Subject Reviews (with PDF compilation) (1 Viewer)

ddtng

Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2005
Messages
118
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
Re: Subject Reviews (PDF updated 17/01/09)

I liked the phys geog units better but I did take some human ones and enjoyed them (econ geog and env management). I didn't take urban but I've heard good things about it. There are no bad courses, though for some units you might want to be a little more aware of what you're getting into (such as for the envi one above, and natural hazards).
 

Nebuchanezzar

Banned
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Messages
7,536
Location
Camden
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
Re: Subject Reviews (PDF updated 17/01/09)

PHIL2643: Philosophy of Mind
Lecturer: David Braddon Mitchell

Ease: 10/10
Piss easy. Fork out $60 and you can write your essay and take home based off the relevant chapters by rewording the textbook. Questions are straight forward and there are no surprises.

Lecturer: 10/10
DBM is well known for a reason: He's excellent. Engaging, funny, unique and quirky. Friendly bloke too, plus he takes a lot of the tutorials.

Interest: 9/10
It's easy so it's interesting. If you're into philosophy of mind then you'll be interested for sure, since it covers pretty much the whole phil of mind landscape. His lectures make things better.

Overall: 9/10
Easy and interesting, so I was pretty pleased.
 

Nebuchanezzar

Banned
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Messages
7,536
Location
Camden
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
Re: Subject Reviews (PDF updated 17/01/09)

PHIL2617: Practical Ethics
Lecturer: [usually] Caroline West, this year it was some woman who I don't know.

Ease: 8/10
Essay questions were straight foward and lecture slides were pretty obvious. Presentation was boring so if you tune out due to boredom you'll probably not do as well.

Lecturer: 3/10
Caroline West was pretty good in first year, but she took a year off this year so I was stuck with some woman. She was pretty boring and most of the lectures were tutorial-esque Q+A sessions, but more awkward and out of place owing to the jumbo sized lecture theatre.

Interest: 2/10
Readings were long, and pretty basic. No new insight will be shed, no controversial opinions will be reviewed. Lectures were boring, tutor (Dejan) was shit. He interrupted and operated the tutorials like a lecture. Plus he was a douche.

Overall: 4/10
Nowhere near as good as it sounded, but perhaps Caroline West would make it better.
 

DayOT

New Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2006
Messages
27
Gender
Female
HSC
2007
Re: Subject Reviews (PDF updated 17/01/09)

BCHM3X82 - Medical and Metabolic Biochemistry
Session 2
Lecturers: Drs Charles Collyer, Richard Christopherson, Dale Hancock, Gareth Denyer, Prof Phillip Kuchel

Ease: 3/10


Dr Collyer's section is straghtforward; Gareth's 'critical thinking exercise' involving recently published research papers (on obesity, diabetes) is tedious, but doable. However, I did the advanced course on principles of NMR, which was unusually involved (including pract + theory + theory of pract components). It's a lot of physics, which is bad enough, but the biological interpretation of the physical results isn't at all obvious. Entirely non-crammable.

Lecturers: 7/10

Dr Collyer is a very nervous lecturer, and doesn't get to the point. Gareth is excellent as usual; Prof Kuchel isn't too bad either.

Practical: 6/10

Yeast two hybrid system and a computer study of carbonic anhydrase, plus a radioimmunoassay (for non-advanced) or NMR experiments (advanced). NMR practs are easy (boring) to do, but you pay for it later in data analysis in a 10% report.

Interest: 5/10

Dr Collyer's section basically involves memorising lists of drugs, the conditions they treat and the mechanism. Gareth is a brilliant lecturer, but there's only so interesting fat can be, and the analysis of the papers was a pain. NMR was ok when comprehension occasionally dawned (the non-advanced stream did malaria and cancer therapy, which didn't seem too bad either).

Overall: 5/10

NMR is probably the only useful thing to take away from this course, but it's demoralisingly difficult. I guess the nutrition students would find the drug design/diabetes/cancer content more relevant as it's one of their core units.

 

DayOT

New Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2006
Messages
27
Gender
Female
HSC
2007
Re: Subject Reviews (PDF updated 17/01/09)

BCHM3X92 - Proteomics and Functional Genomics
Session 2
Lecturers: Drs Stuart Cordwell, Ben Crossett, Jonathan Arthur, Richard Christopherson

Ease: 9/10


Genomics will be familiar to MBLG/BCHM2 veterans. Proteomics is based on principles learnt in the second-year subjects (eg affinity binding, SDS-PAGE) but repackaged as shinier, faster and higher-throughput. The only really novel aspect is mass spectrometry, which isn't difficult.

