Subject Reviews (with PDF compilation) (2 Viewers)

[yvonne_710]

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

ECMT 3110 Econometric Models and Methods

Ease: 8/10 The only thing in the course that i had to re-read a couple of times was large sample theory but our lecturer Vasilis had warned us that it was the hardest topic. All the other topics are straight forward. If you do the work for the course and attend your tutorials the final exam will not have any surprises in it. Literally about half the questions were exactly the same as the tutorial questions. The mid-semester was straight forward as well though many people stuffed up the last question probably 'cause they didn't revise their log and differentiation rules or got put off by the summation signs.

Lecturer:10/10 Vasilis is a gun and you have got to love that Greek accent. The other half of the Greek invasion, Anastasios is an awesome tutor, definitely clarifies things that were left a bit iffy in lectures.

Interest: 10/10 Really enjoyed this Econometrics subject, different to the ones i had done previously probably cause it was more theoretical.

Overall:9.5/10 Whilst people say it is the hardest metrics subject definitely the most rewarding.

Anastasios is soooooooooo good........i really wish he gonna teach us for 3120 or other ecmt tho........and in the end, i found that Large sample is not that hard, its just quite useful through the whole course... i will give Tutor 10/10,lolz..

 

[Mejc]

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

INFS 2001 -Business Information Systems

Ease: People with an IT backround - 10/10 and People with a non-IT background 6/10. If you have done any form of IT or are an INFS major, this course is basically an easy way to boost your WAM.

For those commerce students doing this as part of the of their CPA the modelling is going to be the most difficult skill to pick up i.e. given a problem constructing a suitable ERD, DFD etc. My stream was also fortunate enough to have that Huy guy who disappeared than re-apppeared then disappeared again on BOS literally living on the forums and making the lecturers seem stupid . The lecturer even noted his aim was to try and answer the students queries before Huy could, My suggestion if you feel lost, find out who does B.IT. B.Eng or B.CST and get them in your group 'cause they will be able to gun the course. The rest of it is really easy and just BS.

Lecturer:7.5/10 The lecturers Mark and Sam did an alright job in both lecturing and tutoring. They bother to answer questions on BB as well ,which is nice. In terms of how the explained modeling to new students i am not too sure of of since i already knew how to do all those things. Based on student feedback though the students wanted more examples on modeling ,which they said they will incorporate into the course.


Interest: 4/10 I already knew everything that was taught, though i did get a half day for work so that at least made me happy. Though i think some students might find the modeling an interesting change from all the BS theory.

Overall:6.5/10 For me an easy elective for Engo where i could walk away with a god mark with no effort. I read the lecture notes the night before the exam, did the group assignment 2 days before it was due and walked into the quiz with no study. All the non-IT students need to do is just practice the different modeling techniques and you will be right

 

[Mejc]

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

Anastasios is soooooooooo good........i really wish he gonna teach us for 3120 or other ecmt tho........and in the end, i found that Large sample is not that hard, its just quite useful through the whole course... i will give Tutor 10/10,lolz..

Yeah exactly once you get large sample which in the end is really easy, the whole course is all about it
I can tell you Stasi does teach applied

 

[Mejc]

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

ECMT 2630 - Managerial Decision Making

Ease:9/10 I think the easiest second year subject in ECMT, though 2110 was easy as well. If you have done a few stats or ecmt subjects along with a finc you won't find any surprises in the course. All the assignments and exams are relatively straight forward and easy. It's one of those study the night before walk out with a good mark type subjects.

Lecturer:9/10 Daniel Oron is a good lecturer, really fair. I love his Jewish accent he only loses are mark cause he kept saying eeerrrrrrrrrrrrrr all the time . The tutor who was Prasad this sem is a gun though I did know the guy before hand.

Interest: 6.5/10 I had done quite a few things before in the course, so it did get boring at times. Plus I only took the course since they canceled the third yr financial metrics I wanted to take.

