Subject Reviews (with PDF compilation) (1 Viewer)

[sweetcandeeh]

Re: Subject Reviews (PDF updated 17/01/09)

CLAW1001 - Commercial Transactions A
Ease: 9/10
It helps if you'd done Legal Studies (particularly consumers) in high school. Otherwise the readings were straight forward, there were quite a lot of readings.
Lecturer: 10/10
Guiseppe is an AMAZING lecture. He keeps you absolutely entertained through the theory. One note though, don't speak during the lecture.
Interest: 8/10
It's a consumer/law based subject. It's was interesting to me, but at times it can be awfully dry.
Overall: 9/10
I thoroughly enjoyed this subject. It was the fantastic lecturer that made me come to my only classes on Monday.

PHIL1011 - Reality, Ethics and Beauty
Ease : 7/10
There were A LOT of readings. Most of the readings were easy to understand, but you'd have the occasional philosopher who just rambles on about something you have no clue about.
Lecturer: 5/10
Caroline West was a great lecturer for the first week or so, but afterwards I found her so unbearable and annoying.
John (something) showed no emotion or expression in his lectures. In other words he was quite boring. Although, I was quite interested in his topic.
Surprisingly I thought David MacArthur was the best lecturer of the three. I say surprisingly because most people found him to be the worst. Perhaps it was because his topic was the most interesting.
Interest: 9/10
Both the reality and beauty component were quite interesting topics. Ethics really got you thinking and questing.
Overall: 7/10
Although the lecturers weigh the subject down, I'd recommend this subject to anyone with even a slight interest in philosophy. It really opens you to philosophy and it's many gateways.

PHIL1012 - Introductory Logic
Ease : 7/10
I found incomparable to calculus in Maths. It involved a lot of formula memorising as we weren't provided a formula sheet in exams. You were given exercises each week to do. Everything you learn accumulates from what you'd learned from the previous week. The tasks and final exam were fair.
Lecturer: 6/10
Nicolas Smith was an informative lecturer. The theater was absolutely packed in the first lecture, from then onwards less than 1/3 of the students filled the room. The lecturer was some what not needed at he pretty much followed the text. Although he was informative, he was boring. To make matters worse it was a joint 2hr lecture at 3 o'clock.
Interest: 8/10
It was definitely challenging. I found it rather interesting as it was extremely different to the other subjects I was taking.
Overall: 7/10
My tutorials were optional, which was handy. If you feel like a challenge this is definitely for you. If you feel lazy and want a subject with the least amount of work, stay clear!

PSYC1002
Ease : 7/10
For one subject, psychology demands a lot. If you attend most of the lectures and do the required readings, it will get you more than half way. It's that last multiple choice exam that's worth 60% that requires the ultimate attention. Plus, it helps to have done PSYC1001.
Lecturer: 8/10
If you'd done PSYC1001, you'll see Caleb again. I found him to be far more interesting this semester. Similar to PSYC1001, you have 6 lecturers for 6 subjects. Overall the lecturers were slightly more interesting and passionate about their subjects. One lecturer (the one for emotions) even records his lecturer, it's something you don't see enough in Psychology.
Interest: 9/10
I preferred these subjects to last semester's. You'll find a lot of overlapping from PSYC1001. The highlights include Caleb's subject and Ben's subject.
Overall:8/10
Psychology is interesting most of the time. You'll always learn something new. It complements a lot of subjects such as health, arts and other sciences. Highly recommended.

 

[nandayo]

Re: Subject Reviews (PDF updated 17/01/09)

PHIL2642 - Critical Thinking

Ease: (8.5/10) I found this course to be ridiculously easy, compared to more formal logic courses (Intro. Logic) and even junior PHIL units (e.g. Reality, Ethics, Beauty). If you memorise the lecture notes and do the weekly exercises you're set for the final exam.

Lecturer: (6/10) Luke Russell was the lecturer for this unit (I'm pretty sure he always is...) - had he not been the lecturer I'm pretty sure I would have dropped this subject within the first few weeks. He makes a few lame jokes, interacts with students but most importantly he makes lecture notes which are almost a word-for-word transcript of the lecture. You could basically do this course without attending more than one lecture (compulsory test), as I did.

Interest: (6/10) Basically this subject just gives new, philosophical terminology to things which you may have thought looked erroneous in certain arguments. You will become a bit more wary of statistics and get a decent understanding of common logical fallacies (strawman, tu quoque, appeal to the majority etc.) after the course but there's probably not going anything 'amazing' in the course which you would have never thought about.

