UNSW Subject Reviews. (6 Viewers)

[photastic]

Sounds like good news for me. Me likey.

Although ACTL1101 makes the subject feel breezy still dont underestimate it.

 

[Queenroot]

Oh wow. How long until you complete your degree?

I don't do engo haha, he has 1.5 yrs left

 

[Squar3root]

Are you thinking about progressing towards a thesis?

Believe it or not, that's also a requirement to complete the degree...

yeah (un)fortunately, UNSW wants to raise comptetent engineers in the workplace that can do their own investigating and apply theit skills which is good but to be weighted so heavily isn't a good thing because most people are asian and have poor English so they can't do it as well as someone who has english as first language

Oh wow. How long until you complete your degree?

at the very minimum another 1.5 more years if everything goes to plan but my plans never go to plan haha

 

[strawberrye]

yeah (un)fortunately, UNSW wants to raise comptetent engineers in the workplace that can do their own investigating and apply theit skills which is good but to be weighted so heavily isn't a good thing because most people are asian and have poor English so they can't do it as well as someone who has english as first language

at the very minimum another 1.5 more years if everything goes to plan but my plans never go to plan haha

Did you accelerate your degree by a full semester? Because isn't a usual engineering double degree 5 years at least?

 

[Squar3root]

Did you accelerate your degree by a full semester? Because isn't a usual engineering double degree 5 years at least?

I'm thinking at the moment to drop computer science because I am not really enjoying it so it would take my degree back down to 4 years but I've done some computer science subjects and failed some so i need to stay back for another semester anyway.

However it is possible to accelerate an engineering degree plus computer science or commerce down to 4.5 years by doing some stuff in the summer

 

[Squar3root]

Did you accelerate your degree by a full semester? Because isn't a usual engineering double degree 5 years at least?

I'm thinking at the moment to drop computer science because I am not really enjoying it so it would take my degree back down to 4 years but I've done some computer science subjects and failed some so i need to stay back for another semester anyway.

However it is possible to accelerate an engineering degree plus computer science or commerce down to 4.5 years by doing some stuff in the summer

 

[Mitsunami]

MECH3610 - Advanced Thermofluids

Ease: 7.5/10

Not a bad course per se, this expands on thermodynamics (MMAN2700), fluid mechanics (MMAN2600) and has some things about chemistry (not really hard, basic stoichimetry).

Content: 7/10

I can't really bring myself to like the topics which is ironic considering this is a core mechanics course. New topics include exergy analysis, shocks (alongside shocking questions what a spook) and psychometry (nothing to do with psychology sadly). I suppose the most interesting bit would be the chemical equation part for me.

Lecturers:

John Trollsen Olsen: 8/10

Here we have based Olsen. Simply put, he teaches well but dang if he ain't a bloody jerk back then in MMAN2700. I do not know what came to him but apparently he's always chill and cracking jokes with third year and above students, which is nice. Doesn't really stop the "oy shut up" moments he sometimes has, though. Did I tell you that he has a stylish looking jacket?

Tutor:

Did not really come, cannot comment here.

Overall: 8/10

Past papers are your best friend. Tutorial questions too. Actually, if you follow his notes you shouldn't really have any issues since I think he's quite lenient in question types.


BIOM9541 - Mechanics of the Human Body

Ease: 8/10

Decent course to do, practical aspects of the topic is quite interesting and the lecturer is good.

Content: 7/10

You learn about analyzing human gait, with its corresponding forces and moments in it. Think of it as a practical MMAN2300. The course also has a computing part, namely using a software called OpenSim to simulate a 3D skeleton with muscles to show how a person walks, which is pretty cool. Another fun part of the course is you get to go to NeuRA at the back of uni and do some practical experimental simulations by sticking reflective balls to capture a person's gait. We totally did not stick the balls in weird places, no we do not. Also no tutes.

The assignment involves an individual task and group report where the group report involves a proposal, presentation and final report for a topic you choose yourselves.

Lecturers:

Lauren Kark: 9/10

Nice lecturer, very helpful and her annotated notes are accompanied by a commentary video so you can revise in a better way (read: cram).

