-
Finished your HSC? Check out our University Discussion, Non-School forums or help out next year's HSC students! -
YOU can help the next generation of students in the community! Share your trial papers and notes on our Notes & Resources page
Subject Reviews (with PDF compilation) (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter stazi
- Start date
Nebuchanezzar
Banned
Re: Subject Reviews
EDUF 1018 - Education, Teachers and Teaching
Ease: 9/10 - It wasn't a hard subject at all. Lectures and readings provide more than enough information for each topic, and the structure of seminars (speech/tutor summary) summarises each subject in quite a good manner. The only time someone wouldn't find the material easy, I imagine, would be if they had zero interest in the subject matter.
Lecturer: 8/10 - Depends. Lesley Scanlon was a fantastic lecturer who articulated everything in an interesting and concise manner, and Robyn Ewing (curriculum/knowledge) was able to do the same, albeit in a much nicer tone. The men who took the teaching technologies and empathy related classes were quite good too. Other than that though, there really weren't any lecturers to write home about. Quite frankly, other than the ones mentioned the lecturers were really quite shit. Sometimes this was dependant on the subject matter (aboriginal teaching), other times the lecturer was just horrible (hidden curriculum). It's a good thing that Lesley and Robyn took most of the lectures
Interest: 9.5/10 - I found most of the subject matter quite relevant, thus interesting. The material was far more tailored to suit first year interests and needs than any UNSW course was. In other words, putting education students into the fram of mind of being a teacher is by far more important than just launching them right into it, ala' UNSW. Regardless, the course was aimed at getting students to get into the teachers frame of mind. I feel that this was acheived for the students who would naturally have an interest in the matter. Those who were not interested, might do well to get out of teaching? Then again, maybe I've just been brainwashed by Lesley.
Overall: 9/10 - Course would have got a complete 10/10 if it had have been not so obviously oriented towards the arts students. Maybe just a little on the educational psychology side of things would have made the course a little better...maybe. None the less, a relevant, interesting and quite fun course. Peaks were the seminar discussions and the lectures of Lesley, troughs were the lecturers who took only one lecture and then moved on.
EDUF 1018 - Education, Teachers and Teaching
Ease: 9/10 - It wasn't a hard subject at all. Lectures and readings provide more than enough information for each topic, and the structure of seminars (speech/tutor summary) summarises each subject in quite a good manner. The only time someone wouldn't find the material easy, I imagine, would be if they had zero interest in the subject matter.
Lecturer: 8/10 - Depends. Lesley Scanlon was a fantastic lecturer who articulated everything in an interesting and concise manner, and Robyn Ewing (curriculum/knowledge) was able to do the same, albeit in a much nicer tone. The men who took the teaching technologies and empathy related classes were quite good too. Other than that though, there really weren't any lecturers to write home about. Quite frankly, other than the ones mentioned the lecturers were really quite shit. Sometimes this was dependant on the subject matter (aboriginal teaching), other times the lecturer was just horrible (hidden curriculum). It's a good thing that Lesley and Robyn took most of the lectures
Interest: 9.5/10 - I found most of the subject matter quite relevant, thus interesting. The material was far more tailored to suit first year interests and needs than any UNSW course was. In other words, putting education students into the fram of mind of being a teacher is by far more important than just launching them right into it, ala' UNSW. Regardless, the course was aimed at getting students to get into the teachers frame of mind. I feel that this was acheived for the students who would naturally have an interest in the matter. Those who were not interested, might do well to get out of teaching? Then again, maybe I've just been brainwashed by Lesley.
Overall: 9/10 - Course would have got a complete 10/10 if it had have been not so obviously oriented towards the arts students. Maybe just a little on the educational psychology side of things would have made the course a little better...maybe. None the less, a relevant, interesting and quite fun course. Peaks were the seminar discussions and the lectures of Lesley, troughs were the lecturers who took only one lecture and then moved on.
