Page 2 of 24 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 590
Like Tree25Likes

Thread: Subject Reviews (with PDF compilation)

  1. #26
    Ancient Orator
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    HSC
    N/A
    Gender
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    5,258
    Rep Power
    15

    Re: Subject Reviews

    ECOP 1001 Economics as a Social Science
    Lecturer - 9/10
    Ease - 8/10
    Interest: 8/10
    Overall: 7/10

    HSTY 2614 Australian Social History
    Lecturer - 7/10
    Ease - 7/10
    Interest: 1/10
    Overall: 3/10

    HSTY 2670 New York, New York
    Lecturer - 9/10
    Ease - 7/10
    Interest: 8/10
    Overall: 5/10
    Last edited by Generator; 18 Jul 2006 at 5:57 PM.

  2. #27
    Ancient Orator
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    HSC
    N/A
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    5,716
    Rep Power
    14

    Re: Subject Reviews

    re: acct1002, MB is alright... i kinda enjoyed it, though rushin report 1 night before wasn't cool... not at all... =(

    this sem:

    organic chem : 10/10 deadly easy subject... nit claims he could do the questions in yr 8...

    industrial chem: 4/10 so hard...!!! so HARD!!

    infs1000: 8/10 though course structure is a mess, lecturers are crap, assessments =WTFOMGBBQ, still, very useful in real life

    mktg1001: 10/10 though got crap results, robyn martin + paul henry made this subject do'able
    DUCKIE IS REBORN!!!!! only 3 wks too earlie =S

    "I am willing to give up any thing for you... even maths!!!!" - anonymous
    "Don't cry because it ended; smile because it happened." - anonymous

  3. #28
    Lacking creativity Xayma's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    HSC
    N/A
    Gender
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    5,958
    Rep Power
    14

    Re: Subject Reviews

    AERO2703 Aerospace Technology
    Lecturer - 9/10
    Ease - 7/10
    Interest - 7/10
    Overall: 7/10

    The assessment structure is debateable with the tutor seeming to make more on how you do it rather then if it is correct and you showed how you did it.

    PHYS 2911 Physics 2A Adv
    Lecturer - 9/10, 7/10
    Ease - 9/10
    Interest - 9/10
    Overall: 9/10

    Good, athough the Nuclear and Particle Physics (only three weeks) gives minimal new information.

    AMME2301
    Lecturer - 1/10
    Ease - 6/10
    Interest - 1/10
    Overall: 1/10

    The lectureres were both terrible, tutorial structure was fucked, I'll probably do bad because I couldn't bring myself to attend the lectures partially because of the lecturers but because Engineers to be are generally fuckwits. Although Attendence vs mark should be high.

    MATH2961
    Lecturer - 6/10
    Ease - 6/10
    Interest - 8/10
    Overal: 7/10

    8am maths lectures are even worse then in first year.

  4. #29
    Viva La Merchandise! c_james's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    HSC
    2005
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    516
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: Subject Reviews

    LAWS1006 - Foundations of Law
    Lecturer: 8/10 - Friendly, knowledgeable, approachable - pretty much the tri-factor. Was a bit inconsistent with the marking, though.
    Ease: 6/10 - Not easy, but not necessarily hard either. Difficulty is inversely proportional to the amount of reading you do each week - some weeks you'll be lost, others you'll be in your element.
    Interest: 7/10 - The history is mostly crap. The philosophy behind law is an acquired taste (I liked it, personally, but most of the class didn't). It gets more interesting as the course culminates in international law/politics and issues such as Guantanamo Bay, which sparked some very engaging discussion. If you're not opinionated you will find this course not only hard, but intimidating.
    OVERALL - 7/10

    PHIL1011 - Reality, Ethics & Beauty
    Lecturer: 6/10 - It's really a mixed bag here. Stewart Saunders (reality) was brilliant and hilarious, John Hadley (ethics) was dry and disorganised and MacArthur (beauty) sort of fell between the two in terms of competence.
    Ease: 7/10 - It's easier than it initially appears. Once you get your head around the leading theorists and concepts, the rest falls into place. The exam is a bitch, especially since it's worth 60% of the final mark, although to be fair we got the pool of questions well in advance.
    Interest: 9/10 - This is where it's at for your interest points. Questions regarding the existence of God, anyone? What acts are moral/ethical and who, if anyone, deems them so? Are there populist standards of morality or is it all just a culturally relativistic quagmire? Is beauty really in the eye of the beholder, or are some thing universally beautiful? What is art? There are important philosophical questions in this course which will suit pretty much everyone.
    OVERALL - 7/10

    The other two will come soon, I gotta snooze.
    Last edited by c_james; 23 Jul 2006 at 2:23 AM.
    BA (History)/LLB II, University of Sydney

    Quote Originally Posted by Søren Aabye Kierkegaard
    People understand me so little that they fail even to understand my complaints that they do not understand me.

  5. #30
    I'll stab ya
    Join Date
    May 2004
    HSC
    N/A
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Jumanji
    Posts
    3,995
    Rep Power
    12

    Re: Subject Reviews

    Although im no longer here, for those looking for electives, i shall review COSC1002/1902. I took the advanced version (1902)

    COSC1002/1902 - Most students are computing ones, but there will also be some physics and maths students too.

    Lecturer - 8/10: Last years lecturer was Mike Wheatland. He isnt the best lecturer (although he's not bad), but his notes are awesome and well prepared. Probably the best ive seen. PM me if you want the complete 2005 notes.

    Ease - 8/10: This subject probably favours people who are strong in maths more than computing. You'll have to learn C, but its just basic stuff like control flow. Pracs are pretty easy, most can be finished within the hour (of a 2 hour prac). Would give it 9, but the first prac assessment pretty much owned most people. He subsequently made the 2nd one easy, so maybe he'll continue to make them easy. Most of the final exam seems to be taken from previous year exams.

    Interest - 7/10: Found the computing part boring (things about precision, errors), but the maths was pretty good. Continually solving DEs gets repetitive after a while.

    Overall - 8/10: If you're good at maths a decent at programming i'd recommend it as a subject where HD is easily attainable.

  6. #31
    shoconomics SSaint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    HSC
    2005
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Pennant Hills
    Posts
    131
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: Subject Reviews

    Here are mine for first semester:

    ACCT1001 - Accounting IA
    Ease: 8/10 Gets a little trickier at the end, but it's manageable
    Lecturer: 3(7)/10 They got through the material well, too bad the lecturers are cunts
    Interest: 7/10 It's relevant stuff, but a bit dry at times
    Overall: 7/10

    ECMT1010 - Bus. & Eco. Stats A
    Ease: 6/10 Theres a reason why so many people fail
    Lecturer: 5/10 Tig was nice, Murray's a tightarse and he speaks in a monotone, though i managed to learn shit during his lectures
    Interest: 6/10 I hear 1020 is more interesting...
    Overall: 5/10 Most boring course this semester by far

    ECON1001 - Intro. Microeconomics
    Ease: 8/10 The concepts were easy enough to grasp
    Lecturer: 6/10 I had Natalia, if you could work with the accent it was alright
    Interest: 9/10 I like economics
    Overall: 8/10

    CLAW1001 - Commercial Transactions A
    Ease: 8/10 The topics weren't too difficult and were taught well
    Lecturer: 9/10 Giuseppe is a champ
    Interest: 6/10 The law isn't my cup of tea
    Overall: 6/10
    Bachelor of Economics (Economics/Accounting) II University of Sydney

  7. #32
    I'll stab ya
    Join Date
    May 2004
    HSC
    N/A
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Jumanji
    Posts
    3,995
    Rep Power
    12

    Re: Subject Reviews

    Quote Originally Posted by Tennille
    Go away, Vince. You abandoned us.
    I'm still a usyd'er at heart Ill be back once i graduate!

