Subject Reviews (with PDF compilation) (1 Viewer)

[bennychanman]

Re: Subject Reviews

Right...well here's my 2 cents....except many of the subjects i'm reviewing have been reviewed before!

Acct1001 - Accounting 1A
Ease - 6/10. This really depends. I'm doing it for the second time, so i give it an 8.5 for ease (yeah, i'm an ex-failure), but the first time i did it, it was bloody hard and so i give it a 3.5/10 for first-time ease. therefore, i've averaged it out and given you 6.
Lecturer - 7/10. Abdul & Sharron are fine. They're not amazing or brilliant, but they're not crap.
Interest - 1/10. This rates as one of the most uninteresting subjects ever.
Overall - 4.6/10

Econ1001 - Introductory Microecononics
Ease - 2/10 - THIS SUBJECT WAS HARD DAMMIT. I never had done eco before and so everything i was learning was from scratch and WE COVERED SO MUCH MATERIAL i couldn't handle it. i failed this as well.
Lecturer - 0/10 - I might get charged for slander but andrew wait has got to be the WORST LECTURER IMAGINABLE!!!!!!! Asshole of a personality, Crap lecture slides, and terrible public speaking voice!
Interest - 0/10.
Overall - 0.7/10

ECON1002 - Introductory Macroeconomics
Ease - 5/10 - still a bitch of a subject, but easier and more 'grasp-able' than micro.
Lecturer - 5/10 - Sorry Jordi...you probably know your stuff, but you're not crash-hot at explaining it.
Interest - 4/10 - i hate economics and am only doing this to get my ground units for commerce out the way but by god i like this much MUCH more than micro!

FRNC1631/FRNC 1632 - Junior French 5 & 6
These two subjects are basically the same; 6 is just a continuation of 5.
Ease - 8/10
Lecturer - 7/10 (nothing special)
Interest - 5/10- The crap course made me lose interest in an otherwise interesting subject.
Overall - 7/10

GRMN1631/GRMN1632 - Junior German 5 & 6

Ease - 8.5/10 - I like german. I loved it at school. It's not giving me much grief at uni at all.
Lecturer(s) - 8/10 - Emilie, Kenny and Udo were/are great.
Interest - 8/10
Overall - 8/10

 

[ujuphleg]

Re: Subject Reviews

All the reviews are now in one document, attached to the first post.

If you are pre-enrolling for 2007 and can't decide, take the time out to have a look. Hopefully the .pdf will make searching for a subject easier.

Cheers,
Susan

 

[stazi]

Re: Subject Reviews

oh awesome work susie-poo

 

[Silver Persian]

Re: Subject Reviews - UPDATED WITH .PDF on first post

I should probably wait until I get my marks back before I do this...but I need an excuse to procrastinate from studying

ECOP1002: Economy and Policy
Ease: 5/10 - The actual content isn't difficult to understand, but the course is so dry that it is difficult to concentrate on the lectures - and I don't think _anybody_ could put themselves through using the reading bricks. The assessment tasks were fairly standard
Lecturer: 5/10 - I actually didn't find Gabrielle to be the nazi-feminist everybody thinks she is...I quite liked her, but her lectures are very dull. Half the time she is just explaing graphs and tables. Too much description and not enough analysis.
Interest: 3/10 - I really loved ECOP1001 - which is an introduction to the economic theories, but ECOP1002 is more of a practical 'What is actually happening in the Australian economy' course. Very difficult to be interested in this subject - and I really didn't learn anything this semester that I didn't already know from studying HSC Eco or ECOP1001.
Overall: 4/10 - v. disappointing

HSTY1088: Australian History and Introduction
Ease: 7.5/10 - There isn't anything especially difficult about this course. Some of the readings are a little dense, but mostly the content is easy to understand. I thought the question they gave us for the essay was tricky though.
Lecturer: 6.5/10 - I like Penny - but in a lot of her lectures she planned to say too much, and so she'd have to fit the last half of the lecture into 10 minutes.
Interest: 6.5/10 - I was expecting this course to be v.v. dull, but it was actually fairly interesting. The topics and ideas covered in the lectures and tutorials were mostly entertaining, although there were some weeks that were just painful.
Overall: 7/10

