UNSW Subject Reviews. (1 Viewer)

[whoisurdaddy]

So basically a far harder version of QMB ;O

 

[Lydia_88]

Eh, it's 1am and I'm too lazy to review all my courses, but I feel I owe it to people to hear about SESC2001 if they haven't already.

Ease: 10/10 (I got a 96, a mate got a 97), and it's one of those courses where you can make up lost marks by doing extra weekly modules, which are just 5 short questions like "What makes anthrax so virulent?", the answers to which are all in the provided coursepack.

Lecturer: N/A - I wouldn't know as another bonus of this course was that it was offered as a Distance Education course in addition to on-campus attendance.

Interest: 8/10 - The 12 weekly answer tasks and a final essay can be knocked off in 48 hours and the content is relatively interesting while you read it if you're into Oil spills, asbestos, how anthrax functions, different types of cancer and the like. The electronic coursepack is hefty (400+ pages), but Ctrl+F makes the work a lot easier.

Overall: 10/10 - Thanks to this course I have a freaking 96 on my transcript now. If you're at uni in First Sem next year and have the option of an elective from the Science Faculty you should seriously look into this one as I cannot recommend it strongly enough.

I did SESC2001 as well!! Got 92 for that course (Chyeahhh!!!!!!!!)

I also did non-campus attendance, but i hear that Chris Winder is really good (and funny, since ive emailed him a few times).

Id say 10 / 10 for pretty much everything in the course!

If you want some extra HD's then this course is the way to go

 

[Lydia_88]

Speaking of which, i'll provide my own reviews for the subjects that i have done.

SESC3801 - Straightforward. I was quite into the material here. Got a distinction for it.... 8/10...i chose a the distance option so it didn't make much of a difference on whether i go or not!

SESC3601 - Some areas are hard, but got a decent mark for it. Really interesting course, you learn all about management and stuff. The first essay was tough, but the second was better....yes two essays and a take home test 8/10...

SESC4850 - Again, i just did this course to fill up extra u.o.c. Just passed, probably would recommend going the workshop route...i realized that i COMPLETELY IGNORED using the standards to answer the questions hence i got as pass..6.5/10

GENM0703 - Easiest course by a million!! if you are into fitness and health, then you would be able to pass this with flying colors (mark that brought me down is the group assignment). Didn't need to go into lectures.....personally i found Martha to be the most annoying lecturer..... Had Tania as my tute and she was good. 9/10 :wave:

JAPN1000 / 1001/ 2000/ 2001 (they changed the course codes now) - First year was really fast paced, if you are willing to put in the effort... Second year was far better i.m.o especially the second semester (JAPN2001)..that again depends on who is taking the course.........it gets harder the higher you go. But the best time i had was during JAPN2000-2001 :wave:. Best - Thomson sensei, Iida is good too, Nakamura..pretty funny!..... 7.5/ 10

SESC2091 - recently finished this course (in the summer) and it was worth my time. Time to learn all the hazards! downside is that you have to do some kind of SDS exercise (you have to choose a NON retail chemical..) and provide your own analysis. 9.5/10

JAPN2601 (no longer offered.) - wasn't structured very well but none the less great lecturer..positives were sushi making and complementing JAPN2001 with the polite humble forms and business etiquette ....7/10. Okamoto is awesome!!!

EDST1101 - Pretty interesting, although some ppl failed in the essay part. The memory part gets confusing sometimes but the course was worth sticking too. 7.5/10

EDST2101 - I found this to be way easier than EDST1101. Content wise was fantastic though (the essay was related to my tutorial presentation). Had Susan French as a tutor..she is the best!!! The lecturer was ok otherwise.... didn't bother paying too much attn..8/10

 

[gouge.away]

so... no one here does an arts degree?

 

[Lydia_88]

so... no one here does an arts degree?

i used to have the arts half of my degree (i did a combined degree when i started), but i only did japanese and education ....cant say too much of the other courses since i haven't done them...