  8. #33
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    HSC
    2005
    Gender
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    382
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: Subject Reviews

    ECOP1001 - Economics as a Social Science
    Ease: 7/10 The content is simple enough to understand, it's just actually knowing how to answer broad ecop1001 tutorial/assessment questions properly that is difficult.
    Lecturer: 8/10 Frank Stilwell is a nice person that cares about students and the academic standards of the discipline and faculty. He's the most helpful and friendly staff member I've known so far at the university. He used to lecture in microeconomics, then together with some other people founded the political economy discipline at usyd. His lectures though are extremely similar to the actual text (that he authored)- I remember him even using the exact same examples/jokes from his book in lectures. So you really can replace lectures with the text. I found that the only thing extra in lectures were fun cartoons he put up on the overhead.
    Interest: 6/10. I was interested in the beginning, but by the end it just seemed so pointless. Why learn about Marxist solutions to economic problems when the entire world operates within a variation of the neo- classical model? Do the policy rectifications hence not come from that?
    Overall: 5/10. The whole subject is a general overview of the oh- so complex conflicting forms of economic thought. Political economy isn't that extraordinary. There is no direction in the unit other than a limited examination of classical political economy, marxism, keynesianism etc in a chronological sequence. It was very difficult for me to understand exactly what we were meant to analyse in assignments/ the exam. It is based in theory, but tutorials/lectures encourage a personal individual relation to such concepts rather than collective economic. Examining the Marxist labour theory of value, neo- classical quantity theory of money etc seemed pointless to me without any clear relation to policy. But I assume it will become more focused in further ecop units (which i will not be taking).

    ECMT1010- Business and Economic Statistics A
    Ease: 6/10 It's hard, but if you just sit down and focus you can get it. You have to put effort in.
    Lecturer: 4/10 You CANNOT learn anything from Murray. Tig was cool- he explained things a little better, but for me textbook+lecture slides+workshop questions was how I understood the content.
    Interest: 6/10 I don't know how you can be interested in statistics. It's just something you do, like maths.
    Overall: 8/10. I only like it because I get it.

    ECON1001 - Introductory Microeconomics
    Ease: 8/10 Like ecmt, you need to focus, and then you can understand easy.
    Lecturer: 6/10 Like ecmt, individual learning+tutorials was best. I had Natalia Ponomareva- apparently Andrew Wait is good?
    Interest: 8/10
    Overall: 8/10

    GOVT1105- Geopolitics
    Ease: 8/10. The exam required you to discuss specific details from the readings but it was easy enough to remember. Tutorial content, especially from the reader was more important than the generality of the lectures and text.
    Lecturer: 9/10. Lectures were very interesting. Diarmuid Maguire speaks well, I don't get it when people say he's boring.
    Interest: 10/10. I love govt+international relations.
    Overall: 9/10. Geopolitics especially- examining how international relations are influenced by the economics etc of geography, is so cool.

  9. #34
    Member bustinjustin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    HSC
    2005
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    371
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: Subject Reviews

    Quote Originally Posted by cimbom
    ECOP1001 - Economics as a Social Science
    Ease: 7/10 The content is simple enough to understand, it's just actually knowing how to answer broad ecop1001 tutorial/assessment questions properly that is difficult.
    Lecturer: 8/10 Frank Stilwell is a nice person that cares about students and the academic standards of the discipline and faculty. He's the most helpful and friendly staff member I've known so far at the university. He used to lecture in microeconomics, then together with some other people founded the political economy discipline at usyd. His lectures though are extremely similar to the actual text (that he authored)- I remember him even using the exact same examples/jokes from his book in lectures. So you really can replace lectures with the text. I found that the only thing extra in lectures were fun cartoons he put up on the overhead.
    Interest: 6/10. I was interested in the beginning, but by the end it just seemed so pointless. Why learn about Marxist solutions to economic problems when the entire world operates within a variation of the neo- classical model? Do the policy rectifications hence not come from that?
    Overall: 5/10. The whole subject is a general overview of the oh- so complex conflicting forms of economic thought. Political economy isn't that extraordinary. There is no direction in the unit other than a limited examination of classical political economy, marxism, keynesianism etc in a chronological sequence. It was very difficult for me to understand exactly what we were meant to analyse in assignments/ the exam. It is based in theory, but tutorials/lectures encourage a personal individual relation to such concepts rather than collective economic. Examining the Marxist labour theory of value, neo- classical quantity theory of money etc seemed pointless to me without any clear relation to policy. But I assume it will become more focused in further ecop units (which i will not be taking).

    GOVT1105- Geopolitics
    Ease: 8/10. The exam required you to discuss specific details from the readings but it was easy enough to remember. Tutorial content, especially from the reader was more important than the generality of the lectures and text.
    Lecturer: 9/10. Lectures were very interesting. Diarmuid Maguire speaks well, I don't get it when people say he's boring.
    Interest: 10/10. I love govt+international relations.
    Overall: 9/10. Geopolitics especially- examining how international relations are influenced by the economics etc of geography, is so cool.
    Blasphemy!


    I don't wish to dismiss your views because that would be as narrow-minded as what you've written. Your points have some validity but regardless of crossover between lectures and the textbook, listening to Frank is a lot more stimulating and engaging than reading the textbook - I, like many others didn't and couldn't miss Frank's lectures for the world. Moreover, in your response to your bewilderment at the study of Marxist Economics in ECOP, the point of it is to illuminate the problems that beleaguer the neo-liberal model of capitalism, problems that don't come to light through orthodox economics. Keep in mind that studying Marxist Economics won't make you a communist either, if that's what you feared.

    I realise that I may come across as bigoted as a neo-liberalist by re-asserting the orthodox view that ECOP1001 and Frank's lectures are unmissable, but I just love Frank so much that I couldn't let you downplay his amazingness with that unflattering review of ECOP1001, which seems like scorn especially when you pour praise on Diarmuid Maguire and the Geopolitics course.
    Last edited by bustinjustin; 13 Jul 2006 at 7:32 PM.

  10. #35
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    HSC
    2005
    Gender
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    382
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: Subject Reviews

    Quote Originally Posted by bustinjustin
    Blasphemy!


    I don't wish to dismiss your views because that would be as narrow-minded as what you've written. Your points have some validity but regardless of crossover between lectures and the textbook, listening to Frank is a lot more stimulating and engaging than reading the textbook - I, like many others didn't and couldn't miss Frank's lectures for the world. Moreover, in your response to your bewilderment at the study of Marxist Economics in ECOP, the point of it is to illuminate the problems that beleaguer the neo-liberal model of capitalism, problems that don't come to light through orthodox economics. Keep in mind that studying Marxist Economics won't make you a communist either, if that's what you feared.

    I realise that I may come across as bigoted as a neo-liberalist by re-asserting the orthodox view that ECOP1001 and Frank's lectures are unmissable, but I just love Frank so much that I couldn't let you downplay his amazingness with that unflattering review of ECOP1001, which seems like scorn especially when you pour praise on Diarmuid Maguire and the Geopolitics course.
    That's fine . I really am not suggesting replacing lectures with the textbook, I'm just saying that it is indeed entirely possible. I too enjoyed Frank's lectures, but they barely went further than what he'd already discussed in his text.

    I'm also sorry if I may have come across as narrow- minded with my comments- it's just the way I view ecop1001 and govt1105 after studying both units this semester. I maintain the utmost respect for Frank Stilwell and the Political Economy discipline- but it's not something I want to continue studying.