HSTY1044: Twentieth Century Politics and Culture
Ease: 8/10 - The content covered isn't difficult to grasp, and the assessments were all fairly straight forward. The hardest part of the course were the tutorial readings, which were v. dense, and sometimes seemed random and irrelevent to the course.
Lecturer: 6.5./10 - I thought Chris got better as the semester progressed. But it seemed like he was quite nervous when he spoke, and for some reason that made it difficult for me to listen to him. Sometimes he mumbles, and sometimes I didn't feel like he explained things very well.
Interest: 5.5/10 - I was really looking forwards to this course, but most of the content seemed to be either rehashing things that I already knew, or learning things that were random and not relevent. The lectures some weeks could be painfully dull, as could the tutorials.
Overall: 6.5/10

SCLG1002: Introduction to Sociology 2
Ease: 7.5/10 - The lectures were well explained and easy to understand, but some of the readings were horrible. Many sociologists take the stance that "the more people who can't understand what I write, the smarter I am", and as a result, there were many articles in the reading brick that were really dense and badly explained. The assessments were fairly easy though.
Lecturer: 8/10 - I really liked Catriona - she made things from the readings that were difficult to understand more sensical. A couple of guest lecturers appeared throughout the semester, and they were not as good (the lectures on subculture were really amazingly awful).
Interest: 8/10 - I thought most of the mateiral covered was interesting. The most boring module was the one on risk, but I liked the ones on celebrity, consumption and community.
Overall: 8/10

 

[tennille]

Re: Subject Reviews - UPDATED WITH .PDF on first post

BCHM2072/2972: Human Biochemistry

This is an excellent course. This course is based on metabolic biochemistry. You will learn about glucose oxidation, fatty acid oxidation, what metabolic processes occur during starvation (like how to replenish glucose in the blood), diabetes and a little on exercise. Unfortunately there will be four lectures based on cell signalling, though.

The main lecturer for this course is Gareth Denyer. He is absolutely fantastic. He will draw figures on the board, take photos of it, and post them up on WebCT. He also provides recordings of his lectures and narrated powerpoint slides. This guy has a lot of passion for what he does. His lectures are very engaging, and the lecture theatre is always full!

The other four lectures are by Simon Easterbrook-Smith. His lectures notes that he posts up on the web aren't very detailed so I suggest you turn up to all four lectures (not that his notes a fantastic there either, but at least he draws the processes up, which he doesn't provde on the pdf).

I'm not entirely sure if the advanced lectures will be exactly the same as this year, but every fortnight (if you choose BCHM2972), you will have separate lectures. This year, we learnt the stuff we learnt with Gareth in more detail (the molecular side of things). We also did some case studies, which involved patients who suffer from certain symptoms, and determning what is wrong with them (what's wrog with the metabolic pathway).

The labs aren't too bad. You'll have 5 hours of lab per fortnight, but usually you'll finish between 4.30 and 5. The first lab was colorimetry (boring). The next two labswere based on determining the rate of glucose oxidation in yeast cells by the incorporation of radioactive glucose into them. The last three weeks invole designing your own assay kit (you pretty much design your own company and all).

Overall: 9/10


CHEM2402/2912/2916: Chemical Structure and Stability

I found this course better than the first semester core Chemistry unit. It involves less organic chemistry. The first two lecture series involves learning about metal complexes, crystal/ligand field theory, the bonding of ligands to complexes and how that affects the reactivity, and a little on rate laws. The next two series involves statistical thermodynamics, which I found quite interesting, and classical thermodynamics (which I didn't like as much). The final series is a little on organic chemistry, but nothing too detailed (just SN1, SN2, E1 and E2 reactions).

The lecturers...well no one that actually stands out. If you guys have James Beattie, good luck trying to unerstand him. He mumbles.

The labs are horrible, as they are in first year. There are organic and physical labs. The organic labs aren't too bad, but the physical ones are shocking. You have to hand in your report by 5 pm that afternoon! You will have one lab each week, including weeks 1 and 13, which will run for 4 hours.

The only major difference between the advanced (2912) and normal (2402), are the questions asked in the labs for the lab report. CHEM2916 is SSP, and those students attend additional seminars as well as do some extra assignments.

Overall: 6/10


CHEM2403/2913: Chemistry of Biological Molecules

I didn't really mind this course. You will be learning about sugars, how they react to form disaccharides, lipids, cholesterol, steroids, artificial swettners, DNA and proteins. The seond series consists of physical chemistry. You'll learn about osmosis, brownian motion, diffusion, muscle contraction and the process involved, heart function, kidney function, electron transport, colloids and a bit on proteins. The final series in learning about metal complexes in biology (eg. Pt used to treat cancer). You'll also learn about the chelate effect, unit cels, crystal growth and the crystal structure of teeth and bones.

