Re: Subject Reviews (Updated PDF on first post)
SCLG3601 Contemporary Sociological Theory
Ease: 7/10 - This is probably one of the harder SCLG units (which for most people probably isn't that hard). The readings we did on the sociology of space and affect were v. abstract, although other readings were fine. Assessments were a 4000wd essay, a 1500wd literature review and class participation.
Lecturer: 8/10 - I like Melinda Cooper. She's not the most amazingly entertaining lecturer in the world, but she definitely knows her stuff, and she usually manages to make her courses interesting. The seminars for this course are timetabled as being 3 hrs long, however most went for about 2 hrs.
Interest: 8.5/10 - The course was structured around a sociological approach to neoliberalism. We spent early weeks looking at the neoliberal subjectivity, the socioloigy of labour, religious revival and the sociology of migration. The latter part of the course moved away from the focus on political economy - looking at the intersection between race and gender and the sociology of space and affect. I found this course v. interesting - both readings and lectures were thought provoking and well structured.
Overall: 8/10 - Well worth doing
SCLG3602 Empirical Sociological Methods
Ease: 5.5/10 - Apparently the marks that have been given back have been quite low c/f other SCLG subjects. There is a fair bit of emphasis upon the philosophy of research in this course (epistemology, ontology, methodology), which some people found quite challenging. Assessments are a groupwork interview exercise, a research proposal speech and essay, and class participation.
Lecturer: 7/10 - Fran Collyer has a good grasp of the methods literature in SCLG. She has a slightly vague and confused aura, but she is generally well read and capable of explaining complicated ideas clearly. She was, however, not the best at the organisational side of things - a WebCT site would have made the groupwork task a lot easier.
Interest: 6/10 - For a research methods course, this wasn't too bad. This subject had two primary aims - to give students experience at qualitative interviewing and writing research proposals. These were quite useful in terms of giving us an idea of what real live sociologists actually do. However, the lectures and the readings were not particularly inspiring.
Overal: 6/10 - Not too bad. Compulsory for SCLG honours students
PHIL2644 Critical Theory - From Marx to Foucault
Ease: 6/10 - Readings from this course were very difficult. The reader is wholly composed of primary texts from Hegel, Marx, Horkheimer, Habermas, Foucault - and, as insightful as these philosophers may or may not be, they are not clear writers. Having said that, the lecturers discussion of the texts and philosophers were generally more accessible. Assessments were a 2000wd essay, a 2000wd take home exam and a 5-10 minute tutorial speech.
Lecturer: 8/10 - I liked John Grumley for a number of reasons. His lectures were clear and organised, he speaks slowly to allow me to write notes, he puts his lectures online and he gives back helpful comments re: assessments. He is a little boring as a lecturer, but he does a very thorough and clear job.
Interest: 7.5/10 - Looking back at this course, I'm quite glad I took it. It looked at several thinkers who I've encountered before, and examined them in more detail (Marx, Frankfurt School, Habermas and Foucault). The readings are quite difficult, and the lectures are not exactly "fun", but I feel I got quite a lot from this course.
Overall: 7/10 - Solid
GCST3601 Gender, Race and Australian Identities
Ease: 6.5/10 - I always find GCST subjects a little bit difficult - a lot of waffling and painful navel gazing is required. The earlier readings looking at postcolonial theory, critical whiteness studies and writing whiteness are quite difficult, and the lectures did not always clarify the problems. Assessments were a 2500wd journal, a 2000wd essay and class participation.
Lecturers: 6/10 - We had two lecturers for this course, Ann Deslandes and Adam...Something. Both were OK - but tended to speak very quickly, making it difficult to make notes. Sometimes the lectures seemed a little haphazard, other times complex ideas were introduced and not explained clearly.
Interest: 6/10 - I was a little put off by the first half of the course, which is v. theoretical, navel gazing and boring. However, the latter weeks were orientated around more substantive subject matter - such as the War on Terror, the NT Intervention, the Stolen Generations and two fictional texts. Readings ranged from the boring to the fascinating.
Overall: 6/10 - I probably wouldn't have done this course if I had the chance to choose again