  11. #36
    Senior Member SmokedSalmon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    HSC
    2003
    Gender
    Undisclosed
    Location
    for me to know and for you to find out
    Posts
    901
    Rep Power
    11

    Re: Subject Reviews

    My views on some science subjects

    2nd semester subject:
    BCHM 2072: Human Biochemistry is da bomb with Gareth Denyer!! If you decide to do this subject you'll love his lectures and never ever want to miss them. He records his lectures too & even takes photographs of the blackboard he writes on.
    The downside are the pracs, run by MBLG demonstrators who are insane crabby bitches most of the time. If you get Andrea I am extremely sorry for you, never bother asking her for help, go straight to Debra if possible. The pracs are no where as exciting as first sem.. but you tolerate it in the end. And assignments are doable, just ensure you have a good lab group.

    10/10 lectures... 4/10 for prac

    1st semester subjects:

    IMMU2101: Very interesting course, learn all about the body's biological defence system against foreign bacteria.
    2 hours of lab work every 2nd week (that usually don't even go for 2 hours), but are on friday's only. 1 hour of tut every 2nd week, extremely easy, only have to do one presentation with 2-3 ppl in the last few weeks of semester on any medical topic that involves the immune system i.e. Diabetes.
    One essay that you can start preparing and completing from week 1 and is due in week 10.
    Although the lecture material tends to be all over the place... if you like the content then you'll love to study it.
    Overall an immensely bludgy and carefree subject... but fascinating to ready about. 9.5/10

    BCHM 3071: Genes: Very broad at the start, but don't despair... they specialise after a few weeks. Theory work was not too difficult apart from having 9am lectures. However the notes are online and lectures are recorded for your convenience. The pracs are fine as well and assignments are easily passable. However Gill Johnson (the year coordinator) is an immensely bitchy lady who won't help or guide you in anyway. So try and avoid her at all costs. Oh and by the way, she may seem friendly at first... but BEWARE! She'll stab you in the back.

    6/10

    Chem 3010: Biomolecules. Involves lots of DNA background for the first component of it all. So if you have done 2nd year MBLG and BCHM, you'll be passing this with flying colours. Lecture notes are online but you are FARKED if you don't go to chem lectures... you write all over the notes in the end. Organic reactions are involved here too unfortunately, so quite a bit of memorising... Good for people with photographic memory. Pracs are randomly allocated... 4 hours a week. looong... and boring!

    8/10
    Last edited by SmokedSalmon; 18 Jul 2006 at 8:14 PM.
    :burn: :rofl:

  12. #37
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    HSC
    2004
    Gender
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: Subject Reviews

    ENGL 1002- Narratives of Romance and Adventure
    Ease: 7/10. As always there was a lot to read, but if you knew your stuff and were willing to read everything there was no problem. A lot of the assignment questions were quite broad, so there was a lot of latitude in what you wanted to argue or explore based on the text.
    Lecturer: 10/10. Great lectures, both informative and genuinely interesting (and funny!) by Liam Semler. Even people I know who weren't that into the course enjoyed the lectures.
    Interest: 8/10. Great texts, I found this much better in developing general English critical thinking skills about narrative and discourse than Engl 1025.
    Overall: 9/10. Loved it.

  13. #38
    Nightman stazi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    HSC
    2004
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    14,125
    Rep Power
    20

    Re: Subject Reviews

    IBUS2101 - International Business Strategy
    Ease: 8/10. There weren't many readings, and nothing was very challenging.
    Lecturer: 6/10. Whilst his material was fantastic, it was virtually impossible to concentrate on what he was saying, as he had a mechanical voice. Plus I had brogan distracting me.
    Interest: 6.5/10. I've covered a lot of the stuff in other subs, and nothing really tickled my penis. i mean fancy.
    Overall: 7/10. Not the best unit, but I suppose it's necessary for the major.

  14. #39
    Now in Oriental Flavour!
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    HSC
    N/A
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    1,648
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: Subject Reviews

    Quote Originally Posted by SSaint
    Here are mine for first semester:

    ACCT1001 - Accounting IA
    Ease: 8/10 Gets a little trickier at the end, but it's manageable
    Lecturer: 3(7)/10 They got through the material well, too bad the lecturers are cunts
    Interest: 7/10 It's relevant stuff, but a bit dry at times
    Overall: 7/10

    ECMT1010 - Bus. & Eco. Stats A
    Ease: 6/10 Theres a reason why so many people fail
    Lecturer: 5/10 Tig was nice, Murray's a tightarse and he speaks in a monotone, though i managed to learn shit during his lectures
    Interest: 6/10 I hear 1020 is more interesting...
    Overall: 5/10 Most boring course this semester by far

    ECON1001 - Intro. Microeconomics
    Ease: 8/10 The concepts were easy enough to grasp
    Lecturer: 6/10 I had Natalia, if you could work with the accent it was alright
    Interest: 9/10 I like economics
    Overall: 8/10

    CLAW1001 - Commercial Transactions A
    Ease: 8/10 The topics weren't too difficult and were taught well
    Lecturer: 9/10 Giuseppe is a champ
    Interest: 6/10 The law isn't my cup of tea
    Overall: 6/10
    You don't like Abdul?

  15. #40
    oo-joo-fleg ujuphleg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    HSC
    2004
    Gender
    Undisclosed
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    3,045
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Subject Reviews

    Disclaimer: This is a HUGE post, so I suggest you just skip to what is relevant to you. I've done my best to be comprehensive and put in links where and when I could.

    You'll also find that I place a huge emphasis on the lecturer - this is because I attend virtually all my lectures and so to me, the lecturer really makes or breaks the course. This isn't the same with everyone though.

    Always remember these reviews are the views of a single student and don't necessarily apply for everyone.

    As with everything, if you have a question of some sort at all, please don't hesitate to contact me via PM or chuck me an email at ujuphleg@gmail.com

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

    ECOP 1001 - Economics as a Social Science
    Ease: 8/10
    Lecturer: 10/10
    Interest: 7/10
    Overall: 9/10

    Frank Stilwell is possibly one of the best lecturers you will have. Very funny guy, and presents material in a way which is engaging and interesting. Be weary of course, of the bias of any university lecturer. Frank, for all his legendariness, is no exception. As an Economic Advisor to the Australian Greens, be prepared for a strong politically leftwards bias in this course.

    As for subject matter – ECOP 1001 provides a good, solid overview of different strands of economic thought, including classical Political Economy, Marxian Political Economy, Institutional Political Economy, Keynesian Political Economy, Neo-Classical Economic thought (often referred to as orthodox economics) as well as discussion about alternative Political Economy such as feminist and green.

    Many students enrolled in the Bachelor of Economic and Social Sciences will take this course, and it provides a broad overview of the discipline in general. No requirement is needed in terms of math, or previous experience with Economics as HSC level. Those who have taken Economics in the HSC may be placed at both an advantage and disadvantage. The advantages include that you will be familiar with terminology that arises from the course and your grasp of the Neo-Classical section will be excellent. The disadvantage is that the patterns of thinking are very different and a strict adherence to what has been taught at HSC level will possibly result in less than desirable results, if only because of the aforementioned left leaning of the course (and indeed, the entire department)


    ECOP 1002 – Economy and Policy.
    Ease: 5/10
    Lecturer: 3/10
    Interest: 3/10
    Overall: 4/10

    Gabrielle Meagher (who was the acting Chair of Department) wins my award for driest, most boring first year lecturer. In contrast to Frank, there is such a difference between their lecture styles. Most annoyingly, I found that Dr. Meagher treated us like 4 year olds, insisting upon absolute silence, attention etc. in her lectures. I mean, okay, most students will accord you that manners anyway, but she was tough on enforcement and, more annoyingly, difficult to listen to.

