Bittersweet subject. Overall was a subject I enjoyed. Easily a WAM booster if you enjoy and are good with genomics and some big picture biochemical techniques. I enjoyed the content itself and most content was taught relatively well compared to some other subjects. Most modules (except 2 or 3 modules) covered big picture rather than drowning students with deep specific detail like some other subjects do, while the remaining lacked big picture. So the modules were about genomics and sequencing+assembly, comparative genomics, bioinformatics databases and sequence alignment, algorithms, R coding, CRISPR and shRNA gene perturbing, epigenetics, RNA, data representation using R coding, clustering methods, cancer and tumor suppression (Which is mostly a repeat of cancer theory in cell bio modules and genetics modules if you have done MCB, but you think about whether something is a tumor suppressor or a oncogene a bit more and different pathways of Rb and p21 etc are more obvious). Assessments (MSTs + Written assignments) were relatively straightforward and many students had high averages. The written assignment was more about scientific skills (Using AI and critiquing output, critically evaluating literature evidence, using image analysis tools to quantify nuclear export, using R code to represent data (x2)). However, this experience was dampened by the unideal experience with the coding modules and written assignments. We were not taught R coding. We had to work through worksheets instead. Some of those did not explain code properly and the volume of code was excessive that we never got up to learning certain parts during the workshops. Some worksheets were like "type this into R Studio and see what happens" to figure out what a function or a code does ourselves. This meant parts of the two coding workshops were wasted trying to figure out small things that we may have done wrong rather than smoothly working through the worksheet. The written assignments were the biggest issue. Most of the assignments had vague criteria. For one of the assignments, the criteria on the doc was different to criteria on the rubric so we lost marks for including unnecessary things that was on the criteria but not on the rubric. Another assignment had 2 versions released, and the first of the two coding assignments did not properly explain what we had to do. The last coding assignment was better in terms of the instructions but was too complex for a subject that does not cover coding in detail and it felt like an assignment worth 15-20%, not 7%. Some of the content needed for that was provided but we never got up to them and we had to use that content in ways that was too complex, such as thinking of certain conditions or making complex functions testing certain conditions with if statements for example. The exam was fair, but I doubt some questions were double checked because it had a question on theory that was not part of this subject so we had to use knowledge from other subjects. Another question had the same setup as the theory we were taught, but was a different concept, so we did it the way we were taught, while others relied on knowledge from other subjects to answer the question properly. I found most workshops useful so make sure you go to them. It is a chance to ask questions and to consolidate knowledge. Most lecturers went through questions and some went through application of theory during those workshops. So overall, this was a subject I enjoyed. One of the easier subjects I have done. Yes this subject had its issues, but this year was the first year coding was included and the coordinator took on feedback in general too, so I have no doubt he will improve it. For example, since some were struggling with coding, he only included 1 simple code interpreting question for the coding component on the exam, though I can't guarantee whether this will be the case next year or not. I agree that coding should be taught. Looking at the way the world is going and looking at the employability prospects of biosciences degrees, I agree that we need to combine biosciences with something else such as coding to ensure we don't end up unemployed. Coding is useful in general in any job too, and some labs would need to use some sort of computational method to represent data anyways. With the assignments we could ask on Ed to clarify expectations (also, compare the doc and the rubric and ask if they do not have the same criteria). I also trust that thy may iron out the issues. If you find a way to survive in the coding component (Which is only 2 modules anyways, so it only makes up 1 or 2 questions on one of the MSTs and 2 written assignments worth 14% in total.), you should be fine for a WAM boost with this subject. Even the coding itself is not too complex if you do get through it and practice it many times. The problem is it is not taught and practicing is not always possible as this subject is not dedicated to coding. I wish I could get more out of the coding component, as it would have been useful in the future. The issues with this subject are nowhere near the rubbish we go through in biomed. The issues of this subject can be worked around because the teachers are open to feedback and also clarifies expectations, so it did not affect my mark other than when the assignment had the wrong criteria as mentioned above. So definitely a subject I would recommend. This is still better and enjoyable than some other subjects. Even with the workshops, we don't get them in other subjects so make the most of them to consolidate/apply content.

