Subject Reviews (with PDF compilation) (1 Viewer)

[^CoSMic DoRiS^^]

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

EDSE3044 Teaching English 1

Lecturer: Jackie Manuel
Tutor: Jowen Hillyer

Ease: 8/10

None of this is hard stuff. It's basically an introduction to practical strategies for English teaching. There is only one assessment for this course which is a reflective journal + concluding statement which includes certain tasks (lesson plans etc) that are set out in the criteria. The only irritating thing is that the subject starts halfway through the semester and runs for like 7 weeks so everything is really kind of crammed together and it seemed like there was too much reading for each week because of that. But yeah whatever I survived just fine.

Lecturers: 8/10
Jackie is a competent lecturer. She is a bit all over the place with organising stuff but otherwise pretty good, clearly knows her stuff and is happy to impart that to us. Jowen is a fantastic tutor, if someone can make 3 hours of the same class enjoyable then you know something is right. I was initially concerned that what we were doing in seminars didn't seem to follow anything in the outline but since your tutor is the one who marks your journal and stuff it doesn't really matter in the end (and I think what we did was better than what we were ''meant'' to do)

Interest: 9/10

Considering the kind of course it is it would be a bit of a problem to not have an interest in the subject matter. Good lecturers etc helped, obviously.

Overall: 8/10

EDSE3042 Teaching Drama 1

Lecturers: None. Seminar format only. Tutors: Michael Anderson and Kelly Freebody.

Ease: 8/10

Same kinda thing as above, introducing ways to teach stuff. Same icky crammed-in structure but content not difficult. Two assessments: writing an essay-ish (I use the word loosely, you can write it up however the heck you want) thing comparing live theatre to classwork; and an overview of a unit of work containing six lesson plans with assessment. The organisation of these tasks left a bit to be desired.

Tutors: 8/10

Michael - all round a great person, v. engaging, knows stuff. Not keen on theoretical wankery which was great. Kind of disorganised but thats OK.

Kelly - I'm kind of scared of her tbh but she's a great teacher and more organised than Mr. Anderson which was a plus.

Interest: See English

Overall: 8/10

 

[lala2]

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

Hey danz Seems you're pretty happy with all your subjects, which is good. I hated CHEM1611 with organic chem (or is that second sem?) Agree with Human Bio being loaded, but until last semester it was my second highest mark ever, and I really enjoyed learning the stuff. Osu Lilje was good. Also agree with Dai Hibbs being really annoying, you'll get more of him in med chem (or whatever they've renamed it to). And Trevor Hambley was good, he managed to keep us fairly ordered, and we're definitely one of, if not, the most discourteous, disrespectful and riotous pharmacy cohorts in recent times.

My time to write

PHAR4618 Integrated Pharmacy Practice

Ease: 6/10
It's a lot of work to do during semester. Even though giving a presentation every second week sounds easier than every week (which it is), it's still very stressful. They give you the case on Wed or Thurs, depending which slot you're in, and you present on the Mon or Tues. It's stressful preparing for exams because you have to know everything about the disease state, i.e. causes, symptoms, pathology, pathophysiology, treatment, and any associated issues. Though it is easier with it being open book. But it is a lot of preparation, that's what I'm saying.

Lecturers: 6/10
All guest lecturers, so can't really comment. But Adam Wardell, if you get him, is so completely hyperactive and over the top, you'll be well entertained during the lectures but won't learn a thing. You'll fall asleep with Rebecca Roubin lecturing--she reads straight off the lecture notes (btw, she's a regular--watch out for her in med chem).

Interest: 4/10
Oh, some topics were new and refreshing, e.g. HIV, paediatrics. But then, it's so boring and irrelevant. You are basically expected to diagnose what conditions the person has, i.e. they shove a set of symptoms at you and we literally have to play doctor and work out what condition(s) the person's got. We're training to be pharmacists, not doctors. Also, interest is a matter of who you get as your PBL tutor. Mine was EXCELLENT--she was passionate about the profession and always managed to relate what we're learning to real life, but I know others haven't been as fortunate.

Overall: 5/10
I agree what they're teaching is relevant, but they're teaching it in an irrelevant way. Like I said, I have a major gripe with playing Dr (though I think all the med wannabes would love it).