    Again, Dr. Meagher’s bias lies with feminist political economy (her area of speciality) in particular, how oppressed and down-trodden women in Australia are (yes, hear the sarcasm dripping from my voice) Watch out for this in her lectures.

    Speaking of lectures, each week was like a lets-see-if-I-can-beat-last-weeks-record-for-the-number-of-transparencies-I-can-put-up. It was, ridiculous. Tables and charts flowed freely, but unlike wine, there was not much fun had by all. If the situation can get more ridiculous, the statistics used in these lectures are mostly from around 1993, which is pathetic at tertiary level. When you consider HSC Economics textbooks are updated 4 times a year, you would expect that a research Professor such as Dr. Meagher could at least make new slides for the new millennium. Apparently this isn’t the case.

    The course was difficult only because turning up to and staying away in lectures was difficult. For someone like moi, who is lazy and doesn’t do readings, the reader brick we had to purchase made a nice paperweight for all the help it was.

    The redeeming factor for this course was my excellent tutor, Anna Samson, who at least tried to apply relevance to the material we were learning in lectures to current political and economic events.


    ECOP 2011 – Economic Foundations of Modern Capitalism
    Ease: 4/10 (but only if you stick to Marxian Political Economy, if not its more like 1/10)
    Lecturer: 2/10
    Interest: 3/10
    Overall: 3/10

    Joseph Halevi is an interesting character. Advance skill and copious quantities of caffeine are required to maintain consciousness in his lectures, as accent, monotone and dry subject matter combined do not make for a very appealing combination. However, the discussion on fairies and dragons was insightful and interesting.

    Bias from Joseph lies in his Communist past – and hence, a great love for Marx. The course material is similar to ECOP 1001, except more intensively focused upon the ACTUAL economics rather than the theory. Indeed, the course is focused upon outlining the economic rationale behind each school of though – then systematically deconstructing the paradigm to prove how and why it is incorrect. It seems that the eventual conclusion of the course is again, a variation on the same thing

    1)All schools of economic thought are deficient in accurately accounting for the human element in economic function.
    2)Attempting to factor in this as such, inevitably leads to a deficient framework by which to analyse the economy effectively
    3)Thus, Neo-classical Economics is still the best thing we’ve got, so put up and shut up.

    There were copious quantities of algebra in this course as well, of which many of the students did not understand AT ALL. For a discipline which trumpets the fact that no maths skills are required, there was a large amount of algebra. Despite the tutors best efforts to emphasise that the need to understand all the algebra was not necessary, it seemed that making an effort to learn it is what separates the students in this course. This, again, is another reason why to stick to Marxian Political Economy in this course – it minimises the amount of algebra that needs to be learnt.




    GOVT 1105 - Geopolitics
    Ease: 6/10
    Lecturer: 2/10
    Interest: 4/10
    Overall: 4/10

    I didn’t like this course at all. A few reasons existed for this

    1)I didn’t like Diarmuid Maguire at all. I found that he trailed off at the end of sentences, making it hard to listen and to follow a train of thought. He tended to mumble and his information often didn’t really correlate to the subject matter at hand.
    2)The course content is interesting, don’t get me wrong. But the way its presented in lectures makes it look like mould, the tutorials don’t really further the information at all, the readings tend to be a little off kilter to the subject matter and the assessment material were COMPLETLEY off centre. Not to mention the final exam didn’t actually test what it said it would.
    3)Geopolitics (as a school of thought) is largely defunct anyway, so studying it seemed to be a little pointless. Admittedly its making a comeback, but nonetheless, Diarmuid didn’t really point out the links or relevance at all.

    I’ve found that people tend to fall into two categories with this course. They either love Diarmuid and hence, the course, or they hate him and the course.

    Oh, he’s supposed to be a Neo-Marxist too – I didn’t really see much bias there, but then again, I slept through most of the lectures anyways so maybe there was, maybe there wasn’t, I have no idea.

    The assessment for this unit was APPALLING. It was all over the shop. We were told that the exam content would come from the readings and tutorials – instead they were obscure facts here and there mishmashed from lectures or some readings. The major essays were also unrelated to course content.

    GOVT 1202 – World Politics
    Ease: 6/10
    Lecturer: 3/10
    Interest: 4/10
    Overall: 5/10

    This course was a theoretical introduction to the study of political science. The lecturer, Gil Merom, is very hard to understand, speaks very fast, with a very thick accent.

    He is extremely knowledgeable and very smart – PhD from Cornell etc. It takes a lot of effort to maintain consciousness in his lectures so come prepared with strong coffee.

    Seriously though, World Politics will put you in good steed for senior Government subjects, even if it is a labour of love. The theoretical foundations are handy to understand, although if you don’t fully get it I wouldn’t worry too much as they are covered again in the later years.

    Like Geopol, World Politics should have been a great subject, but a combination of difficult lecturer, uninspiring tutor and bad time management on my part with the less than average assessment meant that the course as a whole was not enjoyable for me.

    It seems though that all first year Government subjects are pretty bad. Please don’t let this deter you though. It gets better. Promise!

    GOVT 2119 – South East Asian Politics
    Ease: 8/10
    Lecturer: 8/10
    Interest: 8/10
    Overall: 8/10

    If you like facts and figures and you’re interested in South East Asia developmental issues then this is a really good course.

    If you don’t mind a little raised voices either, then Dr. Lily Rahim is a pretty good lecturer as well. This is her area of expertise and she is good (she is the supervisor for the Honours students specialising in SE Asian Politics) with a comprehensive knowledge of the region, in particular, Singapore & Malaysia. She also has extensive knowledge about Islam and about the rise of militant Islam in South-East Asia in recent years.

    The reason I say that a liking of facts and figures is needed is because the nature of the course, dealing with one country/topic per week, means that we speed along, cramming tonnes of information into a small pocket of time, without really analysing. It seems that a lot of facts are given without much analysis – although, as senior students, this is really our job I suppose.

    Assessment was good. Tutorials are HEAVILY weighted in this UoS, with 25% on your presentation and paper alone. Assessment was all good, nothing nasty or scary and was heavily tied to the lecture material. Again, showing up to lectures and doing some readings is good enough to get you there.


    GOVT 2445 – American Politics and Foreign Policy
    Ease: 8/10
    Lecturer: 9/10
    Interest: 9/10
    Overall: 9/10

    By far the most useful unit of study I’ve undertaken at my time at University so far. Conducted by Dennis Phillips (no link!! Sorry!!), a lecturer from Macquarie University visiting USyd, he is a former Texan who has been living in Australia since the 1970’s. More importantly though, as Dennis is actually American, his perspective is that which is perhaps more accurate and more whole than say, the opinion of an Australian who had gone to study American politics.

    He is also not without bias, but Dennis freely acknowledges them and indeed, gives his background to explain why this may be the case. For example, whilst being against the Bush Administration and critical of the administrations foreign policy directives, he can also state that he understands the staunch, Southern Republican voter because his parents are of that stock.

    The course is basically set in two parts: domestic American Politics and American Foreign Policy. The latter section is not as good, only because time constraints meant that we weren’t able to study it in as much depth as required for such a vast topic. The topic is also, very contentious and ever-increasing so a comprehensive coverage was always going to be difficult.

    The first section though is really really good. It explains a lot about America, the psyche of Americans and how and why their political system works. By studying the foundations of American politics, we can learn a lot about the current situation, the current Administration and, to a lesser degree the effect that is has on the world.

    Lectures were excellent (although again, the lectures for the Foreign Policy component were virtually word for word the same as the text), tutes were great and the readings were useful. Assessment wasn’t exactly easy but it was good it didn’t really tie in with what we were learning but it built upon it well.