J
jhakka
Guest
Re: Subject Reviews
Nebuchanezzar: Everything in the first two years of a (secondary) education degree is completely irrelevant overall. Enjoy, though.Nebuchanezzar said:
Rafy
Retired
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2004
- Messages
- 10,719
- Gender
- Female
- HSC
- 2005
- Uni Grad
- 2008
Re: Subject Reviews
For Stazi (and since there is no final exam for the subject):
CLAW2205 - Trade Practices and Consumer Law
Lecturer: Patty Kamvounias
Ease: 8.5/10. - Its a clearly structured, straight foward subject. If you can handle the earlier claw subjects, this one shouldnt be too difficult. The workload is manageable.
Lecturer: 9/10 - Great lecturer. No complaints from me. It probally helped that she also took all the tutorials and was thus able to get to know everybody.
Interest: 9/10 - Like many claw subjects, its relevance to everyday real life situations is immediately apparent. I was able to stay quite interested throughout.
Overall: 9/10 - Probally the best claw subject i've done so far
Topics: Restrictive Trade Practices (Anti-competitive agreements, misuse of market power, exclusive dealing, resale price maintenance, mergers and aquisitions,) Consumer Protection (Product Liability, Misleading and deceptive conduct, False Representations, Unconscioable conduct.)
Assessment: Multiple choice exam (15%), Participation (10%), Essay (25%), Speech (10%), Group Essay (40%)
For Stazi (and since there is no final exam for the subject):
CLAW2205 - Trade Practices and Consumer Law
Lecturer: Patty Kamvounias
Ease: 8.5/10. - Its a clearly structured, straight foward subject. If you can handle the earlier claw subjects, this one shouldnt be too difficult. The workload is manageable.
Lecturer: 9/10 - Great lecturer. No complaints from me. It probally helped that she also took all the tutorials and was thus able to get to know everybody.
Interest: 9/10 - Like many claw subjects, its relevance to everyday real life situations is immediately apparent. I was able to stay quite interested throughout.
Overall: 9/10 - Probally the best claw subject i've done so far
Topics: Restrictive Trade Practices (Anti-competitive agreements, misuse of market power, exclusive dealing, resale price maintenance, mergers and aquisitions,) Consumer Protection (Product Liability, Misleading and deceptive conduct, False Representations, Unconscioable conduct.)
Assessment: Multiple choice exam (15%), Participation (10%), Essay (25%), Speech (10%), Group Essay (40%)
Triangulum
Dignitatis Contentio
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2005
- Messages
- 2,084
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2006
Re: Subject Reviews
No exam for this one either, so:
ARPH1001 Introduction to Archaeology
Lecturer: Dr Martin Gibbs (and his wacky crew of guest lecturers)
To be recoded ARCA1002 and moved to Sem 2 from next year
Ease: 8.5/10. Most of the material covered was reasonably basic, and the lack of an exam meant you didn’t need any deep understanding of it. The two 15% quizzes – which were mainly multiple choice with a few short answers - weren’t particularly challenging, just going over notes and memorising lists was good enough to get a decent mark. It probably wasn’t necessary to go to the lectures, since the textbook* and the notes on WebCT were pretty comprehensive. The essay was OK if you started early and picked a decent topic – I stupidly chose a complicated topic and started late, but I did it reasonably thoroughly anyway and got a D. The other element of assessment was a workbook based on the six workshop sessions. The main thing was not to put it off until later but just to do each workshop’s tasks soon after the workshop, to avoid it all piling up. The hardest task was Documents in Archaeology, which took a long time because it actually required thinking.
Lecturer: 9/10 for Martin, 6/10 for the guest lecturers. Martin Gibbs is an excellent lecturer who can convey a lot of fairly dry topics humorously and clearly. He also has a ton of interesting examples from his own research in the Solomon Islands and thereabouts. Unfortunately, most of the lecturers from the second half of the course, ‘Themes in archaeological research’, were guest lecturers from the Department of Archaeology talking about their areas of expertise. Most of them weren’t much good at lecturing: lowlights were Sarah Colley’s excruciatingly boring lecture on environmental archaeology, Ian Johnson’s pointless lecture about computer applications in archaeology, and every lecture by Lesley Beaumont, who has the unique ability to make it sound like she’s reading her lecture word-for-word off the paper in front of her even though she actually isn’t.