Overall: (7/10) If you're looking for a D or HD without having to do excessive amounts of work, this is your subject - if you're looking for something challenging, inspiring or more than moderately interesting: look elsewhere.

JPNS2622 - Japanese 6

Ease: (7/10) I'm writing this review because there are no subject reviews for JPNS past Japanese 1, and obviously the difficulty will increase at the intermediate level. This is the subject after JPNS2621 (Jap 5) which you'll do if you did Continuers or Extension at high school. Have a look through 'An Integrated Approach to Intermediate Japanese' and you'll be able to see how difficult/easy the subject is.

Lecturer(s): (6/10) This depends COMPLETELY on who you get for your separate tutorials (3 per week: reading, writing, speaking) - Suter is great, Babicz is a laugh but too discursive, Hiroko is heaps of fun....Mats is a bore.

Interest: (6/10) The subject is as interesting as you make it - I managed a HD by just rote learning the textbook but you sacrifice a lot by doing this. Your Japanese will not improve unless you actively go out and watch movies, speak with native speakers, learn a shitload of kanji. My one tip would be learn 'beyond' the textbook and this subject'll be a lot more interesting.

Overall (6.5/10)

 

[Alex499]

Re: Subject Reviews (PDF updated 17/01/09)

ANTH 1001 : Cultural Difference, An Introduction
Ease 9/10. By far the easiest unit I did. I put the least work of all my subjects into it and got the best mark. They cover a few different area's, but you really only need to know two. There's a fair bit of reading, but in reality I didn't do the majority of it and it was fine. I did the major essay in two hours the night before and got a D.

Lecturer 8/10. Gaynor was lovely, she really was. She gave us packets of PK gum in the last lecture because it symbolised a part of the course. And even though some of the information was extremely dry, she'd try really hard to engage you with things you'd remember. I'll never forget her comparing anthropological theories to shells she brought in.

Interest 6.5/10. Some was interesting. Some really wasn't. Simple as that

Overall 7/10. Biggest wank of a subject i've done at uni. It was extremely easy, the tutorials were fun, and I met heaps of people, but it was so much of a joke I couldn't justify doing anthropology again the next semester.

GOVT 1101: Australian Politics
ease 8/10. If you're familiar with Australian politics at all, a lot of the course will be like revision. I found it was very similar to year 10 commerce. The assignments were marked fairly harshly though.

Lecturer 6/10 Rodney was fine. There was nothing particularly memorable about him at all though. Wasn't bad, wasn't good.

Interest 5/10. It was very dry. I went into the course hoping I'd come out caring about Australian politics. I still don't.

Overall 6/10. I wouldn't recommend doing it. I can't think of a single thing I learnt. But it wasn't like it was arduous. Other than the fact the lectures were in Bosch.

ANHS 1602: Greek and Roman Myth
ease 6/10. A lot of names and places that are all very similar. You have to absorb a lot of information. There were weekly quizzes, which I detested at the time, as I'm very much a 'learn the whole syllabus the week before the exam' type person. The quizzes ended up being pretty good. There were a lot of people who didn't give a stuff and got like 5/20 but because I was consistently getting over 15 it really dragged my mark up I think. There was only one essay where they let you do basically whatever you want and the final exam was in the last lecture.

lecturer 6/10 for Csapo, 10/10 for Fran. Professor Csapo obviously knew what he was talking about but i just couldn't get into his lectures. I consistently fell asleep until i just stopped going. If I'd been there I'm sure I would of got some amazing notesFran on the other hand, as a tutor, was amazing. She's exactly as you'd imagine an ancient history teacher, kind of psycho. But she really was great, you needed anything and she was there.

interest 10/10. Everyone thought i was wasting my time studying this at uni but it really was rewarding. After doing this course I see greek mythological symbolism everywhere.

overall 9/10. May sound like a joke, but it was the best subject I did at uni.

 

[siddharthlaha]

Re: Subject Reviews (PDF updated 17/01/09)

anyone done INFO1003? or HSBH1006 - HSBH1009

 

[anonymus2003]

Re: Subject Reviews (PDF updated 17/01/09)

---> SEMESTER 1 <----

PHAR2811 - DRUG DISCOVERY AND DESIGN A

Ease 6/10 - Subject had a lot of content to absorb in a relatively short amount of time. Lots of new concepts to understand meant spending a lot of time on it.

Lecturer 10/10. Dale Hancock fantastic, Gareth Denyer also fantastic.

Interest 6.5/10. It was okay, lots of medicinal chemistry, biochem and stuff got pretty intense.

