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

I thought this subject was pretty good. Gives a good holistic understanding of neuroscience as a whole, and it's a good introductory course. It is quite philosophical however, and there isn't as much neuroscience as you'd actually expect. I found the lecturer to be very well-informed however he tends to not use lecture slides well - there are lots of diagrams but no writing on the slides so you have to listen well to pick up on everything he's saying. The MST was fair, and I did well on it - it's not particularly difficult, I'd suggest doing the practice questions he puts up, also making flow diagrams for studying helped me a lot (I used LucidChart). That being said, the communication on this subject was sub-par. There wasn't a discussion forum for the subject, which made it quite difficult when I was confused on certain topics. The coordinator is really nice and I emailed him about certain topics I wanted to further research, he was very helpful in pointing me in the right directions. The EOS exam was also fair - if you keep in mind how much pre-MST and post-MST content is weighted in the final and adjust your study plans accordingly, you won't find it too difficult imo. I got an 86 on this subject, and I think H1/H2A is really quite achievable.

Is not a terrible subject, although some lecturers can be quite dry. Everything is MCQ/fill in the blanks, and there is quite a bit of content, but definitely H1 achievable (I got a low H1), particularly with study groups. Not amazingly well-run, and there are definitely weird slides where Peter delves into philosophy (one of our MST questions was about how the way we think has changed over the years (???)), but most of it is doable if you put in the time.

As long as you listen to the lectures and put in effort to search up stuff you don't understand you'll be fine. I got 88 for this subject by putting in about 2-3 hours a week outside of watching lectures to brush up my understanding. The MST and EOS exam were quite easy too. Make sure to have a study group or group chat with peers and shoot each other questions if you do not understand topics too well.