Lecturer: 8/10

Dr Cordwell takes most of the lectures and does a decent job of it. Dr Crossett does genomics and tends to mumble over the important parts. Drs JA and RC only had two lectures each, so it doesn't matter either way.

Practical: 8/10

Unlike most MMB subjects this unit has 3-hour weekly practs. It's quite tightly coupled to the lectures so you'll get to play with 2D gels and mass spect. Proteomics is tends to be rather pre-packaged and modular so there's usually not that much to do after applying a sample until the data analysis.

Interest: 9/10

Some of it does get repetitive after a while - everything goes to mass spect in the end - but there's enough to keep both the biologically- (the pathology and human proteomic case studies) and chemically-inclined (mass spect, separation techniques) entertained for the semester.

Overall: 9/10

It's an enjoyable unit, though it's probably a good idea to like protein biochem in the first place. The class is smaller than the other BCHM3 subjects, but I'm surprised it's not more popular.
 

Trebla

Administrator
Administrator
Joined
Feb 16, 2005
Messages
8,142
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
Re: Subject Reviews (PDF updated 17/01/09)

CHEM3114/3914 - Metal Complexes, Medicine and Materials

Lecturers: Adam Bridgeman (Metal Complexes), Trevor Hambley (Medicine), Cameron Kepert (Materials)

Ease: 7/10
Adam's section was quite good in terms of ease of understanding. The rational explanation behind the phenomena made perfect sense in his words. Trevor's section was also quite good, but considering I had little biological/pharmacological background I found it a bit harder to understand. Cameron's section was not easy at all, mainly because the rationality behind it was not really explained at all.

Lecturer: Adam 10/10, Trevor 9/10, Cameron 6/10
Adam was definitely the best. He can explain things in really simple terms and they always made sense to me. I particularly liked it when he explained WHY something behaves/reacts like this etc which definitely helps in understanding it. His notes are really organised and he has worksheets for each lecture which we spend half the time on and as a result there isn't a lot to go through in the lectures (i.e. the less content examinable the better :p). James Beattie took this section last year and I'm so glad that he got replaced by Adam lol.

Trevor was also really good and definitely promoted interest and curiosity in his part. However, I felt he sort of rushed through the content a bit too quickly. It wasn't clear what was examinable and what was not. Just about every question I emailed him for, got a reply that it wasn't examinable lol

Cameron has a monotone and speaks too quickly. There is way too much stuff in his lectures which leads to him just brushing over everything briefly. His section is more about memorising facts rather than theory. He doesn't really explain the "why" behind everything. His lectures are very example-based and doesn't really go through the underlying theory as a generalisation.

Interest: 9/10
All sections were very interesting (even Cameron's section, despite the fact that I didn't really understand it that well) mainly because I'm inorganically inclined. Organically inclined people are advised to steer clear of this unit of study or else you have to put up with the anti-organic chemistry attitudes from the lecturers haha!

Overall: 8/10
Loved the way the assessment was structured. Other than the final exam, the only other theory assessment task was an OPTIONAL (that's right optional) assignment. No other senior chemistry unit of study has such a generous theory assessment structure.
 
Last edited:

ddtng

Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2005
Messages
118
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
Re: Subject Reviews (PDF updated 17/01/09)

James Beattie took this section last year and I'm so glad that he got replaced by Adam lol.
:) Glad I saw this then. Would've taken quantum chem next year had I had the impression Beattie was taking Complexes...
 

DayOT

New Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2006
Messages
27
Gender
Female
HSC
2007
Re: Subject Reviews (PDF updated 17/01/09)

All sections were very interesting (even Cameron's section, despite the fact that I didn't really understand it that well) mainly because I'm inorganically inclined. Organically inclined people are advised to steer clear of this unit of study or else you have to put up with the anti-organic chemistry attitudes from the lecturers haha!
Unfortunately Synthetic Medicinal is the only organic unit in second semester, so it looks like this will have to be tolerated :( But Bridgeman is certainly an improvement.



Edit: Would also appreciate any reviews for BIOL3X18, 3X25, 3X26 and/or 3X27.
 