Matt Brodie (guest lecturer): 6/10

He's a nice guy but most of the time we don't know half of the things he's talking about - he admits that to himself as well. 8/10 nice guy but 5/10 teacher material. Swipe left.

Overall: 8/10

Revising and following the notes should pretty much guarantee a good understanding of the topic. All in all a good course to do which nicely follows to BIOM9551 focusing on the more rehab aspect of the things we learn here.


MMAN2100 - Engineering Innovation (I forgot the title)

Ease: 6-10/10

This depends on the team you have, your bullskills, your imagination and the topic you choose.

Content: 7/10

tl;dr Entrepreneurship 101.

On a more serious note you'll solve a project topic by creating a design concept and promoting it. You will have 3 design reports to do and a presentation as well as an optional patent application (I think we ran out of time so it became an optional task). The design reports correlate to the concept selection, design refinement and specifications of the product you're making. A thing to note is that you have to get a minimum of 8/10 in all the reports to proceed, and you only have 4 resubmissions for the whole semester so decide well which report to ace/bomb.

Lecturers:

Ang Liu: 7.5/10

Tries very hard to make the course interesting - you can see it in his mannerisms, which deserves respect. Sadly we're all here because we're lazy bums desperate for HDs to top up our marks - no hard feelings Ang.

Tutors: 9/10

Shawn and Monica are the tutors for our class. Basically the tutors give advice about what we're doing/should be doing in the design and report writing process. They're generally solid and gives good advice, pretty helpful.

Overall: 8/10

Not a bad course, should be fun to do with a solid team. Chose a gr8 team? Good! Pick a topic! Done? Perfect! Bulled your way through the reports? Nice! Presented stuff? Beautiful! And there's that, you passed the course.


MMAN3000: Engineering Design and Communication

Ease: lol/10

Oh wow...where do I begin with this.

Honestly, the only good thing in this course is the course outline. That's it.

Content: haha/10

A hodge-podge of badly executed lesson plans in clear display. It's ironic to see how the convenors failed to apply the skills we're supposed to learn here. PRetty much what squar3root said, everyone raged on the course but I doubt anything will change...

On a more serious note good skills to take home include flexible leading approaches, breaking down work into manageable sub-deliverables and solving relatively tricky case scenarios as well as a practice in writing your own thesis proposal for research. I just wish they didn't mess it up so badly and call it a compulsory course to do for your thesis...can't Mark make up something whitty and drive the course to a better direction? No tears, only silence now. At least we will be able to hold the annual 3k Roasting Day next year, so prepare your CATEI forms.

Lecturers:

Mark Whitty: 10/10

Can't he be the convenor instead? Gives helpful advice and tips for thesis preparations.

Corey Martin: wat/10

[REDACTED]

guest lecturer for engineering law: OBJECTION/10

[REDACTED]

Tutors: 10/10

I had Ashutosh as my tutor. We're basically just meeting up for the weekly top bants. Solid tutor, goes above and beyond to actually explain the topics discussed in a very easy to understand manner. Real effort made, props to Ash.

Overall: 3000/10

I agree to squar3root's post. Solid course will prepare my CATEI form again for next year's 3k Roasting Day.

 

[Squar3root]

Were you in the monday 2-4pm tutorial mitusnami? Word got around that there was one tutor that actually ignored the lecturers request for the power point slides and taught what he knew from his GSOE courses.

They somehow made it worse than it already was.

my advice would be to delay 3000 for as long as you can. Even try to do it as a coreq with thesis in hopes they eventually fix it

 

[Mitsunami]

Were you in the monday 2-4pm tutorial mitusnami? Word got around that there was one tutor that actually ignored the lecturers request for the power point slides and taught what he knew from his GSOE courses.

They somehow made it worse than it already was.

my advice would be to delay 3000 for as long as you can. Even try to do it as a coreq with thesis in hopes they eventually fix it

Hahaha I'm in the wednesday one, and yes that's my tutor. Actually learned something from him which is nice.

Yup, that's good advice for people who are going to do 3000 next year, as for me I'm just satisfied with passing all my other courses...