    I would thoroughly recommend this course to ALL government students.



    HSTY 1045 – Modern European History 1750 -1914
    Ease: 7/10
    Lecturer: 7/10
    Interest: 5/10
    Overall: 7/10

    Robert Aldrich specialises in French History and History of Sexuality – these are where the two biases in the course lie. This is not to say that without a grasp of these topics you won’t get anywhere – the bias is no where near as strong as it is in the Political Economy department. Rather, you’ll find that, particularly with France, this is where Dr. Aldrich takes most of his examples.

    Course content was fairly engaging, if a little dry at times. My tutor was an “interesting” character to say the least – nothing much was learnt in his tute, and as most of us didn’t do the readings either, we spent a lot of time just looking at each other, or arguing about things mostly unrelated to the topic.

    Assessment wasn’t difficult. Essay was fairly stock standard – read the question, read at least 2 of the books on the suggested reading list and answer the question directly and wholly. You should be fine.


    HSTY 1044 – Twentieth Century Politics and Culture
    Ease: 6/10
    Lecturer: 7/10
    Interest: 5/10
    Overall: 5/10

    Chris Hilliard took this course last year for whatever reason, as Dr. Judith Keene was mostly unavailable for most of semester. In the end, the one lecture we had with Dr. Keene was so bad (dry, boring, condescending and dull) that it made us all feel very grateful to have Dr. Hilliard. His lectures were fairly interesting, certainly engaging enough to make you want to turn up.

    In terms of content, the course was very similar to that of HSTY 1045, and certainly without as much emphasis on politics or culture as the unit of study title would lead you to believe.

    Again, the assessment was fairly straightforward as well, with no kinks or unpleasant surprises. (I really should have wrote all my first year reviews when I could still remember everything!!)




    PHIL 1011 – Reality, Ethics and Beauty
    Ease: 8/10
    Lecturer: DBM – 10/10 West – 8/10 MacArthur 3/10 (but I didn’t like his subject)
    Interest: 6/10 (offset by Beauty, which I didn’t like, otherwise an 8/10)
    Overall: 7/10 (again, offset by the yeuky bits)

    This course is essentially your sampler plate for the wonderful world that is philosophy. As an introductory, first year course, the delights to sample are: metaphysics (which deals with what is real and what isn’t), ethics (which deals with what is right and wrong) and aesthetics (which deals with what art is…..)

    Metaphysics (Reality)
    David Braddon-Mitchell comes and equal first to Frank Stilwell in best lecturer stakes. He is a brilliant speaker, engaging, entertaining and making the information which needs to be divulged a pleasure to learn. However, for those of you who like details which you can sink your teeth into, Metaphysics is not the kind of subject for you. It deals primarily in hypotheticals, often asking “what if” ‘s to give possible scenarios many different situations.

    The major essay in this course is derived from the metaphysics section so a good idea of what metaphysics is all about (which shouldn’t be hard if you go to lectures) is advisable, as the essay makes up 30% of the course. (although the essay plan which precedes it is worth 10% so really, Metaphysics has a 40% weighting)

    Ethics (well…. Ethics)
    Caroline West (who is not the same Caroline West from Sex Life) was, for me anyway, a fairly good lecturer. Some people think that she was crap, or rather, that her subject matter was crap. Either way, she was no where near as bad as what was to come.

    This section of the course is worth 2 essays and 30% of the course, assessment of which occurs in the final exam.

    From an educational perspective, the ethics section is useful because it brings up words and themes that you will, inevitably encounter in other areas of study – phrases like cultural relativism which may arise in other, social science type subjects, are philosophically explained here. If you got impatient with the wishy-washyness of Metaphysics, Ethics only gets worse.

    Aesthetics (Beauty)
    What is beautiful and what isn’t? How does one define beautiful? How does one ascertain the true meaning behind art itself?

    If you like that kind of thing, good on you. For the vast majority of us though, we hated this section. Jhakka and I went to the first of this lecture series and didn’t attend another lecture the whole semester. The lecturer, David Macarthur managed to make dry subject matter unbearable, and made airy-fairy subject matter stratospheric.

    Luckily, cramming as much information from scant readings 2 hours before the exam can scrape you through find. Its so vague that it doesn’t really matter anyway. This section also accounts for 30%, so if you don’t like Beauty, but like the idea of the other two, work really hard in the others to offset this.



    PHIL 1010 – Society, Knowledge and Reason
    Ease: 8/10
    Lecturer: Tim Rayner 8/10, Nick Smith 3/10, Stu!! 9/10
    Interest: 5/10 (taking into account Knowledge, otherwise, 9/10)
    Overall: 6/10 (again, taking into account Knowledge, otherwise it’s a 9/10)’

    So again, this course is another cheese plate of philosophy, essentially covering Political Philosophy, Epistemology and basic Logic. For myself, personally, Epistemology was about as interesting as watching grass grow, so if you factor in MY own personal bias (which is that I love politics and everything about it) you can see that my opinion of the course may be just slightly screwed.

    Tim Rayner was not exactly the most fabulous lecturer I ever had, but he was good enough to keep me doing the subject into second year. He was a clear, concise and informative speaker and for someone like myself, doing a government degree, this section of this UOS was EXTREMELY helpful in providing a solid foundation for a deeper understanding of my area of expertise. The essay for this topic is again, worth 40% (including the plan) so paying a little attention is advisable

    Nick Smith was BORING. I mean, really boring. He wasn’t engaging and, as a typical academic, laughed at his own jokes, which left the rest of the lecture hall going “huh?!” Unfortunately, unlike Aesthetics, this section was harder to bullshit in the exam so it’s a choice between two evils – sitting through boring as all buggery lectures or doing boring as all buggery reading. The choice is yours.

    Stu and the Reason section was great. (unfortunatley I cannot find a link for him!! ) Stu was funny and engaging and the humour he tried to inject into lectures (no matter how cheap/cheesy) made an otherwise dry topic rather enjoyable. The section deals primarily with the structure of an argument, fallacies etc. so it is very very useful, especially when trying to deal with people like waf or Phanatical on these forums



    PHIL 2634 – Democratic Theory.
    Ease: 8/10
    Lecturer: 8/10
    Interest: 9/10 (because I like Politics but you should do if you’re going to do this unit anyway.)
    Overall: 8/10

    This subject was a deeper exploration into the “Society” section of PHIL1010 and was fantastic in the investigation of social contract theory, majoritarianism, utilitarianism etc. It does, focus primarily on democracy, its origins and the aspects of it and not so much on anything else (hence, the name of the unit) Its second semester counterpart, Contemporary Political Philosophy is more focused on a broader range of ideology if that is more your thing.

    Duncan Ivison is a good lecturer. Because the class size is relatively small, he’s able to interact with the class using a combination of slides and the black board. He is Canadian and is actually a visiting fellow from the University of Toronto, which means that many of his empirical examples are, naturally, drawn from Canadian examples.

    I felt that assessments in this topic didn’t really allow for you to do much research – Ivison preferred to merely test us on the content of the reader, which is fine if you are a lazy sort of person, but not so good if you enjoy the research aspect of essays.

    There is no final exam for this unit, but just a take-home exam worth 40% which literally can be done with just your reader and a word-processor.

    Another disadvantage to this unit was the lack of WebCT, meaning that slides are e-mailed to the class on a weekly basis as well as the tutorial papers from that week. Just means more e-mail really, but its still a little annoying nonetheless.

    I strongly advise only taking this topic if you have an interest (academic or otherwise) into politics, because if not, it’s a real snore. This is the same with most Senior Units though, unless you possess an interest, there isn’t any real reason to do it as the units are very much more specialised.