Overall:8/10 Pretty good bludgey subject, though this subject is my worst ECMT mark though i cbf to do one question in the exam which I am sure if i was bothered to think about I could have easily solved.

 

[yvonne_710]

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

Yeah exactly once you get large sample which in the end is really easy, the whole course is all about it
I can tell you Stasi does teach applied

hahah...awesome........i love this course.....

Edit: for ECMT2630, i think the lecturer is too nice... there is no one failed in the course........

 

[Mejc]

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

FINC 3017 - Investments and Portfolio Theory

Ease:8.5/10 I initially made the mistake of this course thinking it was going to be mathsy, WRONG and hence i got owned in the mid-sem.

It's more like here is the situation explain why and maybe a quant question where u do it and explain why. Also do the readings as they will be examined in the final, though the lecturer kept telling us that over and over and over again.

If you listen to what Kerry says in the final review lecture there will be no surprises for the final. However i did find myself taking a moment to think as opposed to diving head first the question which I normally do. Lots of writing in the final including the reasoning for the quant questions. I was very unsure as to how i went seeing as i thought i did well in the mid-sem and didn't, but obviously what i did in the final was the BS that they were expecting. I was expecting at best 65 overall but got above 80.

Lecturers:6.5/10 Kerry Pattenden is a nut case, who keeps telling us that we should never manager her super and that a passive investment strategy is the best. However, if you listen to what she says and ignore her smart ass remarks she does teach you the stuff and tell you what is in the final. Andrew Lepone aka the goofy uncle, not too bad just starting out, did improve his techniques from the two lectures he took for Trading and Dealing in Sem 2 last yr. Dr Mark Van DE Vyver shit boring lecturer.

My tutor was a lazy shit who didn't really teach us anything. Furthermore i was extremely ticked off as after the final i found out that apparently the tutors were meant to go through a question on last yrs paper which was very similar to the one we got.

Interest:7/10 I had done most of the stuff before through financial metrics, derivatives and corp 2. I hate to say it but i did find behavioural FINC interesting.

Overall:7/10I needed one subject to finish my finc major and chose this thinking it would be quanty. It wasn't, i thought I was gonna do shit but somehow did a hell of a lot better than i expected.

 

[Mejc]

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

hahah...awesome........i love this course.....

Edit: for ECMT2630, i think the lecturer is too nice... there is no one failed in the course........

Yeah i am not surprised at that though he did give ppl 0 for the mid-sem cause they were caught out for cheating I guess thats as tough as he gets

 

[~Sw33ti3~]

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

MATH 1011 - Life Sciences Calculus

Ease: 5/10
It is almost like HSC Calculus, but taught it a much harder way. Bascially wasn't as difficult as I thought considering I only went to 4 weeks of lectures. If you enjoy maths then this is easy for you, if you are like me and really do not like maths, then this is gonna be hard. Passing isn't as easy, but as long as you go to the tutes and attempt to do some and study, then it should be no prob. I only studied the night before, so I guess getting a pass is something I deserve. It is almost all differentiating. 3D though, I don't like 3D personally, and never learnt it, only figured we did 3D 2 weeks before exams. So, yes... not that easy!!

Lecturers: 2/10
I got Palmer at 8am, and no way was I to make my way out in the cold mornings of Thurs and Fri to go to a MATHS lecture. Stopped going in week 4 and never bothered again. He really tried, but he thought it in a format I didn't enjoy (use to my HSC teachers and tutors) so yes, he over-complicated EVERYTHING. And someties refused to use a Mic. For 8am lectures, where u are half asleep, and overdosing on coffee, microphones WILL be appreciated.

Interest: 2/10
The is harder HSC Maths, if you are like me and used the Cambridge 2U book, then it is like the Challenge Q but harder. If you enjoyed maths, then this might be ok. But I really enjoyed HSC maths, and this wasn't that enjoyable. But still, it is not too bad if you don't bother turning up and use what they teach you back in HS with just a bit more new knowledge. You can pass with that.