 

[dawdlex3]

Since I'm kinda bored, I'll review some of the subjects I did last year and hopefully they'll be useful to someone in the future.


ARTS1090 Media, Culture & Everyday Life
Ease: 9/10 (the assessments were quite easy to handle: a weekly blog of readings review, a research proposal+paper, tutorial discussions)
Lecturer: 8/10 - Scott. His lectures weren't boring at all. Lots of examples that relate to media in everyday life (which is what the subject is about, right?) But his time management wasn't that good
Interest: 9/10 (taught me a lot of the proper media theories explaining what's going on about the Internet, broadcast media and lots of other media subjects)

ARTS1091 Media, Society, Politics
Ease: 6/10 (be prepared to be bombarded with policy docs and lots and lots of hard-to-comprehend readings)
Lecturer: 7/10 - Mat (he's quite demanding for two-way learning so avoid him as a tutor if you aren't prepared to learn wholeheartedly)
Interest: 7/10 (makes you think a lot about media policy and how new media is sort of messing traditional media governance)

MDIA1001 Media Literacies
Ease: 9/10 (the subject gives you a headache sometimes because you have no clue what exactly you're supposed to be learning, but it was rather easy scoring high marks depending on who your tutor is)
Lecturer: 6/10 - Louise, 5/10 Peter (sorry but i didn't have motivation to go their lectures, which were 95% reading off powerpoint slides)
Interest: 3/10 (only because we were allowed to research on a topic of our own liking)

MDIA1002 Comm: Contexts & Practices
Ease: 6/10 (the assignments are a bit hard for first-years, personally)
Lecturer: 6/10 - Louise (refer to the above, but it's slightly more interesting because you get to learn about different journalistic writing styles)
Interest: 8/10 (wish I could learn more, but it was still engaging enough)

BENV1042 WWW in Presentation & Comm
Ease: 9/10 (unless you're a complete computer idiot and get the worst groupmates ever)
Lecturer: (i don't have a clue cos i kept ditching the lectures...)
Interest: 5/10 (the lab sessions is mostly working in Adobe Dreamweaver according to the lecturer's instructions, or working on the website design assignments)

 

[dbrudgh]

ECON3206: Financial Econometrics
-- Overall: 4/10 - Not a fun course at all. The name alone tends to put people off and so it should be.
-- Ease: 3/10 - Tough Course. A lot of the course content is difficult and it is never exactly clear how to derive things unless you figure it out yourself. Doing business forecasting (ECON2209) should be a prerequisite before putting yourself through all the econometric models taught here
-- Interest: 5/10 - It's hard to get excited about ARMA and ARCH/GARCH models....
-- Lecturers: 6/10 - Panchenko is a boring lecturer but a decent course adminstrator. Probably one of the best I've had.

ECON3110: Political Economy
-- Overall: 5/10 - I'm not interested in old men's various economic theories (Marx, Keynes, Kalecki..) but others would be
-- Ease: 5/10 - There's no textbook for the course so you'll be having to do a bit of research and extra reading to get a full idea of each economist's perspectives
-- Interest: 5/10 - This course is designed to let students who have mostly been taught mainstream (neoclassical) economics gain an understanding and appreciation of the unorthodox schools of economic thought. It gives you a new perspective on your 1st-year eco courses but apart from that, it's not particularly useful
-- Lecturers: 9/10 - Peter Kriesler is one of the best economics lecturers around

ECON2111: Globalisation
-- Overall: 7/10 - It's an interesting course, fairly straightforward, and I see it as extensions of everything you would've learnt in Macro 1 and 2
-- Ease: 8/10 - It's not hard at all. If you've done ok in Macro 1 and 2, you'll have no problems here
-- Interest: 7/10 - If you liked macroeconomics, you'll like globalisation
-- Lecturers: 7/10 - Chris Benoit is probably a decent lecturer (I never went to any of his lectures) but his course administration skills leave something to be desired.