You will have 5 labs in the semester, 4 hours each, and they are all inorganic labs. They aren't too bad (well, not as bad as the core chemistry).

Overall: 7/10

 

[bustinjustin]

Re: Subject Reviews - UPDATED WITH .PDF on first post

ECOP1002 Economy and Policy
Ease: 7/10
I beg to differ with previous posts - though somewhat mundane, all we really had to do was analyse statistics and data in light of its socio-economic context, then arrive at the oh so shocking conclusion about the interconnectedness of the state, market and family. By simply taking a typically leftist, critical stance, it was hard to go wrong, and easier to bullshit in tutes (for me anyway).

Results pending, points are nonetheless lost because of the incredibly demanding exam - too much to write in so little time and space, and the topics tested in '06 bucked the trend for once and threw everyone off. Personal exam performance could change my opinion.

Lectuter: 6.5/10
Gabrielle Meagher - condescending, demanding and hoarse-voiced, but means wells and knows her stuff. Her asides may not compare to Frank Stilwell's, but she tries. And yes, some stats are surprisingly outdated, but she explains why (this doesn't necessarily suffice though for some). A coffee will do wonders for one's attention span.

Interest: 6/10
ECOP1002 is hardcore, gritty, real-life economics - but doesn't really live up to the excitement of this character description. In practice, this is where the dryness of economics glaringly shines through, and does put off a lot of people. I personally feel a lot more enlightened when it comes to economic issues, but also feel that I've become duller and more boring as a man.

Overall: 6.5/10
Nothing spectacular, just a simple course for ECOP kids to go through the motions, but essential for future progress nevertheless

GOVT1202: World Politics
Ease: 6/10
The content is dense and convoluted, and this is compounded by tedium. Despite clearly outlined criteria, the marking of essays remained contentious, unclear and questionable. Readings are too incoherent, too boring, and this translates into crap tute marks all around.

The exam however is a category unto itself. Questions are ambiguous and the topics examined are totally out of the blue - a clear trend over the years apparently. Hardly anyone gets a over 80% in this.

Lecturer: 5/10
As incoherent as the readings. I had a clash, meaning I could never stay for a full 2 hour lecture, but at least I came out alive and kicking everytime. Gil Merom lovers are a weird species, but they exist.

Interest: 3/10
Who cares if it's politically and academically relevant - not meaning to be cliched, its as boring as batshit.

Overall: 4.5/10
Enough to put one off GOVT altogether, but older kids advise to keep the faith...


ASNS1002: Modern Asian History and Cultures 2
Ease: 6/10
The ideas about modernity are rather abstract and complex, moreso if one comes from a non-Arts background, but the morale is clear and simple - modernisation is not static, westernisation was not modernisation (for the better), and imperialism impeded modernisation for colonies. Tutes were often embarassing (the Indonesian ones anyway - one had a choice of Indonesia, Korea and Japan tutes - as Max Lane constantly made everyone feel stupid by highlighting just how little we knew about Asia , and readings were once again, too complex to decipher in one quick skim. A callous bitch that laughed at everyone's comments in tutes didn't help either. Essays were marked harshly too.

Also, having to learn three separate histories and tying it altogether in a demanding exam is quite a task, so it's actually not one to be taken lightly.

N.B: Colonial history is so depressing (especially Indonesia's).

Lecturer: Variable
Pankaj Mohan (Korea) - 5.5/10
Incoherent, but too gentle to hate for this. It did make it harder to study Korea though.
Max Lane (Indonesia) - 6.5/10
My own tutor. Admittedly, I rarely went to his lectures and only ever managed to show up for the last 5 minutes, so I can't really provide an accurate assessment. But I didn't find him as inspiring as I'd hoped.
Matt Stavros (Japan): 9/10
Inspiring, intelligent and interesting American Princeton graduate. Had him as a substitute tutor in the first weeks, knew nothing about Indonesia but was fascinatingly (though not disturbingly) quirky.

Interest: 8/10
Thanks in part to Matthew Stavros, but the content is intrinsically interesting, a sobering assessment of imperialism and westernisation.

Overall: 7/10
Not necessarily a song and dance about 'Asian Pride', but rather a panacea for Asian inferiority/Western superiority complexes.

PHIL1010: Society, Knowledge and Reason (though there was no 'Reason').
Ease -
Society: 8/10 (becomes so when the readings are done, and one learns how to write a Philosophy paper, which I never realised, but thankfully discovered, was a cinch compared what I was used in the social sciences - complete bullshitting, but with close reference to the text, and only to the text. It's all about rhetoric rather than research).
Knowledge: 4/10
See previous comments through the thread.