Overall 7.5/10. Good

PHAR2812 - MICROBIOLOGY AND INFECTION

Ease 8/10. Quite a bit to remember, but not very hard.

Lecturer 7/10. Ramin did get tricky to understand at times but otherwise a good lecturer. Blackenburg was a good lecturer. I forget her first name.

Interest 8/10. Good content, lots of things to remember although but overall good.

Overall 7.66/10. Good.

PHAR2813 - THERAPEUTIC PRINCIPLES

Ease 5/10. Lots to understand, lots of calculations but was evened out in the final exam being easy. Lot of new concepts being brought into this.

Lecturer 6/10. Mary is good lecturer, Murray Thomson was good and so was Romano Fois. Fan Fan Zhou is terrible, very difficult to understand and she had one of the important parts to teach including pharmacokinetics and monoexponential pk etc.

Interest 6/10. It was okay, wouldn't call it my most interesting subject.

Overall 5.66/10. Average

PHSI2601 - PHYSIOLOGY FOR PHARMACY

Ease 6.5/10. Lots to understand, lots to remember, and very very loaded course, atleast BIOL1003 Level if not more.

Lecturer 8/10. Lecturer's were usually very good. With good notes.

Interest 9/10. My most interesting subject.

Overall 7.83/10. Good

---> SEMESTER 2 <----

PHAR2821 - DRUG DISCOVERY AND DESIGN B

Ease 4.5/10. Lots and Lots and LOTS of stuff to understand and waste time on, the sheer content is quite huge and their expectations in the exam are ridiculous. Especially the QSAR. They expect us to complete a drug with 5 metabolites and give them the predicted models within 20 minutes. (usually given as a group tutorial comprising of 5 members given 3 hours in practice). absolute fail of a subject.

Lecturer 5/10. Brett Church just barely scrapes okay, his voice is largely very monotonous although his notes are very good.

Interest 4/10. Not interesting.

Overall 4.5/10. Just pray you passed. If not, my sympathies.

PHAR2822 - PHARMACY PRACTICE

Ease 7.5/10 Generally a good interesting, easy subject.

Lecturer 9/10. Good lecturers. Synthia is a good lecturer, although does not like people mucking around.

Interest 9/10. good content, good focus but exam was a lil tricky// with the oral component.

Overall 8.5/10. Very good

PHAR2823 - FORMULATING AND DISPENSING

Ease 6/10 Not easy, but passable, quite a bit of content.

Lecturer 9/10. Good lecturers. Kim Chan fantastic, Henk Roubos Excellent. They are the only two good lecturers.

Interest 710. good content, good focus but exam was a lil tricky. Definitely not easy, but not that hard either.

Overall 7.33/10. Decent

PCOL2605 - PHARMACOLOGY FOR PHARMACY

Ease 6/10 Not easy, lots to remember just like physiology especially drug names. Estimated 120 Drugs and their mechanisms of action to remember for final exam.

Lecturer 9/10. Good lecturers.

Interest 910. good content, good focus but exam was a lil tricky.

Overall 9/10. Excellent

----This concludes the review----

 

[NitroBoon]

Re: Subject Reviews (PDF updated 17/01/09)

SEMESTER 1
------------------------------------

1. ENGG1805 - Professional Engineering and Information Technology
Ease: 3/10
This is without doubt the most useless compulsory unit ever, you learn nothing and they get you to build a wooden bridge as a group project.

Lecturer(s): 1/10
All the lecturers are very boring, one of them spent 30mins getting the projector in the law annex auditorium to work. All of us stopped attending the lecturers, while this means that you will probably fail one of your quizzes, we just don't care anymore.

Interest: 3/10
Not very interesting. At one stage, the lecturer started talking about cheese-making to gain our attention.

Overall: 2/10
If it wasn't compulsory, no BIT/BE(Software) student would be doing this course..

------------------------------------

2. INFO1903 - Informatics (Advanced)
Ease: 5/10
While this course is much more difficult than its alternative standard INFO1103 unit, this unit is much more interesting and much more suited to students who have a genuine interest in programming. Enrolment in this course requires alot of dedication but this shouldn't be hard for enthusiastic students. Also, for enthusiastic students, the ease level should be adjusted to about 8/10.

Lecturer: 15/10
James Curran!!!! BEST LECTURER EVER!! - If you were selected to attend the National Computer Science School program (NCSS) in y10/11 you would have known him, but if not, he is the coolest lecturer one could ever hope for. He is very knowledgeable and his lectures are both interactive and informative.