P.S. This is only for the PBL and clin chem part. Placement was good, but again, that depends on your preceptor and some people haven't been as fortunate. I was fortunate enough to be offered casual work by both placements this semester, and additionally, I was mentored by the methadone liasion officer at the Guild in my second placement, (he was working there as one of the regular casuals) and, having practiced as a pharmacist for many years and precepted as many students, he was very insightful and very entertaining too!

PHAR4819 Drug Development and New Drug Technologies

Ease: 7/10
The quizzes are gay. Making you stare at a screen for 2 hours reading a slab of text that's too boring to be absorbed and then testing you at the end with a 10% quiz. So depending on how good your working memory is (mine isn't!), could be easy. Only 12 lectures to study for exams, compared to the usual 39 or so for PSPC and PCOL, and which are much more heavily loaded per lecture, so that was easy cruising during stuvac time. Exam was tricky, Rebecca Roubin's questions were hard! (which reminds me, pharmers in the years below, she delights in being hard)

Lecturers: 5/10
Mary Collins wasn't bad, Rebecca Roubin made a good effort, but the rest were either forgettable or sleep inducing (and often both). In fact, they're all the med chem lecturers, so don't expect the lecturing to be any different.

Interest: 5/10
It's really boring, but I rate it better than pharm prac because I intrinsically like genetics, biochem, microbio, that sort of thing. Most of my procrastinating during studying came from clicking on tangent links on Wiki. However, the way it is taught, again, it's so boring, and it is irrelevant. It's definitely a filler subject for the non-Hons kids, and seems to be an afterthought of first year bio (possibly MBLG? since we didn't do that) which I hope for the 1st and 2nd years' sake they never have to do.

Overall: 6/10

PHAR4620 Integrated Dispensing

Ease: 6/10
A lot of work during semester. You've got a minimum of 5 dispensing records to complete each week, and even though it sounds like copying off the AMH should be easy, it's just so time consuming. One time I think I spent 6 hours on dispensing homework in total, so even though I know I'm slow, I don't know of anyone who finishes dispensing quickly, put it this way.

Labs are much less stressful than 3rd year dispensing, because you only do one extemp (i.e. one compounding product), and one proprietary (i.e. pre-made, so anything like Diabex, Ventolin, etc). It's easy to pass once you get the hang of what the marker(s) are looking for in terms of counselling points, but be prepared to get a few Us (unsatisfactories) at the beginning of sem.

1st prac exam--too pressed for time. 2nd prac exam was good timing. Final written exam--it's like med chem, in that if you do your past papers, you'll be fine. Just don't be freaked out by the 500 something posts you'll get on WebCT.

Lecturers: 9/10
Erica Sainsbury is great as always (even though I think she only took one lecture?) and Ian Dean...aww, he's the sweetest, cuddliest old gentleman ever. The lectures are actually interesting because they relate to real life. Even though none of his stories are examinable (lol, but that's what his lectures are), Ian Dean has plenty to tell, e.g. pseudoephedrine diversion, professional misconduct (or, as they call it, unprofessional conduct now), etc. Erica was also kind enough to have guest lecturers on other miscellaneous topics, e.g. the PGTC guy (I think that's his position?) from the Pharm Board of NSW came and spoke to us about obtaining a prereg position, and just what the prereg year is all about.

Interest: 10/10
This was the only subject I really enjoyed (despite the stress!)

Overall: 8/10

 

[Ben Netanyahu]

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

ENGL2639: Literature & Cinema
Lecturers: David Kelly and Peter Marks

Ease: 5/10
Texts are a bit dry, the workload is a bit high and idk, bit dodgy overall so it was hard to remain enthusiastic.

Lecturers: 5/10
Mediocre. Lectures are all recorded, which is a nice touch.

Interest: 3/10
It sounds like a really good subject but it's not that good. The seminars were way too big to get any value from them, and each one is a student presentation, which is rubbish for a senior english subject imo. Texts are as follows: A Streetcar Named Desire (film + play), Adaptation (film), A Clockwork Orange (film + novel), Oedipus Rex, Rope, Maltese Falcon (novel + film), The Dispossessed, Brazil.
Sounds like a good text list yes? Agreed. Pity the presentation and subject matter and...everything doesn't reflect that.

Overall: 5/10
Very mediocre indeed.

 

[Kujah]

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

GOVT1101: Australian Politics

Ease: 8/10
The content of the course was pretty easy - Rodney (the lecturer) broke down the topics in a manageable way, and everything was basically in the textbook. If you have a keen interest in Australian politics, you will find this easy, especially considering that the exam consisted of short-answers only and that you were given a wide scope for your essay.