Last edited:

Nebuchanezzar

Banned
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Messages
7,536
Location
Camden
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
Re: Subject Reviews (PDF updated 17/01/09)

CHEM3115: Synthetic Medicinal Chemistry
Lecturers: Matt Todd, Peter Rutledge & Chris McErlean

Ease: 8/10
I found it easy. It's all organic though so it's all curly arrows, transition model diagrams and functional groups. If you find that easy you'll fly, if you find it hard try another subject. The exam was harder than expected by comparison to previous years, but the assignment was piss easy.

Lecturer: 9/10
McErlean and Rutledge each get a 10/10 but Matt Todd was a bit lost in terms of unit administration and wasn't as open for consultation. They're all interesting, clear and offer good lecture notes though.

Interest: 10/10
Essential organic chemistry - what's not to love?

Overall: 10/10
Fantastic way to cap off a chem major.
 

Nebuchanezzar

Banned
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Messages
7,536
Location
Camden
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
Re: Subject Reviews (PDF updated 17/01/09)

CHEM3117: Molecular Spectroscopy and Quantum Chemistry
Lecturers: Scott Kable, Meredith Jordan & Tim Schmidt

Ease: 2/10
I had no idea what was going on once Scott's section was over, and even then I was kinda struggling. It was a mistake for me to enrol in this one and yet strangely I managed to pass. Scott does spectroscopy, Meredith does symmetry (which I had to teach myself) and Tim does quantum chemistry.

Lecturer: 7/10
Scott wasn't as friendly and approachable as I remember from second year. Meredith's lectures were snore fests (she records them though). Tim was alright, funny too. Having said both Scott and Tim kept things going and explained things well (even if the things in the lecture didn't seem to correspond to our assignments...)

Interest: 3/10
Um. I guess it was kinda interesting for a couple of lectures. Kinda...

Overall: 3/10
Not too happy. Very hard and not enjoyable.
 
Last edited:

ddtng

Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2005
Messages
118
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
Re: Subject Reviews (PDF updated 17/01/09)

That's not the review I was hoping to see.
 

Nebuchanezzar

Banned
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Messages
7,536
Location
Camden
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
Re: Subject Reviews (PDF updated 17/01/09)

is there anything in particular that you want to know that i can shed light on? im very much organic minded so that's probably reflected in the review. i added something in the lecture section.
 
Joined
Mar 3, 2007
Messages
303
Gender
Female
HSC
2008
Re: Subject Reviews

This thread is great. I thought i'd contribute something seeing as how i've been reading some really helpful reviews on some of the subjects i've chosen to do next year.

***EDUF1019 Human Development and Education

Ease 10/10
They gave us the exams questions beforehand so we had to prepare. All the information needed was provided in the reader.
Lecturer 2/10
Jean Ashton is a nice enough lady, but she wasn't much of a lecturer. Her lecture notes were very bland and many people stopped attending her lectures. I didn't even use any of the stuff off the lectures for my exam.
Interest 7/10
Except the ICE component which deserves a 0/10 as it was a massive waste of time
Overall 7/10
A vast improvement from the terrible EDUF1018 subject I did the semester before. Human development was much more straightforward and easy to follow. Where EDUF1018 was all over the place, jumping from one unrelated topic to the next, EDUF1019 was very logical in its structural manner. The only things I disliked about EDUF1019 were mainly a) its lackluster lectures and b) the ICE component of it. Totally unrelated to the main bit of the course. It should have been a separate subject. Also, it was absolutely too much effort expected for 10 measly % of the overall mark.

***ANHS1602 Greek and Roman Myth

Ease 7/10
There were a lot of myths/names to rememeber. After a while you start getting confused/muddled by them. There were weekly quizzes during tutorial periods on the week's readings and they can get annoying, but you will get used to it. On the up-side though, the quizzes really helped jog my memory and thus I wasnt it so much of a panic come exam time.

Lecturer 6/10
Prof. Csapo seemed very very into his area. His lectures were intense and detailed imo, and I found it hard to concentrate during his lectures. The lecturer for the Roman part was much more easier to follow. I didn't feel obliged to attend this lectures since the textbook was king for this subject. You *need* the textbook for this subject.

Interest 10/10
I love Greek myth and I really enjoyed this subject. Anyone who finds Greek/Roman myth fascinating should definately give this one a go.

Overall 9/10
It was a lovely, well-thought out subject. If you persist throughout the semester, keep up with all the readings and what not you will definately have a fun time.

***RLST1002 History of God
Ease: 5/10
It was extremly difficult for me to follow some of the topics covered in this subject. It's quite an extensive unit, covering major past and current religions in a matter of weeks. It was a good thing the exam was a multiple choice, because I don't know how I would have survived if they asked for essay responses.