Overall: 3/10
It is compulsory. I really hate maths thanks to the Life Science maths... Such a pity for someone who really enjoyed maths....


MATH 1015 - Life Sciences Statistics

Ease: 1/10
This is HARD. I never liked Stats so it made my life hell. Plus you have crap lecturer (I Did) so it was totally off putting. I managed a Pass with 50 (say I am lucky) I really didn't get more than half the paper. I didn't bother going to lectures coz I didn't get the lecturer anyway. And I didn't understand the textbook. I resorted to getting my HSC private Maths tutor back in to tutor me for 4 hrs and finally got something. So it is HARD. Unless they change the bloody lecturer and tutors. I never knew so many tests for stupid stats, T- test, Z- test, Sign - test, P- test. etc.

Lecturers: -10/10
I got Professor Jennifer Chan with a PhD in Maths who really didn't know how to speak ENGLISH! It was SO HARD trying to get her Canto accent. I am really use to the Chinese accents since I know so many overseas students and everything, so I can usually understand everything, but this is an EXCEPTION. She is terrible. Took me 2 lectures to know Pond = Plot, Err... rah = Error and Owl = R. So yes... her teachings I didn't get either, try asking her a question and she doesn't answer it properly. Hope she is never back again. She is terrible.....

Interest: 0.5/10
Terrible. I gave it 0.5 coz I got the Median, Mode, Mean and Box Plot, those easy crap we did back in HS. Anything harder than that got me headaches. It is NOT interesting. It is hard, it is hard to understand. Everything about it sucks. I hate maths thanks to this...!!

Overall: 1/10
It is compulsory. I hate it with a passion. I always had something against stat... so this was terrible to the limits.

 

[Caitie_cooliez]

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

Richard (from eduf2006), lets just say was very appropriately named... such a cold fish and mean! I had him as a tutor as well as a lecturer and he was very unapproachable and unfair.

Here's a little anecdote to demonstrate what i mean:

Despite my best efforts to avoid it, there were technical problems with my presentation.... because i would have liked to do a ppt but have little confidence in the uni's tech and had a vision of everything going wrong.... i had prepared a "supposedly fail safe set of overhead visual aids" to base my presenatation on... you no effective yet low tech! and relaible so i thought....

However, there ended up being no power in our classroom, which i was caused me to waste valuable presenatation time trying to prove to Richard who insisted in me comandeering every viable projector on the 4th floor and he then made me to do my preseantation without any reference but my notes... which was fine but not quite as engaging. So the presentation was a bit hindered.

But Richard said (in a really bitchy tone) that he would not give that any consideration in his marking as he reaoned "As becoming teachers you must learn to deal with and overcome such mishaps and therefore I'll be marking you on how well you coped with this'. Fair enough for the first half of the statement but how unfair is it to judge me under totally different cercumstances I'm getting tested under worst cae scenario while everyone else was given optimum conditions for theirs!

Am I right?

 

[dagwoman]

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

ENGL1025 Fiction, Film and Power
Ease: 4/10- couldn't understand what was expected of us for the first half of the semester, and had no idea what was expected for the exam or therefore how to study for it.
Lecturer: 5/10- Stefan seems like a really lovely guy, but his lecturing style was horrible. Basically he'd write a 50 minute essay and recite it during the lecture, thus giving only one view point that was often hard to follow or see relevance with the unit overall. He also liked to draw on paintings and convuluted rants from famous theorists.
Interest: 2/10- maybe it would be good if you were a die-hard film noir fan. When I chose the subject, the overview made the unit sound really dynamic and interesting. Instead it was a lot of 1940s texts with a few others thrown in, all tenuously tied through links such as "simulacra" or "the panopticon".
Overall: 3/10. Bleuughh. That said, I somehow managed to get a high credit, which was surprising, because I expected a low pass.