Lecturer: 8/10
Rodney Smith was a pretty good lecturer - engaging, communicated well and actively tried to participate the entire class into contributing when brainstorming ideas (or demonstrating how certain systems work eg- preferential voting). He taught the materials in a clear, concise and chronological order.

Interest:7/10
Some bits such as party politics was interesting, but some other areas were just plain dull eg - federalism and to some extent, the public sector. All in all, the content was able to sustain my interest until the end of the unit.

Overall:7.5/10
Would do it again.

 

[Kujah]

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

INGS1001: Power and Money in Global Society

Ease:7/10
There were a lot of issues to deal with in this unit, ranging from neoliberal globalisation to the effects and functioning of regionalism. Most of the content and readings were manageable; however, some pages (especially dealing with finance and economics) that were written by certain authors such as Dick Bryan took a long time to digest. The essay was pretty 'easy', as you were allowed to choose any topic that you wanted to investigate, as long as it fell within the topics that were explored during the lectures. Furthermore, the exam consisted of you completing two questions in 2h.

Lecturer: 7/10
Dick Bryan was a superb lecturer - exceptional and knowledgable communicator who was able to bring humour into his lectures. However, some of the other lecturers were only competent.

Interest:7/10
Most of the stuff was interesting and engaging, especially on regionalism and the effects of globalisation. There was a strong bias against neoliberalism and on economic stuff (to which people may find to comprehend at times).

Overall:7/10
All in all, this unit was alright. It consisted of a range of areas and issues that are relevant to us in our 'globalised' world. It's just at times, the economic aspects of this unit were overwhelming.

 

[Kujah]

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

HSTY1045: Modern European History, 1750-1914

Ease:7/10
The content was pretty easy to understand, with a chronological approach from 1750 to 1914. The unit dealt with a range of political, social, economic, cultural and ideological issues, with a strong focus on France's history and sexuality (due to Robert Aldrich's specialties). We were given a huge array of questions which covered a wide variety of topics to choose from for our essay. The exam consisted of completing 3 essays in 2h (which was a pressure cooker after not writing in an assessment task for 6 months).

Lecturer:8/10
Robert Aldrich made the content appear engaging and interesting. He's very eloquent and verbose with his words, which works to his advantage. As such, he was an exceptional communicator who was very very knowledgeable on a huge period of history. However, the same cannot be said of the substitute lecturers who took up his position when Aldrich was absent.

Interest:7/10
Some aspects were very interesting, including the French Revolution, the Restoration, the revolutions and nationalism. However, other parts were undoubtedly dull - the social and cultural topics, along with the Industrial Revolution

Overall: 8/10
If you have a strong interest in history, especially European history dealing with Germany, France and Britain, then this topic is for you.

 

[Ben Netanyahu]

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

moar rep, plx silver persian

ENGL2660: US Writing - Reading the Nation
Lecturer: Sarah Gleeson White

Ease: 7/10
Not hard. Texts are easy and some fun is to be had with them. They range from mediocre (Ceremony) to fantastic (Revolutionary Road). You only have to have read a maximum of three of the set texts to get through the exam and essay, which is nice, and means that the initially hefty reading requirements are very relaxed.

Lecturer: 6/10
Sarah's not bad. She just reads her notes though and doesn't record them, which is bad. Very, very bad. But meh. She's a nice lady though who's very open for consultation and has lots of communication in her subject, so i can't complain there.

Interest: 8/10
Pretty good for an English subject imo. The texts are strung together with an interesting central theme. Truth be told, it would have been nice to have some positive US writings in the unit but you can't have everything. Only one text was a little drab and that was Ceremony, but I enjoyed bits of that too. Texts are: The Ox-Bow Incident, Richard Wright short stories, Invisible Man, Flannery O'Connor short stories, Revolutionary Road, Ceremony, Outer Dark

Overall: 7.5/10
Pretty decent for an English subject. Easy, interesting and a good selection of texts,

 

[Kujah]

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

Has anyone here done PACS2002 - History and Politics of War and Peace?

 

[DavidBenGurion]

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

yes

 

[nick1689]

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

Has anyone here done PACS2002 - History and Politics of War and Peace?