 

[Queenroot]

ANAT3131 - Anatomy of Head, Neck and Back:

Ease: 7/10

- Adaptive tutorials: Some of them count towards assessment. Pretty standard stuff, make sure you do it open book. Some technical glitches here and there that make you lose marks
- Discussion posts: This adds to your group project. But basically at least one member has to post an answer to Irena's clinical case study per week to not get penalised
- Group assignment: Pretty straightforward - allocate parts and put it together in a word doc. Standard stuff, make sure you covered everything in the marking criteria.
- lab quizzes: RIP, make sure you study in detail because it is timed and tricky.
- Spot tests: Again you need to know details, do not neglect the neurovasculature lab for the 1st spot test, it was the majority of the exam. The second one was just as difficult, strong emphasis on nerves.
- final exam: Uhhhhh study, know every nook and cranny because that's how hard MCQ's were. Draw a lot of cross sections, triangles of the neck, boundaries, fossa's etc, you will most likely get one of these as a written question. Other written questions include writing out basically the entire lab from a certain week, so learn everything in as much detail as you can. This exam was pretty time pressured.

Content: 8/10

The content starts off pretty dry but is interesting when you learn about the ear, nose, eyes etc. Who knew the head had so many tiny little muscles? Make sure you know them! As the labs go on the content gets much heavier, so keep up to date. There is a very strong emphasis on nerves in this subject, so make sure you know that the best. At first it will seem overwhelming with the amount of nerve stuff you have to know, but once you get it downpat it will be all g and you can concentrate on learning everything else.

Lecturers:

Irena 7/10 - she's good but hard to understand and always goes very fast
Nalini 9/10 - she goes through most things thoroughly and has good schematic diagrams that help you remember things
Priti 7/10 - a bit too slow for my liking, but her lecture notes are basically a textbook of diagrams so that helps


Tutor: 7/10

Priti again was more self-directed learning than teaching. I don't learn well that way when I first get introduced to a topic so it wasn't great for me.

 

[obliviousninja]

Audit

Ease (6/10):
- Quizzes: Pretty easy if you have the question bank; got snaked for two of the quizzes by a kunt.
- Assignment: Brutal. Just managed a pass. Had the lecturer as my tutor and he was a kunt.
- Final: Mediocre; questions were somewhat predictable, but nonetheless still difficult.
Content (7/10):
- Boring apart from the fraud, ethics, and some control content; still survivable
Lecturer (4/10):
- Yenah.
- Didn't go to any lectures.
Tutor (4/10):
- As above.

 

[WildCardXD]

Semester 2
ACCT2542

Ease: (8/10)
- quizes are good
- lecturer true/false questions hard.
- Finals should be easy if you study the questions from the Practice Sets and tutorial questions
Content: (7/10)
- At times the course is very dry especially the first 2 weeks and the last 2 weeks. Consolidation is the main topic in this course. You need to have solid foundation accounting skills. This course builds from Acct1b. Personally I find the consolidation part hard to understand at first but with more practice it becomes easier.
Lecturer:
Diane Mayorga (4/10): She makes me want to sleep in her lectures. However, she is good at explaining key accounting concepts. TBH im glad she didn't teach consolidation otherwise i would have failed this course.
Jeffrey Knapp (LIC): (9/10): His awesome, and explains the consolidation material pretty well. IMO i think he is the best accounting lecturer I have had in my accounting courses. He provides useful tips for finals and quizes. One downside is he tends to use irrelevant examples to explain concepts which may confuse you. Nevertheless he makes the course interesting.
Chuan Yu: (0/10): Thank god she only taught this course for 2 weeks otherwise the whole cohort would have failed. She is the worst lecturer ever. Her slides are just full of words, and I can't understand her at times due to her heavy accent.
Tutor:Tyler (7/10): Pretty decent. Knows his accounting material well. His marking is generous and provide useful resources for finals preparation. Tip: Recommend not to be team 1 if you are in his tutorial classes because during my presentation for DQ, he pretty much spoke everything and we didn't get to talk much. He tends to do that if there are topics that he thinks is important or difficult to understand for students. He also asks questions about the presentation. So having the accounting solutions manual for HW is not enough.
Overall: (8/10)
It was a good accounting course. Knapp was the real MVP. He made the course easy for us to understand but the true/false questions was the factor that differentiates between CR and HD students. Follow his lead and MAKE sure understand the practice sets and tutorial questions perfectly. IMO finals should be a breeze if u have done the practice sets. However the downside of this course was the compulsory attendance for lectures due to the random true/false test during the semester.