PSYC1001 Psychology 1
Ease: 7.5/10- I found it relatively straightforward, so long as you made sure you did work throughout the term, with the tutorial quizzes etc. I'm also a big fan of multiple choice exams, so I liked the final.
Lecturer: 7/10- Some were absolutely amazing (Caleb Owens, Lisa Zadro), some were really solid and interesting (Szabo), some were a tad repetitive, and some drove me insane with boredom and annoyance. But the good lecturers made up for the bad ones.
Interest: 8.5/10- I love psych, and I found basically all of it really interesting (except for conceptual issues- die!)
Overall: 8/10- Very enjoyable.

SCLG1001 Sociology of Modernity
Ease: 7/10- I found it kind of tricky, but I got a distinction, so obviously it wasn't too hard. The essay at the beginning of the semester was a bit daunting because it was early days and I didn't know what was expected, and the topics were on issues that we had to research independently, i.e. they weren't discussed in lectures. The final exam was a take home which involved writing 4 mini-essays in 24 hours. It was full on and draining, but I got it done by like 5pm the first day, and I did well.
Lecturer: 7.5/10- I quite enjoyed Catriona Elder's lecture style, and most of the guest lecturers (there were quite a few) were quite good. One point to mention, however, is that there was a bit of disorganisation with the publishing of lecture notes on WebCT, so even if they say the lecture notes will be put on WebCT, write the stuff down anyway, because often they aren't put up.
Interest: 7/10- I thought all the topics were very interesting, but they tried to cram too many into one semester, which meant you were unable to go into much depth at all. This also made it feel a little frantic and rushed. Also, you have to keep up with your readings!
Overall: 7/10- A solid subject. I didn't like it at first, but I settled into it as the semester progressed and I did well.

 

[~Sw33ti3~]

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

PSYC1001 - Psychology 1A

Ease: 6/10
Let no one make you believe 100 Multiple Choice exam is an easy one. It isn't, but it isn't bad either. But try not to cram in the last minute as you end up falling asleep in the exam. Try your best in the Essay, it is one of the 1st essays you do in Psychology so get the book which tells you how to write one. You will get the marks if you follow it. Make sure you do the work in the semester, try NOT to forget the tutorial quizzes, or if you do, remember to do experiments. Then it can it up for some silly mistakes.

Lecturers: 7/10
Lisa Zadro - 10/10 lecturer. Ok, I am also biased coz I went to her High School but that is a different story. She is a BRILLIANT lecturer who really gets you interested in Psychology. The most claps and the one lecture which is FULL and isn't attended by 20 or 30 people like Conceptual Issues in Psychology.

Caleb Owens - 9/10 lecturer. Brilliant one. But too much in the the Stats got me bored, but still. He is good, just not as good as Zadro.

Neuroscience dude (John?)- 7/10. I never remembered his name, but he was good. He really tried to be funny but lost to Caleb and Lisa. But neuroscience was interesting. It gets better as the lectures go on.

Applied Psychology woman (Szabo?) - 8/10. Brilliant lecturer. I loved the way she spoke about things and everything was really interesting.

Personality - 6/10. Not bad, he was funny, but he made the exams really hard. But yes, the issues about Freud was the only good thing he made.

Conceptual Issues - 3/10 (Fiona). She was. I didn't get her lectures. And never bothered to go. Explained why I did so bad in her section, but surprised that my guessings still got me the mark I got. She should stay sober in her lectures. Might help us understand.

Interest: 8/10
Zadro made it all worth it, so did Caleb. All the others were quite good Minus Fiona's Conceptual issues. It is a good course to do, but don't think it is too easy. But it is enjoyable, and you really learn so much about Psychology from a different aspect. The boredom did happen, and sleeping wasn't un-usual. But since Zadro and Caleb really made it so good, the 8/10 is worth it. Without them it might be dropping to a mere 5/10.