It looks awesome, Im doing it next semester

 

[goony]

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

I suppose i'll chime in for the results i've gotten back already:

INFO3402 - Management of IT Projects & Systems
Ease: 8/10
Fairly straightforward. Exam was alot easier than i thought (ALOT different to the quizzes). No programming necessary at all, in fact i'm sure if a student from any other faculty would've had no problems doing this course. Half of the course is essentially regurgitation of terms. Managed to squeeze a D in there; could've been higher but i bummed out on a few of the in-semester assessments.

Lecturer: 6/10
Geoff Kennedy was the lecturer for the majority of the course, and there were 3 Accenture guest lecturers for the last few weeks. Geoff was a bit of a shifty character throughout the course, and never gave me a straight answer when it came to feedback, so minus points there. His lectures weren't stunning, but they did the job. Plus props to him for compiling last year's textbooks and resources into a reader though. Accenture lecturers were mildly interesting, but i found the quiz questions related to them a bit odd ("In lecture X, how long did Accenture associate with company Y before pulling out of project Z")

Interest: 6/10
Nothing to write home about, but i can see the relevance of this as a stepping stone to the project subjects you have to do in 2nd semester. I found it's pretty much just

Overall: 7/10
Not overly interesting, but easy enough to pass, not that hard to do well in and it's a core subject for all IT related majors (comp sci, info systems, software eng, etc), so chances are that if you are doing this subject, you have to do it.


ISYS3401 - Analytical Methods & Information Systems
Ease: 7/10
The quizzes were a bit challenging, but if you had a good study group and/or if you worked through enough examples in the textbook (which i only acquired for one quiz), they weren't too hectic. Exam was a bit of a cockslap, but it was open book so it was always going to be a bit harder. Also, it didn't help that i didn't bring in a couple of the online quiz solutions with me, as a couple of the exam questions were essentially the same question with different numbers. Also didn't help that i only started studying for this particular exam the night before.

Lecturer: 7/10
Can't really comment much on this as i only attended half the lectures (usually left halfway through a lecture, or caught the last half of one). The stuff that i heard from Dr. Ying Zhou wasn't too inspiring, she was just reading off slides most of the time. However, she did respond very quickly to feedback on webct and gave us alot of help and pointers during the tutorials.

Interest: 4/10
This is another core unit for the Information Systems major. The only part i found mildly interesting was some of the probability stuff we did.

Overall: 7/10
The subject that lies inbetween first year stats and second year stats, except the exam is open book, and all the tutorials are done with excel and non-compulsory. If it weren't core, it would make a good filler subject. Didn't spark my interest, but easy enough to pass.

 

[McMizza]

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

Hey, thanks for ur review, that was really useful!!
What are the seminars like? Is it a lecture setting where students can speak up? How big are the classes?

 

[Silver Persian]

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

The classes for SCLG3601 were essentially lectures with a little bit of discussion every now and again. Only about 15 people were enrolled in the course, and only 7-8 turned up to the lectures regularly.

The classes for SCLG3602 involved a 1.5 hour lecture, a 30 minute break and a one hour tutorial session. About 30 people were enrolled.

 

[withoutaface]

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

INFO3402 - Management of IT Projects & Systems
Ease: 9/10
Very basic course. Exam was exactly the same as the sample and the in semester assessments were all pretty easy to get 90% in, save the quizzes which I got 70-80% in with minimal study.

Lecturer: 5/10
Geoff's a good guy but not an amazing lecturer, accenture lectures were pretty solid though.

Interest: 6/10
Bleh. It's just rote learning.

Overall: 7/10
Easy marks, but nothing too great.


COMP3520 Operating Systems
Ease: 10/10
Half the course walked into the exam with 90% without even blinking. The exam wasn't too difficult for me even though I studied for maybe 1.5 days for it.

Lecturer: 0/10
Bing Bing's an absolute cock. You can't understand what he's saying and the labs were completely useless.

Interest: 4/10
Nothing in the course made me squee with interest, but stuff like scheduling and deadlock prevention is alright I suppose.

Overall: 5/10
Shit course, but I got 88 so I'm not complaining.

MATH3962 - Rings, Fields and Galois Theory

Ease: 2/10
Probably the most difficult of the 3rd year maths courses I've done. That said, based on the understanding I did have I could answer 90% of the exam so it balanced out ok.

Lecturer: 4/10
Adrian Nelson didn't really do it for me, but then very few maths lecturers have. You can tell he genuinely enjoys the source material though.

Interest: 7/10
Some of the ruler/compass construction stuff was pretty cool, and it was certainly more interesting than metric spaces or analysis.