ECON1401
Ease: (7/10)
- very easy course about economic philosophers and economic theory. But the nature of the assessments task is why i give this course a 7/10.
- Lecture attendance was annoying and its compulsory, oral presentations was marked harsh esp. the first task. The bloody lecturer expects to have studio like film quality videos which is absolutely BS, and her marking for written 1 assignment was harsh as well. The course journal was bloody tiresome but rewarding if you do your readings each week and bs on other content. Depending on who you choose as a main focal economic thinkers, it makes the assignment from easy to hard.
- No finals for this course which is a bonus but the assignment 2 and course journal were due on the same day so its annoying and stessful af.
Content: (3/10)
- Didn't learn a single thing from this course apart from the economic thinkers I have researched for my assignments.
- It was a waste of time and money but its a compulsory course for all economic students.
Lecturer:
Gigi Foster (6/10): She is interesting and makes the lectures engaging but she marks the assignments extremely harsh.
Prasad (7/10): She is quite boring in the sense she doesn't seem motivated in her lectures. But she is a better marker hence I give her 7/10. She is in charge of the 2nd part of the assessments.
Tutor: Kai (8/10): The workshops were a waste of time, but you needed to attend for tutorial marks. He is very easy going, but the random checks for course journal were a pain in the arse.
Overall: (7/10)
Start your journals ASAP, and make sure u exceed the legibility and length criteria for this component as it will give u an HD. Tip. Write more than the recommeded amount of pages and you should get a D/HD e.g above 40 pages. As for ur selection of economic thinkers, make sure you pick the appropriate thinkers for the task.
This course is good for development in your analytical and communication skills.

TABL1710
Ease: 7/10
- This course is difficult in the sense there is a lot of memorisation.
- The tasks were decent.
- Make sure you attend all the lectures as it will save you in the finals.
Content: 7/10
- It is very heavy content based but the law cases were interesting and fun. Make sure you learn the key cases and have sufficient knowledge all topics, but contract law and tort law should be your biggest priority as it will be in the finals and assignments. IMO, you have to remember the promissory estoppel tests as this area seems to be a popular focus in exams and assignments. You should be able to survive this course if you pay attention to the cases. Never BS something you don't know in the finals as it will cause confusion to markers and they will penalise heavily for that mistake.
Lecturer: ?/10
I didn't go to all the lecturers but I recommend going to the last lecture as they help you for revision.
Tutor: Paddy Hannigan (9/10)
- Pretty decent tutor.
- Explains the law cases and legal principles extremely well
- Tutorial participation marks was extremely generous despite I have not spoken much in her tutorials.
- However she tends to pick on people to assess them whether they understand the material or not.
- She was resourceful in the sense she helped us prepared for finals exp. on contract law in relation to promissory estoppel.
Overall: (7/10)
- It was a good course but it can be deem as a semi-wam killer. The nature of this course makes the content very hard to learn and memorise. Personally, remember the key cases is all you need to survive in this course. I don't recommend any non-commerce students to participate this course but its an interesting course for legal knowledge.