Lecturer -
Duncan Ivison (Society): 7/10
Sometimes went around in circles, but only to hammer the content into our heads.
Anne Newstead (Knowledge): 6/10
Like Ivison, another Canadian (what is it with Canadians and philosophy?). Rarely covered all the slides in lectures, constantly 'ums', but gets the job done I suppose (meh). Then again, she didn't have a lot to work with.

Important
For tutes, make sure you get Patrick Yong. Avoid Simon Duffy like the plague.


Interest -
Society: 9/10
Couldn't get enough of it. Introduces ideas used heaps elsewhere.
Knowledge: 2/10
Enough to induce self-harm during StuVac, since going through the readings is self-harm in itself.

Overall: 6/10
Would be heaps higher if it was Society alone.

 

[jhakka]

Re: Subject Reviews - UPDATED WITH .PDF on first post

EDUF 2007 - Social Perspectives in Education
Ease: 8/10. I went to maybe four lectures (I gave up after the Aboriginal Education one, which was exactly the same as the corresponding lecture in Education, Teachers and Teaching in first year), and still managed to pass before the exam was done. Everything in this unit depends on the tutes, and if you've been in the school system (public or private), you're pretty much guarunteed a pass (at the very least) in this one. Oh, and the fact that the exam was given to us word for word helped too.

Lecturer: 1/10. I went to less than half of the lectures. There is a reason for this. It was generally a mis-matched set of lectures, jerkily put one after the other with no apparent theme at all. The tutes were good, though.

Interest: 5/10. Only the tutes were interesting. There were lots of debates about public and private schooling, gender stuff, the media, and a whole lot of other factors that are relevant to schools.

Overall: 5/10. For a compulsory subject that's pretty much a repeat of Education, Teachers and Teaching, it wasn't too bad. The unit's redeeming feature was the tutorials, but that's something that comes down to how good your group is.



EDUF 3024 - Adolescent Development
Ease: 8/10. Very straightforward. Every topic was presented and addressed clearly, and readings that were provided were relevant to what we needed to know. Assessment-wise, resources weren't difficult to come by since I actually know how to use the electronic databases (which is more than can be said for many education students).

Lecturer: 9/10. Some people didn't like Tracy's style, thinking she was disorganised. I, on the other hand, found her easy to listen to (if a little repetitive at times), particularly because she spoke to us the way I would speak to my friends. The lectures themselves were presented in a casual way, with lots of examples, and were just enjoyable to go to. I also found that Tracy was a good person to just talk to without feeling stupid or like you weren't worth the time. She was always ready to give feedback, and actually had a sense of humour (she let me tell an emo joke during my presentation on depression and suicidality!).

Interest: 9/10. This unit is not only related to the age group I want to teach, but it's also related to a lot of things that I have gone through in recent years from a developmental standpoint. Because this entire unit was dedicated to adolescents, it's not just glossed over with a quick reference to Kholberg. Instead we look at things like sexuality, drug use, depression and suicide, eating disorders and all kinds of other interesting topics. Assessments were pretty good because everything was pretty much left to us, where we could focus on the areas we found most interesting, while still getting a lot of info from people who were interested in everything else.

Overall: 9/10. Most interesting and enjoyable course this semester.



ENGL 2617 - Postmodernism
Ease: 6/10. I went to about 1/3 of the lectures at most. I did about four readings, and spent most of my time in tutes having no idea about what was going on. I managed to get 77% in the assessment (not including the final essay), so I must have done something right.

Lecturer: 5/10. Julian was a good lecturer, but there were a lot of assumptions made about prior knowledge that I didn't quite agree with. I also thought that he went through the lectures too quickly, with no actual link to how each lecture fit into the course as a whole.

Interest: 4/10. Postmodernism is pretty big in the HSC syllabus at the moment. I only did this course because I thought it might be useful in the future. I did, however, find some of the theories very interesting, and the photo essay I chose to do at the end was a lot of fun to set up and write (though it wasn't very good for my bank account).

Overall: 5/10. Difficult information with a couple of interesting readings thrown in, reasonably easy assessments and decent marks. Can't bring myself to give this less than a pass.



HSTY 2655 - Race Relations and Australian Frontiers
Ease: 7/10. Being a person who is not historically minded, I didn't find the material in this unit too challenging. Maybe this is because we're only looking at one aspect of Australian history, rather than Aussie history as a whole. The focussed nature of this unit gave it a common theme (duh) with which to link all of the lectures, tutes and readings. The assessment was pretty straightforward, with the standard essay and tute paper, with no nasty surprises in the take-home exam.