Overall: 7.5/10
Good and enjoyable. Minus the crappy bits and you will learn to love Psychology (Social Psychology more like it =D)


BIOL1001 - Concepts of Biology

Ease: 4/10
The final exam really killed. It isn't that fantastic with bad markers along the way. You won't enjoy it that much if you think it is like HSC biology. It was my HSC biology knowledge that got me pass this subject. Not one I would recommend if you want easy marks.

Lecturers: 4/10
Some where good. Some were terrible. I really do not like 'discussion' in lectures. I am there to listen not to talk. Talking is for practicals. Some are so boring that I catch up on my sleep in their lectures. I rarely met a good lecturer in this for some weird reason. Might be me, but seriously. It was NOT good.

Interest: 4/10
It is the practicals that made it worthwhile. The prac where the fun parts of this course. Playing with Blood, DNA etc is probably the best thing. But seriously, this put me off ever liking biology. And for someone who loved Biology in yrs 11/12, it is a sad thing. And since I did well in Bio for the HSC anyway, it was a let down of one of my favourite HSC course.

Overall: 4/10
Don't do it if you can. If you have to, the grit your teeth and get a pass. That was all I aimed for. Because it was just so not enjoyable. If you liked it, then good. But for me it was just bad, bad and more bad. I didn't bother going to lectures after week 6 because I found it was no use coz I didn't get the lecture anyway! And the text book is not much help, because you don't have a syllabus to show what is IN the EXAM. Felt like a headless fly when studying for the finals.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

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

A 6 week subject? Absurd!

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

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

You know an English course is good when Malfoy gives it a high score. I'll be sure to do it if I have the chance.

 

[Silver Persian]

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

GCST2602 Suffragettes to Cyborgs
Interest 4/10: Contrary to what is suggested by the name of the course, and what was written in the handbook, this is not an overview of the history of feminist thought - it focuses on postmodern feminism. There is a lot of discussion about deconstructing gender binaries Derrida style, the relationship between gender and science and the role of the body. Some people really loved this course. I found it overly abstract, tute discussions tended to be repetitive, one of the lecturers was pretty awful.
Lecturer Fiona Probyn-Rapsey 7.5/10 Jay Johnston 3/10: Fiona was a good lecturer. She is quite funny and interesting, explains things clearly. Show lots of clips from the Alien series. She had a baby half way through the semester, so we switched to Jay. She tried hard, but she tended to jump around quite a lot and didn't "connect the dots" between her arguments very well. Her voice droned, and she made lots of awkward, unfunny jokes
Ease 6.5/10: Assessments were a 1500w essay, a 2500w essay and a tutorial facilitation - they were fairly straightforward, although the questions tended to swing between being too specific and being too broad. The content most weeks was fine - but towards the end there were some horrors, such as Haraway and some of Irigaray.
Overall: 5.5/10 I wouldn't really recommend this. Although, as I said, people who like postmodern feminism did have a great time with this course.

SCLG2611 Comparative Sociology of Welfare States
Interest 6/10 Interest level was quite volatile from week to week. The readings were generally ok, although sometimes in social policy it can seem like you're reading the same article over and over again. There is quite a lot to be gained from doing this course - but I wouldn't say its 'interesting'.
Lecturer Gyu-Jin Hwang: 6/10 I ended up with a slight crush on Jin - he was my tutor as well, and he's quite funny and sweet. However, his lectures can feel very long - he doesn't structure them very coherently, and sometimes he can fall completely off topic (esp. the week on labour markets).
Ease 6.5/10 There wasn't anything especially hard. Some of the weeks on quantitative comparison shook the non-maths people, but if you're competent with maths/numbers, you should be fine. The assessments tasks were a tutorial facilitation, a 1000w country case study and a 3000w comparative essay.
Overall 6/10 Solid - if you're interested in social policy its fine. But I wouldn't really recommend this that much either.