Interest: 8/10. The first half of the course, ‘Definitions and techniques in archaeology’, was fascinating – looking at different aspects of practical archaeology like surveying, settlement patterns, excavation, chronologies and ethnoarchaeology. The second half varied, as it was pretty much a pick’n’mix of different areas of archaeological research – the stuff about the development of literacy and trade was interesting, but the stuff about the archaeology of identity and religion was awful. Some of the workshops were better than others – Identities in Rubbish, where we looked through people’s household waste to see what we could conclude about them, was really fun, but the stratigraphy one was basic, tedious and difficult at the same time.
Overall: 8.5/10. It was an interesting (and easy) course that provides a decent foundation for further study in archaeology. I’d rate it higher if not for some of the guest lecturers and a couple of boring and fiddly workshops.
*Don't bother buying it unless you're really committed. I just got it out of the library a week before each test to go through a few details that the online notes didn't cover in enough depth.
No exam for this one either, so:
ARPH1001 Introduction to Archaeology
Lecturer: Dr Martin Gibbs (and his wacky crew of guest lecturers)
To be recoded ARCA1002 and moved to Sem 2 from next year
Ease: 8.5/10. Most of the material covered was reasonably basic, and the lack of an exam meant you didn’t need any deep understanding of it. The two 15% quizzes – which were mainly multiple choice with a few short answers - weren’t particularly challenging, just going over notes and memorising lists was good enough to get a decent mark. It probably wasn’t necessary to go to the lectures, since the textbook* and the notes on WebCT were pretty comprehensive. The essay was OK if you started early and picked a decent topic – I stupidly chose a complicated topic and started late, but I did it reasonably thoroughly anyway and got a D. The other element of assessment was a workbook based on the six workshop sessions. The main thing was not to put it off until later but just to do each workshop’s tasks soon after the workshop, to avoid it all piling up. The hardest task was Documents in Archaeology, which took a long time because it actually required thinking.
Lecturer: 9/10 for Martin, 6/10 for the guest lecturers. Martin Gibbs is an excellent lecturer who can convey a lot of fairly dry topics humorously and clearly. He also has a ton of interesting examples from his own research in the Solomon Islands and thereabouts. Unfortunately, most of the lecturers from the second half of the course, ‘Themes in archaeological research’, were guest lecturers from the Department of Archaeology talking about their areas of expertise. Most of them weren’t much good at lecturing: lowlights were Sarah Colley’s excruciatingly boring lecture on environmental archaeology, Ian Johnson’s pointless lecture about computer applications in archaeology, and every lecture by Lesley Beaumont, who has the unique ability to make it sound like she’s reading her lecture word-for-word off the paper in front of her even though she actually isn’t.
Interest: 8/10. The first half of the course, ‘Definitions and techniques in archaeology’, was fascinating – looking at different aspects of practical archaeology like surveying, settlement patterns, excavation, chronologies and ethnoarchaeology. The second half varied, as it was pretty much a pick’n’mix of different areas of archaeological research – the stuff about the development of literacy and trade was interesting, but the stuff about the archaeology of identity and religion was awful. Some of the workshops were better than others – Identities in Rubbish, where we looked through people’s household waste to see what we could conclude about them, was really fun, but the stratigraphy one was basic, tedious and difficult at the same time.
Overall: 8.5/10. It was an interesting (and easy) course that provides a decent foundation for further study in archaeology. I’d rate it higher if not for some of the guest lecturers and a couple of boring and fiddly workshops.
*Don't bother buying it unless you're really committed. I just got it out of the library a week before each test to go through a few details that the online notes didn't cover in enough depth.
Last edited:
Re: Subject Reviews - UPDATED WITH .PDF on first post
GOVT1202 - WORLD POLITICS
Lecturer: Gil Merom
Ease: 8/10.
The subject is quite easy overall, but the exam will pwn you hardcore. The average for this multiple choice exam is below 50%, so that's saying something. A lot of the questions will be very obscure. However, there were also waaaaay too many readings.
Lecturer: 2/10.
I learnt the least from Gil, compared to any of my past lecturers. It's strange. No matter how hard I tried to concentrate and listen, I couldn't. There's something about his voice that does that to you.
Interest: 5/10.
The concept of the course, world politics, interested me, but the execution of the course didn't. Some of the readings were rather interesting, but overall, I would avoid this subject.