Lecturer: 7/10. Kirsten was pretty cool. She is one of those lecturers who gets annoyed with people who show up late, but to make up for this she showed a bit of CNNNN in one of the lectures, and the information is presented in a straightforward manner.

Interest: 5/10. I'm not particularly interested in Australian history, but I skipped surprisingly few lectures for this one because it was presented in a comprehendable manner, and was made interesting and relevant. The only reason I didn't score this higher is because of my general lack of interest in history, Australian or otherwise.

Overall: 7/10. Can't complain. Was easy enough, and there weren't any nasty surprises.

 

[jhakka]

Re: Subject Reviews - UPDATED WITH .PDF on first post

Probably would have helped if I attended the lectures.

Photo essay was the best assessment evar.

 

[Tommy_69]

Re: Subject Reviews - UPDATED WITH .PDF on first post

ACCT1002 - Accounting IB
Ease - 9/10: This subject is ten times easier than ACCT1001. The exam questions are just tute questions with different numbers. If you can do the tute questions you can do the exam questions.
Lecturers - 8/10: Rosina explained things very well so did Paul who also gave away what was going to be in the exam.
Interest: 7/10
Overall: 8.5/10

ECON1002 - Introductory Macroeconomics
Ease: 6/10
Lecturers: 6/10
Interest: 8/10
Overall: 6.5/10

MKGT1001 - Marketing Principles
Ease: 8.5/10. all theory no maths
Lecturers: 9/10. dont need to go to lectures
Interest: 7.5/10
Overall: 8/10

INFS1000 - Business Information Systems Foundations
Easy: 9.5/10
Lecturers 9/10 - dont need to go to these
Interest: 5/10
Overall: 9/10

 

[jpr333]

Re: Subject Reviews - UPDATED WITH .PDF on first post

ACCT3011 - Financial Accounting B
Ease 8.5/10: Much easier than Fin A, it's been toned down a lot since the credit point adjustments im told. Consolidation is challenging but is only covered in the mid semester. One test, one group assignment and a final with no workshop participation required. 3rd yr accounting subjects are easier imo.
Lecturers - 7/10: Straight forward, 1hr short. Pretty much all on the net.
Interest: 8/10 Kinda getting into the nitty gritty of financial reports, how they're constructed etc as well as the theory behind accoutning standard setting (critical analysis/reflection about accounting)
Overall:8/10

ACCT 3012- Management Accounting B
Ease: 9/10 Mid semester not too bad, major essay is long but is doable. Open book 40% final was piss easy.
Lecturers: 8/10 Peter Edwards is a legend, the other guy is a bit of a bore.
Interest: 7/10 Kinda like business studies in yr 12, very little straight accounting focus.
Overall: 8.5/10

FINC 2012- Corporate Finance II
Ease: 7/10. Did no work all semester (course related, assignment was on real estate unrleated to the course but related to the lecturer's paper he was writing /rolls eyes gg Frino). But managed to cram all in stuvac reasonably well.
Lecturers: 4/10. Boring, boring, boring.
Interest: 7/10 Interesting stuff about options etc imo.
Overall: 6.5/10 Not a fan of the finance discipline (it's a bit all over the place imo).

CLAW 3202- Tax Strategies in a Business Environment
Easy: 9/10 One group assignmen t, tutorial marks for hand ins (you get to choose) and a 40% open book final which resulted in me copying down answers word for word i had already done for 2 hours. Some had passed before the final.
Lecturers 7.5/10 - antony is ok, not engaqging enough but hes reasonable.
Interest: 8.5/10 Somewhat interesting tax law stuff
Overall: 8/10 - Recommend if you did tax law 1 and are looking for a cruisy 3rd yr subject.

 

[jpr333]

Re: Subject Reviews - UPDATED WITH .PDF on first post

CLAW 3202 is much better imo. It's much easier, 20% of your marks are from handing in tute answers over the semester, so you get to choose when to hand things in. No mid semester, and the group assignment is with 5 people so it isn't very taxing (no pun intended). Content wise I'd prefer 3202 again. You cover topics including international taxation and international tax agreements (what the assignment was on actually), taxation of dividends under imputation, avoidance (again), employee share schemes, losses etc.

You only cover in depth what you have to, like 2 topics for the final so you don't have to study a lot of stuff in the end. But yeah it's better, open book and more legislation based (hardly any cases at all) than 3201. So if you're looking for a filler i'd give it a go (only one extra text book needed), it's also probably a good step towards tax in accounting (know Deloittes girls etc who have done it).

