Subject Reviews (with PDF compilation) (2 Viewers)

[Rythen]

PSYC2911

Ease: 9/10

Although there is even more content than the PSYC1001 + PSYC1002 courses, the concepts were much easier to grasp if you have background in biology. BEWARE you have to do another APA report - it's all self-directed this time, so many people had no idea what exactly they had to write about. ALSO there is short answers in the final exams... you will have to pay VERY close attention to the perception lectures, they're not easy.

Lecturer: 8/10

Most of the course was lectured by Ian, who is great! Most of the other lecturers were ok...except maybe Holocombe. Sorry he stated he was new, but that is no excuse for him to be...unprepared? It was hard to grasp concepts that he talked about.

Interest: 9/10

It would have been nice if neuroanatomy was made a prerequisite - it was hard knowing the brain parts, especially when some are exactly the same but with different names (ventromedial prefrontal cortex and orbitofrontal cortex......). But material is GREAT and the interactions between psychology and biology is fully demonstrated in this course. Would highly recommend for those who like the more 'sciency' side of psychology.
Also you will be working with rats, albeit in tutorials only. I wished that there was more time we could have spent with them in the tutorials - it really would have been great to learn dissections for example...

Overall: 9/10

Good course - I wanted more things to learn!



PSYC2012

Ease: 10/10

Not to be arrogant, but this course had less material than the MATH1905 statistics course - it got challenging when we got exposed to ANOVA, etc. but overall, if effort was made, it went well. Not to mention that the exam was on multiple choice: it would have been MUCH better if it tested us on how to use the statistics tools we learnt. It did not test our knowledge at all. Quizzes were too short and easy - should have been made longer and more difficult.

Lecturer: 8/10

Dan was great - went through concepts clearly with loads of examples. Would have given it 10/10 if it wasn't for Ilan - though props to him because he taught research methods (which is the MOST POINTLESS component of the course. Should be deleted imo).

Interest: 6/10

Mainly because most material has been learnt before, interest was not high... Research methods lectures were the MOST USELESS + POINTLESS. It was just a waste of time, and really should be a 1st year course. If one doesn't know the difference between independent and dependent variable by the time they got to second year, they should not be doing psychology. At all.

Overall: 8/10
Compulsory for students wanting to major in psychology, but many components were too straightforward and really did not have to be taught. Statistics component would be a breeze if MATH1905 is done in 1st year. This course should have been made much harder - that would help weed out the high competition for psychology honours spots.



IMMU2101

Ease: 7/10

There are a LOT of terms - all with very similar names. You do need to sit down and revise all your materials during your stuvac. The work is alright, though I did not do well in the written component! There is also a speaking and practical component, but as long as you put effort in, it's alright. Final exam is stressful due to 50% being written!

Lecturer: 9/10

Scott Bryne - great lecturer, engaging! Most of the time, concepts were explained clearly and he clearly enjoys teaching immunology.

Various other guest lecturers were average compared to Scott.

Interest: 8/10

Wish there was more material on how pathogens invaded the body, rather than how body reacts - but I guess that's my own biased opinion. Last few lectures were quite boring, mainly because I'm not the biggest fan of 'applications'. I prefer knowing how things work. Except for the end, I very much enjoyed the lectures (though I should have attended more...but only 1 9am lecture on Friday - nope).

Overall: 8/10

It was an alright course, though I got 80 which was my lowest score... should have chosen a better WAM booster for BPsych. Nonethless, was an enjoyable course!

 

[Amleops]

MATH1004 - Discrete Mathematics

Ease - 9/10

The topics themselves are not too difficult, and apart from one or two questions on the assessments, most of the calculations and questions you are given are pretty standard, or are at least are easy to figure out once you've interpreted the question. There is a whole topic on proofs which is probably the hardest thing you will learn, but even then, the mechanics and common methods are explained quite clearly, and while many of the questions provide an interesting challenge, many are also relatively straightforward. All in all if you do all of your tutorial questions, problem sets and practice questions before assessments you should be all good.

Lecturer/Tutor - 8/10 (Oded Yacobi)

I'm not sure why, but from my experience, American lecturers seem to be very good at simplifying content so that it can be more easily learnt. Maybe that says a lot about the type of people they have to teach back home haha. In all seriousness though, I really couldn't have asked for much more from Oded; he was a nice guy, he knew his stuff, and he taught it well. He went a little too slow at times for my liking, but the course only assumed a 2 Unit background, so I guess he had to cater to some fundamental stream students as well. I was lucky enough to have him as a tutor too; the tutorials consisted of him going through the week's set questions, asking the class for possible approaches and giving us a few minutes here and there to go do some of the steps for ourselves. Unfortunately for me, my eagerness led me to complete all of the questions before the tutorials, and I also had already checked my answers with a copy of the tutorial solutions from last year. This, in combination with the general ease of the course, kind of made tutorials a little redundant for me. Nevertheless, when a difficult question did arise from time to time, Oded was good at explaining it. All in all Oded definitely made the course worthwhile. The only other department member I really had any experience with for this unit was an honours student named Sampson Wong, who filled in for tutorials one week when Oded was sick. I rarely heard him speak throughout that whole tutorial, plus he gave out a sort of nerdy-pretentiousness vibe that I really don't have any patience for. Those types of people should not be teaching. If he ends up doing his PhD at USYD, and is one of the tutors for any of your subjects, I would advise you to avoid him if you can.

Interest - 10/10

Naturally, as this is mathematics, it is impossible for it not to be interesting. This course in particular tends itself more to pure mathematics, and most of the topics come under one of 4 major areas: set theory, counting principles, logic or sequences/series (more specifically for the latter you learn about generating functions and recurrence relations, not the type of stuff you do in high school). Some of the concepts may seem a bit abstract, but I found them interesting nonetheless, and in general quite fun. It really made studying for this subject quite easy to do.

Overall - 9/10

I would definitely recommend this unit to anyone. If you are intending to major in mathematics, then this would serve as a great elective outside of the more common Calculus/Linear Algebra/Statistics first year mathematics courses, and provide you with some useful knowledge for 2nd and 3rd year pure mathematics. It would also serve as an easier/valid alternative as a maths prerequisite unit for those of you in the science faculty not interested in maths beyond first year. Either way, this was the best first year mathematics course I have done, and I was very impressed by it.

 

[falsenthusiasm]

These subjects were taken in Semester 2, 2014.

BUSS1002 – The Business Environment

Ease: 6/10

As a Business School subject, there is no scaling and your final mark is just the sum of all your raw marks. This makes it harder to do extremely well overall.

Personally I find that subjects that require developing a critical point of view never easy, and since BUSS1002 is one of those subjects, it was not easy. It is, however, a LOT better than BUSS1001, largely due to more regular assessments (3 x MSAs) during the semester, which bumped down the weighting of the final to 38%, and the topics themselves are more concrete and less wishy washy than in BUSS1001.

For the ongoing assessments, they aren’t too bad if you actually understand the concepts and can write well. I was one of the few that did relatively well in the first assessment (from memory, the average was around 60), and I’m inclined to think that was because I was able to write clearly and with logical progression. It helped a lot that they gave an example assessment. Also, a LPT: Read the Q&A before you start.