SCLG2602 Social Inquiry
Interest 7.5/10 This course was surprisingly interesting. The weeks on ethnography, interviewing, and ethics were excellent - and even the weeks on quantitative methods were OK. There isn't too much reading to do for this course - and the readings that are chosen are good.
Lecturer 7/10 Fiona is mostly fantastic - funny, informative and engaging. She also did a good job giving us information about the assessments and is very responsive to questions and emails. She does have a tendency to rush the final quarter of the lecture - especially when she was discussing quant methods.
Ease 7.5/10 Some non-maths people found the quant section of the course confusing - but truthfully, if you could manage year 9 maths you won't have a problem. Assessments were 5 online exams, a participant observation exercise and a research proposal. The exams are straightforward, but I found the participant observation exercise and the research proposal difficult.
Overall 7.5/10 Surprisingly good course

SCPL2602 Contesting Social Policies
Interest: 6.5/10 This course is fairly interesting. The content is a theoretical approach to social policy - so a lot of political philosophy type stuff is looked at. Quite a bit of the content will already have been covered in SCPL2601 - so it it a little repetitive. The readings are mostly good.
Lecturer Gyu-Jin Hwang 5.5/10 I had him for two subjects this semester. Again, he isn;t a very engaging lecturer, he tends to drone a lot, his lectures seem to take a v. long time and they aren't v. well structured. Also, the lecture room for this subject (I think its the Quad History room) is AMAZINGLY uncomfortable.
Ease: 8/10 Assessments are great (one 1500w essay and one 2000w take home exam). The content covered in lectures and readings are clearly communicated - apart from the week on policy implementation. From what Ive heard, the marking for this course was fairly generous as well - because the number of people taking it was so low, the markers were under no obligation to follow the bell curve.
Overall: 6.5/10 Not bad, not great

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

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

CHEM2402 Chemical Structure and Stability
Lecturer: Asso. Prof. James Beattie (1-3), Dr. Adam Bridgeman (4-6), Prof. Peter Harrowell (7-8), Dr. Toby Hudson (9-11), Dr. Rob Baker (12-13)

Interest: 3/10 Depends if you're an organic or inorganic person. This course has made it very clear that I'm an organic person. You'll be learning about ligands, d block chemistry, thermodynamics and so on for the bulk of the course. The ligands part was ok in terms of interest (once I grasped it), but 8am lectures made it a little hard to be interested in. Statistical thermodynamics was intriguing, but a little abstract to really be interested in. Normal thermodynamics was a little more practical, but wasn't terribly interesting at all. The chemistry of carbonyl compounds (organic omg!) was awesome though.
Lecturers: 4/10 As has been said, the lecturers for this course are a bit of a joke. James Beattie (3 weeks) stands and mumbles for the most part in a monotone. I'm not sure why, because he can be exciting if he wants to be. Adam Bridgeman (3 weeks) was excellent who was able to be interesting at 8am, provided a tonne of learning material to help us through the stuff was was genuinely entertaining. Peter Harrowell (2 weeks) is a gigantic, self centered, rude and douchebagey penis who stares at the roof while lecturing like a dumbhead. Toby Hudson (3 weeks) is friendly enough, competent but not excellent. Rob Baker (2 weeks) was very good and explained everything quite well. His lecture notes were awesome too. So why the low score? The majority of assessment seems to fall under the shitty lecturers, and too much of Bridgemans stuff was picking up the pieces from Beattie.
Ease:4/10 Ugh, hard. Final exam was hellish. Lab reports are fairly easy if you know what you're doing.
Overall: 3/10 I didn't enjoy myself in this course. The synthetic techniques labs and organic lectures were the only parts of the course where I could actually say I was enjoying myself. The assesment was difficult, the lecturers were shoddy. I hadn't done 2401 either (which isn't a prereq), which made a bit of the material in some labs and some lectures a little harder to grasp. If it weren't compulsory, I wouldn't reccomend it. Try going to the 12pm lectures for sure.