Overall: 6/10
If you're doing a pure maths major, this is one of the two advanced units (along with Measure Theory) that I'd recommend you do.

INFO3220 - Object Oriented Design
Ease: 5/10
The source material itself wasn't too difficult, but the exam was fiendish and I spent 50-70 hours on assignments which I only managed 7/10 for. Plus it doesn't scale.

Lecturer: 10/10
Michael Charleston is a real gem. He's funny, interesting, presents stuff well.

Interest: 10/10
As a software engineering student this is the kinda stuff I took the degree to be able to do.

Overall: 8/10
Even though I did substantially worse in this unit than my others, it was still a really interesting course and I'm glad I've done it (even though it's core).

 

[JClamp]

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

kill the formatting!!!

 

[goony]

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

Okay reviewing last two subjects now (for any interested engineers out there)

ELEC3404 Electronic Circuit Design
Ease: 5/10
It's not that the individual concepts were hard, in fact the maths involved is relatively simple (mostly linear stuff) when compared to other subjects such as electromagnetics or DSP etc. The problem is just that there was so much content jammed into the final exam. If they had say, 5 quizzes throughout the semester on each topic, it would've been alright.

Lecturer: 7/10
Alistair McEwan was a bit boring to listen to at times but i have the feeling it's because it was his first time taking the course and he was simply reading over last year's slides. He was quite responsive to feedback and assignment work though.

Interest: 9/10
Definitely a key subject if you want to go into anything electronics or digital circuits. I found the content and labs very interesting. It's a good alternative for electrical engineers who don't want to go down the power engineering side of things.

Overall: 7/10
Got 61 in this subject, easy enough to pass (they mark the final exam quite easy) but you have to work pretty hard for the final exam to do well IMO.

ELEC 3610 E-Business Analysis and Design
Ease: 10/10
If you've done the pre-reqs (info2120, info2110) then this will be a walk in the park. Write up a project specification document for an online business idea and build a prototype website for it. The software they provide will code everything for you, all the design is done by click and dragging models of your prototype.

Lecturer: 7/10
Jorge Villalon was our lecturer. He was fun to listen to but the content wasn't anything to write home about (i guess that isn't really his fault though). The marking guidelines for some of the assignments weren't very clear cut unless you actually asked a tutor though, and even then they sometimes contradicted each other.

Interest: 7/10
Pretty interesting, but i would've liked to focus more on the website development and webapp side of things. However this is what the corresponding ELEC3609 subject next semester is for apparently.

Overall: 9/10
Easy marks, i got 78 and only studied the morning of the subject (had a really tough exam the day before). It's an open book exam as well and you don't need that 40% rule the IT department usually sets. Definitely would recommend for either elec engos looking for a 3rd year elective or BCST students looking for a 3rd year core subject.

 

[flaganarchy]

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

ECOP1001 Economics as a Social Science

Ease: 8/10, Overall its was pretty easy, I found it super interesting so I reread the textbook without being asked.

Lecturer: 10/10, Frank = A Plus, A Double Plus! Joy (coordinator) is really nice too, I accidently missed the exam and let me re-sit it with no penalty because she is nice. I had a rad tutor too, Mark, awesome stuff!

Interest: 10/10, Lefty economics.

Overall: 10/10, Very very good.

SCLG1001 Introductory Sociology 1

Ease: 9/10, I didnt really try at all and I got a distinction.

Lecturer: 6/10, Francis was pretty boring (both my tutor and lecturer), but he is organised!

Interest: 8/10, Interesting stuff

Overall: 8.5/10 An interesting, easy, mainly enjoyable course which you can go well in with minimal effort.

PSYC1001 Introductory Psychology 1

Ease: 6/10, It can be easy, but you really have to try in it. I managed a high pass with minimal work, but it is still challenging if you are not naturally gifted.

Lecturer: 8/10, Some were good, some were bad. Niko was my favourite because each lecture was like he is tripping on acid. Calab was cool but he needed to be more radically scientifically minded to piss moar people off. Lisa tried too hard to be cool. The rest were forgetable.

