Subject Code/Name: GENE20002: Genes and GenomesWorkload:Contact Hours: 3 x one hour lectures per week, 1 x one hour problem class per week.
Total Time Commitment: Estimated total time commitment of 170 hours
Assessment: A written class test held mid-semester (10%); two online assigments of equal value during the semester (15% in total); a 2-hour written examination in the examination period (75%)
Lectopia Enabled: Yes, with screen capture.
Past exams available: Yes, the 2006, 2008 and 2010 exams are provided for revision of both the mid-semester test and the final exam.
Textbook Recommendation: A J Griffiths et al,
Introduction to Genetic Analysis, 10th Ed. W H Freeman and Co.
I had it from GENE20001 Principles of Genetics but didn't use it this semester. However, I know that it relates to GENE20002 a lot better than GENE20001. It's not that difficult to "find" (*cough*) so it might be worth having.
For John's lectures there are often short handouts that he likes you to read. I didn't read them.
Lecturer(s):Weeks 1-4, 10: Assoc Prof Meryl Davis - Molecular genetics
Weeks 5-6, 8-9, 11: Dr John Golz - Genomics
Week 12: Prof Phil Batterham (guest lecturer)
Problem-solving class teacher: Stephen Hardy
Year & Semester of completion: Semester 2 2015
Rating: 3.5/5
Your Mark/Grade: H1
Comments:I'm trying not to sound corrupted here, but I swear this is the easiest subject I've done at university to date (and for those who have taken GENE20001 will know, that's saying something). It's so easy I almost feel like it's a cause for concern. The key reason I found it easier than GENE20001 is that there's little maths involved; it's mainly a subject about understanding the theory, so as long as you get it the assessment is largely a matter of recall rather than trying to avoid silly careless mistakes. In addition to those looking for lighter workloads or a boost to their university results, I'd say that this subject is suitable to anyone from a non Science/Biomedicine degree looking to continue with a biology-related breadth. GENE20001 is not a prerequisite (or even recommended, for that matter) and while there is a small degree of overlap, anything relevant from GENE20001 that comes up in GENE20002 is explained again.
I took this subject after having taken BIOM20001 Molecular and Cellular Biomedicine (and GENE20001), having decided that genetics was something I didn't mind and wanting to explore it a little bit more to see if it was something I wanted to major in. BIOM20001 and GENE20001 (along with a biomedical practical subject - I took MIIM20002 Microbes, Infections and Responses) covered me in terms of prerequisites but I thought that GENE20002 would allow me to complete the picture a little bit better. I also had a feeling it would be relatively light (and I can say now that it certainly is) and that I could manage it in place of a breadth subject this semester. There was a notable overlap in content from BIOM20001, although at no point did I feel it was so significant that I felt pointless doing this subject. Often this subject went into more detail, or explained the concept better than it was in BIOM20001 (e.g. Hox genes). However, there were one or two things (e.g.
lac operon) that I felt were better explained in BIOM20001. It's taken me a while, but this semester was the stage where I finally found genetics boring (this is something a lot of people realise sooner, so sorry for being late to the party
) so I've opted for another major, but I guess I'm glad I did this subject nonetheless.
As a second year Biomedicine student, it was odd for me to take this subject - as far as I was aware there were only three others in the same position taking this subject; their reasons being either the lighter workload or the likely boost to their GPA. Otherwise, the rest of the cohort mainly consisted of second year Science students intending to major in Genetics. The genetics cohort starts to become rather cohesive - almost like the Biomedicine cohort - due to the fact that the major requires three genetics subjects (for Science students, anyway) at second year level, with most also taking the three second year biochemistry subjects on offer.