The final is also reasonable and doable if you know all the concepts covered throughout the semester. They did have two ‘giveaway’ questions, which they told us in the last lecture and were (1) a PEST analysis on one of three specified companies, and (2) an additional turned compulsory reading.

Lecturers:

Note: I slept in, skipped or didn’t pay attention to most lectures. (I’m a terrible student. ): )

Omer Konakci: 7/10

Omer is actually a decent lecturer. The expectations of this unit were outlined very clearly by him at the beginning, and he is engaging in his lectures. He encourages student input, and gives plenty of examples, which make the concepts understandable.

Michael Allen: -

Unfortunately, I was sick for the two weeks Michael lectured, so I have absolutely no idea how his lecturing style is.

Heather Robson: 7.5/10

If you like listening to voice inflexions, you’ll like Heather. I found her lecturing style to be clear and very understandable. She did relate a lot of the concepts she taught to more real life scenarios, but the reason she gets a small bump up from Omer is because her lecture notes were more structured.


Tutor: 9/10 (Sharon Johnson)

Seriously amazing tutor. Period. Sharon was the reason I didn’t hate this unit with the entire fibre of my being. She was incredibly engaging and knew how to relate to us. She clearly knew all her stuff and was able to convey this in a meaningful way. I really enjoyed myself in this tute; It probably helped that the people I met there were all pretty cool and fun to work with for all the group work.


Interest: 4/10

Given that BUSS1002 is one of the core units for a B. Commerce, so you don’t really get a choice in doing it, I think it gives me the right to be less enthusiastic about it. It’s not my type of subject, but it does teach you very solid and useful skills. I didn’t hear particularly good things about this unit, but it’s not that bad.

Overall: 7/10

I wasn’t very enthusiastic about this unit, but that was more to do with me than with the unit. The unit itself is structured well. The lecturers are good. My tutor was amaaazing (and probably my saving grace for this subject). The content is extremely relevant to a Commerce degree.


INFO1103 – Introduction to Programming

Ease: 9/10

Introduction to Programming is exactly what it sounds like. I personally found it rather straightforward and fun. It made a great impression and really has pushed me to take more computer science courses. It is fairly easy if you read through the lecture notes and complete your lab exercises every week. All the assessments are reasonable and there are no ‘tricks’ at all, although the Assignment was challenging (but you had the option to work in pairs and there was plenty of help available)! The final exam is partial open book (double sided A4 page) and on a whole, I’d consider this course a WAM booster.

Lecturer: 8/10 (Irena)

I stopped going to the lectures about 4 weeks in because I really struggled to understand the lecturer’s accent, not to mention the lectures ran a little bit slow for my liking. The lecture notes were also super detailed and really, it was fine just going through them by myself. Having said that, Irena is incredibly nice, and any questions you had she would answer them very well. She is a very good lecturer.

Tutor: 10/10

Labs had one tutor and two mentors so there was plenty of help to go around if you needed it. They were all super keen to help, and very approachable! I liked to work independently and didn’t need help until the later weeks. When I did, I never had to wait too long and they all explained things very well (although the tutor tended to be better at sticking to concepts we had already learnt, while the mentors seemed to push those boundaries a bit). My tutor also pointed out a lot of things we shouldn’t do which was super helpful in troubleshooting our own errors.

Interest: 9/10

This was a very interesting introductory course into Java. If you’re like me, and enjoy problem solving and using logic, then you should give this course a go. This, along with MATH1004, were my favourite subjects I took this semester.

Overall: 9/10

This course was very well structured. Weekly homeworks (10 MCQs with five goes) made sure that you did at least go through and understand the lecture content on a week by week basis, and completing the labs cemented that knowledge. Assessments weren’t difficult at all. The final was also reasonable, and as long as you put in the time every week (I estimate about 4-5 hours being necessary including the lab but not the lecture), this is an easy HD.

MATH1905 – Statistics (Advanced)

Ease: 7/10

This is definitely not an easy subject. There are horror stories around this unit, but I figured I’d take it anyway to maximise my learning. I didn’t understand how anything we were learning in the first half of semester fit together until I finally studied hypothesis testing for the final (which had basically no formal hypothesis testing, very unlike the past papers). I think the 2014 final was particularly difficult simply because it was so different to the past papers.

Having said that, the quizzes were rather straightforward if you knew how to do the sample quizzes since they were basically identical.

Lecturer: 3/10 (Michael Stewart)

Note: I slept through or skipped through at least half of the lectures.

I don’t think the lectures were structured well in that we covered a lot of content, but a good portion of it wasn’t tested. There was a lot of overlap week-by-week and it inflated how much content there really was. However, consultations were very helpful and the lecturer was decent at answering my questions.

Tutor: 1/10

I had an external tutor who was terrible. I went to my lab in the first week, and she said things like “I’ll get back to you on that” when we asked questions and it really seemed like she had no clue what was going on. My tute transfer didn’t go through successfully so I had to go to that lab for my quizzes, and when I did, she gave me quite a bit of attitude and was rude.

Interest: 7/10

I was actually a bit hyped up to start statistics, since a friend of mine had done MATH1005 in Winter School and had only good things to say about it. The first few weeks on data analysis were alright – some year 10 statistics, but when we got into the second part, the lectures were too confusing and my interest dropped to a solid 2. It was mostly theory and I couldn’t grasp its relevance. But! When it all came together with hypothesis testing, I was pleased to start enjoying the subject again, and now I’m considering taking second year stats.

Overall: 5/10

The subject content itself isn’t too bad, and I can see it being useful in the future. The lecturer wasn’t very engaging, the way the unit was set out wasn’t great either, but having said that, I’m not sure how it could be set out much better.

MATH1004 – Discrete Maths

Ease: 9/10

Concepts were straightforward and a solid 60% of the course was high school content. The things that were new weren’t too complex to understand. The thing that I think made this unit easier than all other first year maths courses is that the content is less abstract and more concrete, and hence easier to grasp. There was a reasonable level of challenge in this unit, which made it all the more enjoyable.

Lecturer/ Tutor: 10/10 (Oded Yacobi)

MATH1004 has a very strong lecturer. He would cover some theory, then follow up with several examples to cement in the knowledge. The way the unit was structured make the content come around in a circle so we were back at the beginning in the end. It was brilliant. Unlike my other first year maths courses, it was specified that we had to do the tute questions before the tute, although by halfway through the semester, it was clear that not many people did.

The lecturer was also my tutor, and I found the tutorial as a great way for me to go through the answers and revise the content. I was pleasantly surprised to find that unlike advanced levelled tutorials which are more like studying sessions where you have access to a tutor to ask questions, normal stream tutorials go through the tutorial sheet questions together. I really enjoyed that and went to every tutorial even though they were sometimes a little bit slow for my liking.

Oded also had a pretty cool accent, so that helped.

Interest: 9/10

Let me be honest. I was one of those people that didn’t even dream of doing maths again after high school. After the horror of MATH1901 and MATH1902, I was even less keen on doing any more maths. I took MATH1004 because I really really really didn’t want to take MATH1003. It was refreshing for me to find out that I could actually enjoy maths again. This was my favourite subject of the semester (along with INFO1103), and it’s made me reconsider taking second year maths. (MATH2969, come at me. <3)

Overall: 9.5/10

Great subject. Amazing lecturer. Awesome content. Best first year maths unit I’ve taken by far. Absolutely no complaints.


PSYC1002 – Psychology 1002

Ease: 6/10

At the beginning of the semester, I thought that this would be an easy HD. Assessments were split into 5% research participation, 5% online quizzes with unlimited attempts, 25% research report and 65% 100 MCQ final. Easy, right? NOPE.

The research report was incredibly hard to digest and understand even before I started writing it. It is possibly the worst assessment I’ve ever had to write in my life (tied with BUSS1001 Essay).

Lecturers:
Ben Colagiuri (Learning and Motivation): 9/10

LAM ended up being one my more favoured topics. It probably helped that there were two weeks of tutes dedicated to this topic (vs. one for the rest), but Ben was also a very engaging lecturer. There was a solid amount of sexual innuendos, which were hilarious and really made his lectures worth going to.

Bruce Burns (Mental Abilities): 6/10

I found the content of this very interesting, which made it a bit more fun to study. It talks a lot about IQ testing, how and why there have been changes, and a few other notable things. From my (terrible) memory, I do believe Bruce seemed a little bit ‘frail’ in his lectures, but he did a decent job covering all the content. I particularly liked his lecture notes because he gave an outline of everything that you needed to know from a particular lecture.

Marc De Rosnay (Emotion): 7/10

Marc is a decent lecturer and you’ll enjoy his lectures if you like babies. I actually enjoyed his lecturing style and his lectures, but there is a LOT of complex content in this topic that’s hard to understand. If there are any topics you don’t want to cram before the final, this and cognitive processes are it.

Caleb Owens (Cognitive Processes): 7/10

There are a lot of comments on Caleb Owens, most of them not good – probably because he’s a bit on the inflexible side in terms of administration, but as a lecturer, he’s decently engaging. He’s a very straightforward guy that outlines his expectations and what to do. You simply have to follow them. This topic was very content heavy, and Caleb succeeded in making me very nervous for his section of the final.

Marianna Szabo (Abnormal): 5/10

Abnormal Psychology has the least content of all 6, and that’s partially helped by previous awareness of some mental abnormalities. I personally didn’t like Marianna’s lecturing style, mostly because it was hard for me to understand her accent. There’s not much to say about this.

Frans Verstraten (Perception): 6/10

Lectures were always interesting, especially the last one! They tended to include a lot of examples that we didn’t need in the final. The textbook reading is a must for this topic. There is a reasonable level of memorising needed for some sensory organ pathways, but on a whole, I enjoyed this topic.

Interest: Dropped from 8 to 4/10

I actually started Psychology incredibly enthusiastic. I had planned a Psychology major because it seemed so interesting, and it was! The content is very stimulating. The only problem was studying for the final took all the joy out. There is a LOT of content, and it was incredibly daunting needing to remember that amount. I ended up vowing that I would never take psychology again. The stress of needing to rote learn all that content was far too much.

Also, the research report sucked. The topic was terrible. Writing it was terrible. Everyone thought it was terrible.

Overall: 5/10

My scoring is tainted by the fact that I didn’t put as much effort into learning all the content during the semester than I should have, so I was incredibly stressed about learning everything before the final. It didn’t help that there were no past papers so it seemed like the final could really be about anything and everything!

Basically, don’t expect this course to be a walk in the park. It covers a lot of content with an extraordinary breadth in a short amount of time, but the content is definitely interesting.

 

[someth1ng]

CHEM2912
Ease: 4
Despite getting an 89, this unit is HARD - it's easily the hardest chemistry unit so far and you want to be good at maths to do well in this. I'm okay with maths but I'm not great so I found it quite tough. Make sure you go to classes/find the ones with good lecturers and don't fall behind or you'll be really fucked.
Lecturer: 7
We got some pretty good lecturers but we all got some pretty awful ones. Toby Hudson was pretty bad, to be honest - he was boring and unclear (1.5/10) but since there's 2 streams, the other lecturer, Greg Warr, was decent (7/10) - much clearer but not the best in the school. The next section had much better lecturers, Deanna D'Alessandro (~8/10) and Lou Rendina (9.5/10) - I had Deanna in tutes (so her rating might not be as accurate) and she seemed quite good but I think she needs to be more confident, Lou was much more relaxed. I'd say he is one of the best lecturers for inorganic chemistry, so far. The last section was run by Siggi Schmid (6.5/10) and Chris Ling (8/10) - my peers didn't mind Schmid but I really didn't like him - I found him hard to follow and understand. However, I really liked Chris Ling - he was MUCH easier to understand and very clear with explanations and he seems pretty relaxed which was nice. But I have to say, Siggi puts a lot of effort into teaching so he's not too bad.
Interest: 7
The coordination chemistry section was really good and enjoyable (9/10) - definitely interesting but the other sections weren't as good - the thermodynamics was pretty hard and boring (3/10) but the solid state chemistry (6/10) was just hard - maybe a little bit boring but it was more hard than anything. You're pretty much only doing this unit if you want to major in chemistry
Overall: 6/10
This unit is a pretty tough unit, the hardest there is in chemistry for CHEM1 and CHEM2. You want to do this if you plan to major in chemistry or something like that - you definitely shouldn't be doing this if you're looking for an easy subject. If you want to do well in this unit, make sure you get as many marks in the assessments as possible (ie quizzes and labs) - the exam can be pretty average or really hard.
Mark: 89
 
CHEM2403
Ease: 6
I don't know if I found this subject hard or if the lecturers were just bad. It was easier than core chemistry but it definitely wasn't just an easy subject. The labs are easy to get good marks in, though. I got full marks in all pre-work and got 19/20, 19/20, 20/20 and 29/30.
Lecturer: 7
The first section is basically about organic chemistry in the body - some reactions and curly arrows, not too hard and it was taught well by Richard Payne (9.5/10) - he's loud and clear. The other two lecturers are pretty boring, to say the least. Peter Lay (5/10) knows his stuff but his voice is really boring to listen to and I found that I just tuned out within 10 minutes or so and I had pretty much the same problem with Ron Clarke (5/10).
Interest: 6
The content probably isn't so boring but it was taught in the really sluggish way which got me pretty bored. I like chemistry so I tolerated it but the course seemed pretty disorganised and the content was incoherent - it didn't seem like it connected but rather, it seemed like it was a bunch of information about chemistry stuck together to make a course.
Overall: 4/10
It's a course there for the sake of having a course there, unless you're keen on getting as many chemistry units in as possible (like me), I wouldn't recommend this unit.
Mark: 87

ENVI3114
Ease: 10
It's a stupidly easy course, if you want, you could use this unit as a WAM booster, honestly. The content is like, high school level difficulty. It's a joke that it's a unit that counts to a/my major.
Lecturer: 8
Chris Dey is decent and interesting - he conveys stuff clearly which is nice but the assessments are retarded - make sure you use excessive sig figs because I used the right sig figs and got marked down - just stick to 5 sig figs and you'll be fine.
Interest: 8
Interesting but I knew everything the course had to offer before even starting so I didn't learn anything, really.
Overall: 9/10
Easy unit - did all the assessments and you basically don't have class for half the semester.
Mark: 74

