I know there's a lot of hate for this subject, but I personally think it was one of the more interesting ones during my study. I think majority of the criticism is in regards to the delivery of the subject--not much resources, general clarification & support in ways that many students are used to, in the form of Ed Discussion tutorials etc. Don't think the hate train is quite justified: This subject just trains you to learn differently by forcing you to synthesise relevant information from the lectures in your own way. I really enjoyed the content overall and while it was content-heavy, the final exam was definitely more lenient.

RUN DONT WALK away from this subject!!!!!!!!

just a heads up. the 4/5 star reviews below are just my friends trolling haha pls don't take them seriously. listen to the 1 star review instead.

Peter is so cute 🥺 His lectures made me feel Fuzzy inside Btw I am not trolling, the person below is a liar

Highly intellectually stimulating topics. Lots of content, but if you keep up with the lectures, a H1 is highly achievable. Definitely one of the best subjects I've took so far.

I really disagree with the many 1 star reviews. This subject was difficult but super interesting. There was a lot of nuanced psychological stuff that i personally thought was really cool. Peter's lecture slides were frustrating but if you write down what he says for notes rather than just focusing on the slides then you'll be fine. A lot of people complained about the subject in the Ed Discussion but I think it was quite clear that it wasn't being monitored by staff (which is common). Emailing these questions to Peter (as he offered) or talking to him after a lecture would have been the smarter option. I didn't do amazingly on the MST but that's on me for not studying - and helpful feedback was given for the questions which isn't usually given. If you're someone that likes to learn interesting things further than just how synapses work and what the serotonin is, you will like this subject - its one of the most intellectually stimulating ones I've ever taken.

would give 0 stars if i could. fully agreed with all the 1 star comments below. so disappointed. Coordinators don't care about students feedback and 0 support.

Do not take if you don't have to, super poorly structured. No learning objectives, lecturer goes on random philosophical rants with basically nothing on his lecture slides anyways. MST was really hard and random. Content changes sporatically every lecture and feels jumbled.

Worst subject I have ever taken. Do not take unless required. Peter (the subject coordinator and main lecturer) is the bane of my existence. His lectures are SO bad - no text on slides, rambles on about random things. Content wise, lectures seem simple, then the assessments contain concepts that you don't even know when they taught. Took NEUR20001 so I thought this one would be building upon it, considering this doesn't even have any prerequisites. Completely wrong. No idea what is going on in this. Awful awful subject. Absolutely awful. Disgusted.

Not sure where the positive reviews are coming from, but this is the worst subject I've taken out of my whole degree by far. The lecturer barely puts any effort into his lectures and often goes on tangents rather than mentioning clear information, and most slides have no information on them (only pictures). This would be okay if the exams were filled with similar level/difficulty questions to the lectures, but instead the tests are on specific-details and concepts that are skimmed past in the lectures, either random facts that were mentioned once or confusing mechanisms that the lecturer didn't explain well. Basically, if you do this subject and want an H1, you have to rely a lot on textbook reading and self-studying, because the lectures aren't providing adequate information to match up to the tests