This subject was ok overall. Some of the content covered, such as infectious diseases, was quite interesting and it was fascinating to learn about the different ways in which the health of humans, animals and the environment are interconnected. The multiple-choice MST was not too bad, but make sure you take good notes during the lectures. The reflection required for tutorial participation was not too difficult either. However, it was difficult to score highly on the final essay, which is worth 55%. We did not receive much guidance, and the feedback on the essay was quite minimal. Overall, I would recommend this subject only if you are interested in the connections between human, animal and environmental health, and are confident at writing essays.

This subject has been one of the most easiest and relaxed subjects I've ever done at uni. It significantly boosted my WAM (scored a 95), which I am grateful for. The subject consists of x1 2 hour lecture per week, and x1 1 hour tutorial per week. Each lecture featured a different guest speaker presenting about different topics. This built up on the interdisciplinary approach of the big picture of the subject: One Health. It was not necessarily disjointed, just broadened your knowledge. Lecture content was interesting to me as a science student, and I mostly sat in bed watching each lecture at x1.5 speed. Tutorials (ATTENDANCE IS MARKED SO GO TO THEM) consisted of worksheets, and activities such as card games, and going to the Peter Doherty Institute. Assessments in this subject include tutorial participation, the MST, and the take home essay. For the tutorial, you must give a 1 minute oral on a particular lecture you choose (no one will really pay attention to you so no stress). You must also post a related multiple choice question online afterwards. Not hard, an easy 10%. The MST was one of the most EASIEST MSTs I've ever done. It revised concepts of the lectures rather than specific points. You also get something like 60 minutes to do 45 questions (of which are ALL multiple choice, and no curve balls provided you read through the lectures). After the MST, you don't really have to watch any further lectures as they won't overly help your essay. The essay may be controversial to some. I've done art breadths that required me to write essays, and I've always scored 70-75% on them. But amazingly, I scored close to 95% on this essay. The prompts, admittedly, do not relate directly to lecture material. They require further research, and an understanding of how multiple disciplines link to develop a key idea. Marking, in my experience, was not harsh, but sort of vague. You need to make sure to read the rubric carefully, and answer all parts of the prompt in detail, using key themes presented in lectures (not the content of lectures itself) to do well in the essay. While guidance with writing the essay was lacking, I somehow did well. And I never do well in essays. You get tons of time to do the essay, yet like usual I left it up to the last couple of days to complete it, because I spent much more time studying for my other exams.

AVOID AT ALL COSTS the lectures are long and boring. There is no real flow in the subject as there are two guest lecturers every single week (some of them seem like they don't want to be there). The lectures were either extremely disjointed or a complete repeat of a previous lecture. Coming from a science background, i only found two or three lectures actually interesting (i recall sitting down for two hours learning about air flow in a lab, do not recommend) the tutorials were SO SO SO SO BORING and a waste of time. They tried to link it to lecture content but the 'student ambassador' summaries at the start wasted time and were boring. They tried to include a cute to help you with the assignment but it DID NOT HELP and it needed far more clarification and the general consensus seemed to be confusion. the MST was relatively easy and would be easy to score well in having re-read the lecture slides and the learning outcomes. I'm generally able to quite accurately gauge how i do in assessments and after handing in the final assignment i was relatively confident and expecting an H1. They marked the assignments very harshly and despite positive feedback e.g. "great work here" i would only score a 6 or 7 /10 in the praised sections. The assignment lacked guidance and the outline for the essay was confusing and hard to follow, subsequently leading to poorer results. 10% of the final mark is attributed to tutorial participation. It is my understanding that if you attended 80%+ of the tutorials and posted your MCQ for the student ambassador week that you would receive the full 10%. I attended EVERY SINGLE TUTORIAL and participated in all of them but posted my MCQ 2 days late (simply because i had forgotten, i had no excuse -- also why do i have to post a MCQ for revision purposes if we've already done the MST that the questions are for ????). Because i posted it two days late, i lost a full 10% off my final mark DESPITE MY PERFECT ATTENDANCE AND PARTICIPATION IN CLASS DISCUSSION!! not impressed as it was a major hit to my WAM. Whatever you do, do not take this subject. You will regret it as the lectures are disjointed and boring, the tutorials are a waste of time, and the essay is unguided and harshly marked. I would rather repeat high school all over again than take this single subject. -- if you're looking for a breadth subject, food for a healthy planet is a great alternative with interesting (and related!!) lectures :))

I decided to give this subject a chance, having heard mixed opinions from past students. In hindsight, this was probably not the best choice. The content is actually fairly interesting, and is suited to anyone in any course with an interest in how the health of humans, animals and environment interlink. It is relatively easy to do well on the MST, worth 35%. However, the essay was a complete different story. The titles we had to choose from were not related to any of the lectures, with the instructions being really vague and ambiguous. It was marked extremely harshly, even with positive comments and no negative critiques, most sections only achieved 6 or 7 out of 10, and the overall essay grade was a P or H3 for most people I have talked to, which was completely unexpected. As for the tutorials, almost all of them consisted of games, group activities, or a group tour (of uni, and of the Peter Doherty institute). They were sometimes fun, but overall fairly pointless and did not enhance the lecture material much. Overall, I would only recommend this subject if you are compelled by the material, as this subject is definitely NOT a guaranteed WAM booster.

A very poorly designed, confusing subject. Each week was based around a different topic, with 2 lecturers in the 2 hour lecture. The content of each week was extremely disjointed, making it hard to connect it to the overall concept of "One Health". The organisation in tutorials was poor, with many of the tutorials consisting of games or short activities, while the rest was taken up by student summaries of the lectures - these proved unhelpful and a waste of time. While the MST was very easy, the end of semester essay was marked very harshly, with little to no guidance. Would definitely not recommend undertaking this subject!