Interest: 9/10, Interesting stuff (except for the linguistics baby shit)

Overall: 8/10, Pretty challenging but the course is pretty cool it keeps you motivated

SPAN1601 Introductory Spanish

Ease: 2/10, Fucking hard, really bad! Don't do this course, they don't explain anything and expect you to pick it up. They expect way too much too quickly. I managed to pass [50 exactly] (don't ask how)

Lecturer: 2/10, My tutor (substitutes for lecturer) was terrible. If anyone asked a question she would say "whatarewetalkingabout?" and continue speaking in spanish, explaining nothing. The Spanish history and culture lectures (different person) was good, but you didnt really need to go to lectures, I learn't everything from lecture notes she made.

Interest: 1/10, I lost total interest at about the point when census withdraw date was over and I realised that I am learning nothing and bound to fail.

Overall: 0/10, DO NOT DO THIS COURSE

 

[skut8]

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

ECOP1001 Economics as a Social Science

Ease: 8/10, Overall its was pretty easy, I found it super interesting so I reread the textbook without being asked.

Lecturer: 10/10, Frank = A Plus, A Double Plus! Joy (coordinator) is really nice too, I accidently missed the exam and let me re-sit it with no penalty because she is nice. I had a rad tutor too, Mark, awesome stuff!

Interest: 10/10, Lefty economics.

Overall: 10/10, Very very good.

SCLG1001 Introductory Sociology 1

Ease: 9/10, I didnt really try at all and I got a distinction.

Lecturer: 6/10, Francis was pretty boring (both my tutor and lecturer), but he is organised!

Interest: 8/10, Interesting stuff

Overall: 8.5/10 An interesting, easy, mainly enjoyable course which you can go well in with minimal effort.

PSYC1001 Introductory Psychology 1

Ease: 6/10, It can be easy, but you really have to try in it. I managed a high pass with minimal work, but it is still challenging if you are not naturally gifted.

Lecturer: 8/10, Some were good, some were bad. Niko was my favourite because each lecture was like he is tripping on acid. Calab was cool but he needed to be more radically scientifically minded to piss moar people off. Lisa tried too hard to be cool. The rest were forgetable.

Interest: 9/10, Interesting stuff (except for the linguistics baby shit)

Overall: 8/10, Pretty challenging but the course is pretty cool it keeps you motivated

SPAN1601 Introductory Spanish

Ease: 2/10, Fucking hard, really bad! Don't do this course, they don't explain anything and expect you to pick it up. They expect way too much too quickly. I managed to pass [50 exactly] (don't ask how)

Lecturer: 2/10, My tutor (substitutes for lecturer) was terrible. If anyone asked a question she would say "whatarewetalkingabout?" and continue speaking in spanish, explaining nothing. The Spanish history and culture lectures (different person) was good, but you didnt really need to go to lectures, I learn't everything from lecture notes she made.

Interest: 1/10, I lost total interest at about the point when census withdraw date was over and I realised that I am learning nothing and bound to fail.

Overall: 0/10, DO NOT DO THIS COURSE

I actually found SPAN1601 to be rather interesting. I will agree that the style of teaching was rather unorthodox though. My tutor mentioned that himself, and adviced us to look for a switch to another tute if we didn't like him.

 

[flaganarchy]

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

I actually found SPAN1601 to be rather interesting. I will agree that the style of teaching was rather unorthodox though. My tutor mentioned that himself, and adviced us to look for a switch to another tute if we didn't like him.

Ahh it must be a policy across the board though, because I had a female teacher... and I know others with different tutors who had the same problem.... Its unorthodox alright... you probably have no one to switch to!

 

[skut8]

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

GOVT 2445 American Politics and Foreign Policy

Ease: 7/10
I managed to misinterpret the 40% question and thus had to do really well for the 40% finals to even get something decent. And I managed to do so. Final exam was just three essay questions: one long, two shorter. The thing is that the course is centered around three major themes, and if you know the themes you won't go wrong. Sadly I think those themes just kinda take the edge of what I thought was going to be a good subject. I'm not sure one should condense all of American Politics into 3 main themes/patterns.

Lecturer: 3/10
Goldsmith (A lot of people took to calling him Goldstein?) isn't a very good orator. Maybe he knows his stuff, but he's just boring to listen to. Tutors are nice though.

Interest: 6/10
I did say the course was based around 3 main themes. Having said that, the text book really does cover a lot of American politics. If you've done your readings, you'll know a lot more American Politics. I did get a general feeling from people saying that a lot of the stuff in the text weren't relevant to the course. Which is right I suppose.

Overall: 7/10

If you wanna know your US politics and the main workings of it, do the course. If you're interested in Obama and only Obama, please don't.