do a double major in something not available in Biomed.
You can't do a double major in uom bsci. Otherwise you're correct, but I'm interested to see what it is duhherro thinks he/she can do with science but not biomed if you do an MDHS major.Oh really? I've been under the impression that you could, my bad.
You can do the subjects for two majors and have them appear on your transcriptYeah this is sort of what I meant in the first instance (it's a similar deal with Arts). So if you do Science as opposed to Biomed you could do the subjects for a typical Biomed major as well as the subjects for a major that's not available in Biomed.
Yeah this is sort of what I meant in the first instance (it's a similar deal with Arts). So if you do Science as opposed to Biomed you could do the subjects for a typical Biomed major as well as the subjects for a major that's not available in Biomed.
It'd be quite difficult to do two unrelated majors though, so that makes that a little less feasible. Though a lot of Biomed kids do physiology and HSF, because the electives for phys and core in HSF and vice versa.Difficult in terms of logistics or academics?
Difficult in terms of logistics or academics?Logistics. Although come to think of it, maybe not so much actually! Because we have core and that reduces our selectives in third year. Whereas in science you could feasibly have eight and thus have two majors.