MGMT2102: Managing Across Cultures
-- Overall: 8/10 - Just another easy, management course.
-- Ease: 9/10 - There's alot of assessments but none of them were particularly difficult
- Interest: 8/10 - I was interested only because my tutor was an engaging individual who knew how to keep discussions going through 1 and a half hour classes
- Lecturers: NA - It's a management course.....

Comparing Financial econometrics with business forecasting, what would you say is more maths orientated?
Or rather what do you believe is easier in terms of absorbing the study load?

 

[tallkid34]

Comparing Financial econometrics with business forecasting, what would you say is more maths orientated?
Or rather what do you believe is easier in terms of absorbing the study load?

Good question...

I'll talk about both courses from my experience.

Business Forecasting: Although this course is not a required prerequisite for Financial Econometrics, it should be. The course is concerned with mainly AR (Autoregressive), MA (Moving Average) and ARMA models (they're used to model sets of data over time so you can get an idea of how the future will turn out). When I say maths orientated, the only real maths you will be doing is deriving a long series of equations that represent AR, MA and ARMA models. The problem is, business forecasting was so badly taught that it was hard to ever get a clear answer on how to go about deriving in the first place. In addition, deriving such equations is fundamentally irrelevant as computer software does that for you. It's only implemented because the course examiners need something to test you on.

This course focuses more on your knowledge of deriving such equations but the major assignment requires you to model data (i.e. stock returns over a certain period) using a model of your own choosing through econometric software. Then you have to go about interpreting your eventual forecast and providing supporting evidence for why your model is appropriate.


Financial Econometrics: This course builds upon business forecasting by moving away from simple AR/MA/ARMA models towards more complex models that involve not only a time-varying mean (AR/MA) but a time-varying variance (ARCH/GARCH). These models are specifically suited for financial data (hence financial econometrics). The course also requires you to derive like business forecasting so these courses are similar in that respect. Also keep in mind that while some of the notation for these equations is utterly ridiculous,the questions you'll usually get are simplified but still difficult if you can't derive properly.

The group assignment is similar in respect to the business forecasting assignment except you'll be given specific questions to answer. You'll also be using eviews (econometric software) for your assignment.

Google/Wiki the models I've mentioned and you'll see for yourself the equations I've been talking about.

 

[micuzzo]

i wish the uts forum had better reviews.

 

[dbrudgh]

Good question...

I'll talk about both courses from my experience.

Business Forecasting: Although this course is not a required prerequisite for Financial Econometrics, it should be. The course is concerned with mainly AR (Autoregressive), MA (Moving Average) and ARMA models (they're used to model sets of data over time so you can get an idea of how the future will turn out). When I say maths orientated, the only real maths you will be doing is deriving a long series of equations that represent AR, MA and ARMA models. The problem is, business forecasting was so badly taught that it was hard to ever get a clear answer on how to go about deriving in the first place. In addition, deriving such equations is fundamentally irrelevant as computer software does that for you. It's only implemented because the course examiners need something to test you on.

This course focuses more on your knowledge of deriving such equations but the major assignment requires you to model data (i.e. stock returns over a certain period) using a model of your own choosing through econometric software. Then you have to go about interpreting your eventual forecast and providing supporting evidence for why your model is appropriate.


Financial Econometrics: This course builds upon business forecasting by moving away from simple AR/MA/ARMA models towards more complex models that involve not only a time-varying mean (AR/MA) but a time-varying variance (ARCH/GARCH). These models are specifically suited for financial data (hence financial econometrics). The course also requires you to derive like business forecasting so these courses are similar in that respect. Also keep in mind that while some of the notation for these equations is utterly ridiculous,the questions you'll usually get are simplified but still difficult if you can't derive properly.

The group assignment is similar in respect to the business forecasting assignment except you'll be given specific questions to answer. You'll also be using eviews (econometric software) for your assignment.