PHYS1160
Ease: 9/10
- Excellent course for Wam booster and GEN-ED Course
- Assessment tasks were easy but they have have changed quite a lot from 2015 onwards.
- They have made the tasks and marking criteria a bit hard in a sense you can't simply google the answers.
- Finals were marked harshly in the sense there are multiple answers for the question. However if you select an incorrect answer for the multiple question, you end up with zero marks if you got the other options correct. So CHECK your work at all times.
- Activity questions should be a breeze if you collaborate with a group of people.
- Essay and Contributions components is where it hits people hard. You need to show the teaching assistant that you have put an effort. Make sure you comply with your tutor's request and their marking strategy. Make sure your posts doesn't look like a question-answer post. Make it more interactive by asking questions at the end of the post. Essays should be good if you have put in effort. I chose dark matter and energy which was medium-hard but rewarding for marks, but for others I can't comment on the difficulty
Content: (10/10)
- Its interesting that they have made this course more fun and engaging. They force you to learn the material or use the lecture material to help you do the activities.
- For me it was interesting to learn about astronomy but idk for others....
- It can be a struggle at times due to the contributions component.
Lecturer:
- There are no lecturers, because this couse is all about self-learning.
- You are essentially paying money to get a D/HD or wam booster.
- However the lecturers are very convenient and willing to help others for technical or learning issues.
Tutor:
- Tutors are different depending on the allocation of the groups.
- Some tutors are easy going and generous with their marking for essays and contributions while some are harsh.
- Ask your tutor for feedback or suggestions if you want to maximise your marks for the contributions component, as you will need to write at least 4 times throughout the semester
Overall: (10/10)
- Best subject and proven to be a WAM booster subject.
- Definitely helps students who are looking to transfer from faculty to next.
- However, for finals, its best if you can somehow get your hands on the testbank. Beware that some answers on testbank may be wrong. so be cautious and don't rely on them. check before you submit your test.
- It may be time-consuming but its worth the money if you put effort in it.
- Make sure you post your posts or question early to earn BONUS mark for your post

 

[WildCardXD]

SEMESTER 1

ACCT 2522

Ease: 6/10
- Pretty harsh in terms of marking.
- This course is different to financial accounting. No journal entries at all.
- Finals were horrendous, the bulk of the exam was the content that was not taught by tutors due to mid-terms in the semester.
- Mid-terms: The MC was easy but the writing components was marked hard af. You simply need to adapt the writing style as the lecturer. Any deviations will result in a loss of marks, so its utter BS.
- Depending on who you get as a tutor, it makes the course from easy - hard.
Content:
- The content is interesting especially the later topics.
- However it is content based and you need to memorise the theory well.
- This course requires exceptional analytical writing. You constantly have to search flaws in the model and explain why they are wrong, or why is this calculation wrong etc.
- As above FINALs were horrendous, not many people were able to complete it in time.
Lecturer:
Linda (7/10) (LIC)
- Exceptional teaching. Very engaging. Gives examples of poor and best student responses in relations to exam questions. Slight accent but understandable. Very enthusiastic and makes the course interesting.
- However, she set the finals pretty hard. It cannot be completed within 2 hrs plus the main focus on the exam was not taught by tutors due to mid-term clash.
- The mid-terms she set was reasonable but the marking criteria was rigorous.
Yee (6/10)
- Slightly difficult to understand due to her accent but her teaching was good. A bit boring at times in her lectures but she gives good examples to demonstrate a concept.
Nicole (9/10)
- The best lecturer out of the mix. She teaches extremely well and gives useful tips that will save you in the final exams. She makes the later topic easy to understand and she stresses the topics that will be examinable in the finals. Tip: She is a also a tutor and would recommend ppl to go to her tutorials as a lot of ppl seem to do well in her classes.
Tutor: Wasimi (0/10)
- Honestly, not worth describing, idk how he ended up a tutor. He can't teach for f... sakes. He relies on students to teach the content and his homework checks is utter bs. For HW checks he literally reads every single word of your response and asks you questions in order to make sure you understand the content to earn tutorial marks which was 5marks.
- Litterally should have moved to another tutorial, he made my time in accounting hell
Alice (7/10)
- Had her a substitute for 3 weeks.
- She was much better than our original tutor. She knows her accounting material well and often tells students what you should incorporate in your responses to make it better.

Overall:(5/10)
- This course would have been good if I had a better tutor but you should be able to survive if you learn the material well. A tip in this course is to practice your writing skills and give it to ur tutor for feedback as a majority of the questions in the finals were on discussion questions. Topics in the finals were ABC, TOC, Peformance management, Critical path analysis, and standard costing ( i think). It can also be seen as a wam-killer.