Interest: 13/10 - This is a very interesting course regardless of whether if you have prior programming experience or not (although it sure would help). The course is based on the Python programming language and it leads you through an extensive problem - the major assignment which is broken into several parts.

Overall: 13/10 - If you are a capable computer science/IT student then you should definitely consider this unit of study as it will be probably the best UoS you will ever enrol into during your entire university degree.

NOTE: Enrolment in INFO1903 is only by permission from the Dean of Engineering and Information Technology whose selection criteria is based upon your ATAR and academic results. A portfolio of work can also be submitted to be considered for permission. (Usually each year 60-75 students get selected for this course so it remains very interactive)

 

[FutureSight01]

Re: Subject Reviews (PDF updated 17/01/09)

For the commerce students out there

1. ECON1001
Ease: 9-10/10 if you've done economics in HS, 6-7/10 if you haven't.
It's an introductory course. The lecturers know it, you know it. Pretty basic. Also, the exams are pretty basic if you get the concepts.


Lecturers: 10/10.
I had Elina Gilbourd. She is amazing, so interesting! Apparently she has lame jokes. I just thought she had jokes Beware of the TUTORS though. You may learn to not go, since they're pointless and not compulsory.

Interest: 8/10
Of course it could have been more interesting, but since it's introductory, they're not getting into HEAPS of issues. The stuff we did was ok though.


Overall: 9/10
A well-done subject with good lectures, horrible and barely necessary tutes. Looking forward to Macro!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. MKTG1001
Ease:8/10
Relatively basic stuff. Our class also didn't have to do hw. However, GROUP WORK is a pain! 2 group assignments, no chance to change.

Lecturers: 10/10
Geoff Fripp is a fantastic lecturer. Funny, interesting, gives us TV Commercials and so on. He tells you what you need to know, and gives real-life examples as well.

Interest:6/10
Bleah, it's ok. Nothing I'd want to do again, and yeah it is pretty basic.

Overall: 7/10
Not too bad for a core unit I won't be using. The group work is a pain, but eventually it'll pass. You will too.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Right, here's where things get prickly... and maybe ranty



3. ACCT1001
Ease: 5/10
The lack of ease has 2 components: 1. the tedious, boring subject matter. 2. The lecturers. The practice set is a PAIN IN THE BUTT! However, it is good for you. I picked up mistakes I would rather make there than in the final exam! Also, Acct hw is a MASSIVE PAIN! However, once you get it, it's the time factor which is the pain not the work itself. Gah!

Lecturers: 1st 2 weeks: 0/10 Sharron: 8/10. Abdul: 8/10. Peter: 3/10
The first 2 weeks of accounting are THE TWO WORST lectures you could possibly attend. THERE IS NO CONTEST! LAW HAS NOTHING, PHILOSOPHY HAS NOTHING, MATHS HAS NOTHING, ENGLISH HAS NOTHING ON THE HORROR THAT IS THE FIRST 2 WEEKS OF ACCOUNTING! Who cares about the history of accounting??? THEY DO! Who knew that the Babylonians had accounting methods? THEY DO! Sharron gets it back on track with some fundamentals though. Whew... Abdul then takes over. He's good, but doesn't like chatter. Just sit at the back, problem solved. PETER IS PATHETIC! He is BORING, talks about irrelevant stuff and doesn't explain things we need to know. Gigi is a good tutor though. She explains things.

Interest: 4/10
What did you expect? It's accounting Get a friend and play games or whatever. But do remember to actually pay attention otherwise you're screwed. I find connect 4 pretty good.

Overall: 4/10
SOME lecturers do a good job at making the subject bearable. Otherwise, bleagh! And HOMEWORK IS A MASSIVE PAIN!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. ECMT1010
Ease: 8/10
If you did 2u maths, you're set. If you did 3u maths, you'll find this boring. First 3 weeks are a joke.

Lecturers: 2/10 Erick Li is horrible, calls people dumb, and quite a few can't understand him through the fobby accent. He's produced so many retarded comments though... e.g. "Werr, to put it in a poriticarry incorrect way, you retarded." and "can you all shut your mouth outside I do not have my student attention!" Yeah, he's crap. Heard the other ones aren't any better :S

Interest: 5/10
The tiny amount of maths in Commerce is disgraceful. Furthermore, the lectures are boring. The workshops are ok. That said I was on fb during the computer lab sessions The work is ridiculously easy if you just pay attention and don't forget to study. I suppose that's what ECOF1010 is for, but it screwed up my timetable when I put it in. Heard that is bad too :S

Overall: 4/10
For those who are decent at maths, this subject is a massive joke, so long as you pay attention. Seriously... and their tests are jokes too. Sometimes they put in material you are told isn't in it e.g. hypergeometric formula, and the final exam is a joke. 30mc, 2h to do it. Pathetic. PUT SOME EFFORT IN ERICK LI!