    Masters of Administrative Law & Policy, 2010
    Bachelor of Economic and Social Sciences - Government & International Relations and Political Economy - Alumni 2007

    THS, Class of 2004

  16. #41
    Cadet
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    HSC
    2005
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Stratttys (That's Strathfield, for all those who are trying to look up "Strattys" in a map)
    Posts
    56
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: Subject Reviews

    Right...well here's my 2 cents....except many of the subjects i'm reviewing have been reviewed before!

    Acct1001 - Accounting 1A
    Ease - 6/10. This really depends. I'm doing it for the second time, so i give it an 8.5 for ease (yeah, i'm an ex-failure), but the first time i did it, it was bloody hard and so i give it a 3.5/10 for first-time ease. therefore, i've averaged it out and given you 6.
    Lecturer - 7/10. Abdul & Sharron are fine. They're not amazing or brilliant, but they're not crap.
    Interest - 1/10. This rates as one of the most uninteresting subjects ever.
    Overall - 4.6/10

    Econ1001 - Introductory Microecononics
    Ease - 2/10 - THIS SUBJECT WAS HARD DAMMIT. I never had done eco before and so everything i was learning was from scratch and WE COVERED SO MUCH MATERIAL i couldn't handle it. i failed this as well.
    Lecturer - 0/10 - I might get charged for slander but andrew wait has got to be the WORST LECTURER IMAGINABLE!!!!!!! Asshole of a personality, Crap lecture slides, and terrible public speaking voice!
    Interest - 0/10.
    Overall - 0.7/10

    ECON1002 - Introductory Macroeconomics
    Ease - 5/10 - still a bitch of a subject, but easier and more 'grasp-able' than micro.
    Lecturer - 5/10 - Sorry Jordi...you probably know your stuff, but you're not crash-hot at explaining it.
    Interest - 4/10 - i hate economics and am only doing this to get my ground units for commerce out the way but by god i like this much MUCH more than micro!

    FRNC1631/FRNC 1632 - Junior French 5 & 6
    These two subjects are basically the same; 6 is just a continuation of 5.
    Ease - 8/10
    Lecturer - 7/10 (nothing special)
    Interest - 5/10- The crap course made me lose interest in an otherwise interesting subject.
    Overall - 7/10

    GRMN1631/GRMN1632 - Junior German 5 & 6

    Ease - 8.5/10 - I like german. I loved it at school. It's not giving me much grief at uni at all.
    Lecturer(s) - 8/10 - Emilie, Kenny and Udo were/are great.
    Interest - 8/10
    Overall - 8/10

  17. #42
    oo-joo-fleg ujuphleg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    HSC
    2004
    Gender
    Undisclosed
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    3,045
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Subject Reviews

    All the reviews are now in one document, attached to the first post.

    If you are pre-enrolling for 2007 and can't decide, take the time out to have a look. Hopefully the .pdf will make searching for a subject easier.

    Cheers,
    Susan

    Masters of Administrative Law & Policy, 2010
    Bachelor of Economic and Social Sciences - Government & International Relations and Political Economy - Alumni 2007

    THS, Class of 2004

  18. #43
    Nightman stazi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    HSC
    2004
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    14,125
    Rep Power
    20

    Re: Subject Reviews

    oh awesome work susie-poo

  19. #44
    Banned Silver Persian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    HSC
    2005
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    3,494
    Rep Power
    0

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

    I should probably wait until I get my marks back before I do this...but I need an excuse to procrastinate from studying

    ECOP1002: Economy and Policy
    Ease: 5/10 - The actual content isn't difficult to understand, but the course is so dry that it is difficult to concentrate on the lectures - and I don't think _anybody_ could put themselves through using the reading bricks. The assessment tasks were fairly standard
    Lecturer: 5/10 - I actually didn't find Gabrielle to be the nazi-feminist everybody thinks she is...I quite liked her, but her lectures are very dull. Half the time she is just explaing graphs and tables. Too much description and not enough analysis.
    Interest: 3/10 - I really loved ECOP1001 - which is an introduction to the economic theories, but ECOP1002 is more of a practical 'What is actually happening in the Australian economy' course. Very difficult to be interested in this subject - and I really didn't learn anything this semester that I didn't already know from studying HSC Eco or ECOP1001.
    Overall: 4/10 - v. disappointing

    HSTY1088: Australian History and Introduction
    Ease: 7.5/10 - There isn't anything especially difficult about this course. Some of the readings are a little dense, but mostly the content is easy to understand. I thought the question they gave us for the essay was tricky though.
    Lecturer: 6.5/10 - I like Penny - but in a lot of her lectures she planned to say too much, and so she'd have to fit the last half of the lecture into 10 minutes.
    Interest: 6.5/10 - I was expecting this course to be v.v. dull, but it was actually fairly interesting. The topics and ideas covered in the lectures and tutorials were mostly entertaining, although there were some weeks that were just painful.
    Overall: 7/10

    HSTY1044: Twentieth Century Politics and Culture
    Ease: 8/10 - The content covered isn't difficult to grasp, and the assessments were all fairly straight forward. The hardest part of the course were the tutorial readings, which were v. dense, and sometimes seemed random and irrelevent to the course.
    Lecturer: 6.5./10 - I thought Chris got better as the semester progressed. But it seemed like he was quite nervous when he spoke, and for some reason that made it difficult for me to listen to him. Sometimes he mumbles, and sometimes I didn't feel like he explained things very well.
    Interest: 5.5/10 - I was really looking forwards to this course, but most of the content seemed to be either rehashing things that I already knew, or learning things that were random and not relevent. The lectures some weeks could be painfully dull, as could the tutorials.
    Overall: 6.5/10

    SCLG1002: Introduction to Sociology 2
    Ease: 7.5/10 - The lectures were well explained and easy to understand, but some of the readings were horrible. Many sociologists take the stance that "the more people who can't understand what I write, the smarter I am", and as a result, there were many articles in the reading brick that were really dense and badly explained. The assessments were fairly easy though.
    Lecturer: 8/10 - I really liked Catriona - she made things from the readings that were difficult to understand more sensical. A couple of guest lecturers appeared throughout the semester, and they were not as good (the lectures on subculture were really amazingly awful).
    Interest: 8/10 - I thought most of the mateiral covered was interesting. The most boring module was the one on risk, but I liked the ones on celebrity, consumption and community.
    Overall: 8/10

  20. #45
    ... tennille's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    HSC
    2004
    Gender
    Female
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    3,547
    Rep Power
    13

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

    BCHM2072/2972: Human Biochemistry

    This is an excellent course. This course is based on metabolic biochemistry. You will learn about glucose oxidation, fatty acid oxidation, what metabolic processes occur during starvation (like how to replenish glucose in the blood), diabetes and a little on exercise. Unfortunately there will be four lectures based on cell signalling, though.

    The main lecturer for this course is Gareth Denyer. He is absolutely fantastic. He will draw figures on the board, take photos of it, and post them up on WebCT. He also provides recordings of his lectures and narrated powerpoint slides. This guy has a lot of passion for what he does. His lectures are very engaging, and the lecture theatre is always full!

    The other four lectures are by Simon Easterbrook-Smith. His lectures notes that he posts up on the web aren't very detailed so I suggest you turn up to all four lectures (not that his notes a fantastic there either, but at least he draws the processes up, which he doesn't provde on the pdf).

    I'm not entirely sure if the advanced lectures will be exactly the same as this year, but every fortnight (if you choose BCHM2972), you will have separate lectures. This year, we learnt the stuff we learnt with Gareth in more detail (the molecular side of things). We also did some case studies, which involved patients who suffer from certain symptoms, and determning what is wrong with them (what's wrog with the metabolic pathway).