 

[tlodg]

Re: Subject Reviews - UPDATED WITH .PDF on first post

Is Fin A hard because u had to memorise lots/lots of readings
or because it is abstract?

Will it be based on the financial accounting concepts learned in the first half of ACCT 1B?

 

[cimbom]

Re: Subject Reviews - UPDATED WITH .PDF on first post

ECON1002- Introductory Macroeconomics
Ease 8/10: It's not very difficult. You need to be able to understand and apply models, and refer to them in the use of macroeconomic policy.. cause of issue, ways to correct it. There are two in- class tests each 4-weeks of the semester that examine immediately relevant content. The final exam focuses most on everything that hasn't been tested in the in- class tests, which was really good. Alot of the difficult concepts from the opening weeks did not appear in the final exam, at all.
Lecture 9/10: I had Matthew Smith. He's really good. He's quite intelligent and explains things very well, beyond the provided lecture slides.
Interest 8/10
Overall 9/10: The only stupid thing about this subject was that the recommended core text, that was purchased by almost everyone, was close to useless. I used the course reader more often, and had to access other books. The lecturer actually advised us for one topic NOT to refer to the text book. The tutors for the subject are okay, and the assessment structure has an actual focus on tutorials themselves (individual and group presentations, participation and attendence mark) unlike econ1001.

ECMT1020- Business and Economic Statistics B
Ease 7/10: It's about the same difficulty as ecmt1010. You learn multiple regression, and use more distributions (like chi squared, t, f,... you barely use z-stat and normal). There are random topics that seem completely useless, like learning how to work with matrices. There are stupid quizzes worth only 5%, a relatively easy mid- semester test, and an assignment involving regression, with heaaaps of data. The exam is just a repeat of previous exams' questions. It is exactly the same- do them, and you will be completely prepared.
Lecturers 8/10: John Goodhew is very friendly and polite- even to the people that are constantly rude to him in lectures with their talking. He goes very very fast though sometimes through the content. Though he provides handouts, we were always writing fast to get everything down without being able to listen properly to his explanation.
Interest 7/10
Overall 8/10

GOVT1202- World Politics
Ease 7/10: I found the assessment essays to be particularly difficult. It takes a long time to actually figure out what you're arguing, in relation to political theory. The exam was multiple choice based entirely on the concepts of the readings. If you actually have time to study the readings that much, you will do well in the exam. Because I didn't have time to do that.. my HD mark fell to a final mark of C. It was very difficult in this subject, more than any other for me, to balance the challenging assignments with the completion of course work.
Lecturers 9/10: I was one of the few people that liked Gil Merom. It's very difficult to follow what he's saying initially, not at all because of his accent, but just his style of speaking. Like out of nowhere he'll say something like "and secondly!" when there wasn't even a first point. But once you get it, he has alot to say and there's alot for you to write.
Interest 10/10: Such political theory is very important for senior govt units.
Overall 9/10: Though it was hard, I enjoyed it.

ECOP1003- International Economy and Finance
Easy 9/10: It's very broad. You can talk about anything that has to do with 'international economy and finance'. There's little analysis of the international situation in political economy terms. There's a stupid tutorial presentation (based on the certain week's readings.. you're not expected to go any further than that in research), a stupid essay with very general questions, and an even stupider exam.
Lecturers 6/10: As much as Bill Dunn seemed a nice person, he came to lectures unprepared and talked about nothing. Really nothing.. he would speak sooo generally. It was painful listening to him trying to make a point. The lecture slides were a few random points that seemed only helpful in guiding him in his talk. I remember a few times students asking him questions, and he'd ask the rest of the class if anyone knew the answer, or the 'specifics' of what he himself was talking about. I still can't believe it.
Interest 9/10: International trade, development objectives.. it's interesting.
Overall 6/10: The readings provided were absolutely irrelevant. Some just detailed historical events, like the development of imperialism or the world trade organisation that didn't really critically analyse anything at all. The tutorial questions were also very broad.. and it was impossible to answer them with the content of tutorial readings or the lectures. Stuff like 'can the WTO achieve a fair trade regime?' or 'who cares about the exchange rate?' Though my tutor was really good, and brought forward new questions and sort of guided us through discussion. The final exam was absolutely ridiculous. One of the questions was 'Is financial globalisation reversible?'. How the fk could anyone reasonably answer that?? If you have room for a spare subject, like i did, before you can start senior units in areas that you want to continue, do not choose this subject. Though the content is interesting and relevant to economics+business etc.. the course structure and teaching is horrible.