 

[jet]

Re: Subject Reviews (PDF updated 17/01/09)

MATH1901 - Differential Calculus (Advanced)
Ease: 7/10. Started off easy with complex numbers and went through functions and limits and completely re-did them. Derivatives was the same stuff and partial derivatives just follow on easily. Just the functions you work with get much more difficult.

Lecturer: 3/10. I started off not minding Chris Cosgrove, but as he went along, his lectures just got more and more ridiculous to the point where half the lecture theatre had no idea what he was talking about and the other half was too busy having a conversation to bother about what he'd said (The average for quiz 2 was 4/10). I don't think he ever did one simple example question, he likes his "pathological" functions though. Luckily, I had an excellent tutor who straightened things out.

Interest: 9/10. I've always liked this area of maths so I was naturally interested in it. There were some parts which I just found boring because they were. If you were interested in high school, you'll be interested now, if you weren't interested in highschool then you won't now.

Overall: 6/10. Good material, bad lecturer. That about sums it up.

MATH1902 - Linear Algebra (Advanced)
Ease: 8/10. The material is usually straight forward and your major problems are numerical errors. The only area where it gets hard is when you have to prove abstract things, but you get so many chances to practice that it becomes more natural as you get further into the course.

Lecturer: 10/10. What can I say, it's David Easdown. He managed to keep me interested and his enthusiasm for the subject made it a lot easier. He's an excellent teacher and can deconstruct concepts very well. The one problem I had was that I felt a little bit ripped off with the tute sheets, which were basically the textbook exercises (he wrote the textbook). The last two lectures of the course (Fundamental Theorem of Algebra and the Cayley-Hamilton theorem) pretty much convinced me to do Algebra (advanced) next year, even though I'd crossed it off my list.

Interest: 7/10. There are some good, relevant examples (generally in the form of thought experiments), but otherwise pretty basic material when can get dry.

Overall: 8/10. Great lecturer, simple assignments and a good tutor really helped me with this subject.

MATH1906 - Special Studies Program A
Ease: 6/10. Got quite curly at times, especially with the last assignment, where we'd had a single seminar before the assignment was due.

Lecturers: 8/10. Martin Wechselberger and Daniel Daners were good, made it interesting and set pretty straight-forward assignments. Anthony Henderson's material was dry and I went through an entire notepad before I even got anywhere towards answering one of the 3 assignment questions he set.

Interest: 8/10. You do 3 sections: Cardiac Arrhythmias, Regular Polyhedra and Maps. The first and last topics were interesting. Regular Polyhedra with Henderson felt like we were in kindergarten again counting edges and corners of solids. It also got confusing when we moved into 4-dim space.

Overall: 8/10. I quite enjoyed it and will definitely do it again next semester.

CHEM1903 - Chemistry 1A (Special Studies Program)
Ease: 7.5/10. Depends on what you like and the HSC option you did as to how easy it is. I did Industrial Chemistry for my option so that pretty much knocked out a good 2.5 weeks of material I already knew, if not more. The sample quizzes are exactly the same as the actual ones, just with different numbers. Should be a pretty smooth ride.

Lecturers: Tim Schmidt: 8/10, Chris Ling: 4.5/10. Tim was a good lecturer to start the course with, he was straightforward and good at straightening out concepts for us. I think if I'd had someone else for quantum chemistry I would not have understood it at all. Chris Ling was really bad; he couldn't control everyone talking, he rushed through everything and his lecture slides were far far too complicated to learn off. He knew his stuff, but wasn't able to communicate it to us.

Interest: 7/10. It varies. I found quantum really interesting but the physical chemistry section was pretty boring. This is really a matter of personal taste. Also, be wary that Tim is patriotic when it comes to his area of interests so prepare to hear everything about spectroscopy.

Laboratories: 8/10. You do 2 separate modules in this lab; Essential Chemical Techniques and Physical Chemistry. The first was just microtechniques and titrations, and the second module rotated through 6 experiments. The better experiments were the ones where we made soaps and detergents and played with liquid nitrogen. The most boring was the crystal structures prac, which just involved putting tennis balls in a box to see how they fit.

Overall: 7.5/10. A fine first year, first semester chemistry course. Would have liked to see some organic chem though.