    The labs aren't too bad. You'll have 5 hours of lab per fortnight, but usually you'll finish between 4.30 and 5. The first lab was colorimetry (boring). The next two labswere based on determining the rate of glucose oxidation in yeast cells by the incorporation of radioactive glucose into them. The last three weeks invole designing your own assay kit (you pretty much design your own company and all).

    Overall: 9/10


    CHEM2402/2912/2916: Chemical Structure and Stability

    I found this course better than the first semester core Chemistry unit. It involves less organic chemistry. The first two lecture series involves learning about metal complexes, crystal/ligand field theory, the bonding of ligands to complexes and how that affects the reactivity, and a little on rate laws. The next two series involves statistical thermodynamics, which I found quite interesting, and classical thermodynamics (which I didn't like as much). The final series is a little on organic chemistry, but nothing too detailed (just SN1, SN2, E1 and E2 reactions).

    The lecturers...well no one that actually stands out. If you guys have James Beattie, good luck trying to unerstand him. He mumbles.

    The labs are horrible, as they are in first year. There are organic and physical labs. The organic labs aren't too bad, but the physical ones are shocking. You have to hand in your report by 5 pm that afternoon! You will have one lab each week, including weeks 1 and 13, which will run for 4 hours.

    The only major difference between the advanced (2912) and normal (2402), are the questions asked in the labs for the lab report. CHEM2916 is SSP, and those students attend additional seminars as well as do some extra assignments.

    Overall: 6/10


    CHEM2403/2913: Chemistry of Biological Molecules

    I didn't really mind this course. You will be learning about sugars, how they react to form disaccharides, lipids, cholesterol, steroids, artificial swettners, DNA and proteins. The seond series consists of physical chemistry. You'll learn about osmosis, brownian motion, diffusion, muscle contraction and the process involved, heart function, kidney function, electron transport, colloids and a bit on proteins. The final series in learning about metal complexes in biology (eg. Pt used to treat cancer). You'll also learn about the chelate effect, unit cels, crystal growth and the crystal structure of teeth and bones.

    You will have 5 labs in the semester, 4 hours each, and they are all inorganic labs. They aren't too bad (well, not as bad as the core chemistry).

    Overall: 7/10

  21. #46
    Member bustinjustin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    HSC
    2005
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    371
    Rep Power
    10

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

    ECOP1002 Economy and Policy
    Ease: 7/10
    I beg to differ with previous posts - though somewhat mundane, all we really had to do was analyse statistics and data in light of its socio-economic context, then arrive at the oh so shocking conclusion about the interconnectedness of the state, market and family. By simply taking a typically leftist, critical stance, it was hard to go wrong, and easier to bullshit in tutes (for me anyway).

    Results pending, points are nonetheless lost because of the incredibly demanding exam - too much to write in so little time and space, and the topics tested in '06 bucked the trend for once and threw everyone off. Personal exam performance could change my opinion.

    Lectuter: 6.5/10
    Gabrielle Meagher - condescending, demanding and hoarse-voiced, but means wells and knows her stuff. Her asides may not compare to Frank Stilwell's, but she tries. And yes, some stats are surprisingly outdated, but she explains why (this doesn't necessarily suffice though for some). A coffee will do wonders for one's attention span.

    Interest: 6/10
    ECOP1002 is hardcore, gritty, real-life economics - but doesn't really live up to the excitement of this character description. In practice, this is where the dryness of economics glaringly shines through, and does put off a lot of people. I personally feel a lot more enlightened when it comes to economic issues, but also feel that I've become duller and more boring as a man.

    Overall: 6.5/10
    Nothing spectacular, just a simple course for ECOP kids to go through the motions, but essential for future progress nevertheless

    GOVT1202: World Politics
    Ease: 6/10
    The content is dense and convoluted, and this is compounded by tedium. Despite clearly outlined criteria, the marking of essays remained contentious, unclear and questionable. Readings are too incoherent, too boring, and this translates into crap tute marks all around.

    The exam however is a category unto itself. Questions are ambiguous and the topics examined are totally out of the blue - a clear trend over the years apparently. Hardly anyone gets a over 80% in this.

    Lecturer: 5/10
    As incoherent as the readings. I had a clash, meaning I could never stay for a full 2 hour lecture, but at least I came out alive and kicking everytime. Gil Merom lovers are a weird species, but they exist.

    Interest: 3/10
    Who cares if it's politically and academically relevant - not meaning to be cliched, its as boring as batshit.

    Overall: 4.5/10
    Enough to put one off GOVT altogether, but older kids advise to keep the faith...



    ASNS1002: Modern Asian History and Cultures 2
    Ease: 6/10
    The ideas about modernity are rather abstract and complex, moreso if one comes from a non-Arts background, but the morale is clear and simple - modernisation is not static, westernisation was not modernisation (for the better), and imperialism impeded modernisation for colonies. Tutes were often embarassing (the Indonesian ones anyway - one had a choice of Indonesia, Korea and Japan tutes - as Max Lane constantly made everyone feel stupid by highlighting just how little we knew about Asia , and readings were once again, too complex to decipher in one quick skim. A callous bitch that laughed at everyone's comments in tutes didn't help either. Essays were marked harshly too.

    Also, having to learn three separate histories and tying it altogether in a demanding exam is quite a task, so it's actually not one to be taken lightly.

    N.B: Colonial history is so depressing (especially Indonesia's).

    Lecturer: Variable
    Pankaj Mohan (Korea) - 5.5/10
    Incoherent, but too gentle to hate for this. It did make it harder to study Korea though.
    Max Lane (Indonesia) - 6.5/10
    My own tutor. Admittedly, I rarely went to his lectures and only ever managed to show up for the last 5 minutes, so I can't really provide an accurate assessment. But I didn't find him as inspiring as I'd hoped.
    Matt Stavros (Japan): 9/10
    Inspiring, intelligent and interesting American Princeton graduate. Had him as a substitute tutor in the first weeks, knew nothing about Indonesia but was fascinatingly (though not disturbingly) quirky.

    Interest: 8/10
    Thanks in part to Matthew Stavros, but the content is intrinsically interesting, a sobering assessment of imperialism and westernisation.

    Overall: 7/10
    Not necessarily a song and dance about 'Asian Pride', but rather a panacea for Asian inferiority/Western superiority complexes.


    PHIL1010: Society, Knowledge and Reason (though there was no 'Reason').
    Ease -
    Society: 8/10 (becomes so when the readings are done, and one learns how to write a Philosophy paper, which I never realised, but thankfully discovered, was a cinch compared what I was used in the social sciences - complete bullshitting, but with close reference to the text, and only to the text. It's all about rhetoric rather than research).
    Knowledge: 4/10
    See previous comments through the thread.

    Lecturer -
    Duncan Ivison (Society): 7/10
    Sometimes went around in circles, but only to hammer the content into our heads.
    Anne Newstead (Knowledge): 6/10
    Like Ivison, another Canadian (what is it with Canadians and philosophy?). Rarely covered all the slides in lectures, constantly 'ums', but gets the job done I suppose (meh). Then again, she didn't have a lot to work with.

    Important
    For tutes, make sure you get Patrick Yong. Avoid Simon Duffy like the plague.


    Interest -
    Society: 9/10
    Couldn't get enough of it. Introduces ideas used heaps elsewhere.
    Knowledge: 2/10
    Enough to induce self-harm during StuVac, since going through the readings is self-harm in itself.

    Overall: 6/10
    Would be heaps higher if it was Society alone.
    Last edited by bustinjustin; 15 Nov 2006 at 9:19 AM.