DONT TAKE THIS CLASS! (spoiler) they had R programming but they didn't teach us how to do R programming. Instead, they gave us some worksheets to do and then assignments on R programming. I sometimes dont understand the instructions on the assignments as I feel like they were quite vague. Also, the exam was quite bad because I think some of questions were not really covered in the lectures nor workshop, so I had to rely on my knowledge from other subjects to write some stuff down in the exam. I don't know how my grades are but pls don't take this subject! I heard that they are going to change their curriculum again next year! The only good thing about this class were epigenetics and cancer modules, along with the bioinformatic techniques (ie: sequencing methods) that were taught. However I may be biased as I do have an interest in these topics!!!

Grade 85+: So, I did this subject in semester 1, 2022. The subject has been one of the most useful subjects I have ever done, and probably my number 1 favourite subject during my bachelor (biomed micro major). I had done other subjects prior to this one with a genetics background and I can say that even principles of genetics was not as good an overview as this subject was. Almost every lecture was explained clearly and the lecturer's were passionate about the content. The subject had some of the coolest, neat little bits of knowledge that are hard to find anywhere else. I liked the coordinators lectures the best, they were very interesting and engaging. It took me ages to get through the weekly module (cause of how I take notes), usually 2 to 4 hours, sometimes less but still. Some of the weakly assessments that are small percentages (I think they might have been about 3%) were quite easy, some more difficult. I found it challenging and engaging to try and take notes in the online seminars, while keeping up. I did it in the same semester as techniques in microbiology, and this subject was better at explaining all the microbiology techniques. This was to the point where I actually started linking my digital notes together to Bioinformatics and Functional Genomics. Depending on what major assessment you do (which if I remember correctly was about 22%?) it is very easy to be thrown into the deep end, but I mean it is intended to be a research assignment. I was very happy to get a good grade on my report and I found that the marking was much less stringent about formatting (which I thought wasn't explained properly when I did techniques for example and cost me a bunch of marks). In any case, the major assessment is designed to be a research project. Some people who did RNA tech thought it wasn't too amazing because it was directly relatable to the content being introduced at the time. I chose the tardigrade assessment and it was amazing, interesting and difficult. The techniques that I barely managed to grasp understanding of in my report ended up being taught later in the semester very clearly. I remember spending ages thinking that I'd done the wrong thing or what I was going to write about. The exam had tonnes of time. If I remember correctly it worked out to be about 3 minutes a mark which was insanely forgiving in comparison to micro and biomed subjects that are usually 1.30 minutes a mark. I have found that quite often, lecturers in other subjects from non-genetics departments aren't as adept or comfortable/experienced at explaining genetics and bioinformatics concepts however this wasn't the case for the lecturer's in Functional Genomics and Bioinformatics. A semester after doing this subject I still find myself going back to the notes I made during it, and integrating them into other subjects and areas.

Grade: 87. Easily the worst BCMB subject in the dept. Disorganised and dry. Content was all over the place and most of the time you're left wondering what the point is, especially the RNA modules, they were the worst. The last couple modules on cancer genetics are good and enjoyable, but can't really make up for the other 80% of the subject. There is less content than with the other BCMB subjects but thats not necessarily a good thing. Content was too broad and superficial for the most part. Took up to 10 weeks to get grades back. The exam was relatively easy for the most part, but some of the questions were way too broad and hard to answer within the time allocated, which was another issue that I think likely was due to the content being too superficial. Wouldn't recommend. If you're majoring in genetics you might enjoy it more than me, it just really wasn't my cup of tea. Could be done a lot better.

Subject was a bit on the dry side, particularly the bioinformatics part. However, it was evident that Stuart tried to make his bioinformatics lectures as interesting as possible, and he explained everything very clearly. The transition to online learning was handled very well too, and with all lectures/modules nicely organised. Nonetheless, it could be better if the topics of the lectures were organised to have more 'flow', as some of the content seem to jump around a bit. That saying, learning about cancer genomics was very interesting, and definitely a highlight of the subject. Overall, a good subject, but I wouldn't say it's less challenging than the other 3rd year BCMB subjects - the online exam we had (I felt) was one of the hardest BCMB exam I've taken, so prepare well for it (particularly if you're taking this subject in Sem 1 2021)!

A less challenging biochemistry subject for the most part. Interesting content towards the end of the course.