 

[Calculon]

Re: Subject Reviews (PDF updated 17/01/09)

The last two lectures of the course (Fundamental Theorem of Algebra and the Cayley-Hamilton theorem) pretty much convinced me to do Algebra (advanced) next year, even though I'd crossed it off my list.

Um, neither of those things have anything to do with MATH2968. That subject is group theory.

 

[jet]

Re: Subject Reviews (PDF updated 17/01/09)

Um, neither of those things have anything to do with MATH2968. That subject is group theory.

We were creating commutative rings extending the real field. He said that was MATH2968 *shrugs* although he was advertising more than jsut that subject so I may have gotten them mixed up.

 

[spiderpig333]

Re: Subject Reviews (PDF updated 17/01/09)

Ok I'll contribute my subject opinions:

HSTY1076: American History from Lincoln to Clinton
Lecturer: Ivan Coates

Ease: 8/10 - You are given a lot of advice how to write essays, which is very useful for other subjects. The big essay is worth 40% though so it's a lot of pressure. The group tutorial performance is fun.

Lecturer: 10/10 - Dr Coates is in my opinion one of the greatest lecturers ever. His style is really engaging as he combines quotes, statistics, trivia, economic information, political cartoons etc into his lectures so there is so much variety. He also is really witty and perceptive, I really loved his last lecture, in which he spoke of USA all the way up to the present ie. the BP oil incident. And he puts the lectures on web CT which is really useful. I was fortunate to also have him as my tutor, and he is even better as a tutor than a lecturer. His comments on essays are really reallt detailed and helpful.

Interest: 10/10 I love America, and this was such a well done course, because not only did it cover the history, but also dealt with the culture a lot. It had interesting themes, such as the role of government, and what it means to be American. A lot of persepctives were offered. The tuttorials were also really great, you use a variety of sources including films, reports, photos so it's really interesting, and the last tute is 'guerilla street theatre' in which you dramatise a radical group from the 60's which was really fun (I'm shy yet I still enjoyed it)
It also crossed over with ECOP a lot, especially The New Deal and the Keynesian approach.

Overall: 9.5/10 I can't reccomend this course enough. And even the tutorials are good, and really interesting. My favourite course ever. (Even more than ECOP!) The scope of the subject is so broad and yet adresses so much, it's reallt amazing. The only negative as I said is the weighing of the major essay..
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ECOP 1001: ECOP1001: Economics as a Social Science
Lecturer: Frank Stilwell

Ease: 7/10 Some aspects can be really difficult, especially for me not having done HSC Economics, so some terminology is difficult, as is some of the more detailed aspects of Keynesian policies, but the text is written in a way which makes it easier to understand. Each tutorial has a quiz, which are actually easy but nerve wrecking.

Lecturer: 10/10, He is really interesting, and explains things really well through examples and metaphors, and he is really amusing too.

Interest: 7/10, I liked exploring the different schools of thought, but I did not like some of the aspects on alternative economic views such as enviromentalism and feminism.

Overall: 8/10 The lecturer is really great and the content is interesting, but it can be very stressful, but rewarding.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GOVT1202: World Politics
Lecturer: Gil Merom

Ease: 4/10 - The first assesment was really difficult, a 'roadmap' for answering a question which would then actually be answered in the second essay. And the readings were so long and technical. The exam is not an essay but a multiple choice, which seems good but actually it was so hard even if you did do the readings, the terminilogy was so very difficult. that.. my HD mark fell to a final mark

Lecturers: 5/10 - Dr Merom is really nice, and genuinely tries to be helpful. But unfortunately, he tends to go on and on and on about really easy concepts, like power, yet in the exam there was so much hard issues he should have elaborated on. Even though I am usually good at listening etc, I just found it impossible to pay attention.. A lot of people often left halfway. Many of us just gave up and stopped coming to the lectures. Annoyingly, there is no web CT recordings, just notes - but they pointed out the main issues and so they were adequate.

Interest: 2/10 - Whilst the realism paradigm appealed to me, overall, I found the topics pointess and far too theoretical ie as opposed to ECOP which invloved real world engangement. The tutorial readings were so dry and boring. And the tutes were horrible. Two mature age students dominated the discussions, and our tutor always made us do these activities she found 'fun' like role playing a UN negotiation between Iran USA and Israel. It was NOT fun. Also, everyone had really really biased and extreme views, which I found scary.