Overall: 3/10
Very boring subject, which is compounded by a horrible lecturer. I wish that I enjoyed it a lot more, but sadly, it was crap. I'm also going to stay away from the discipline of govt in the future.
GOVT1202 - WORLD POLITICS
Lecturer: Gil Merom
Ease: 8/10.
The subject is quite easy overall, but the exam will pwn you hardcore. The average for this multiple choice exam is below 50%, so that's saying something. A lot of the questions will be very obscure. However, there were also waaaaay too many readings.
Lecturer: 2/10.
I learnt the least from Gil, compared to any of my past lecturers. It's strange. No matter how hard I tried to concentrate and listen, I couldn't. There's something about his voice that does that to you.
Interest: 5/10.
The concept of the course, world politics, interested me, but the execution of the course didn't. Some of the readings were rather interesting, but overall, I would avoid this subject.
Overall: 3/10
Very boring subject, which is compounded by a horrible lecturer. I wish that I enjoyed it a lot more, but sadly, it was crap. I'm also going to stay away from the discipline of govt in the future.
Re: Subject Reviews - UPDATED WITH .PDF on first post
Re: Gil's voice - that gets better too - I hated his guts at the end of first year but didn't mind his second year subject (International Security in the 21st Century) so much....
ENGL1000 - Have no idea, but apparently it is kinda easy....?
It's a shame that you're going to stay away from GOVT because of WorldPol - I agree it is seriously the world subject ever, but perservering to second year is good - the subjects get so much better.stazi said:
Re: Gil's voice - that gets better too - I hated his guts at the end of first year but didn't mind his second year subject (International Security in the 21st Century) so much....
ENGL1000 - Have no idea, but apparently it is kinda easy....?
bustinjustin
Member
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2004
- Messages
- 371
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2005
Re: Subject Reviews - UPDATED WITH .PDF on first post
ECOP2911: Political Economy Honours II (Methods in Class Analysis)
Ease: 8/10 It's all about class theory, but soo relevant to the real world. No final exam, just a seminar + paper, essay, tute participation, and most interestingly, an imaginary piece where you critique/outline your vision of a 'good' society' (no marks lost for totalitarian ones either, seriously, most people had centralised control in societies.
Lecturer: 10/10
Elizabeth Hill is truly one of the greatest, oh-so kind. The 'seminar' style class was basically what a tute should really be, small class numbers, learning through discussion, that sort of thing which doesn't happen enough.
Interest:9/10
In short, people just come together, sit in a room, and talk about class analysis for an hour and a half, once a week (no lecture). Believe it or not, class theory is a lot more complex than one would expect. A couple found class theory discourse a tad 'wanky', maybe because it was more arts than economics in part, but the course really does encompass all types of political economy, sociology, history and philosophy all in the one course. The perfect antidote to ECOP2011.
Overall: 10/10
I have to give it full marks, truly one of the best and most useful units I've ever done. Also one of the classes where everyone spoke, one of the best tute classes I've had to date in terms of members, kudos to all 10 of them, never a moment too awkward or silent.
ECOP2911: Political Economy Honours II (Methods in Class Analysis)
Ease: 8/10 It's all about class theory, but soo relevant to the real world. No final exam, just a seminar + paper, essay, tute participation, and most interestingly, an imaginary piece where you critique/outline your vision of a 'good' society' (no marks lost for totalitarian ones either, seriously, most people had centralised control in societies.
Lecturer: 10/10
Elizabeth Hill is truly one of the greatest, oh-so kind. The 'seminar' style class was basically what a tute should really be, small class numbers, learning through discussion, that sort of thing which doesn't happen enough.
Interest:9/10
In short, people just come together, sit in a room, and talk about class analysis for an hour and a half, once a week (no lecture). Believe it or not, class theory is a lot more complex than one would expect. A couple found class theory discourse a tad 'wanky', maybe because it was more arts than economics in part, but the course really does encompass all types of political economy, sociology, history and philosophy all in the one course. The perfect antidote to ECOP2011.
Overall: 10/10
I have to give it full marks, truly one of the best and most useful units I've ever done. Also one of the classes where everyone spoke, one of the best tute classes I've had to date in terms of members, kudos to all 10 of them, never a moment too awkward or silent.