FINS1613

Ease: 8/10
- It was a decent course
- This course is calculation based course so you somewhat need to be decent in maths
- Its tad bit easier in S1 than S2 in terms of the assessments tasks.
Content: 7/10
- A bit boring at times and a struggle to learn the capital budgeting topic.
- The level of difficulty builds from 1 week the next so you can't slack off at all.
- Finals was somewhat alright but gets progressively harder towards the end.
Lecturer:
Sean Maloney (LIC) (7/10)
- Decent teaching, and sets the exams well. However for finals there were several mistakes on the paper which caused confusion among students.
- Very enthusiastic and explains the concepts well.
-Recommend to go to the online sessions for revision during the final week.
Robert Tumurakin (9/10)
- He taught the first 2 weeks but it was important for the rest of the course
- Good teaching and explains concepts carefully and makes the lecture engaging.
Tutor:William (8/10)
- He explains the concepts well and generous with tutorial participation marks.
- One downside is he reads off his prepared slides which may make his tuts boring.
- Willing to help students if they don't understand financial concepts and provide useful tips that will save u in the finals.
Overall: (7/10)
- It was a pleasant experience.
- Make sure you excell in the tutorial participation and HW quizes.
- As for you quizes, you need to be able to do well to ensure u attain a D/HD at the end of this course. Quiz 1 was easy its all about basic financial maths but Quiz 2 was hard.
- I don't think there was much scaling in this subject.

INFS1602

Ease: (6/10)
- Very heavy content based and its a pain to memorise the content.
- Stay away unless you plan on to do CPA/CA courses.
- Not worth purchasing the textbook and its was useless
- Ridiculous amounts of effort assignments that was worth 15% and marked harshly.
Content: (5/10)
- It was boring and painful.
- It sorta like business studies but from a technical perspective.
Lecturer: Eric (6/10)
- Interesting and very enthusiastic about technology.
- Downside is his slides are pictures with minimal text so it was hard to learn. Nevertheless focus on the lecture slides for finals as the bulk of the finals was derived from there.
Tutor: Seiya (8/10)
- He explains the key concepts well and gives useful advice on how to answer discussion questions.
- Very generous towards tutorial participation and encourages students to contribute to maximise their tut marks.
- In addition, apart from teaching, he help students on how to find a job or how to prepare for job interview.
- Downside in his tuts was at times, it seemed that he wasting time and ended the workshops early.

Overall: (6/10)
- It was an alright course but it was very boring at times due to the nature of assessment tasks and the topics.
- You have to put a lot of effort to get a good mark. BS alone won't help you if you don't know the content well enough.
- I think this course scales down

ECON2101

Ease: 3/10 for first 6 weeks 7/10 last 7 weeks
- This course is very mathematical based esp. algebra techniques, so you need to be comfortable with those elements before taking this course.
- Content is different to ECON1101, its new and difficult and concepts not easy to grasp at first. In terms of maths content, it builds from ECON1202.
- First 6 weeks will be hard due to the assessment tasks and new way of learning economic concepts.
- Last 7 weeks should be alright as the lecturer makes the course slightly better to understand.
Content: (4/10)
- Its pretty difficult and a drastic change from 2015.
- The assessment tasks were painful and horrendous.
- Mid-terms were difficult and the homework questions was hard.
- Towards the end the topics become easier, game theory etc, and they were interesting.
Lecturer:
Keichi (3/10)
- Don't bother going to his lectures. Makes the course extremely difficult to learn. The assessment tasks were all over the place, in the sense the lecture material doesn't align with the homework material.
- Wats worse the assignments were hard and the marking criteria was harsh.
- For mid terms, you either do well or poorly in this component depending on your marks in Assignment A. If you knew how to do assignment A, you would ace this exam, vice versa. However their marking criteria was ridiculous in the sense u don't know wat to do to obtain all the marks. E.g. 15 marks for drawing lines and shading, but u also need to work out the intercepts and intersection points, etc.
JC (8/10)
- Due to numerous complaints about this course, he somewhat made the assessments a bit easier.
- Good teaching but the material gradually become difficult to understand. GO to consultation time if you don't understand as he explains the concept perfectly.
- He set the finals and it was pretty easy. Just learn the content from lecture slides and assignment B questions.
- Very cooperative and resolves student's issues in an efficient manner.
Tutor:
- Some Indian Teacher forgot his name (7/10)
- He makes the content easier and somewhat gives us alternative methods to approach the homework questions.
- Very easy going to the extent where student arrive more than 25 mins late and he still signs them off for attendance.
- Provides useful tips for finals but he can be harsh marker.