Overall: 2/10 Horrible. I wanted to do GOVT as my major. Now I am staying clear from politics!!! It makes you realise how pointless the subject is, and it just feels really irrelevant, plus it is difficult in a bad way.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SPAN1611 Spanish Lvl 1
Lecturer: Kathryn Crameri

Ease: 9/10 The grammar at first is slightly confusing but you get it soon. It helps if you are already bilingual, which I am. The assesments for the lectures on Spain are very easy, and internet based.

Lecturer: 6/10 Usually, lecturers add things extra to lecture notes; interesting comments, own analysis etc. But Dr Crameri does not; so basically, the lectures seem rather arbitrary and without enthusiasm. Dr Anne Walsh was slightly better.


Interest: 8/10 Well 10/10 for the language part but much lower for the lectures. As I said they were not presented with enthusiasm, and it would have been more interesting if it was more about culture than just textbook like history.

Overall: 7/10 The tutorials are the main part that;s where you learn the actual language, and those are good. But the lecture aspect is rather lacking. Also, I really dislike how internet based it is - you have to do Web CT exercises as part of your tutorial mark and 3 of the assesments are done through computer only. I think with a language course more real contact is important..

 

[bio_nut]

Re: Subject Reviews (PDF updated 17/01/09)

Overall: 7.5/10. A fine first year, first semester chemistry course. Would have liked to see some organic chem though.

You'll get your org chem fix next semester, pleeeeenty of it, be careful what you wish for!

 

[Braniac]

Re: Subject Reviews (PDF updated 17/01/09)

CHEM1903 (SSP)
Lecturers: Tim Schmidt and Chris Ling

Ease: 9/10- Pretty easy really, just extending the concepts from HSC. Quantum was really interesting, even if it was revision. Thermodynamics was fine, as was equilibrium, electrochem and polymers. After doing past papers, its evident that they always chuck in one or two dodgy questions that are a little bit tricky, but the exams generally fine. Final exam was really hard- thought I'd fail, ended up getting a distinction.

Lecturers: 10/10 for Tim Schmidt- Absolute champion. Explains stuff really well, answered questions well, was funny and interesting. He made me want to learn more about spectroscopy, which I wasn't at all interested in before.

7/10 for Chris Ling- Nice guy who knows his stuff, but has a bit of trouble controlling the class. Also made me interested in what he was teaching though.

Interest: 10/10 I love chemistry, what can I say?

Overall: 10/10- If you have the opportunity, do SSP over advanced. I was tossing up, but the labs in SSP are far better, more self guided and less strict in their instructions.

PHYS1001
Lecturers: David Reilly, Pulin Gong, Dennis Stello

Ease: 7/10- Generally fine. Be prepared for maths and calculus though. Content is all reasonably self explanatory.

Lecturers: 7/10 for David Reilly- Made an absolute hash of one derivation, but was otherwise humorous (NOT ha ha funny!) and seemed like a nice enough and interested teacher.

8/10 for Pulin Gong- Good at maths, explained stuff well even though he had a thick accent. Funny guy.

8/10 for Dennis Stello- Explained material in a clear and concise way.

Interest: 4/10- I found this unit incredibly boring. Thermodynamics was ok, but mechanics and waves were monotonous.

Overall: 6/10.

MATH1002 Linear Algebra
Lecturer: Bob Crossman

Ease: 8/10- Surprisingly easy. If someone said to me that I'd be doing matrices a year ago, I would have thought it unpossible. However, the way this course is taught makes it very easy to understand (and the textbook by David Easdown is fantastic).

Lecturers: 10/10- A lot of people didn't like Bob Crossman, one person calling him an 'angry, old douche'. He has a tendency to sweat and breath heavily which is disturbing, but he is an excellent lecturer in my opinion who explained everything fantastically.

Interest: 8/10- I can see the relevance and use of this stuff, but it didn't persuade me enough to continue maths next year.

Overall: 9/10.

MATH1001 Differential Calculus
Lecturers: James Kennedy and Florica Cirstea

Ease: Starts off relatively easy with complex numbers (I had never done them before but they were quite simple to pick up) and then moves through functions and differentiation techniques, limits etc. Some of the differentiation is really messy, and none of the content is hard, but applying it to complicated functions can be confusing.

Lecturers: 8/10 (both)- James Kennedy has a good vocab and explains stuff really well.
Florica Cirstea speaks really quickly with a Romanian accent, but you get used to it after one lesson and find that she's good at maths and funny.

Interest: 8/10.

Overall: 8/10.

BIOL1003 Human Biology
Lecturers: Many

Ease: Easy as long as you have a good memory and are going to work. I had more work for this than all my other subjects combined, and there is a hell of a lot of memorisation of anatomy and physiological function, bit of biochemistry etc.

