Dear Such-and-such, I am a recent (2002) Oxford graduate in FHS biochemistry. In my part II examinations; i was examined _viva voce_. One of the questions Prof. Ferguson asked me was whether I had any general comments on the course over the previous four years: I said that I didn't. I did, in fact, have lots of comments; however, a viva didn't seem the place to voice them! Thus, I am writing to you now, in case you are still interested. Since it is now almost exactly a year since I finished the course, I have had time to reflect on my thoughts, and to see how my education has stood up to real lab work. The first observation I want to make is that the Oxford biochemistry course is generally very good. When following it - as any course - its weaknesses were more obvious than its strengths, but with hindsight, I can appreciate those strengths as well. In particular, the greatest strength is the emphasis on the biochemical attitude: we learn to be analytical, reductionist and rigorous. Whatever we go on to do, whether in science or not, this attitude is valuable, and stands in contrast to the less rational attitudes which my colleagues sometimes display! The importance of this attitude is recognised by those outside the course; at a recent interview for a Ph__D position in a cell biology institute, the panel noted that biochemistry was considered to be one of the toughest and best undergraduate subjects, because of its rigour. Accordingly, whatever you decide to do to the course, it is essential that you preserve both this attitude and the name which stands for it. However, there are two areas of the course which I do believe are weak, and need attention. Firstly, there is the choice of content, which is biased towards the department's historical and current focus on metabolism and biophysics, and away from the more general currents of modern life science. Secondly, there is the lamentable state of the practical aspect of the course, which completely fails to prepare students for real laboratory work. _need to get round 'biochemistry = metabolism/biophysics' argument._ _However, focus on biochemical course material is excessive. need to reflect modern research - we need to deal with cytoskeleton, protein processing, trafficking, etc to the same depth as transcription. we don't need to know so much about metabolism; we really don't need to know so much about physical methods (we need to know what they are and what to use them for, not the details of how they work; compare time spent on the mechanics of crystallography and N__M__R to time spent on useful cell biology. note that level of molecular biology is about right. admit possibility of own bias!_ _division of papers is messed up; there is stuff in II (signalling) that belongs in IV and (bioenergetics) that belongs in I. suggest abolition of paper II!_ _Reform of practical course vital. emphasise this. we have to at least do a maxi-prep (crude: culture, lyse, clear, ppt, resuspend), a restriction, a gel, P__C__R, protein extraction (N__P-40 lysis, or boiling in S__D__S, or something), S__D__S-P__A__G__E. Each should be done properly - people should pour, load and run their own gels. Pouring acrylamide gels may be a bit hazardous, but can be done; pre-poured gels would just about be acceptable here._ _first year basic lab course w/ pipettes, micropipettes, spec, making solutions, etc_ _suggest also total replacement of fourth year with lab projects; must recognise the worthlessness of the extended essay. one-year project okay, but three rotations better (would need shorter writeups). can move some of the fourth-year paperwork to supplementary subjects; force everyone to do one? just add third-year options anyway? make fourth year optional (BA/MBiochem). make sure to phrase this so the plausible stuff is not connected to the radical stuff._ _in the context of the following suggestions about the 4th year, all the material taken out (detailed metabolism, 4th year projects, some of the 3rd year randomness) could form optional papers. people would take one optional paper in the third year (so papers I, III, IV, V, VI as now, plus an optional paper). optional papers are more serious than supplementary subjects, don't mix them up. this can all go at the end, after the practical course stuff - "all the stuff i just said to take out, put in an option course". the option course could even be extended-essay-based. or it could have an exam and an EE. or candidates could write one EE on anything they liked._ Yours sincerely, Tom Anderson _CategoryBiology_