 

[_dhj_]

Re: Subject Reviews - UPDATED WITH .PDF on first post

ACCT1001 - Accounting IA
Ease: 7
Lecturer: 7
Interest: 3
Overall: 5

ACCT1002 - Accounting IB
Ease: 7.5
Lecturer: 6
Interest: 3.5
Overall: 5

INFS1000 - Business Information Systems Foundations
Ease: 9
Lecturer: 6
Interest: 2
Overall: 6

ECMT1010 - Business and Economic Statistics A
Ease: 6
Lecturer: 0.5
Interest: 3
Overall: 3

LAWS1006 - Foundations of Law
Ease: 8
Lecturer: 9.5
Interest: 7
Overall: 8

ECON1002 - Introductory Macroeconomics
Ease: 8
Lecturer: 5
Interest: 8
Overall: 7.5

ECON1001 - Introductory Microeconomics
Ease: 6.5
Lecturer: 5.5
Interest: 5
Overall: 6

LAWS1008 - Legal Research
Ease: 10
Lecturer: 6
Interest: 5
Overall: 7

LAWS1010 - Torts
Ease: 7.5
Lecturer:9.5
Interest: 9.5
Overall: 9

 

[Templar]

Re: Subject Reviews - UPDATED WITH .PDF on first post

CHEM2402/2912/2916: Chemical Structure and Stability
...

The lecturers...well no one that actually stands out. If you guys have James Beattie, good luck trying to unerstand him. He mumbles.

The labs are horrible, as they are in first year. There are organic and physical labs. The organic labs aren't too bad, but the physical ones are shocking. You have to hand in your report by 5 pm that afternoon! You will have one lab each week, including weeks 1 and 13, which will run for 4 hours.

I have to agree the lecturers are a joke, but Prof Warr is up there as one of the great lecturers. Maybe you didn't get enough exposure in the lectures, but from SSP we knew he would be great from the first seminar. Otherwise it's a circus out there, with James "dead shit" Beattie, Peter "9 boards" Lay and Toby "etymology/a word a day" Hudson.

The physical labs aren't bad. In fact, the physical labs were great. It's only due at 5pm because the questions were ridiculously easy, and with some careful planning you could easily finish the day by 3pm, and the same couldn't be said for organics. Not to mention the marks from physical were significantly higher than organics.

Oh, and there are 8 labs, not one lab each. You've got lab either week 1-8, or 6-13.

 

[tennille]

Re: Subject Reviews - UPDATED WITH .PDF on first post

I was actually referring to the lecturers overall. But I agree that Prof. Warr was good.

My bad about the labs. I forgot I did two chem subjects, meaning I had labs from weeks 1-13.

 

[manifestation]

Re: Subject Reviews - UPDATED WITH .PDF on first post

CLAW 1001 - Commercial Transactions
Ease 7/10: The research assessments are really good, with plenty of time and topics that have plenty to research. Some ppl (like me mates) found the amount of topics to understand were too many, especially when we only spent one lecture per topic. There's not much reading...but if you wanna do well read up on extra material as much as you can. The exam is long answer/essay type questions...That, in my opinion is much harder than the written assessment/tutorial work.
Lectur/ers 9/10: Giuseppe is awesome! But does go really fast through the material. Lectures are never boring. But the only thing that is totally crap is the lecture notes....WAY to brief...it's like one word per slide...shhheeesh!
Interest 9/10: It's only interesting when u read up on the latest developments and attend G's lectures.
Overall 9/10: Thought it was relatively easy and interesting. But note...some of the tutors are crap as!

SLSS 1002 - Law as a language, culture and performance
Ease 9/10: It's easy...don't need to attend lectures...tutorials are a complete waste of time cause the assessments and tutorials don't even overlap. There's no exam just two HUGE essays. Which are also easy, just got to do the reading.
Lecture/ers 3/10: Omg...just crap! Lectures and Rebecca are just boring; with nothing you don't already know. Only thing interesting/weird is when she mentions her beloved Buffy and how she's a huge fan...other than that don't bother with lectures.
Interest 3/10: Its boring. Tutorials 'can' make the subject interesting when/if ppl debate.
Overall 4/10: Only did the subject because it was mandatory...otherwise would never do it or recommend doing it.