Lecturers: Vast majority were excellent, esp. Murray Thompson, Mike Thomson and Osu Lilje. The lecture on nutrition was the most boring one I sat through all semester.

Interest: 10/10- What could be more interesting than learning how the body works?

Overall: 8/10. Would be higher except for sheer workload (mainly because of HBOnline, an online learning app that you have to do every fortnight. Takes hours...)

(Could someone please update that PDF also? TY's).

 

[spence]

Re: Subject Reviews (PDF updated 17/01/09)

PHIL2623: Moral Psychology
Lecturer: Luke Russell

Ease: 8/10
Not a difficult subject, the content is pretty easy to understand, and the workload is very reasonable. There's a 2000 word essay, and a 2000 word take-home exam (2 essays) both worth 50%

Lecturer: 9/10
Luke is a great lecturer, and he was one of the reasons I picked the course. He explains things well, and is entertaining. Also provides very detailed lecture notes, and replies to emails quickly

Interest: 9/10
One of the most interesting courses I've done. Highlights were the lectures on evil and forgiveness, but almost all were interesting. The assessment structure means you can basically ignore the ones you don't find interesting (which shouldn't be too many)

Overall: 9/10
Very enjoyable, I'd recommend it

 

[Trebla]

Re: Subject Reviews (PDF updated 17/01/09)

Would have liked to see some organic chem though.

Don't worry, half of the entire CHEM1902 course is organic chemistry + some metal complex inorganic chemistry

You're lucky you have Tim Schmidt for quantum now. I had him in second year in which I finally understood what the quantum model of the atom was, as opposed to the wtf explanations from Peter Harrowell back in my day at first year which completely turned me off quantum chemistry in first year...though on the downside you had Chris Ling haha

 

[jet]

Re: Subject Reviews (PDF updated 17/01/09)

Don't worry, half of the entire CHEM1902 course is organic chemistry + some metal complex inorganic chemistry

You're lucky you have Tim Schmidt for quantum now. I had him in second year in which I finally understood what the quantum model of the atom was, as opposed to the wtf explanations from Peter Harrowell back in my day at first year which completely turned me off quantum chemistry in first year...though on the downside you had Chris Ling haha

Yay for organic. Like seriously, I thought I was studying to be a metallurgist in the last exam. It was basically all industrial And yeah Chris ling was not very good... I guess i was lucky with Tim wasn't I

But like, Chris Cosgrove ruined diff calc for me

 

[lamingtons]

Re: Subject Reviews (PDF updated 17/01/09)

mate organic chemistry is so bad. so boring.,

 

[bio_nut]

Re: Subject Reviews (PDF updated 17/01/09)

mate organic chemistry is so bad. so boring.,

Never!!!

Can't see you liking the biochem type stuff you're going to have to do next year then, ahahah

 

[lamingtons]

Re: Subject Reviews (PDF updated 17/01/09)

that's not very nice tamara, maybe i will like it, you dont know yet !

i dont know, it was just a lot of content, lots of remembering and rote learning and when you do minimal work until about 2-3 days before the test you begin to curse the amount of content it has haha

 

[spence]

Re: Subject Reviews (PDF updated 17/01/09)

PSYC2011: Brain and Behaviour
Lecturers: Ian Johnston and various others

Ease: 7/10
There is a lot of content to learn, so the exam's a bit of a bitch, but it's mostly multiple choice, with two short answers (one of which is taken from a pool of ten which you're given in advance). There's also a lab report, which is similar to what you do in first year, again it's pretty hard to do in the word limit. There's also a multiple choice tute quiz which had a few tricky questions.

Lecturers: 9/10
There are 6 lecturers, the first five of which are really good, the last one is pretty boring though. Ian Curthoys and Bart Anderson were highlights for me; and Ian Johnston and Alex Russell were also great.

Interest: 8/10
Very interesting course, its split into three sections.
Behavioural analysis follows on from learning and motivation in first year, and is basically an extended look at operant conditioning. I enjoyed it, though it did get a bit repetitive. The first 6 tutes covered this section, doing prac work attempting (usually unsuccessfully) to condition rats to turn in circles, etc. That part was really interesting and fun.
Neuroscience was a bit hard for me, but was still really interesting.
Perception was the best section imo, and had the best lecturers. Follows on from visual perception in first year, but you also do taste, smell, audition, vestibular, and touch perception.

Overall: 8/10
Really good course with (for the most part) excellent lecturers.