Grade: 83. This subject was very hard to study for, the lectures slides were minimalistic but most lecturers were quite good. The MST was really easy since it was online, but the final exam was more challenging, they definitely test random facts and stuff that wasn't really covered but there are quite a few questions from the practice exam and MST that do appear. Overall I'd say that getting an H1 shouldn't be too hard and the content is definitely enjoyable.

GOSH I HATED. THIS. SUBJECT WITH A PASSIONNNNNNNNN. The lecturer barely has any text in his slides, and tells stories instead. So it makes you think hahaha this subject is so chill WRONG. He tests very specific stuff. The exam was SO HARD. You need to study very specific stuff, go through his summaries and make sure you can use active recall, because a lot of options are very similar and were definitely talked about, but not necessarily right for the question, so it’s easy to get info muddled up. Make sure you can identify which tract is responsible for what and where it is located, and I mean specific information because some of the functions they give you in the exam and then asking to fill in blank are quite similar. Make sure to do the practice exam since Peter used some of the same questions (and also from the MST if I remember correctly?). For the last lecture which I found confusing, just make sure you can say who said what. Oh and also, for the philosophy stuff, ITS IMPORTANT, especially for the MST. Anyway, even after having done this subject, I still don’t know what I would have done differently. It’s just a very challenging subject to study for honestly. Still got H1 though since I think exam might have been scaled up.

This subject is has pros and cons. Peter is a really nice guy and a decent coordinator. However his lectures are a bit hit and miss some of his lectures have pictures jumbled up everywhere whereas other lectures were good. Peter does go off tangents at times. Some of the lectures were really interesting: Evolution, language development, cognitive functioning, reward, pain and consciousness was really interesting. However other lectures were dry such as the vision lecture, the first 3 lectures and the memory lecture. The MST wasn’t too bad, it was open book which was nice. The average was H1. The exam was so hard. It contain questions that were barely covered in the lectures or just assessing random facts.

Honestly, I enjoyed this class! Peter is a great lecturer and, although he goes on tangents, he always responds to emails and answers questions if you get lost! The MST and the exam were fair and were all MCQ/fill in the blanks, so they were fairly easy to do as long as you knew the basic things. He always dropped questions off the MST/exam that had low correct rates - which was nice because it showed he monitors the questions. Overall pretty good if you put in the effort and ask questions you'll get a H1 (I ended with a 96).

While some lecturers can be a boring, I found the subject to be quite interesting and H1 achievable (I got 94). I thought the main lecturer taught the subject well and if you make sure you understand the lecture notes to a decent level you should be fine. The final exam is all MCQ and fill-in-the-blank questions as well so this makes it a little easier than having to write short and long answer responses. Would recommend.

Contents tested in the MST were not taughted in lectures. Explanation of concepts in the lectures are confusing.

This is hands down the most horrendously taught subject I've ever taken in my entire university journey. Oh, where to start? Firstly, there is no coherent structure in the lecture progression. Most subjects have some kind of logical order to their lectures, or at least have the lectures organised into topic-based modules or blocks. PON has no such thing - you hop around from the autonomic nervous system to visual neuroscience to the motor cortex in a way that gives you mental whiplash. Another grievance I (and I'm sure many others) have with this subject is that the lecture slides themselves are organised poorly. There are some that contain gigantic blocks of texts, and others which contain some random diagrams pulled from the textbook. The further explanation the lecturer gives on these diagrams is incredibly confusing. The assessments are an absolute joke, as the lectures seemed like philosophy lectures half the time with barely any content covered, and then it turns out that you're being assessed on extremely detailed content that was never even taught. All in all, typing notes for this subject is an absolute nightmare (feels like putting together a puzzle). It's a shame that the subject is taught so poorly, considering it is a prerequisite to further neuroscience subjects, and that I was genuinely quite interested in neuroscience before this. If you want something that'll boost your WAM/GPA, this is not it.

MCQ/dropdown MST was very unreasonable. Most of the content was not covered at all in lectures or only touched on within a sentence, so there was not even any possibility of doing well in it. The MST had to be scaled this semester (because so many people failed) but the coordinator only gave us one extra mark during the scaling which made very little difference. Stay away from this subject because it is definitely not straightforward or easy to score in. If you do do this subject, be prepared for it to take a toll on your WAM/GPA.

Lectures are not well structured. Lecturer is lovely but goes off on tangents about who knows what. Practice assessments given to us were fairly straightforward and easy in my opinion. Actual assessment though being MCQ is difficult as most of the content is not covered/overlooked during lectures. Didn't enjoy

Starts off difficult and gets easy in my opinion