GEOS2121
Ease: 7
Strange course, I'm good at water sensitive urban design (WSUD) but that's about it...lol. It's a pretty random course so it's not that cool but it's straight forward, not real concepts to understand - just information.
Lecturer: 8
Good lecturers all-around, I find GEOS to have pretty much lecturers, generally.
Interest: 7
Unlike ENVI3114, I didn't really know much about this stuff so it was good to learn - WSUD was particularly interesting. The rest was content that was so-so.
Overall: 7.5/10
Most of the assessments aren't difficult in nature, just be good at essays and working in a team, turn up to lectures if you can (I didn't turn up to any after the 2nd week).
Mark: 68

 

[passionxmusic]

ANAT3004 - Cranial and Cervical Anatomy:|
Anatomy based on the head and neck of the human body. Fortunately you will not be touching much on the cerebrum itself (if you would like to study neuro anatomy it is best you take on a NEUR unit of study). This unit will require you to know in depth the blood supply/drainage, lymphatic supply and drainage and sensory innervation for most of the muscles and organs in the head and neck. You will also study the actions of the muscles of the head and neck. Overall, this is a unit that is well tailored to potential dentistry students. This unit also has a practical component and an applied anatomy session where you will study the MRIs of the head and neck. This unit has an advanced option where you will be able to partake in dissection opportunities. Extra material are online to help you. The tutors are also friendly and approachable.
(Ease: Theory - 5/10 ~ Practical - 5/10 | Lecturer: 7/10 | Interest: 7/10 | Overall: 6/10)

ANAT3008 - Musculoskeletal Anatomy:
This unit was interesting overall. It is pretty much an advanced version of ANAT2009 with focus on the neurovascular supply. This unit may prove to be a heavy burden on some students so it is best you read up on extra material to maximise marks in the final exam essay. Extra material and study tutorial videos are generally online.
(Ease: 7/10 | Lecturer: 10/10 | Interest: 9/10 | Overall: 8.5/10)

EMHU3001 - Electron Microscopy:
This unit will take up most of your time (study timetable at university). The classes are usually small (as seen in the past few years). You do not need in depth knowledge in physics, chemistry nor anatomy and histology for this unit as the content you are being taught will be done from scratch. This unit is easy to keep up with seeing a lot of information is available online.
(Ease: 6/10 | Lecturer: 7/10 | Interest: 5/10 | Overall: 6.5/10)

PHIL2642 - Critical Thinking:
Do not be fooled. This unit is NOT a bludge unit. Neither is it that philosophical as previous PHIL units either. It is a mixture of WRIT, English and PHIL. This unit is still however, quite easy if you are able to catch up with the content which can prove to be useful when writing future academic essays or reviewing them.
(Ease: 5/10 | Lecturer: 8/10 | Interest: 6/10 | Overall: 6.5/10)

 

[someth1ng]

Friend's reviews...

CHEM2912
Ease: 6
This rating is inflated by how easy I found the final exam to be. Content was definitely the hardest of any course I have done so far. I felt it was made harder due to the way it was taught and things could have been explained better. It was also hard to relate what you were learning in lectures to what was going to be tested. Labs were worse than first semester though my marks were a higher.
Lecturer: 6
12 pm stream lecturers were not good. I did not like any of them. I liked the 8 am lecturers much better.
Interest: 6
I gave a 6 since I feel if I actually put in effort to understand the content I would have enjoyed it more. Thermodynamics is definitely the least interesting. Solid state may have been better if it was taught better. At the end, the more complicated parts were a bit rushed. Coordination was the most interesting.
Overall: 6/10
A massive step down from first semester in terms of how enjoyable I found it and how the course was run. It was also a massive increase in difficulty which I wish I knew beforehand since I did not expect it. Really cannot recommend it unless you want to do 3rd year chemistry. Whilst I ended up with the same mark as last semester which I cannot explain and did not expect at all, I was cursing myself throughout the whole semester for doing this subject and could not bring myself to study for it at all.
Mark: 83

PCOL2012
Ease: 9
Much less content than PCOL2011 and easier. Concepts and terms are explained much better. PCOL2011 is not a prerequisite but helps a lot. If you don’t do PCOL2011 or BMED, I’d put ease at 7.
Lecturer: 7
Lots of different lectures. Jonathan Arnold was the best and most interesting. Tina Hinton was quite good. Brent McParland wasn’t as bad as last semester. Overall I was satisfied with all the lecturers.
Interest: 8
Content was more interesting than first semester. Best was recreational drugs, specifically cannabinoids. I found herbal medicines quite interesting too but I’m probably alone in that. Everyone found the rest of the 4th module dry. Still quite an interesting course on the whole.
Overall: 8/10
Much better course than PCOL2011. Even though most have done PCOL2011, you’re not thrown in the deep end like in PCOL2011. Workshops were also better structured and aided in learning. Dry labs were boring but useful if you pay attention (and stay awake). The rest of the course was organised poorly. Online quizzes were dodgy repeats of last year even though content was changed resulting in questions being removed after the quizzes were already open. Sample MCQ and SAQ for the final exam were largely out of the course and there were even a handful of questions in the final MCQ that I don’t believe were covered, either in PCOL2012 or in PCOL2 at all.However, this is still a great choice for medical science students looking for an elective in 2nd semester. Helps if you also do PHSI2006 due to cross-over in content. I’d recommend the combination of PHSI and PCOL in 2nd year since it’s easier to remember how drugs work if you understand the normal physiology, less to learn that way.
Mark: 86

PHSI2006
Ease: 7
Much less content than PHSI2005 but the IBLs are extremely time consuming, especially when you only have less group members than other groups. Just hope your group members don’t drop the subject or switch tutes. Concepts are even simpler than first semester and a lot of the lectures aren’t as content heavy. There’s also less lectures. Most of the marks for the IBL are free marks. Lab report isn’t that hard if you follow the marking guidelines they give you.
Lecturer: 8
Whilst Meloni Muir is definitely not a bad lecturer, it would help if she put less content in her lectures. Sharon Herkes was amazing and her lectures were really interactive. There was a huge amount of content but it both was taught and structured well. Whilst I really hated Rebecca Mason’s slides, she was a great lecturer who explained concepts very well. Phil Poronnik’s renal lectures were quite good. John Hearn needs to make what needs to be learnt more clear and was probably the worst of the bunch. A greater lecturer but I did not enjoy the way he set up his slides and made it hard to figure out what we needed to know. However I did enjoy listening to his lectures, but only online at 2x speed (which is the fastest the system allows, you cannot download lectures, 2.5x would’ve been preferable for him).
Interest: 9
I find physiology really interesting and I enjoyed learning the content. I’d give this a 10 if it wasn’t for the tedious IBLs.
Overall: 8/10
There is not as much content yet still I found the workload more overwhelming than first semester and many students referred to it as a 9 or 12 CP subject, mainly due to the IBLs. The subject requires application of knowledge, not just rote-learning so the final exam is quite difficult but only worth 37.5% (midsem = 12.5%, IBL = 20%, report = 15%, lab book and prepac sheets = 15%). I’d say out of all the 2nd year subjects I’ve done, PHSI is probably the hardest to obtain good marks in. It was the one I studied hardest for this semester and also my lowest mark. Whilst I’d recommend physiology because it’s quite interesting, do not do it as your bludge/easy subject like some people I know did. Only do it if you intend to major in physiology or want 2nd year physiology knowledge for whatever reason.
Mark: 80

WRIT1001
Ease: 10
Extremely easy if you’re coming from WRIT1000 but quite easy regardless. Great WAM booster but not as much as WRIT1000.
Lecturer: 6
Attended the first lecture, hated the lecturer and never turned up again. I listened to 2 lectures online and one lecturer was quite good, the other one appalling. I’d give an even lower rating if 4 lectures weren’t spent watching movies.
Interest: 4
Maybe I was sick of WRIT but I found it really dry, both the 3 lectures I listened and the tutes.
Overall: 7
I felt there was a fair bit of marking discrepancy between tutors and a friend in another tute was marked more fairly though I could be wrong. My tutor was definitely a harsher marker than the one I had in WRIT1000. If you have done WRIT1000, unless you somewhat enjoy writing essays, I’d recommend you do PHIL1012 or some other light subject since it’s largely the same thing. WRIT1001 is more useful and helps more if you want to improve essay writing in than WRIT1000.
Mark: 83

 

[Amleops]

So I notice the PDF compilation hasn't been touched in 5 years; here's a more updated one.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/us2da3p2ve4vz44/BOS Reviews.pdf?dl=0

 

[flashyGoldFish]

Awesome! Thank you. Can I make a big ask and ask that you include the year the reviews were made?

 

[Amleops]

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

I'll work on it, but it may take a while.......

I created the pdf. Still here.

I've fixed up the first post. You can access it here: http://boredofstudies.org/USYD Subject Reviews.pdf

I'll update it soon.

So it appears I misread Rafy's last post; he re-established the link in 2011, but the old document only had reviews up to 2008. So we're missing 2009, 2010 and most of 2011.

Watch this space haha.

 

[Amleops]

All done. Included dates, extra reviews and redid the formatting a little bit. The link I posted before should still work.

Merry Christmas everyone.

 

[flashyGoldFish]

I wanted to like it but I can't . Also feel bad that I was considering doing some reviews since i was bored haha

 

[Blue Suede]

All done. Included dates, extra reviews and redid the formatting a little bit. The link I posted before should still work.

Merry Christmas everyone.

You're fab!

 

[passionxmusic]

All done. Included dates, extra reviews and redid the formatting a little bit. The link I posted before should still work.

Merry Christmas everyone.

Thanks again, Amleops!!!

I really hope there will be more people out there who take up anatomy and histology as a major or as a secondary study kinda thing in the future. My reviews makes anatomy sound like a "what's this? a liver... what supplies it? a dual blood supply of the hepatic artery branch of the celiac artery blah blah blah" kind of unit. Anatomy and Histology is awesome, the lecturers are amazing and the tutors are approachable, friendly and they're always willing to crack the odd anatomy puns and jokes every now and then plus it is a great opportunity to talk to the current med students who just so happen to be the tutors and assistants.

 

[maro1]

The following subjects were taken in semester 2, 2014:

PSYC1002
Ease: 7/10
Not a difficult course but there's HEAPS of content to learn - 6 topics in total so make sure to stay on top of the work to reduce cramming for the final exam. Final exam is 100 MCQs but is not easy; lots of distractors and head banging but overall doable if you know your stuff. It's also easy to gain marks from research participation (5%) and the online quizzes which have unlimited attempts. But, the psychology report was a pain and struggle if you start it late, and it was hard to know what you had to do.

Interest: 10/10
I love learning about psychology! Except I’ve realised how much I hate psychology reports and essays…

Lecturers:
Prof Frans Verstraten: 6/10
I found that he had difficulty explaining concepts and struggled to articulate his thoughts (not sure if it's because English is not his first language). However, I found his topic - sensation and perception - to be the most interesting. I enjoyed learning about illusions. I didn't like studying for this though because his lecture notes were mostly images so it was difficult to understand when I missed a lecture.

Dr Caleb Owens: 7/10
Caleb always delivers his lectures with enthusiasm but I'm not into his style of teaching - it's as if he complicates the content imo, when in fact it isn’t really that difficult.

Dr Bruce Burns: 6/10
Found him to be the least engaging lecturer since he read off from his slides, so nothing was really gained from actually attending the lectures. It was also hard to hear him. Overall, I just didn't like his topic (intelligence) which required lots of memorising.

Dr Ben Colaguiri: 10/10
Probably my favourite lecturer of the entire course. He's very engaging and makes his lecture slides entertaining with lots of images and animations. Plus, he had a lot of funny stories which reinforced the content.

Dr Marianna Szabo: 7/10
Decent lecturer that adds onto her lecture notes with examples and stories, but she has quite a heavy accent.

Dr Marc De Rosnay: 10/10
Another really engaging lecturer who presents a thought provoking subject - emotion. He makes the content relatively easy to understand especially since it is primarily conceptual.


Overall: 9/10
Great subject to take as an elective and also very interesting with its broad topic areas.



CHEM1102:
Ease: 7/10
I found this course much better than CHEM1101 especially since the basics of reaction mechanisms have been covered in HSC Chem. The reaction mechanisms were hard i.e figuring out the reagents, starting materials and products.
But Piazza was a very helpful tool to utilise as well as the tutorials. it’s also easy to gain marks in the tutorial quizzes.

Interest: 6/10

Lecturers:
Prof Max Crossley: 7/10
Least engaging lecturer who was quite monotone and relatively hard to hear at most times - not really a problem since I sat towards the front. Sometimes he’d go off topic and talk about random stuff relating to chemistry or reminisce about the past which would be quite funny. However, he really knows his stuff which is shown by his many, many accolades and experience.


Prof Adam Bridgeman: 10/10
He is absolutely the best! He makes every lecture entertaining (his hands on demonstrations that are passed in every class) and easy to understand with his lecture worksheets. His use of lecture quizzes helped to further understand the content. He is also always willing to help students and he has extensive presence on Piazza.

Overall : 7/10
The content isn’t hard and there’s also lots of resources to help. It also helps to do this course alongside MBLG1XXX since the content coincides.

MBLG1001:

Ease : 5/10
MBLG…. Definitely the hardest first year course. There’s so much content to know and that practical exam was hell… The final exam wasn’t too bad overall but they had to include a practical component?!
This subject requires a lot of dedication and effort so don’t slack off.
Because of the difficulty of this course, there’s heaps of resources online for the practicals and theory work.

Interest : 8/10
I really liked learning about the central dogma and the applications of molecular biology (probably because those lecturers were the best). I did not like the first topic about the chemistry of DNA.

Lecturers :
Dr Dale Hancock: 8/10
Dale made her topic (chemistry of DNA) simple to understand with her supplementary lecture notes and she would bring in models to consolidate the content.


Prof Gareth Denyer: 9/10
Another top notch lecturer that presents with enthusiasm. His lecturing style is a bit unconventional in which he teaches through lecture quizzes rather than first teaching the content. But I found that to be refreshing.

Dr Danny Liu: 10/10
Danny is the best. His lecture slides were engaging; packed with animations and videos which were really helpful in trying to visualise the processes and applications. Along with Gareth Denyer, I really liked his use of socrative.

Dr Jenny Saleeba: 5/10
She basically read off her lecture slides in a monotone voice. I would have liked her topic, forensics, if it wasn’t for the ‘dull textbook style' type of presentation.
Also her lecture questions were easy and not as challenging compared to Gareth and Danny’s.



Overall : 6/10
This course will toughen you up and make you appreciate your other subjects. The subject is overall interesting and does teach you to be an independent and mature learner, as well as to think critically.


MATH1014:

Ease : 8/10
A very doable course that is straightforward and you instantly just ‘get’ it.
Although, the second half of the course got more harder and difficult to grasp.


Interest : 7/10
Probably my favourite math course. I really liked solving vector equations - it felt like second nature and I found it fun.

Lecturers :

Dr Brad Roberts: 8/10
Decent lecturer

Overall : 9/10
Not a hard course and I enjoyed it.


MATH1005:
*This is coming from a person who isn’t mathematically inclined*

Ease : 6/10
The lecturer made it seem more difficult than it actually was so props to my tutor for pulling the knots. The other lecturer, Dr Di Warren, had an amazing set of notes that simplified everything and she doodled things that would help us understand better.

Interest : 4/10

Lecturers :

Dr Nicola Armstrong: 4/10
Not a good lecturer tbh - she fails to explain properly so I had to resort to youtube and the other lecturer’s notes for help. In most of her lectures, I wasn’t even listening because it felt like she was going on and on. I did wish she would write on the projector more and actually go through the process of how to get to the solution. There was one lecture where Dr Di Warren filled in for Nicola and I must say, she was really good (10/10). I have never seen a really engaging math lecturer.


Overall : 5/10
I am not a math person so stats was a pain. If the lecturer was good enough to explain the content then I would have given this course a 7/10.

 

[Amleops]

If anyone else wants to add reviews I'll update the document. Still the same link as up thread.

Perhaps a mod can attach it to the first post?

 

[flashyGoldFish]

Various random ones

BIOL1003

Ease: 7/10.
I found it very easy to be motivated for this subject as the topic matter was broad and very interesting. This is a lot of content though and a few difficulut pathways that require close attention to do well

Lecturers
8/10

It was a while ago now so I cant remember lectures individually but overall they were very engaging.

Interest 9.5/10.
Was a space filler that I wasn't overly interested in to begin with but it was a very nice relaxing subject with some dull topic matters but overall surprisingly interesting.



HPSC2100

Ease: 8/10.
For me I found it fairly easy as long as you stayed up to date and tried to engage with the points the lecture makes and all his tangents. I know others battled with it. The assessment for the course is broken into lots and lots of little things where the best of a certain count. The quizzes were fairly straight forward if you engaged in everything. The essays were a bit difficult but again I found an effort to engage in the stimulus was rewarded. The questions were super annoying

Lecturer
Dr Ofer Gal 8/10

Sure hes crazy. Sure he'll scream at you if you're more than five minutes last. Sure he'll have crazy tangents. But the thing I like about him is he is so passionate about his topic matter and really wants everyone listening to have the same passion he does. This makes him very engaging and easy to listen to. His slides are normally all pictures and this works very well.

Interest 7/10.
Was a space filler that I wasn't overly interested in to begin with but it was a very nice relaxing subject with some dull topic matters but overall surprisingly interesting.

HPSC2101

Ease: 6.5/10.
This course's assessment is 3x1500 essays and 1 annotated bibliography of weekly readings up to 3 a week. You need to submit three questions with each reading as well as a very short summary of the text. This got very tedious fairly quickly. The essays are all on very challenging subject matter (although you were given a ridiculously large amount of questions meaning you could pick the ones that interested you the most). Theres very little help on the first essay and it can be fairly difficult to get the right amount of information in.

Lecturer
Dr Peter Farleigh 3/10

He's a lovely guy who really loves his topic matter but hes a very dull lecturer who has exceptionally text heavy slides that are just read off with the occasional tangent. It makes it very hard to concentrate.

Interest 2-7.5/10.
The course covers such a wide range of stuff that the interest level fluctuates massively throughout semester.

WRIT1001

Ease: 9.5/10.
Make sure you address every dot point on the requirements they give you for every assessment and you really cant do badly.

Lecturers
Various 2/10

I admittedly did not go to very many lectures and found them very boring. Tutorials were better and more engaging.

Interest 2/10.
It is student lead in the sense that you pick what you want to prepare and essay on and what your group wants to do your group presentation on but I was never really engaged with this course.

 

[gayforniall]

ANAT2009

Ease 7/10.
There are a lot of things to remember (obviously, it's anatomy) and you might be taken aback by the amount of detail you have to memorise for all the structures. I could never remember the different morphologies in the apes and fossil hominids compared to the human though. Final prac exam (worth 40%) was a bitch, but the theory exam (50%) was quite easy.

Lecturers
7/10

Richard Ward is a bit hit and miss for some people - some people love him, some people can't stand him. He's very funny, but his lectures are quite old fashioned (and by that, I mean he has no lecture sides). He uploads very detailed .pdf notes on Blackboard, but they can be quite overwhelming to read through. Definitely pay attention in lectures and take your own concise notes down.

Interest 10/10.
It's incredible how humans evolved so specifically to maximise our ability as bipeds, and especially to manipulate objects with our arms - this unit really opened my eyes to just how amazing evolution is. The pracs are a lot of fun, don't miss any or you'll be in trouble for the final prac exam.

Overall: 7/10

Mark: 71

ANAT2010

Ease 5/10.
SO MUCH CONTENT. The prac classes are a little bitchy, in that the lecture diagrams make everything look so demarcated, but in reality it's very hard to differentiate between different parts.

Lecturers
10/10
Karen is a goddess, she's so nice and friendly, and an excellent course co-ordinator. One of the best lecturers I've ever had, very clear and forward.

Interest 10/10.
The brain is a masterpiece, definitely take this opportunity to learn about it.

Overall: 8/10

Mark: 76

WRIT1001

Ease 10/10.
As long as you get your short writing tasks (worth 10% each) done throughout the semester, the final essay (worth 40%) is a breeze. Your mileage may vary for the group presentation - fingers crossed you get a good group and an even better topic. On the whole however, people really aren't lying when they say this is a WAM booster.

Lecturers
?/10
I only ever attended three lectures, and they were completely pointless. I didn't even bother reading the lecture notes. Arts lectures are weird...

Interest 1/10.
I honestly don't think I really got anything out of this unit at all, except a higher SCIWAM.

Overall: 7/10.