  22. #47
    jhakka
    Guest

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

    EDUF 2007 - Social Perspectives in Education
    Ease: 8/10. I went to maybe four lectures (I gave up after the Aboriginal Education one, which was exactly the same as the corresponding lecture in Education, Teachers and Teaching in first year), and still managed to pass before the exam was done. Everything in this unit depends on the tutes, and if you've been in the school system (public or private), you're pretty much guarunteed a pass (at the very least) in this one. Oh, and the fact that the exam was given to us word for word helped too.

    Lecturer: 1/10. I went to less than half of the lectures. There is a reason for this. It was generally a mis-matched set of lectures, jerkily put one after the other with no apparent theme at all. The tutes were good, though.

    Interest: 5/10. Only the tutes were interesting. There were lots of debates about public and private schooling, gender stuff, the media, and a whole lot of other factors that are relevant to schools.

    Overall: 5/10. For a compulsory subject that's pretty much a repeat of Education, Teachers and Teaching, it wasn't too bad. The unit's redeeming feature was the tutorials, but that's something that comes down to how good your group is.



    EDUF 3024 - Adolescent Development
    Ease: 8/10. Very straightforward. Every topic was presented and addressed clearly, and readings that were provided were relevant to what we needed to know. Assessment-wise, resources weren't difficult to come by since I actually know how to use the electronic databases (which is more than can be said for many education students).

    Lecturer: 9/10. Some people didn't like Tracy's style, thinking she was disorganised. I, on the other hand, found her easy to listen to (if a little repetitive at times), particularly because she spoke to us the way I would speak to my friends. The lectures themselves were presented in a casual way, with lots of examples, and were just enjoyable to go to. I also found that Tracy was a good person to just talk to without feeling stupid or like you weren't worth the time. She was always ready to give feedback, and actually had a sense of humour (she let me tell an emo joke during my presentation on depression and suicidality!).

    Interest: 9/10. This unit is not only related to the age group I want to teach, but it's also related to a lot of things that I have gone through in recent years from a developmental standpoint. Because this entire unit was dedicated to adolescents, it's not just glossed over with a quick reference to Kholberg. Instead we look at things like sexuality, drug use, depression and suicide, eating disorders and all kinds of other interesting topics. Assessments were pretty good because everything was pretty much left to us, where we could focus on the areas we found most interesting, while still getting a lot of info from people who were interested in everything else.

    Overall: 9/10. Most interesting and enjoyable course this semester.



    ENGL 2617 - Postmodernism
    Ease: 6/10. I went to about 1/3 of the lectures at most. I did about four readings, and spent most of my time in tutes having no idea about what was going on. I managed to get 77% in the assessment (not including the final essay), so I must have done something right.

    Lecturer: 5/10. Julian was a good lecturer, but there were a lot of assumptions made about prior knowledge that I didn't quite agree with. I also thought that he went through the lectures too quickly, with no actual link to how each lecture fit into the course as a whole.

    Interest: 4/10. Postmodernism is pretty big in the HSC syllabus at the moment. I only did this course because I thought it might be useful in the future. I did, however, find some of the theories very interesting, and the photo essay I chose to do at the end was a lot of fun to set up and write (though it wasn't very good for my bank account).

    Overall: 5/10. Difficult information with a couple of interesting readings thrown in, reasonably easy assessments and decent marks. Can't bring myself to give this less than a pass.



    HSTY 2655 - Race Relations and Australian Frontiers
    Ease: 7/10. Being a person who is not historically minded, I didn't find the material in this unit too challenging. Maybe this is because we're only looking at one aspect of Australian history, rather than Aussie history as a whole. The focussed nature of this unit gave it a common theme (duh) with which to link all of the lectures, tutes and readings. The assessment was pretty straightforward, with the standard essay and tute paper, with no nasty surprises in the take-home exam.

    Lecturer: 7/10. Kirsten was pretty cool. She is one of those lecturers who gets annoyed with people who show up late, but to make up for this she showed a bit of CNNNN in one of the lectures, and the information is presented in a straightforward manner.

    Interest: 5/10. I'm not particularly interested in Australian history, but I skipped surprisingly few lectures for this one because it was presented in a comprehendable manner, and was made interesting and relevant. The only reason I didn't score this higher is because of my general lack of interest in history, Australian or otherwise.

    Overall: 7/10. Can't complain. Was easy enough, and there weren't any nasty surprises.

  23. #48
    jhakka
    Guest

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

    Probably would have helped if I attended the lectures.

    Photo essay was the best assessment evar.

  24. #49
    Old Member Tommy_69's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    HSC
    2005
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    494
    Rep Power
    10

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

    ACCT1002 - Accounting IB
    Ease - 9/10: This subject is ten times easier than ACCT1001. The exam questions are just tute questions with different numbers. If you can do the tute questions you can do the exam questions.
    Lecturers - 8/10: Rosina explained things very well so did Paul who also gave away what was going to be in the exam.
    Interest: 7/10
    Overall: 8.5/10

    ECON1002 - Introductory Macroeconomics
    Ease: 6/10
    Lecturers: 6/10
    Interest: 8/10
    Overall: 6.5/10

    MKGT1001 - Marketing Principles
    Ease: 8.5/10. all theory no maths
    Lecturers: 9/10. dont need to go to lectures
    Interest: 7.5/10
    Overall: 8/10

    INFS1000 - Business Information Systems Foundations
    Easy: 9.5/10
    Lecturers 9/10 - dont need to go to these
    Interest: 5/10
    Overall: 9/10
    University of Sydney: Bachelor of Commerce
    Majors: Accounting/Finance

  25. #50
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    HSC
    2003
    Gender
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    479
    Rep Power
    11

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

    ACCT3011 - Financial Accounting B
    Ease 8.5/10: Much easier than Fin A, it's been toned down a lot since the credit point adjustments im told. Consolidation is challenging but is only covered in the mid semester. One test, one group assignment and a final with no workshop participation required. 3rd yr accounting subjects are easier imo.
    Lecturers - 7/10: Straight forward, 1hr short. Pretty much all on the net.
    Interest: 8/10 Kinda getting into the nitty gritty of financial reports, how they're constructed etc as well as the theory behind accoutning standard setting (critical analysis/reflection about accounting)
    Overall:8/10

    ACCT 3012- Management Accounting B
    Ease: 9/10 Mid semester not too bad, major essay is long but is doable. Open book 40% final was piss easy.
    Lecturers: 8/10 Peter Edwards is a legend, the other guy is a bit of a bore.
    Interest: 7/10 Kinda like business studies in yr 12, very little straight accounting focus.
    Overall: 8.5/10

    FINC 2012- Corporate Finance II
    Ease: 7/10. Did no work all semester (course related, assignment was on real estate unrleated to the course but related to the lecturer's paper he was writing /rolls eyes gg Frino). But managed to cram all in stuvac reasonably well.
    Lecturers: 4/10. Boring, boring, boring.
    Interest: 7/10 Interesting stuff about options etc imo.
    Overall: 6.5/10 Not a fan of the finance discipline (it's a bit all over the place imo).

    CLAW 3202- Tax Strategies in a Business Environment
    Easy: 9/10 One group assignmen t, tutorial marks for hand ins (you get to choose) and a 40% open book final which resulted in me copying down answers word for word i had already done for 2 hours. Some had passed before the final.
    Lecturers 7.5/10 - antony is ok, not engaqging enough but hes reasonable.
    Interest: 8.5/10 Somewhat interesting tax law stuff
    Overall: 8/10 - Recommend if you did tax law 1 and are looking for a cruisy 3rd yr subject.

Page 2 of 24 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •