Subject Reviews (with PDF compilation) (2 Viewers)

[Rafy]

Re: Subject Reviews (PDF updated 16/01/09)

GOVT2552 - Policy Analysis
Lecturer: Shelly Savage
Assessment: Reading Summary, Policy Brief, Research Essay, Policy Monitoring Report, Tutorial Participation

This subject focuses on the policy cycle/process. Each week looks at a different stage in the cycle, developing an insight into how policy is developed and what influences its design.

Ease: 7.5/10 - A lot of reading to be done, but the stages of the cycle provide a natural structure. Once you've filtered out the basic features of each, it's merely a matter of applying them to real world examples. If you are well read it should be a breeze.

Lecturers: Not rated
I did not attend many of the lectures, so I will not provide comment on them. The tutorial program however struck the correct balance between having a structured program whilst allowing scope for free discussion. The content of the course lent itself to many excellent class discussions on policy design in practice.

Interest: 9/10
If you have an interest in politics, public policy or government then this subject will also interest you. It has significant relevance to the real world and applying the theory to practice managed to sustain interest in the material.

Overall: 9/10
A must for a government major.

 

[nick1689]

Re: Subject Reviews (PDF updated 16/01/09)

Does anyone have a review for JCTC2606 - The Holocaust: History and Aftermath, or know what it's like?

EDIT: And if anyone can review GOVT2991, GOVT2225 (Int Security) , GOVT2114 (Aus Party System), HSTY2607 (Arab Israeli Conflict), PACS2002 (War and Peace) and ECOP2612 (Eco Policy in Global Context) , or know anything about them, thatll be helpful too

 

[lou071]

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

anyone who did psychology 1001, did you find the workload for this subject intense? after reading through posts. it seems there are 100 multiple choice exam, essay, tutorial quiz etc.
anyone can tell me about the workload for this subject?

 

[kay90]

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

I love this thread. thanks so much for this!

 

[bustinjustin]

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

ECOP3014 International Development and Trade (now Political Economy of Development)

Ease: 9/10
Well structured. Covers a few of the same themes as P.E of Human Rights. Typical Assessment structure (1000w paper 20%, 2000w essay 40%, participation 10%, 90 min exam 30%). Could change with the new lecturer. Dr. Engel seemed to mark easy (or the cohort was just smart, there were several 90+% essays). Only a couple easy, relatively short tute readings each week.

Interest: 9/10
Highly relevant and interesting (poverty, trade, urbanisation, informal economy, public health, global warming debates), particularly in the context of concurrent food, economic and financial crises. Some great, heated debates were had during the global warming weeks, which was a nice change from the general cluelessness and apathy in other weeks.

Lecturer: 7.5/10
Dr. Engel has moved to another university, so the lecturer will be new. A couple of guest lecturers, they were fine. I had Susan for tutes, so I saw a different side to her, and genuinely liked her. Not sure what the other tutors were like. Like Liz Hill before her (who will probably resume teaching the course upon her return in 2010), Susan was incredibly nice, but some found she tended to read off scripts in lectures. Unsurprisingly, she was at her best whenever she'd finally ad-lib and revert to her (thankfully) slightly irreverent self. Lecture slides were posted

Overall: 9/10
Recommended for the content. Lots of second years. Dare I say there was a higher concentration of wankers (given the profile of students subjects with the word 'International' tend to attract - diplomat/NGO wannabes, of which I am probably one too).

 

[scandium]

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

ENGG1800 Intro to Engineering Disciplines

Ease: Easy

12 x 3 hour labs each usually worth 3% final grade. 2 essays (around 2000 - 3000 words) worth 3% also. Unsure about exam really, no previous papers released. Will update this post after the exam.

Civil - hardest, but tutors were good at explaining things (unlike the next two)
AMME - easy, just regurgitate information from handouts.
ChemE - easy, just follow the handouts

Interest: Some

Civil Engineering module was interesting. Professor Wheen covered bridges and gave some interesting lectures.

AMME module was crap, the lecturer read off a powerpoint slide about the degrees offered and job prospects and really bored the fuck out of everyone.

ChemE module was actually what I wanted the most and turned out to be playing around with dodgey hydrogen cars and doing mundane calculations.

Lecturer: Mostly shit

Each module had a different lecturer.

Wheen was good with his bridges.

Valix was average with her hydrogen. Here's a professor who gives a lecture on an essay which is due in 1 hour. Onya!

AMME guy mumbled and read from a power point slide some garbage about how great engineering at USyd is. Didn't like emails, please save questions for the 1 hour time slot each week.

There was a guest lecturer who spoke about her career as a Chemical Engineer. It was supposed to be the topic on "What is Chemical Engineering" but we heard about a PhD now working in Risk Management...

Labs: Average

My biggest gripe was AMME labs (and essay), the tutors would mark the logbooks without any name nor any comments.

Nawakowski liked to play music in labs and threaten to "dismember limbs" if anyone should break the dodgey hydrogen cars in the ChemE lab. Apparently he doesn't like first years.

In Civil we were made to do an assessment on Gannt charts, critical paths, resource levelling project management garbage on paper. Apparently it was to teach us... I think they were too cheap to let us use a computer with oh I don't know, say MS Project installed.

When we were doing the tower construction lab the tutor called out to everyone by the type of t-shirt they were wearing. This was very unprofessional.

Oh yay I love Engineering at USyd, please can I do some more.

Overall: Refund please

A 6 credit point course at ~ $900 stolen from all those who thought they'd learn about the various engineering disciplines. Haha suckers we got your money nyanya!The highlight was the last lab with a tour of the ChemE department... yes we actually paid to be shown the admin area, the BBQ area (with lots of leaves and broken tables) and a lab area with some equipment the tutor did not know about."And in this room here is some research on carbon nano tubes... the head researcher gets lots of awards" :mad1:

Would you recommend this course to a friend?: NO, not even to an enemy.

 

[spence]

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

PSYC1001 Psychology 1001

Ease: 8/10
Easy enough to do well in. 10% is basically given to you: 5% for weekly quizzes which can be taken unlimited times for a week, and 5% for doing 4 hours of research participation. 1000 word essay worth 25% - I was kind of annoyed with this, because your tutor picks 2 topics, of which you have to choose one, and he picked the two topics I least wanted to do. Was still alright though. Then there's a 100 multiple choice final worth 65%. None of the content is particularly hard to grasp.

Interest: 9/10
Neuroscience: I found this topic interesting, although for me it was the hardest. Justin's a good lecturer, the only problem I had was that he struggled getting through all his info. Besides that, no complaints.

Social: Really interesting topic, and Lisa is a fantastic lecturer, absolutely hilarious. Really can't fault this section for anything.

Stats and science: A lot more interesting than I expected, there really isn't much stats in this course, and it was all easy enough to understand. Caleb's another great lecturer.

Forensic: I personally found this really interesting, and it's an area where I would consider pursuing a career in, although a lot of others didn't like it. Helen's not bad, basically just reads off the slides though.

Personality: I didn't like this as much as most other topics, although it was still quite good. Niko's a funny man, seemed like an absolute nut in the first lecture, but turned the crazy down as the course went on.

Language: Didn't enjoy this section, it just wasn't interesting to me. Karen's not bad, nothing special though

Lecturers: 9/10

Overall: 9/10
Very good course, I really enjoyed it

 

[Hello2U2]

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

EDUF1018 - Education, Teachers and Teaching
Ease - 7/10
Lecturer - 3/10
Interest - 1/10
Overall - 2/10
If this wasn't a compulsory unit of study I would have definately not chosen it.

ANHS1600 - Foundations of Ancient Greece
Ease - 8/10
Lecturer 8/10 (Alastair is an amazing unit co-ordinator!)
Interest - 7/10 (Some topics were a bit boring)
Overall - 8/10

ENGL1002 - Narratives of Romance and Adventure
Ease - 8/10
Interest - 8/10
Overall - 7/10

ENGL1008 - Australian Texts in International Contexts
Ease - 6/10 (Too much to read!)
Interest 6/10
Overall - 6/10

 

[spence]

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

ANHS1600 Foundations for Ancient Greece

Ease: 8/10
Not too difficult, but there is a lot of content. Assessment is pretty basic: 40% essay, 20% participation and 40% final. The exam was alright, would have been pretty easy but I really didn't put much effort in

Interest: 7/10
Most is pretty interesting, although there were a few dull moments. I didn't find it as intereting as Roman Foundations

Lecturers: 8/10
Alastair is really good, definately entertaining. Also had the more interesting topics.

I liked Ben, but I think a lot of people didn't. His lectures were very text heavy, but he made them interesting - you could tell he's really passionate about what he teaches.

Meg was a bit boring for me, although I personally don't enjoy her area (material culture) which may have something to do with it.

Rick was alright, although his lectures all seemed kind of irrelevant to the course. Was good for a change though
Overall: 7.5/10
A pretty good course, although I much preferred Roman Foundations. My biggest complaint is that our tute was very quiet, with almost no discussion taking place. I reckon they could have fixed this by putting more secondary sources in the readings, which would have given us something to talk about. Other than that, a good course

 

[spence]

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

GRMN1111 Introductory German 1

Ease: 6/10
Requires a lot of work, especially seeing as this semester was the first time it covered the whole textbook in one semester (used to cover it in one year). Wasn't structured too well: we spent about 1-1.5 weeks per chapter in the start of semester, but in the last 3 lessons, we covered 2 chapters and a lot of grammar. I also thought the assessment weightings were stupid: 3 tests totalling 40%, then one worth 60%

Interest: 8/10
Very fun course

Lecturer: 6/10
She seemed a bit scary in lectures, although she's apparently good in tutes. My tutor was good though

Overall: 8/10
I liked the course, it's very fun although it requires a lot of work

 

[Silver Persian]

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

For anyone interested in doing SCLG honours (I'm looking at you Amber)

SCLG4011 Practicing Sociology
Ease: 8/10 - The assessments were generally marked very generously - getting marks in the 90s was not uncommon. There were, however, a lot of assessment tasks to do (nine in all), and we had to give four presentations throughout the semester.
Interest: 7/10 - The assessment tasks were basically designed to get you started on your honours thesis; so if you picked an interesting subject for your thesis, the assessments were both useful and interesting. In class every week, we had a guest sociologist come and speak to us about their work, and about one journal article that they had published. This was reasonably interesting, but it felt a little beside the point given that no major assessment tasks were based upon these classes.
Lecturer Salvatore Babones: 10/10 - I've never had such a conscientious and helpful lecturer before. Always got assessment tasks back only a few days after they were handed in, gave out substantive feedback, replied to emails quickly. Excellent.
Overall: 8/10 Pretty good course overall.

SCLG4012 New Debates in Social Theory
Ease: 6/10 - The assessment for this course was slightly nightmarish. We had to try and combine a discussion of three radically separate subject areas into a single coherent essay. Very difficult. Course content was well explained, and the readings were pretty well chosen.
Interest: 7/10 - We looked at six modules throughout the semester - the new capitalism, the field of cultural production, the network society, power, knowledge and Northern theory. I enjoyed some of these a lot (the knowledge claims module was great); and others not so much.
Lecturer Karl Maton: 7/10 - Karl was quite a good speaker, and he managed to convey the content of the course clearly. His replies to my emails were never massively helpful however, and he tends to complain a lot in class.
Overall: 6.5/10

 

[symple]

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

Amused to see EDUF 1018 is still sucking, and pleased to see ANHS 1600 is still awesome. Now, on to:

ENGL 2653 Varieties of English Grammar
Note, the course title is a misnomer. It's actually a history of Western ideas *about* grammar.
Ease: 5/10
It's not that the content was really difficult. There was just a lot of it. The linguistic majors ate it up, but sadly I am not a linguistics major, so... yeah.
Also, 90% of the course was due over the last 3 weeks (the essay and the exam). Good for some, bad for others.
Interest: 8/10
Very interesting. The history of grammar interlinks with the history of Western thought and Western civilisation in general, so that was pretty cool.
Lecturer: 8/10
Nick Riemer is awesome. Bruce Gardiner was good too I guess.
Overall: 5/10
The higher-order thinking required by this course just went *whoosh*, over my head. *sighs*

EDUF3030 Australian Secondary Schooling
Ease: 8/10
Alright, so it was actually pretty tough, but you can tell a whole lot of thought went into the course structure. What happens is, each person does 3 'reading guides', for 3 tute chapters, over the course of the semester - so by the end of it, A) you know exactly how to write the big essay, and B) you have everyone else's reading guides all ready to help you for the exam.
Interest: 8/10
Very interesting historical background, helps with understanding school systems today.
Lecturer: 9.5/10
Practically a 10 for all concerned. Unlike EDUF1018, this course proves that, surprisingly enough, teachers make good teachers.
Bonus points go to lecturers Proctor and Campbell for being awesome.
Overall: 8/10
I'd give it higher, but I had a bit of a thing this semester and will count myself lucky to pass.

EDUF2006 Educational Psychology
Ease: 7/10
LOTS of stuff to grasp, plus a whole new "emphasis on citing actual research" kinda thing. But yeah, the research is after all on how people learn, so you can apply it sorta recursively to yourself, y'know?
The essay was made pretty easy though, 'cos they actually gave us all the sources we were expected to use. 'Tis generally good when they do that. ^_^
Interest: 8/10
Woooo! I love learning about learning and teaching about teaching. It's just... interesting!!! And most of the research / etc. articles are really interesting too. Good stuff here.
Lecturer: 7/10
Wish I could tell you more, but I skipped too many lectures. I will say however that Paul Ginns was a very positive & responsible tutor.
Overall: 8/10
Yeah, so I really quite liked this course. Not quite as awesome as EDUF1019 last semester, but still pretty good. =)

ANHS 2601 Ancient Imperialism
Again with the skipped lectures... *shifty eyes*
Ease: 6/10
WAY too much reading. However I reckon the course was very well structured anyway. Essay questions were pretty good (both the tute papers and for the exam), by which I mean, well thought out. Again with the resource listing, which I appreciated very much!
Interest: 7/10
Again with the skipped lectures. Kids, don't do this.
Lecturer:
Both of them, 9.5/10. Your mileage may vary in small amounts depending on whose style you prefer. Still, great stuff. (I *did* listen to them on WebCT eventually.)
Overall: 8/10
WAY too much reading, but still good solid stuff. The concept of imperialism, and the political structure of Rome, was a teensy bit hard to grasp, but yeah, the lecturers clearly know their stuff when it comes to actual lecturing, not just the course content.

Overall I screwed this semester quite badly, which is a shame really when you consider how awesome my subjects were. *is sad*

 

[DavidBenGurion]

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

In senior chemistry labs, each of which runs for half a semester on a certain number of afternoons depending on how many subject you're taking, you are delegated to a lab independant of the subject attempted...

Senior Chemistry Laboratory: ORGANIC

Ease: 7/10
If you understand organic chemistry none of the theory is at all hard. Difficulty comes from the learning curve of using the glassware and learning the techniques. It's all thrust upon you. You'll have to ask how certain procedures are meant to be done and a minor slip up means your lab work for past sessions is spoiled. For example: You'll do a series of reactions over three lab periods, and you must finally recrystallise your product. But if this overheats then it isomerises and you'll have to start over. Still, the session is long enough to rectify these iffy situations.
Interest: 10/10
Practical organic chemistry. What's not interesting about it?
Demonstrators: 6/10
The demonstrators are a mixed bunch. Some are condescending. Others are plain weird. But most are nice and helpful. Still, they could be more helpful and the shit ones could be gotten rid of (and you will have a shit one in your lab since there's enough of them to go about). A benefit in the school of chem is that a lecturer must be present. In our labs they alternated between Jolliffe, McErlean (head of 3rd year organic prac), Matt Todd, Adrian George and Rutledge. All of these lecturers are great to chat with and to get help from...some moreso than others. McErlean's a nice guy.
Involvement: 9/10
Chemistry pracs are notorious for being laboured and abstract. Phys/Theo is well known for this. Organic chemistry is hands on and you're always doing something in the labs. No time is wasted sitting in front of a computer or doing calculations.
Overall: 9/10
The experiments I did were:
1. Testing the difference between the kinetic and thermodynamic products of a reversible reaction (imine synthesis, from memory)
2. Oxidation at a benzylic centre via sodium dichromate, using column chromatography to isolate the products
3. The Wittig reaction
4. The Diels-Alder reaction, and catalytic hydrogenation

Great series of reactions. Easy. Fun. Involving and very enjoyable. Senior chemistry labs are likely to be downhill from here.

 

[DavidBenGurion]

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

CHEM3111: Organic Structure and Reactivity
Lecturers: Kate Jolliffe and Rob Baker

Ease: 8/10
I hear that everyone goes well in the final exam. This means that slip ups in that exam mean big losses in rank. The subject material is tough but the way its presented means that it's easy to grasp. Spectroscopy is easy thanks to the problem sessions (exam questions for that part were way too easy). Baker's stereochemistry is a bit harder but his notes are pretty thorough and if you go to the McMurry text it will clear up any issues.
Interest: 10/10
Spectra is made fun and the rest is hardcore organic.
Lecturers: 10/10
Damn good. The course is split in two. Kate takes the first half, and her notes are detailed and easy to follow, plus she's an interest lecturer (funny too). Baker is the same he's always been: competent, easy to follow, great notes etc. Special mention for the spectra problem sessions. In between the two lecture components you'll do five tutorials in place of a lecture per week. All the organic lecturers come down and help you individually with those spectra questions. Excellent stuff.
Overall: 9.5/10
Not my favourite chem subject so far but damn close. Nothing to whinge about. A must-do in senior chem.

 

[DavidBenGurion]

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

BIOL2016: Cell Biology
Lecturers: Jan Marc, Murray Thomson, Robyn Overall

Ease: 5/10
Christ I hate bio. Too much stuff to remember. Luckily this subject is more about processes instead of names like the other intermediate bio subjects I've taken. Labs are long and exhausting and the workload is high.
Interest: 4/10
I don't really find any of the sutff interesting except apoptosis, cancer, and the last five lectures on plant bio.
Lecturers: 5/10
Mixed bag. Marc is a nice guy with good notes, but he doesn't lecture to the audience so much as to the computer screen. Murray is an asshole but he's a really good lecturer who crystallises the concepts fantastically. Overall is alright, but plant bio is always pretty interesting to me.
Labs: 7/10
Damn hard and involved, and long. Marc's labs are easy enough, as you progress through learning how toxins interact with microtubules in arabidopsis plants. The Murray labs which are the main ones are mostly about assays, where you have to do a lot of work yourself, determining concentrations and whatever. Lots of involvement, but pretty interesting in the end. The one where you bring in your own tissue samples and analyse the protein content is probably the best. The plant ones are pretty standard plant bio labs: they're all the same.
Overall: 6/10
It's alright. Cell biologists, biochemists and the like would enjoy it. I found it mediocre.

 

[LoneWolf1990]

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

chem1101

Ease - 6.5/10
Lecturer(s) -1st guy(Ron Clarke) 0.5/10(for trying) 2nd guy-8/10(Adam Bridgeman's really good)
Interest - 6.5/10
Overall - 7/10

Math1001

Ease - 7/10
Lecturer - 1st one(Tegan Morrison)- 7/10 2nd one(Mary or something)-5/10
Interest - 6/10
Overall - 6/10

math1002
Ease - 7/10
Lecturer - 8/10(David Easdown is really good)
Interest - 7/10
Overall - 8/10

ENGG1800
Ease - 5/10
Lecturer - 5/10
Interest - 6/10
Overall - 6/10

ENGG1801
Ease - 3/10
Lecturer - 3/10
Interest - 1/10
Overall - 2/10

 

[^CoSMic DoRiS^^]

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

ENGL2657 Myths, Legends and Heroes

Ease: 6/10

It was OK, but I don't think the aim/focus of the subject was made clear enough at the start. The actual content was not actually hard to grasp it was more the way it was taught, IMO. I don't feel like I learnt much from this course at all.

Lecturer/s: 7/10

Daniel Anlezark has a nice easygoing lecturing style and it's pretty clear he knows his stuff (as for conveying it clearly, well.). We had a couple of guest lecturers, one was SO BAD, some geriatric who couldn't talk without fumbling every sentence and didn't understand how to work the projector thing. Other one was quite good, she took us for the Old Norse part of the course. Sorry don't remember names.

Interest: 5/10

Totally subjective. If you like this kind of thing then clearly you will find it interesting. I didn't. I was expecting something a little different to what the course actually turned out to be about so eh.

Overall: 6/10

 

[DavidBenGurion]

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

LoneWolf: Pretty useless to say 1st guy, 2nd guy. be less of a poncehead and give us names fahg.

This one is a semester late...

ENGL2617: Postmodernism
Lecturer: Will Christie + others

Ease: 8/10
Will likes to make the purpose of his courses, and the methods of assessment crystal clear. This is good. Texts weren't hard and were genuinely enjoyable, and both the major essay and exam had scope for choice.

Lecturers: 7/10
Will's good, but he takes only the introduction and conclusion (since he is about as far removed from postmodernism as possible). So usually, it's some other dude who takes it. Other than Will you'll get an assortment of English lecturers, all of whom are competent and pretty interesting with the sole exception of the Borderlands lecture (terrible book, mediocre lecturer).

Interest: 7/10
I went into the course with rage for the subject matter, but came out delighted as it was all pretty involving and the texts are genuinely enjoyable. In rough order they are: The Crying of Lot 49, some shitty poetry, Borderlands, Trainspotting (book + film), Fight Club (book), No Country for Old Men (book), Hot Fuzz, The Office (UK).

Overall: 7/10
Very good English subject. Highly reccomended. Could have done with more theory based stuff but meh.

 

[DavidBenGurion]

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

Also a semester late...

PHIL1013: Society, Self & Knowledge
Lecturers: Thomas Besch, David Braddon Mitchell and a few others

Ease: 9/10
I didn't understand a third of the course, as the theory was ridiculous and the presentation absurd. I still managed to nearly get a HD. The other two thirds are good fun, and easy too. They give you the exam questions before the exam, and the essay questions are pretty wide in their reach.

Lecturers: 5/10
Besch is decent and his notes are great. But he's a bit boring, which is a shame because political philosophy is about as interesting and relevant as philosophy comes, imo. The phenomenology lecturers were as boring and ridiculous as the subject matter was. DBM is a legend so he pulls the mark up, but not by much since he only takes the last two weeks or so.

Interest: 6/10
Society (political philosophy) is pretty decent and the readings are fun. Good tutorial discussions were had. As I've mentioned, phenomenology is the theory of retards so no interest to be had (honestly, it's the most ridiculous piece of tosh I've ever engaged with). Knowedge is pretty good, but the lecturer makes it more interesting than it really is, imo.

Overall: 6.5/10
Not the greatest subject. Wasn't that interesting, lectures were mediocre and a third of the course is unbearable.

 

[danz90]

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

PHAR1812 Basic Pharmaceutical Sciences

Ease: 7/10
The final exam was quite hard, and some concepts were quite difficult to tackle.

Lecturers: 8/10
I would give a 10/10 to Lenka Munoz, but Dai Hibbs annoyed me with his teaching in thermodynamics.

Interest: 9/10
Would give it a 10/10 if there was no bluddy thermodynamics. The content of the course really aimed at what I wanna do with my degree when I finish i.e. industry.

Overall: 9/10
I enjoyed this subject, Lenka Munoz was an awesome course coordinator and I think the course was well-balanced.


PHAR1811 Foundations of Pharmacy

Ease: 9.5/10
The only reason I don't give 10 is because of the large amount of content.

Lecturers: 9/10
Erica Sainsbury was really good, great lecturer and course coordinator. We also had some other good lecturers.

Interest: 7/10
Some of the course was really boring. eg. History of Pharmacy...

Overall: 8/10
Fairly good course structure, and had an awesome final exam which I def. passed.


CHEM1611 Chemistry A (Pharmacy)

Ease: 8.5/10
I think once we were at the end of semeseter, most of the content seemed fairly straightforward. The final exam was pretty tricky though...

Lecturers: 8/10
Trevor Hambley was really good, kept things in order. Kassiou wasn't too bad either, but got quite annoying when constantly telling people that there was an exit if they wanna talk.

Interest: 8/10
I guess alot of the stuff learnt was slightly irrelevant to my degree, but overall not bad.

Overall: 9/10
VERY organised School of Chemistry. Adam Bridgeman was the best at keeping everything organised, and was very quick in replying to all sorts of issues. I'm happy with this UoS.


BIOL1003 Human Biology

Ease: 8.5/10
Most of the content was straightforward, but the amount of content in the course was HUGEEEE! Very loaded course. The final exam wasn't bad at all - 60 MCQ.

Lecturers: 8/10
Most of the lecturers were pretty good, with a few exceptions. Best lecturer had to be Murray Thomson. Osu Lilje was also pretty good.

Interest: 9/10
Of course very relevant to the degree - and I found most of the stuff taught quite interesting. But then again, we are going to go over alllll this again next year in PHSI2601.

Overall: 7.5/10
Could've been much more organised in terms of marks. They 'normalised' my mark for a 20% assessment by something like 5.5 marks...
Tutorials were not productive, we just sat there watching powerpoint presentations from other students, and had to also make our own presentation.