Last edited:
Triangulum
Dignitatis Contentio
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2005
- Messages
- 2,084
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2006
Re: Subject Reviews - UPDATED WITH .PDF on first post
HSTY1022 Europe in the High Middle Ages
Lecturer: Assoc. Prof. John Pryor
NB: This was the last time this course ran – John is leaving the History department to concentrate on the Centre for Medieval Studies – but I’ll review it anyway just for the record.
Ease: 8/10. Two 20% 1000-word essays, a 10% tute presentation, a 40% take-home exam and tute participation for the rest. The essays weren’t really much of a problem – very short, so if you knew anything about the subject the biggest challenge was preventing yourself from going to 1500 words or more. John also helpfully provided an extensive reading list for each essay topic. The presentation was fine, because you could do it on the same topic as the first essay. The tute readings, which were all primary sources, could get very dense, but you could normally get the gist with a bit of effort. As for the exam, I found that picking up a few books on the topics I was planning to write on served me fine. The fact that up to half of the exam could be on the topic of your tute presentation also added to the ease factor. Some of the questions were very vague, though.
Lecturer: 7/10. I quite liked John (who was my tutor as well); he was generally reasonably clear and moved us through a lot of information. His intent in lectures, according to the outline, was mainly to introduce us to the key features, events and personalities, and then let us follow up the ones we planned to do assessments on. However, this sometimes meant that he tried to get through too much, just sort of naming a personality and giving a couple of sentences about them before moving on to the next one. This particularly happened in the sections on the Muslim world, I found. However, I still got a reasonable grip on the areas that I didn’t do any further research on, so I think overall the lectures were fine.
Interest: 9/10. I think this period (roughly 1050-1350 AD) is really interesting, so I liked the subject a lot. The lectures and tutes were organised thematically, so some weeks you’d come across something boring, but most of it was pretty good imo. Also, because of the structure of the assessments and exams you could usually avoid having to do any work on the subjects you weren’t interested in. The main thing was to make sure you picked interesting topics for your assessments: if you did that you were pretty much set.
Overall: 9/10. I found it an engaging course which gave a good introduction to the period and interested me in studying it at senior level. I can’t really think of any major gripes.
HSTY1022 Europe in the High Middle Ages
Lecturer: Assoc. Prof. John Pryor
NB: This was the last time this course ran – John is leaving the History department to concentrate on the Centre for Medieval Studies – but I’ll review it anyway just for the record.
Ease: 8/10. Two 20% 1000-word essays, a 10% tute presentation, a 40% take-home exam and tute participation for the rest. The essays weren’t really much of a problem – very short, so if you knew anything about the subject the biggest challenge was preventing yourself from going to 1500 words or more. John also helpfully provided an extensive reading list for each essay topic. The presentation was fine, because you could do it on the same topic as the first essay. The tute readings, which were all primary sources, could get very dense, but you could normally get the gist with a bit of effort. As for the exam, I found that picking up a few books on the topics I was planning to write on served me fine. The fact that up to half of the exam could be on the topic of your tute presentation also added to the ease factor. Some of the questions were very vague, though.
Lecturer: 7/10. I quite liked John (who was my tutor as well); he was generally reasonably clear and moved us through a lot of information. His intent in lectures, according to the outline, was mainly to introduce us to the key features, events and personalities, and then let us follow up the ones we planned to do assessments on. However, this sometimes meant that he tried to get through too much, just sort of naming a personality and giving a couple of sentences about them before moving on to the next one. This particularly happened in the sections on the Muslim world, I found. However, I still got a reasonable grip on the areas that I didn’t do any further research on, so I think overall the lectures were fine.
Interest: 9/10. I think this period (roughly 1050-1350 AD) is really interesting, so I liked the subject a lot. The lectures and tutes were organised thematically, so some weeks you’d come across something boring, but most of it was pretty good imo. Also, because of the structure of the assessments and exams you could usually avoid having to do any work on the subjects you weren’t interested in. The main thing was to make sure you picked interesting topics for your assessments: if you did that you were pretty much set.
Overall: 9/10. I found it an engaging course which gave a good introduction to the period and interested me in studying it at senior level. I can’t really think of any major gripes.