Mark: 92

 

[Amleops]

MATH1001 - Differential Calculus

Ease: 8/10
The final topic on Taylor Series can have some challenging questions at times, but on the whole, this unit isn't difficult at all. A lot of the stuff you learn is new, but it follows well from what you learn in high school, so you shouldn't have too many problems grasping the content. Assessment wise, there were 3 quizzes and 1 assignment (keep in mind that this was in Summer School, and this probably differs from how the course is run in the normal semester). The assignment wasn't too difficult, and the quizzes were pretty easy too, despite not being given any sample quizzes to study for. The final exam was relatively straightforward in comparison to previous years.
Lecturer: 8/10 (Joachim Worthington)
I can't really fault Joachim on too much; he lectured well, nothing too flashy but got the job done. He was a nice guy as well, willing to help you out if you had any individual problems, and his lectures had occasional moments of deadpan humour which I could appreciate. Only criticism I would make is that he went a little slow on the lecture material, and we were generally a topic behind at the end of each lecture. If you didn't read ahead then you may not have known how to do a few of the tutorial questions from time to time. This wasn't too much of an issue though, it just meant we didn't get to do any revision lectures at the end of the course.
Tutor: 6/10 (William Tong)
William was great when you needed individual help, he was good with all the course material and could answer any questions you gave him. His explanations and recaps of the content we learnt in lectures seemed a little rushed, and it wasn't for any reason in particular, I think it was just how he spoke. Fortunately for him, this subject was relatively easy, but I don't think I'd want him as a tutor for any of the units on the higher end of the difficulty scale. Overall though he was a nice guy and I definitely benefited from him.
Interest: 10/10
Well maths has always been interesting to me and this is no different. While I would say Linear Algebra was probably the more interesting unit out of the two, Differential Calculus is quite good in itself. The most important new topics you'll cover will be complex numbers (provided you haven't done 4U Maths in high school) and calculus of several variables, and you'll also have some time devoted to limits, Taylor polynomials/series, and gradient vectors/directional derivatives (which provides an interesting application of some of the content you learnt in MATH1002 to calculus). So, all very interesting, all very fun.
Overall: 9/10
A very good course, which is pretty much essential for any further study in mathematics. If you have the credentials, I would do MATH1901, but 1001 is good in its own right.


MATH1002 - Linear Algebra

Ease: 7/10
This unit is probably the hardest normal level mathematics unit you will do, as the content taught is completely new to most people and often relies on quite a few abstract ideas. That being said, it is not particularly difficult by any means, you just have to keep up with all the material and make sure you understand everything. What made the subject a lot easier, for those who had trouble with the material, was the introduction of worksheets for each of the different topics, which asked repetitive but essential questions that you would expect to be able to do. It was a good initiative, so I hope it continues for future classes. Assessment wise, we had one sample quiz which was pretty much an exact copy of the sample quiz we were given except with the numbers changed, which made that 15% of the mark quite easy to obtain. The assignment and final exam were probably a bit harder to make up for it, but again, it was doable.
Lecturer: 9/10 (Clinton Boys)
Clinton has just finished his Ph.D, and he has had a bit more experience lecturing then Joachim. He was a very engaging lecturer who taught the content as well as could be hoped. I'm also pretty sure he was the one who compiled the extra conceptual worksheets, which were great for nailing in harder concepts. If he stays at USYD, and is one of the lecturers for a unit you are doing, I would definitely recommend going to his lecture stream.
Tutor: 6/10 (Les Farnell)
Les was a really nice guy, and was able to help out a lot. When he forgot to bring along the answers, he'd sometimes have problems answering the higher end questions. He'd get there in the end, but it wasn't a good look. Still, did what he was supposed to do so can't really complain too much.
Interest: 10/10
The first half of the course is about vectors: basic operations, the cross and dot products, and applications to lines and planes. The second half is on linear systems, where you will look at solving systems, matrix operations, inverses, determinants and eigenvalues/eigenvectors. As I said, most of the material is completely new, hence it probably piqued my interest a little bit more than MATH1001. Clinton also went through quite a few real world applications during the lectures which was really good to see (so just keep in mind everything you learn does have a point. )
Overall: 9/10
A very good introduction to linear algebra, and it has definitely made me look forward to second year maths. There are aspects to the course that are more challenging than the other first year units, but if you do all your work you should be fine.

 

[plumerai]

ECON1001 - Introductory Microeconomics

Ease: 5/10
And I took economics in Year 11. Found it hard to work out when to apply which economic theories/formulas in different scenarios. I probably just didn't study enough.

Lecturer: 6/10 (Stephen Whelan)
Man, this guy takes a beating on USYD Rants, but for good reason. In an effort to encourage lecture attendance, he deliberately leaves out information on his lecture slides. Not helpful in that regard but clearly knows what he's talking about if you bother to go to the lectures.

Tutor: 9/10
Yeah... forgot this guy's name. But he was good. Young guy, explained stuff well. Drew little cartoons to help illustrate economic theories.

Overall: 5/10
I definitely regret taking ECON1001, especially as it's not even needed for my degree. Thought my high school classes would help me cruise through but I was only comfortable with the first few week's worth of content. Requires a certain amount of discipline.

INGS1001 - Power and Money in Global Society

Ease: 5/10
There's a massive reader of which you're meant to read 3 readings a week. Pretty much torture to get through. You need a very active interest in the topic and current affairs or you'll get called out for lack of participation.

Lecturer: 7/10 (John Brookfield)
I stopped going to lectures because I couldn't understand what John was saying. His voice is a sort of husky baritone that seems to actively inspire sleep. The lecture slides pretty much sum up the readings anyway.

Tutor: 8/10 (John Brookfield)
Again, I had trouble understanding John from time to time. He's a nice guy though and he encourages group discussion. Didn't really need to do much because most tutorials were taken up by either discussion or presentations.

Overall: 7/10
I think some of my classmates loved this topic because they actually had an interest in what was going on in the world and made a point of staying up-to-date. If you're not one of those people, you're not gonna get a lot out of this course.

 

[Amleops]

MATH2961 - Linear Mathematics and Vector Calculus (Advanced)

Ease: 7/10
This subject was a lot easier than what it could have been. If you were to go through the course reader, particularly for the linear algebra part of the course, you'd be forgiven for thinking a whole lot of pain would be coming your way. And indeed, the tutorial questions varied in difficulty and some required quite a bit of work. However, both of the quizzes were the same as the sample ones except with different numbers, the assignments were certainly doable, and the final exam was so similar to the 2013 one that I did a double take during the reading time. So for me this subject turned out to be relatively straightforward, but I guess it will depend on which lecturers you have.
Lecturers: 3.5/10 (Ruibin Zhang 2/10, Bob Howlett 5/10)
Maybe it's just me, but I have great difficulty interpreting thick Asian accents. In one of my first lectures with Ruibin, it took me a couple of seconds to realise that "foongsheh" means "function", by which time he had already finished the point he was trying to make, and I had totally missed everything else he had said. I gained nothing from his lectures, so I stopped going to them. Fortunately, he did have quite nicely organised lecture notes and set quite easy assessments. That's what the two marks were for, otherwise I would have gave him 0. I don't rate him as a lecturer at all.
I have mixed opinions on Bob Howlett. He's one of those lecturers whose lecturing style you are either going to really like, or really dislike. Unfortunately for me, I fell into the latter category. His scanned lecture notes were a bit too messy and wordy for me; I preferred just reading from the course reader. Plus it was difficult making out a lot of structure in his notes and lectures; he just moved on from one thing to the next. But while his lecture style didn't suit me, he was a nice enough guy and did explain things reasonably well, plus after 6 weeks with Ruibin he was a breath of fresh air.
Tutors: 6/10 (Chris Thornett 7/10 Bob Howlett 3/10)
I had Chris Thornett (a.k.a. Ned Kelly) for the vector calculus section in the first six weeks. He largely left us to our own devices and worked through some questions on the board that we were all having problems with, which in my opinion is the best way to structure the tutorials. Plus he was quite approachable and good with helping you out if you had any individual questions.
Bob took over once the linear algebra side started. At times it felt like the tutorial was a mini lecture, which I wasn’t particularly happy about, and like his lectures, he did go off on a few tangents. Additionally, the tutorial questions that he personally wrote were in my opinion not as good as the ones that have been used in previous years, and at times he used his own notation which was confusing when compared to what was in the course reader. He wasn’t the worst, but I would probably avoid having him as a tutor again.
Interest: 8/10
I really enjoyed the vector calculus part, it was a shame that Ruibin was the lecturer, but the subject itself was very interesting. It extends the calculus you learn from first year into higher dimensions, after which you are introduced to multiple integrals, integrals of lines and surfaces, and key theorems such as Greens and Stokes Theorems. There was a lot of computational stuff that I really liked, without being too simple. Linear algebra introduces concepts such as linear operators and bases, and extends a lot of the knowledge you got from MATH1002/1902. It was a bit abstract at times, but it wasn’t too bad.
Overall: 7/10
A good, interesting subject, but it would have benefited from better lecturers in my opinion. It's pretty much one of the fundamental courses for a mathematics major, so I would definitely encourage taking it, just be wary that it could be much harder in the future, depending on who is administering the course.