 

[Triangulum]

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

GOVT1105 Geopolitics
Lecturer: Dr Diarmuid Maguire

Ease: 7/10. Most of the interesting stuff - on the rise of China, resource geopolitics and that sort of thing - was pretty easy, but the more abstract topics, mostly the cultural ones, were a bit more difficult to grasp, especially considering their apparent irrelevance to the course. (I also had a rambling replacement tutor for some of those topics, so that's probably part of it.) In terms of assessment, I thought that two 750-word assignments as well as a 2000-word essay was slightly (although only slightly) excessive for a junior unit. I would reduce it to just the bibliographic assignment and the essay, since the critical reading assignment was utterly pointless. It involved taking two articles, allegedly written from opposite sides of the same issue, and writing a comparison: but since most of the article pairs were only tangentially related, it was pretty difficult. The essay itself wasn't too bad as long as you stuck to the easy topics, although I felt they marked a bit harshly.

Lecturer: 7/10. I'm finding it hard to come to a conclusion about Diarmuid. Some of the lectures were quite interesting, but he tended to ramble a bit or cover things in a very shallow manner (sometimes it seemed that his geopolitical analyses basically involved thinking of as many aspects of sovereignty, economics, culture and territory for a topic as he could, then listing them). His lectures need more detail to engage people a bit more, I think. I'd like to single out the lecture on protest for criticism: it was confusing, boring and apparently pointless, as it didn't have an attached tute or readings and didn't come up in the exam. Apparently he just talked about it because it happens to be his research topic. It was hell. But for all that criticism, I thought that Diarmuid was slightly OK. He gave just about enough of an overview - if you could strip back the rambling - to allow you to work out the bare bones of the topic, to which you could then add the readings and your own thoughts to get some idea of the topics. I'd also like to praise Betsi Beem's guest lecture, which was excellent, and refreshingly detailed and structured compared to Diarmuid.

Interest: 6/10. As I've been saying, some of it was interesting. Much of it was appalling. Much of the reason for that appallingness was the difficulty in understanding what the topics we were studying had to do with the course. Sometimes they'd have a geopolitical topic - like migration and refugees, or the political aspects of sport - but then give us readings largely irrelevant to the geopolitical aspects of the topic, and/or fail to tie it back to the core of the course in the tute. The lectures didn't explain the links very well either.

Overall: 6.5/10. Unfocused, unfocused, unfocused. Some weeks were really good - the ones about resources and geostrategy and generally what the course description suggested the course was about - but a significant number didn't really seem to have any relevance to anything. The lack of coherence in the course made it extremely difficult to study for in some cases, and left you with the feeling that you hadn't really learnt much at all. I'd find it hard to recommend this course to anyone who isn't forced to do it by their degree (poor fools), and I'd like to emphasise to people considering doing junior government and IR that GOVT1101 Australian Politics is probably the pick of a bad bunch. Do that instead.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

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

BIOL 2012 - Vertebrates and Their Origins
Lecturer: Dr. Adele Pile (1-2), Dr. Liz May (2-4), Prof. Mike Thompson (5-8), Dr. Michael Letnic (9), Dr. Clare MacArthur (10-12), Prof. Chris Dickman (13)

