MCB vs HSF. Which one's harder?

[M-D]

I quick question for any third year biomed students:

Which one was harder, MCB or HSF?

Thanks in advance.

[vea]

It depends what you enjoy. Personally, I liked HSF much more and found that memorising body parts and physiological systems was much easier than biochemical and molecular level pathways so I ended up studying a lot harder for it. Content wise, they are both very difficult and full on subjects and the MSTs and exams are at levels harder than the MSTs I have encountered in 3rd year so far.

[Belgarion]

Hey,

I was having a chat with the student centre about things similar to this and they said MCB has a lot higher failure rate than HSF. The main reason is that people have never done a 2 in 1 core subject before so they still think of it as one subject when it is in fact 2 and requires double the time. They said that by second semester this normally sinks in so people do a lot better in HSF.

[Turtle]

I don't think HSF is very hard in terms of understanding the content.
But it is hard in terms of the amount of content!
It's one of those subjects where you definitely get out what you put in.

[golden]

Apologies for the long post, but I think that it needs a discussion.
I personally found HSF harder.
I have bolded what I believe are the main tests of each subject.

MCB as a subject is more intense content wise, however is easier to work with compared to HSF. The pace is extremely quick, and if you fall a bit behind, I think you'd agree that you are in some trouble. For example, being a week behind can mean being 6-7 lectures and potentially also a 3 hour practical behind. Although, when I say it's easier to work with, I mean the course is run in a logical sequence and is taught and coordinated well. It is integrated nicely, and information is in context. The assessment and practicals are quite relevant to the respective fields, and broadens knowledge of the topics. There is very little speculation as to what will be and what won't be assessed, because it's almost all tested. Overall a great subject that really tests your ability to keep up throughout the year and also in the exam itself. Given the at stressful times and intensity, it did not take away at my enthusiasm and enjoyment of this subject, simply due to what I have discussed.

HSF however is one that is less intense in content, however harder to work with in general. The pace is such that if you fall behind, there is a greater chance you'll catch up, because of the reduced intensity and the idea that the course jumps around a bit. It will jump between physiology, anatomy and pharmacology a lot, such that if you miss some prior lectures you can still probably make sense of some later parts. There is however, little of that cohesiveness that was in MCB.
The nature of the course (this is discussed later) makes the the assessment hard. It was often out of context and based off material you either haven't learned about yet or will never go through, as Stonecold quotes:

Our [physiology] prac was on the cardiovascular and respiratory response to exercise, something which was never addressed in the lectures.  Once you have done the prac and gotten your data (which is train wreck and makes no sense), you then have to write up a discussion and explain the results.  The fact that the content is never taught and the data is inconsistent makes this a major drag.  We were left trawling through textbooks, journals etc. trying to make sense of everything.

Furthermore, for example, there was one stage where we had a number of specialists come in to lecture about content relevant to their field. Lots of interesting information was presented, though a super large amount of information was never assessed at all, instead replaced by exam questions that we never really went that deep into. This led to many people rushing confusingly to learn that information and style of question answering completely different from that in the lectures.
Hence HSF is a lot harder to understand what is required of you and how you are meant to successfully complete the subject. But perhaps this is deliberately done so. I do certainly feel that the assessment was more targeted to those who truly understood the material over those who just rote learned to a degree. It is interesting as a subject, because for the most part it was taught well, and I think it ultimately comes down to testing your ability to manage yourself and how you are going to get through this subject. How well can you deal with for example, not having been taught the material, or told where to look, and write up a practical that also combines in physics? How well can you integrate the content you have learned from many different lecturer perspectives to the different style of questions in the exam without becoming so confused you do not get anywhere? This subject almost sets you up for 'real' life in general it seems.

Spoiler

Note that the anatomy questions were written in a different manner than the pharmacology and physiology. They were totally based off the lectures and were short answer and MCQ. Pharmacology and physiology were MCQ mostly.