Overall: (7/10)
- Personally i think JC saved this course as many students dropped out and filed complaints in regards to Keichi's teaching and assessment structure. The textbook was important and useful to explain the concepts so its recommended for students to purchase this book if you plan on to do this course.
- You should be doing well in finals as it was mainly on the 2nd half of the semester.
- If you read the lecture slides and a collaborate with ppl for assignments u will do fine in this course.

 

[leehuan]

Jeffrey Knapp (LIC): (9/10): His awesome, and explains the consolidation material pretty well. IMO i think he is the best accounting lecturer I have had in my accounting courses. He provides useful tips for finals and quizes. One downside is he tends to use irrelevant examples to explain concepts which may confuse you. Nevertheless he makes the course interesting.

Legit? Cause whilst he wasn't boring to the fullest in accounting 1A he was honestly the slowest and most repetitive lecturer I had; staying awake was not an easy thing. Don't recall tips either.

Unless he was just more suitable for this course

 

[WildCardXD]

Legit? Cause whilst he wasn't boring to the fullest in accounting 1A he was honestly the slowest and most repetitive lecturer I had; staying awake was not an easy thing. Don't recall tips either.

Unless he was just more suitable for this course

He was boring and slow in 1A but I think he is more suited to teach acct2542 course.
He is the least boring out of the mix. LOL

 

[hup]

MATH3121 PDEs

Ease: 4/10
Some topics seem relatively straightforward and methodical but it's hard to do it in the exam. Small mistakes were heavily penalised

Content: 7/10
As you would expect, standard PDEs

Lecturers: 3/10

QT Le Gia: Forces you to attend all classes and write everything down; lecture slides were fairly useless, writes everything on the board. Isn't very good at explaining things, often justifies things on the lines of "I don't know why, it's just the method, remember it"

Overall: 5/10

lol I did this course and had the complete opposite experience.

MATH3121 PDEs

Ease: I couldn't say

Content: 9/10
Very interesting, especially the fourier/laplace transform stuff

Lecturers: 9/10

I thought QT Le Gia was very good at explaining things on the board and tried to encourage participation from the class. Sometimes makes algebra mistakes when writing out stuff but this is hardly an issue. Also went to him for consultation on some difficult assignment problem and he was quite helpful. There were 2 lectures a week (1x 2hr and 1x 1hr) and he didn't force anyone to attend; in fact I skipped the 1hr one every week. The slides were solid, with multiple examples and almost all had solutions.


Overall: 9/10

 

[987245]

lol I did this course and had the complete opposite experience.

MATH3121 PDEs

Ease: I couldn't say

Content: 9/10
Very interesting, especially the fourier/laplace transform stuff

Lecturers: 9/10

I thought QT Le Gia was very good at explaining things on the board and tried to encourage participation from the class. Sometimes makes algebra mistakes when writing out stuff but this is hardly an issue. Also went to him for consultation on some difficult assignment problem and he was quite helpful. There were 2 lectures a week (1x 2hr and 1x 1hr) and he didn't force anyone to attend; in fact I skipped the 1hr one every week. The slides were solid, with multiple examples and almost all had solutions.