I'll take a moment to discuss the lectures themselves. Meryl and John are the only lecturers in this subject, and they take exactly half of the lectures each. Meryl's lectures centre around the molecular aspect of genetics, in particular DNA replication, mutation and repair and gene expression. These lectures actually have a strong biochemical focus to them (although the biochemistry is kept very simple) and there is emphasis on contrasting between prokaryotes and eukaryotes. Meryl was not a bad lecturer, but there was often little to discuss in each class so it often felt as if the pace was slow (and we still finished most lectures early). For example, the notes were generally short in length and each slide only had a handful of information on them (and you didn't have to write a lot down). I don't think Meryl was particularly computer-savvy, so writing sort of appears rather randomly on the slides lol (in addition to a number of funny computer-related issues this year, which I won't go into now for the sake of trying to keep this brief). Overall, the content in this section of the course is simple and shouldn't be troubling to understand.
On the other hand, I felt John was a better lecturer but his lectures were more confusing - and I have a feeling he made the content sound more confusing than what it really was. John's lectures focus on the genomics side of things, so you'll look at general features of prokaryotic and eukaryotic genomes, as well as a six lecture block on the approach to characterising a genome (this part of the course was especially confusing). Towards the end of semester, he also discussed the genetics behind development. In a sense, John's lectures were more "proper" but I found the genomics element confusing and boring, so I ended up preferring Meryl largely out of her content (which actually was somewhat interesting).
Prof Phil Batterham from GENE20001 was invited in week 12 to give a small lecture series on whatever he wanted, so we had some rather random (but interesting) lectures on the history of genetics, and the human microbiome (a nice link to MIIM20002 - actually there were a number of links throughout the subject that made things a tad easier). There was a bit of confusion as to whether or not these lectures were examinable given they had little to do with the lecture content covered in this subject - we were told in a fairly typical fashion that everything is examinable but nothing from these lectures came up on the exam.
Hence, sit back and enjoy these lectures (or don't go to them at all, if you like to live on the dangerous side XD).
One nasty habit the genetics team has is over-teaching the content during lectures and then not reflecting any of its difficulty in the assessment. This subject is no different. In Meryl's lectures, you spend a lot of time going through the details of various biochemical processes relating to genes - which could actually make this subject rather challenging - that never comes up in assessment again. John's lecture content in general was rather complex, but somehow the questions were all very straightforward, almost to the point where it seemed like his detailed lectures were pointless. As someone whose motivation for taking this subject included a lighter workload I wasn't complaining during the semester, but I kind of feel for those who were genuinely interested and passionate in genetics because the assessment kind of cheated them out of being able to show off their knowledge. While the lectures themselves were mostly fine, this is the biggest reason for the score I have awarded for this subject.
As in GENE20001, weekly problem-solving classes were taken by Stephen Hardy. Thankfully this semester the cohort size was much smaller compared to GENE20001, so these classes felt a lot more like tutorials. Due to timetabling I opted for the less popular problem-solving class, which only had about 25 other students in it, so the atmosphere was a lot more conducive to learning than it was last semester. Given the nature of this subject, the term "problem-solving" feels a little bit redundant, although in genetics I like how the focus isn't on pure recall but rather applying your knowledge to various observations. Nonetheless, I found these problem-solving classes useful in supplementing the lectures and guiding my study in terms of what I needed to know. Unlike last semester, I felt like the problem-solving classes complemented the lectures, rather than dominating them, which was a positive. Stephen was a good teacher although he often took too long explaining (relatively basic) things, causing us to often run out of time.
During the semester there are two assignments to be completed, each one worth 7.5% of your grade. The first assignment is an absolute joke. Sorry, but I'm calling it for what it is. It relates to Meryl's block of lectures and involves reading a scientific article and answering ten multiple choice questions via an LMS quiz. The article, questions and options were all provided before the LMS test opened, so all you had to do was read the article and find the answers to the questions, and submit them when you were ready. In total, the assignment took me 45 minutes because I actually read the article (it was only eight pages long) - having discussed it with some others it seems like most instead chose to just ctrl+F their way through (and still did fine). The irony is that the average for this assignment was 6.5/10 - it turns out many couldn't be bothered reading the article and so chose to guess some questions. <_< In addition, some students refused to submit their student declaration for the assessment on the LMS, automatically awarding them a zero. Just don't get me started.