Google/Wiki the models I've mentioned and you'll see for yourself the equations I've been talking about.

wow... Thanks for the great hindsight into the two subjects !
Um one last quick question. Do you think it would have been possible for you to effectively study Financial econometrics without doing Business forecasting?
Im actually in a bit of a dilemma because I have one econometrics option left but I dont know which one to pick, and since they are both offered in different semesters, I have to choose wisely if I want to graduate this year xD

once again thanks for your help!!

 

[loler]

anyone do ECON2101 (MICRO 2) or ECON2102 (MACRO 2)

 

[shinn]

Here's some review i've missed out on giving last year. My memory is a bit hazy because its been quite some time.

MATH1151
Ease: 9/10 - Pretty much a breeze if you've done 4u math.
Lecturer: 9/10 - J. du / T. Tran. Both excellent lecturers.
Interest: 7/10 - Pretty much just goes through the fundamentals of calculus and algebra.
Overall: 8/10

MATH1081
Ease: 7/10 - It is very different and some what more rigorous than MATH1151. A lot of emphasis is made in writing proper proof. Class tests were pretty hard. Make sure you are consistent in doing tute hw or else the finals (worth 80%) is going come bite you in the ass.
Lecturer: 8/10 - D. Chan / B. Jefferies - A lot of content were covered in fast pace mode, though concepts were explained well.
Interest: 9/10 - found it more interesting than MATH1151.
Overall: 8/10

ECON1101
Ease: 8/10 - The concepts weren't that difficult, just read your textbook.
Lecturer: N/A
Interest: 7/10.
Overall: 7.5/10

ACCT1501
Ease: 8/10 - Textbook course. After learning credit and debits, everything just makes sense.
Lecturer: N/A
Interest: 4/10 - found it pretty dry.
Overall: 5/10

MATH1251
Ease: 10/10 - I found it easier than MATH1151. Builds onto the calculus and algebra of MATH1151.
Lecturer: 10/10 - D. Chan/ I. Doust. Both excellent lecturers.
Interest: 8/10 - I liked the linear algebra component better than the calculus.
Overall: 9/10

ACTL1001:
Ease: 7/10 - An introduction to the basic principles and analysis in actuarial studies. The class tests were easy compared to the major assignment (8%) and the final exam (70%). Very quantitative course.
Lecturer: 9/10 - Bernard Wong. Excellent in both presentation and explanations.
Interest: 9/10
Overall: 8/10 - The first and only actl course I've done and I must say it's set out pretty well.

ACCT1511:
Ease: 8/10 - Textbook course.
Lecturer: N/A
Interest: 3/10 - again I found it pretty dry especially the management component
Overall: 4/10.

COMP1917:
Ease: 7/10 - A lot of effort is required in the beginning to get use to the programming syntax and structure.
Lecturer: 7/10
Interest: 9/10 - Found it very practical.
Overall: 8/10. I wish I've done this course in semester 1 along with the compsci students. There were no extension lectures so I feel like I've missed out on something.

 

[tallkid34]

wow... Thanks for the great hindsight into the two subjects !
Um one last quick question. Do you think it would have been possible for you to effectively study Financial econometrics without doing Business forecasting?
Im actually in a bit of a dilemma because I have one econometrics option left but I dont know which one to pick, and since they are both offered in different semesters, I have to choose wisely if I want to graduate this year xD

once again thanks for your help!!

Definitely possible. One of my group assignment members was in that same position last semester.

The easier choice should be business forecasting. But if that old Asian guy (Min Xiang, i think?) is still lecturing, it'll be difficult to figure out what's going on so the course will seem harder than it is.

Financial econometrics is taught slightly better but it's harder content. More analysis than derivation from what I've experienced.

The choice is essentially up to you. Although to be honest, I'd just avoid either of these courses and pick something else entirely.