Overall: 9/10

That's pretty interesting. I'm looking at the slides now and they are really full of questions with no solutions; solution only provided if you attend the lecture and spend the whole time copying off the board. I missed many lectures and found those topics difficult due to not having those solutions. The tutorials only have 1 line final answers which are of no help in learning the method unless you already mostly know and just check your final answer. The moodle wiki thing didn't have much work on it iirc, but was useful where it was actually done. If you did it in a later semester than me maybe he improved his materials.
As you said he sometimes made algebra mistakes which are no issue -- but when I did the same thing in the exam he was very harsh about it. I didn't want to mention this because he'll read this and perhaps know who I am, but I actually spoke to him and could demonstrate that I used a completely correct method for one of the exam questions yet made 1 tiny algebra mistake, and he said "it doesn't matter, you didn't get the right answer' and gave me almost 0 for it, a question worth something like 12.5% of the exam, and similarly for another long question. In other courses I would have received almost full marks for the same work.

 

[nightweaver066]

ACTL4002
Ease: 4/10. It is not easy tying everything in your undergrad together and applying it to real life scenarios. This course and the previous really forces you to think widely.
Content: 7/10. Somewhat interesting, mostly important where relevance is somewhat related to what path you want to go down in your career. I found that the content is really only a third of the picture, and your ability to tie things together is what is important.
Lecturer: 9/10. Asher is a great lecturer. Very engaging, interesting stories, and seems like an expert across everything possibly actuarial related. He really tries to bring out the best in the students.
Overall: 6/10. A difficult course if you lack the industry experience which would kick start your holistic thinking skills.

ACTL4303
Ease: 7/10. A lot of content, but perhaps a quarter of it is revision from previous actuarial / finance courses.
Content: 7/10. A bit dry at times, but very interesting in others. Basically a crash course covering 3-4 finance courses from what I've heard.
Lecturer: 10/10. Vaughan is an expert. Having huge experience in the investments industry, he gives really interesting and relevant insights into various aspects of the course and ties most things to real life phenomena.
Overall: 8/10. Midsem & final are not bad if you prepare well.

MATH3311
Ease: 9/10. Probably the least time I've spent on a course. All assessment tasks leading up to the finals are straightforward. Things seem rough for the first 5 weeks or so, and from there, although the overall feel of the content seems to be harder, it is actually easier. Lab test & finals are basically past papers.
Content: 6/10. Didn't find the content overall that engaging. Probably half the content were already concepts that I had learnt in previous actuarial/maths courses which probably contributed to this.
Lecturer: Can't comment on this.

MATH3841
Ease: 6/10. Concepts can be tricky. Knowing the basics will help immensely. Assignments & half yearly are not bad. To be ready for the final, be sure to actually learn everything, and not just what the lecturer focused on.
Content: 8/10. Interesting concepts, definitely felt like what I'm learning was very relevant to the course name.
Lecturer: 5/10. Not too engaging, could be more prepared.
Overall: 6/10. Not a difficult course if you have solid foundations and take the time to grasp the concepts and the funky notation at times. Required content to know can be deceiving at times, but be sure to know everything for the final.

 

[4025808]

That's pretty interesting. I'm looking at the slides now and they are really full of questions with no solutions; solution only provided if you attend the lecture and spend the whole time copying off the board. I missed many lectures and found those topics difficult due to not having those solutions. The tutorials only have 1 line final answers which are of no help in learning the method unless you already mostly know and just check your final answer. The moodle wiki thing didn't have much work on it iirc, but was useful where it was actually done. If you did it in a later semester than me maybe he improved his materials.
As you said he sometimes made algebra mistakes which are no issue -- but when I did the same thing in the exam he was very harsh about it. I didn't want to mention this because he'll read this and perhaps know who I am, but I actually spoke to him and could demonstrate that I used a completely correct method for one of the exam questions yet made 1 tiny algebra mistake, and he said "it doesn't matter, you didn't get the right answer' and gave me almost 0 for it, a question worth something like 12.5% of the exam, and similarly for another long question. In other courses I would have received almost full marks for the same work.

Okay I can confirm that people got no carry on error marks in the midsem exam. That's personally pretty harsh imo.

 

[Drsoccerball]

SCIF1131

Ease: 10/10. You literally need to do nothing but attend and a few group assignments.

Content: 1/10 Learn absolutely nothing but have to attend all the time.

Lecturer: 7/10 boring

Overall: 7/10 Easy marks gg