Lecturer 3/10
I found that on a whole the lecturers were hard to follow. Given they were lecturering on such broad, dense topics, many of the lecturers were way too fast and full-on in their explanations of things. I suppose they couldn't help it. They know so much, and want to convey so much to us in just 2 measly hours. The only topics I could follow were the ones where I had a sound prior knowledge of. That is why I would only recommend this subject to people who have a good understanding of at least one or two religions covered in this unit.

Interest 5/10
I find this one too subjective to judge. It all depends on whether you have an interest on the religious traditions that will be covered. More likely than not though, you will find some blander than the others.

Overall 6/10
The major essay is king in this subject. Do well in this essay and you should get an okay mark in the end. Choose something you're most interested or knowledgeable about and hit it. Multiple choice Exam was pretty straightforward. The rest of the marks went to tutorial participation and presentation.

***SCLG1002 Introduction to Sociology 2

Ease 7/10
Lecturer 7/10 (except for that quantitative guy who deserves a 1/10. i avoided all his lectures except for the first and last ones)
Interest 7/10
I found the subject went from interesting to boring. The beginning stuff on consumption, culture, celebrity, community etc was all fun to learn about but it ended on a bad note with all that stuff on learning how to do sociology. The ending I found was both confusing and dry.
Overall 7/10
It wasnt a hard subject I suppose but it was bad enough to put me off from choosing another sociology subject, at least for the time being. I was annoyed with the confusion over the course readers. They made us buy 3' 'parts'. The second one was paper thin and consisted only of journal articles you could retrieve yourself on the internet. I didn't buy the 3rd part because I found most online. The exam was pretty straightforward. 4 parts covering the 4 main areas of the subject.
 
Last edited:

Shaking Paper

Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2006
Messages
214
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
Re: Subject Reviews

Who's lecturing History of God now? When I did it it was Tony Swain, maybe the best lecturer I had at Usyd, but he retired that year.
 
Joined
Mar 3, 2007
Messages
303
Gender
Female
HSC
2008
Re: Subject Reviews

Who's lecturing History of God now? When I did it it was Tony Swain, maybe the best lecturer I had at Usyd, but he retired that year.
Tony Swain didn't lecture this year.

There were a few but I can only remember Ian Gardner, James Cox and Christ Hartney.
 

LoneWolf1990

Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2008
Messages
169
Gender
Male
HSC
2008
Re: Subject Reviews (PDF updated 17/01/09)

CHEM1102-Chemistry 1B
Ease - 8/10-some stuff was ok, some stuff needed some simplification and I got that more from youtube
Lecturer - 9/10-We had a number of different lecturers(first two were for organic chem and last one was for acid/base chem and other stuff) throughout the course, Matt Todd was pretty good, very to the point, um Richard Payne was also pretty good, he kept things interesting, and the last guy Tony Masters had an incredible sense of humour, which still managed to keep us interested in the content, but what really prepared my for the final exam was not so much the lecture notes, but rather the youtube vids which went through this content
Interest - 10/10-much better compared to last semester
Overall - 8/10


MATH1003-Integral Calculus & Modelling
Ease - 10/10-LOL, some of the course revisits stuff fromExtesion 1/2 Unit HSC Mathematics
Lecturer - 10/10 -the 1st lecturer(Andrew Crisp) was really good, he explained concepts throughly, and I wish I could have him again, the 2nd guy(Chris Cosgrove) took a bit of getting used to seeing as he did things differently compared to Andrew but I was able to understand him
Interest - 10/10-It was very enjoyable
Overall - 10/10-can be a good subject if you study from the 1st day

MATH1005-Statistics
Ease - 8/10-some stuff was good some wasn't
Lecturer - 5/10 -Michael Stewart wasn't that great, although some stuff did get through to my head
Interest - 6/10-The only reason I went to lectures(apart from actually trying to learn) was because of a really beautiful girl lol
Overall - 6.3/10-can be a good subject but can be bad also

CHNG1103-Materials and Energy Transformations intro
Ease - 7/10-the Mass balance component was ok but the Energy balance component was alot harder and took more time to master
Lecturer - 5/10 -the lecturers(Majorie Valix and Vincent Gomes) could have taught it better
Interest - 7/10-It was interesting seeing how this is all fundamental to chemical engineering
Overall - 6.3/10-can be a good subject if you study it properly
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top