WORK 1003 – Work and organizational studies
Ease 7/10: It's pretty good...a lot of it is today’s work and employment situation. Assessments are pretty dodgy but, they don’t look at the practical side more theoretical. Exam is only worth 30% and to me seemed like the easiest part of the course.
Lecture/ers 6/10: Marian is alright, her lectures are more reading off her lecture slide note things which she posted up anyway. Tutorials are good, better than lectures, you learn more and if you get ppl who actually talk in ur tute you will have some decent debates. There is way tooooo much reading for this subject and a lot of it is just irrelevant. U have to be selective with the reading and not read the huge chunks of the text book. Even just reading the summary is good enough lol.
Interest 5/10: You learn about current issues so it’s kinda interesting.
Overall 5/10: its not that hard to get a good mark for this subject, just need to attend tutorials. Good for learning the fundamentals of employment and industrial relations

 

[stazi]

Re: Subject Reviews

Time for some more reviews:

MKTG3121 - Advertising: Creative Principles

Ease: 8/10 - There is nothing too difficult in this unit of study. However, we never received any marks back for ANYTHING. The final exam was very simple to do.

Lecturer: 7/10 - Paul Priday is brilliant. He's had a lot of industry experience and this will show. However, he doesn't really stick to his lecture outlines. He likes to drift off and prefers to show off various ads he likes, rather than teach the things in the syllabus. He also sucks at computers and has trouble putting up most things on blackboard. Nonetheless, he's a fascinating lecturer that kept me enthralled.

Interest: 9/10 - Whilst some people may not like Paul's style, I loved it. It led to some interesting course content that has even inspired me to research some of his concepts and theories further. His exploration of advertising historically is especially of interest, as he tries to explain how people's perceptions of the world shaped marketing and advertising. You also get to see some boobs in this course sexy time!

Overall: 9/10 - I loved this subject. I was enthralled during lectures, and the assignments were practical. The tutor was also fantastic, although she said she won't teach again, as she earns 50 times as much doing consultancy work. poo. However, ask Paul what day Karem teaches, and avoid it. I had Karem for 1001, and feel that he would be horrible for this subject (I mean, the man is an accounting major).

 

[xiao1985]

Re: Subject Reviews

WOOT, new opinions on the way...

firstly, beattie mumbles, true... but he's a good lecturer... he will teach you guys kinetics, and hell, that's HELL of a course... =(

MKTG1001 marketing principle

ease 5/10 - rather hard i think
lecturer 9/10 - paul henry is good, robyn is a LEGEND!!!!
interest 10/10 definitely fun
overal 9/10 despite the shitty result...

INFS1000 information system

ease 2/10 very un good stuff
lecturer 3/10 sorry, though they try to lecture well, the stuff being taught are just too abstract to be understood by human
interest 4/10 - ok, it's useful... tha'ts about it
overal 2/10 - if you understand what's being said the first time around, i'd buy you a cookie

CHEM3911 organic structure and reactivity

ease 10/10 for content 4/10 for exam <- everyone does well... so if you make a silly mistake, you are gone...
lecturer 10/10... mal's just gold... i wanna be just like him *sighs dreamily
interest 10/10 organic person... what can you say =p
overal 9.9/10

CHEM3913 catalysis and sustainable process
ease 3/10 <-- rather hard... polymer + sustainable part
lecturer 10/10 bob gilbert + tony master are LEGENDS!!
interest 8/10 quite interesting... though none the less hard
overal 9/10

incidentally, i was actually 3 min late to catalysis exam *blushes*

CHEM3914 metal complexes

ease 8/10, it's hard, but lecturers are super... trevor is legend of legend... AND iam in his honour group this year!!! YAY!!!
lecturer 10/10
interest 10/10 interesting stuff... esp heavy metal poisoning etc... metal complex is interesting too... tho james beattie's kinetics is hell'ish (not the lecturer... the difficulty)
overal 9/10

CHEM 3915 medicinal chem

ease 8/10 not too hard... lots to remember though
lecturer 8/10 peter rutledge is a nice lecturer... if you can stand his ireland 5 min each lecture
interest 10/10 can't argue with organic =D
overal 9/10


ECMT 1020 bus stat B

ease 9/10 easy stuff... though had no idea how come i got only a D...
lecturer 10/10 GOODHEW is a LEGEND!!!! tutor ain't the best, but hey! can't wish for all good things eh?!
interest 9/10 will probably do a ecmt + finc major
overal 9/10

 

[stazi]

Re: Subject Reviews

what did you get in mktg1001 (mark-wise). I love how we're polar oposites. I found ECMT1010 to be amazingly hard, you found it easy. I found MKTG1001 to be very easy, you thought otherwise