 

[tallkid34]

MGMT2725: Career Planning and Management
-- Overall: 7/10 - It's a stupid and redundant course. But it's easy and doesn't require too much thought to do well in.
-- Ease: 9/10 - Like many management courses, its not the assignments themselves that are difficult but how you get marked that is. Getting a decent mark in this course is easy. Getting a great one actually requires more effort than you'd normally think.
-- Interest: 8/10 - The course focuses on you as an individual jobseeker and different aspects of being employed and the employment field in general. It basically gives you terminology to apply to situations with your career or the job market. Some of it is downright silly. Some of it is cool to know. And the rest is forgettable.
-- Lecturers: 9/10 - I tend to find that most management courses have able and well-spoken lecturers and tutors on average. My expectations were fulfilled here.

 

[Lydia_88]

BIOC2101 - O.k to be honest, i regret taking the 'advanced' option of this course and should have done the fundamentals option instead. Why? you learn so much equations that its so hard to absorb (i found that the textbook doesn't help either...). I thought to myself why i picked that option because it fitted well with my schedule (i aimed to get Friday off)..but towards the end i just couldn't be bothered going to any of the lectures and tutorials...i was so thrown off by the equations and the material....but overall DULL DULL DULL and HARD HARD HARD!!!!!!! (Cries.....and wishes she could do BIOC2181 back in 2009.. but sadly, now i'm capped at level 2 options)....but who does biochemistry anyway??well....it screwed me big time along with the following below......

PHPH2101 (Physiology 1A) - Copious amounts of information to learn (apparently there's a fair percentage rate of failure in this course..unfortunately i was one of them)......eventually the 9am lecturers were a killer (btw this was back in 2009)....you need to study for the lab quizzes because they will pop a quiz out of no-where and it contributes to a portion of your mark...whats worse that they added the online quizzes (which was o.k but still HARD!!)..and the mid session exam just makes it worse (25%).....

so overall, think carefully about whether you want to do both BIOC2101 AND PHPH2101 at the same time, as it will wear you out (well that's what it did to me..)..unless those who have no choice but to do both the courses, but if you were to take it as an elective then either do BIOC2181 (i hear there is less emphasis on the chemical reactions) and/or PHPH2101....

 

[tommykins]

I hate this course so fucking much I'll write a review on it before even have finished it.

MATH2019
Ease: Unsure at the moment, because I don't know what the fuck is going on since the course notes are absolute SHIT and has NO kind of examples WHATSOEVER. Based on me having to google the fuckin processes of the topics - I'd give it 8/10 ease.
Lecturer(s): Pahor is good. 10/10 wit that.
Interest: I'd be more interested if the topics weren't so badly fuckin organised and the tute questions weren't so badly organised either.
Overall: 3/10.

Comments : Despite so far being relatively 'harder' than 1231 (ONLY due to a lack of notes) this course is utter garbage. I learn by self teaching myself and to do so, I require good resources. Not only does this course lack the resources, but the only resource they have is their course pack. The coursepack is the worst I have ever encountered. Not only is there NO examples, the info they give us is just GENERAL equations. Additionally, they explore some topics in the notes (i.e. dampening) but have no questions on the topic in the tutorials, making it ridiculously ambiguous as to what's in the test.

It is fair enough that lecturers do not post up solutions to their lecture notes to 'punish' kids who don't show up, but to further the wound by giving shit course notes shits me to no end.

My anger is probably overrepresented atm as I'm studying at 2am for the 20% test tomrorow and desperately googling EVERY kind of source I have.

PS. CATEI will definitely hear about this.

 

[tallkid34]

PS. CATEI will definitely hear about this.

And ignore you completely.

 

[tommykins]

And ignore you completely.

!

I thought CATEI actually worked.

I'm disappointed.

 

[freelywilly]

Do.not.do.FINS3640.

 

[tallkid34]

!

I thought CATEI actually worked.

I'm disappointed.

It 'might' work when your opinion is shared by a majority of your fellow uni students doing the course.

It's like democracy. No one gives a shit what you think if you're the minority.

Or the majority are fucking stupid and don't care to begin with.