MATH2962 - Real and Complex Analysis (Advanced)

Ease: 2/10
Oh dear lord. I’m no slouch at mathematics, but I’ve got to say, this subject is hard. MATH2962 is one of the subjects, along with MATH2968, that is recommended for further study in pure advanced mathematics. It is very much proof based, and while computational aspects do occur, a lot of the emphasis in assessments and lectures is based on proofs, or the methods underlying the proofs. I found a lot of the proofs a bit abstract and complex, and I’m more of a computational type of person, so I had to work pretty hard to understand things. It’s not undoable, but you definitely have to put in a lot of effort in to do well in this unit.
Lecturer/Tutor: 8/10 (Florica Cirstea)
Florica was probably the best lecturer I had this semester. Despite the difficulty of a lot of the content, she managed to explain things really well. She certainly made it worthwhile coming to uni at 9am four mornings a week, instead of reading the course notes yourself. However, her assessments were quite difficult. Well, certain people might disagree, but they certainly are in comparison to previous years. Teaching of MATH2962 year to year alternates between Florica and Daniel Daners (in fact we were supposed to have Daners, but he went on sick leave so Florica took over at the last minute). And having had a look at the assessments that Daners has set over the years, they are much much easier than anything Florica sets. Given that, I think I would probably have preferred to have had Daners, seeing as in terms of lecturing quality they are both top notch.
Interest: 7/10
Putting it as simply as possible, analysis is everything that you've ever taken for granted in calculus being proved in a mathematically rigorous manner. This does give rise to computational aspects, such as finding various convergence properties of mathematical objects, or finding complex singularities, but like I said, it is very proof based. I did find a lot of the proofs interesting, and I certainly appreciated everything that it was setting out to achieve, but the difficulty got in the way sometimes. Maybe I just need to work harder!
Overall: 5/10
Definitely the hardest course I have completed at uni so far. While it is interesting, and pretty much necessary for people wanting to do honours or advanced maths, it’s not for the feint hearted. Proceed with extreme caution.


MATH2069/2969 - Discrete Mathematics and Graph Theory (Regular/Advanced)

Ease: 7/10
The discrete mathematics part of the course is a rehash and extension of what you learned in MATH1004. But if you haven't done MATH1004 then it's no problem; the content isn't particularly difficult anyway. Graph theory is totally new, but it’s not too bad if you can remember a lot of the theorems. The quizzes, shared between the two streams, were pretty easy. The only difference between the regular and the advanced stream is a 10% assignment and 2 out of the 6 questions in the final exam. I found the assignment a bit more difficult than usual, but my place in the cohort after that assignment was lower than what it normally is, so I don’t know, maybe it was just me. The exam questions weren’t too bad though; they were reasonably difficult, but not ridiculous.
Lecturer: 5/10 (Alexander Molev)
I didn’t think Alexander was particularly good, but he wasn’t particularly bad either. He got the job done. I’ll admit the lectures were at a bit of an inconvenient time for me, so I don’t really have too many lectures to go on. In fact I didn’t end up going to any of the graph theory lectures, so I’d be interested in how he might have taught that. But on the whole he definitely knows his stuff and explains things relatively well, so I wouldn’t be unhappy if I had him again.
Tutor: 1/10 (Natalie)
Pretty much all that she did was write the solutions up on the board, and since I already had the solutions anyway from previous years, tutorials didn't really serve much of a purpose to me. Her explanations were average at best, and it was very difficult to get what she was saying a lot of the time because other people in the class would be having really loud conversations, and she wouldn't make any effort to make them quiet (although I can’t really blame the talkers, the tutorials seemed a bit pointless anyway).
Interest: 8/10
I enjoyed MATH1004, so the discrete mathematics part was OK for me. It was a little tedious at times, seeing as I had done a lot of it before, but it was nothing too major. Graph theory, on the other hand, is unlike a lot of stuff that you have probably learnt before, and it was that that really got me interested in that section of the course. It would have been nice to have been taught about practical applications, seeing as graph theory is used a lot in computing, and we weren’t really given too many examples of that, but despite that I was quite happy with the content that was being taught.
Overall: 6/10
I probably would have done the normal stream if I had to go again, the differences between the two streams were minimal and I would have gotten a much better mark in normal. But the content and the subject itself was great, and most of the assessments were fair. Just avoid Natalie as a tutor if you can help it.


FRNC1601 - Junior French 1 Beginners

Ease: 5/10
Well, for me, 10/10, as I'm already semi-fluent in French and was only doing this subject as a WAM booster. However, if you have had no prior experience to French before, there are certainly some elements in this unit you might find difficult. The big focus, especially in the lectures, is grammar, and there are quite a few exceptions to the grammar rules that tripped a lot of people up. A lot of the vocabulary you teach yourself in your weekly homework, or you learn as it comes up in tutorials. That being said, it’s not too hard to get a decent mark, just don’t try and cruise through like I did (unless of course you are semi-fluent too).
Lecturer: N/A (Alice Caffarel-Cayron)
I didn't end up going to any lectures; I already knew the content and it conflicted with work anyway. From what I could gather from my classmates, Alice did fall a bit behind, and quite often our tutorial sessions were a little bit further ahead than she was. Not that that was much of a problem anyway; all the lecture notes are in your book so you should easily be able to read ahead.
Tutor: 8/10 (Miriam Thompson)
Don’t think I could have asked too much more from Miriam. She made it pretty clear what we had to study and what we had to do. I had heard bad things about the French department at USYD, namely the staff and how disengaged and rude they were, but I certainly didn’t find that to be the case with Miriam. I don’t know, my experience with the French department is quite limited.
Interest: 9/10
I enjoy learning languages; I teach myself a few in my spare time, and I’m going to be continuing with a Diploma of Language Studies from next year. With this unit, I went into it thinking I would be bored from a lot of the repetition of stuff that I already knew, but it actually wasn’t too bad. Often there were tiny little technical details that I wasn’t 100% sure about, and that kept me interested for the purposes of improving my French. The satisfaction of acing all of the assessments was enough to keep me going as well. The grammar tests weren’t too difficult, and the oral exam was acting out your own script, which was fun to plan for.
Overall: 9/10
If you are interested in French then this is a great subject to start off with. There is quite a bit of work involved, as it is with any language, but if you are willing to put in the effort this course is definitely worthwhile.