For the courses corresponding to semester 3 at KI I took:
Immunology. The course was very demanding and took a lot of effort and time to prepare for mandatory seminars. Although it was tough, it also taught a lot, since we had discussions and very elaborate explanations for many topics in Immunology during the seminars. We also had a few laboratory practices that perhaps were not as well equipped as here in Karolinska but they taught us how to do basic ELISA or cell culture. I have a feeling that this was the best course that semester as the teachers (or at least the ones I had) were the experts of their field who came prepared and could explain a lot. The most challenging thing was, however, the examination. It was an open book exam, we could use any material we wanted but the time was very limited. Since I was not used to this kind of format, I started panicking and double checking facts I already knew just to make sure, not leaving enough time to look for details I was not sure about. But apart from that, I think this format is amazing because the questions were not asking the student to simply regurgitate the information, they made you solve certain problems and in order to do so, a student needs to use his/her knowledge. It was not about remembering a certain protein or cluster of differentiation number because that you could check in the book, but rather testing how well a student understands concepts and can apply the knowledge. This is something Karolinska really should take notice of.
Infectious Agents and Immunity. The course that followed Immunology and it focused more on the microbiological aspects of immunity. The course was a lot more disorganized and hectic, there was a lot of misunderstandings, last-minute changes without any notice (lecture time, assignment format/deadline etc.) and in general did not feel like it had a running thread but rather had scattered and not very relevant topics (or at least their relevance was not made clear). There was no appropriate study literature and the curriculum felt just crammed because there were at least 6 topics we had to 'teach' each other without any proper guidelines or study objectives given to us, so the quality of presentations varied a lot among groups and yet we were still asked questions on those topics during the examination without really knowing whether the presentation covered the topic in sufficient depth.
Physiology, Basic Concepts. Very intense course both in terms of time and material covered. During the course everything felt rushed, although the quality of information was high. It was extremely hard to keep up and the course required a lot of deep understanding of bodily mechanisms that could not be just memorized the night before the exam. There was not a lot of practicals or labs during the course, it was more or less strictly theoretical. The examinations were extremely hard, they were not open book, but rather multiple choice questions that required to know a lot of details as well as show understanding -- all of this in a very short time. A lot of people were also complaining that they used the standard curve and would deduct a certain number of points for potentially 'guessed' answers which was met with discontent since a lot of students felt this is the risk the teachers take by choosing this method of examination.
Biomedical Academic Scientific Training. To be completely fair, it was not the most useful use of time having this course on top of Physiology or other modules. It was indeed interesting, to find a person in academia and ask about his/her daily joys and struggles and then produce a report but it was very time consuming and not really providing with anything tangible. The teacher was absolutely amazing and passionate and discussions with him and among ourselves about working in science were definitely interesting and provided with a lot of insight and answers to career choice questions. However, in a lot of cases it was rather a source of frustration since it was just an unnecessary burden keeping you away from studying for the hard subjects.
Communication in Science. In theory, a great course that was supposed to be well-integrated to the existing 'scientific' courses. In some cases they succeeded, in some not that much. Some teachers failed to connect to students and created a somewhat hostile environment that even further demotivated students to take their assignments (essays, presentations) seriously. However, the idea is great and Karolinska should absolutely consider properly integrating this into their courses too.
Applied Electrophysiology. This course definitely felt like it was created just to fill in the credit hole. In general, it was rather interesting, we were trained to analyze ECGs etc. but that was all before we even got lectures on cardiac physiology, so in general had no understanding of what exactly we were looking at. Furthermore, during the physiology course, we were given some of the lectures again, so it was just unnecessary repetition. In the end, we still needed to produce a report that we never got any feedback for, just a grade on a topic we pretty much did know nothing about and were just struggling to be done with it.