The second assignment, on the other hand, has got to be the most difficult assessment task I have ever done at university. Relating to John's content, it involves using a gene sequencing program on the computers in the genetics laboratory to manipulate provided data and again determine answers to ten multiple choice questions which would later be submitted via the LMS (again, the questions and possible options were provided beforehand). John seemed to assume we were all experts in genetic sequencing programs or something - I spent six hours in the laboratory trying to find my way, and came close a number of times to quitting in frustration. In the end I managed to get ten answers but I was so fed up I had a feeling some of them were wrong (a feeling which turned out to be correct). John was available from time to time for help, so I deliberately went to the lab when he was there, but feedback was vague and rather pointless. My advice is to try and navigate to program before one of the sessions that John is around, so that when he's there you know exactly what help you need and what you need to ask. I think part of the problem was that I didn't want to be annoying and ask him how to do everything every five minutes (and I doubt he would have done that anyway). In some backwards fashion, averages for this assignment were higher compared to the first one. :S
The other key assessment during the mid-semester test, held in week 7. It covered lectures 1-18, contained 40 multiple choice questions and was of 45 minutes duration. The lectures in the same week as the mid-semester test (and the problem-solving class, for that matter) were all review lectures, making this test much easier to study for (although this really wasn't necessary). The lecturers relied on us sending in questions to go through during these review classes, but understandably few had any problems so they were very short in duration. For revision, it is recommended to go through the relevant parts of the past exams available - we were told that the questions asked would mainly be recall rather than application so don't waste time revising the application questions. I didn't study much for this test due to other assessments in other subjects and still did really well largely out of the fact that genetics subjects don't seem to delve into a lot of detail when it comes to their questions. In addition, a very large number of questions were recycled from both the past exams and problem-solving worksheets. The problem-solving class in the next week was used for feedback - on the whole I thought the cohort would do better but the average was 28/40.
The final exam is two hours in duration and is worth 75% of your grade. It is all multiple choice, so in effect the entire subject is assessed via multiple choice. The 2006, 2008 and 2010 exams were obviously slightly out of date, but the exam was still similar enough. It consisted of 40 two-mark questions and 8 five-mark application style questions (i.e. 120 marks in total). Once again, there was a large degree of recycling - even some of the questions you saw on the mid-semester test will appear on the exam. I finished the 2 mark questions in 45 minutes, leaving 75 minutes for just eight multiple choice questions. In the end, I spent a lot of time on these final questions just to make absolutely sure that I wasn't getting anything wrong, but I was still done with 30 minutes left and had the chance to re-check the paper in its entirety. Many people chose to leave the exam early. There were one or two questions involving very basic calculations so a scientific calculator was permitted in the exam. Again, the exam failed to examine in detail the content covered in the lectures and so was relatively easy to complete. A review lecture was held in SWOTVAC in preparation for this exam, and in addition to the available past exams and the problem-solving class worksheets, will adequately prepare you.
tl;drThis subject wasn't a bad one, but in their approach I feel as if the genetics team have deprived students from a more intellectually challenging and stimulating opportunity. In a sense, they've set the expectation low, which seems to encourage students to try less and so the results are low, despite the fact that nothing is that difficult to complete. With relatively straightforward content, simple and recycled questions and easy assessment only done via multiple choice, I start to understand the notion of people selecting genetics subjects as GPA boosters. It's a bit of a shame really, because the lecture content itself was respectable, and I appreciate how we're encouraged to think as geneticists by applying our knowledge to problems. I echo my sentiments at the start of the review that this subject is suitable for anyone looking for an easy ride. That's all I have to say for now, so I wish you the best of luck in taking this subject (although you probably won't need it if you turn up to lectures and do what's expected of you).