Ease: 7/10 Pretty easy if you follow what's happening. There's a tonne of crap to remember though. If you can't remember specific keywords for topics then you won't like this course. The number of classes, orders, terms and whatever else you have to remember in 2012 is absurdly high. There's a tonne of learning material provided for you though. The lab book has material, the course text book is detailed (don't buy it though, it's not worth it. I didn't), the lecture notes are fantastic, WebCT is filled with information (videos, lectures, links and animations and whatever else), the lab CD that's given to you is well stocked and posters are put up in the zoology foyer full of information that are changed every week or so. The labs and tutorials also have a tonne of information to assist with lectures. So yeah, there's a lot to remember, but there's a lot of places to source the information from. The assesments are varied. On one hand, the mid semester test and those multiple choice questions were killers, but the final exam, speech, poster, essay and prac exam all seemed easy enough. There's a wide variety of assesment which is good, and exam assesment is mostly minimised.
Lecturers: 8/10 They're all pretty good. Liz (course co-ordinator) is pretty funny and droped by every week or so in lectures to give announcements. Mike Thompson was pretty fantastic and interesting. Chris Dickman is one of those experts in the field so he's pretty cool. Clare MacArthur's really into her subject so she's interesting (plus she lectured on mammals, which is easy since they're one of the most interesting aspects). Adele Pile was ok, but she lectured on the "origins" part of the course which wasn't that interesting. Mike Letnic lectured on birds. That's unfortunate, given how much I love birds, because he's an abysmal, boring and monotonous lecturer who doesn't seem at all interested in what he lectures about. His notes were probably the best though, so meh.
Interest: 8/10 Yeah, it's pretty interesting. As said, lectures were good and so were the learning materials. The tutorials went through the info in a pretty interesting manner, and the labs were always pretty fun and interesting. The course material itself is nice as you take a little tour of veterbrate evolution and step back through time and work your way back up. If you love evolution and zoology you'll love this course.
Overall: 8/10 I liked it quite a bit. Lots of learning opportunities, lots of fun to be had and only a couple of boring parts/lecturers. Of note is that it looks as if they've minimised the "walk around and copy crap off boards" method in this unit and instead have gone to lengths to make labs interesting. You'll be doing a dissection every other week in this course, which is always pretty fun. The amphibians lab was awesome, as Australia's leading frog expert (or something) comes in and does it with you, and he's really awesome. A word of warning: You have to kill a sea urchin and a toad, and the marsupials really, really stink. If you like chicken you might want to watch out for the chicken dissection to (although it doesn't really bother me after i dissected one). Those toads that you kill move around after you kill them too, which is pretty unpleasant IMO.

 

[Triangulum]

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

ANHS1005 Power and Persuasion in Rome
Lecturer: Dr Kathryn Welch

Ease: 8.5/10. Conceptually, it was nowhere near as hard as ANHS1003, because it focused more on political events than on cultural and sociological stuff. I thought it got a bit trickier towards the end because of the insane complexity of the imperial family tree, where the emperor's son's wife's stepsister's brother-in-law decides to make a powerplay by assassinating his brother's granddaughter's aunt's ex-husband's lover or whatever, but because of the structure of the course you could ignore a lot of topics that you weren't keen on. Assessment-wise, ancient history was again my lightest subject for the semester. A fairly short (1500 words) essay was the only hand-in assessment, and then there was just the exam (OK if you prepared enough for it, no real tricks) and tute participation.

Lecturer: 9/10. Kathryn was really excellent. Well-spoken, good sense of humour, illustrated her points with reference to both ancient sources and modern historians (which is a pleasant change for a history course). Plus, lecture recordings synchronised with the slides on WebCT! The guest lecturers, who were the tutors talking about periods or people related to their PhD theses, were pretty good too.

Interest: 9/10. This is a really interesting period of history (roughly from the Gracchi to Emperor Tiberius, with a tiny bit of the rest of the Julio-Claudians), and the engaging way in which it was taught made the course pretty good. I liked the way they threw in a few tutes on non-narrative topics as background to the political narrative, like how the Romans viewed suicide or how elections worked. It would've been nice to have a bit more on Roman religion, but I guess that's more the role of classics units.

Overall: 9/10. Really good course, strongly recommend it for ancient history buffs. Unfortunately they're changing around the junior ANHS courses next year, but I can't imagine that the new course will be that different.

 

[stazi]

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

I hope all of you get scaled to fail marks, and then come back and revise your Ease ratings.

 

[Iheartpaulfrank]

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

Hey Triangulum, thanks for that review on ANHS1005. It's always been a unit of study that has interested me. Hell I might even take it up next year. Kathryn Welch... she wouldn't be the author of some ancient history textbook I used in the HSC, amirite?