UNSW Subject Reviews. (2 Viewers)

D94

New Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2011
Messages
4,423
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
Oh in some of them you have the option of choosing more than one answer. So if you miss one of them but have correctly selected other ones you still get zero.
That probably happened to me, too long ago to remember though. Still got 18/20 so at the time, my only gripe was how long it took researching answers. They were tough questions (which I guess is fair enough).
 

obliviousninja

(╯°□°)╯━︵ ┻━┻ - - - -
Joined
Apr 7, 2012
Messages
6,624
Location
Sydney Girls
Gender
Female
HSC
2013
Uni Grad
2017

PATH2201 - Processes in Disease:


Ease: 7.5/10

- Tutorial quizzes: Tough. Need to have studied thoroughly and know the details. MC uses the "Choose the most correct answer" format. Luckily you get to do it individually then as a group and the score is average. So make sure you study, don't let your team down.
- Media Assignment: This took me around 3 weeks to do. Be very detailed, and follow the marking criteria very closely and you should be fine. Some of the marks taken off were stupid. When you state your research question, make sure you put a question mark at the end of it, otherwise you'll get 0/5 for that section.
- E-portfolio: This was easy to do, but a little annoying and quite repetitive. Basically you submit reflections throughout the course on the material, assessments and the future etc.
- Online formative assessment: Easiest assessment. Untimed, unlimited attempts until the due date. If you don't get full marks for this then I pity you.
- final exam: 20 (very tough) MC and 4 short answers. I thought it was a fair exam even though I know I screwed up. Some of the questions are like "state the risk factors of this disease - 10 marks" and you run out of things to write. So I wasn't sure how detailed they wanted the answers to be. Most of your marks would be coming from the writing part so make sure you study each topic in detail and sequence (Epidemiology/Risk factors, Aetiology, Pathogenesis, Clinical Manifestations, Microscopic/Macroscopic pathology and Complications).

Content: 10/10

Very interesting.

At first when you start the course you'll be like OMG there's so much to know, but eventually you will get used to it. Just study consistently throughout the semester (you're going to have a bad time if you leave everything till last minute) and you should do pretty well. It's a good idea to have biochemistry or microbiology under your belt before you do this subject, because I didn't and struggled with some of the concepts. It's not necessary but it will help. Overall just study each disease/topic systematically taking into account - Epidemiology/Risk factors, Aetiology, Pathogenesis, Clinical Manifestations, Microscopic/Macroscopic pathology and Complications.

Lecturers:

Velan - 9/10

So many terrible and funny puns. Alright lecturer, keeps you entertained. However goes very quickly through the lecture.

Tedla - 9/10

Funny and has an adorable accent. Lets you bludge a bit by telling you "don't need to know this unless you're a freak".

Kumar - 10/10

Sounds like Stewie from Family Guy. Will keep you at the edge of your seat through some serious David Attenborough narration of the lecture. An extremely wise and well learned academic. Don't skip his lectures!

Polly - 6/10

She knows what she's doing. She teaches well, however she will set off a spell and send you to sleep.

Tutors:

Stephanie - 9/10

Had her for my tute and she's an intelligent girl. Likes to pick on people so come prepared.

Betty Kan - 8/10

Had her for my Histopath lab and some lectures. She's intelligent and a well learned academic but she was SO SLOW. Needs to pick up a pace a little bit and it would be fine.

Verma - 7/10

Had her for my Museum specimens. She likes to test people so come prepared. She is alright.
MMAN2300 - Engineering Mechanics 2

Ease: 2/10

Rip for most students because this is a huge step up from 1300. You jump straight into the deep end of the more advanced concepts from that course but it is alright if you can keep up

Content: 5/10

read 5 posts ago

Pretty boring but straight forward, topics are split up quite distinctively

Lectures
I didn't go to any lectures but I watched them online

the asian one: 3/10 difficult to understand, rushed working

the white one: 3/10 just read of lecture slides didn't do many examples didn't finish the course

Tutors
Oak and the white guy: 8/10

pretty good they rushed their work sometimes and was difficult to keep up but answered questions well and explained things good

Overall
pretty good course that is why I am going to do it again next year
Tldr
 

Notsuree

Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2015
Messages
43
Location
Sydney, Australia
Gender
Male
HSC
2012
Uni Grad
2016
FINS3630

Ease: 7.5/10 - Quite an easy course; most concepts, such as duration and immunisation, have been introduced in earlier Finance courses.

Content: 6.5/10 - The first half of the course is exceptionally boring, while the second half is fairly decent as the content is more concept based and largely involves calculations.

Lecturers: N/A - Didn't attend any lecturers, however the first guy had very comprehensive lecture notes while the second person was fairly useless. His lecture notes was too brief and the final exam had several (inexcusable) errors.

Tutor: 9.5/10 - Had Henry; was extremely good. He acknowledged that very few actually attended the lectures, and hence spent a good portion of the tutorials reviewing the week's key concepts. He also created his own tutorial slides, which were made available to all his students.

Overall: 7.5/10 - I would recommend this course on the basis that it is, in effect, a wam booster. However, if you are seeking to learn something (that is not taught in 2624/3616), there are certainly better courses to take.
 

Notsuree

Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2015
Messages
43
Location
Sydney, Australia
Gender
Male
HSC
2012
Uni Grad
2016
ECON2101

Ease: 8.5/10 - I personally found this course fairly simple. Some of the concepts can be moderately difficult, but both the mid-sem and final are problem based, meaning that having a thorough understanding of the concepts is not necessary.

Content: 7/10 - There's quite a bit of content, but fortunately it's moderately simple and interesting.

Lecturer: Hodaka M - Really good lecturer; explained concepts thoroughly and never went too fast. The only negative was that his lecture slides lacked detail, which made attending the lectures essential.

Tutor: 8/10 - Sasha B - Solid tutor, knew her shit.

Overall: 8/10 - I enjoyed this course ... not sure how practical the course is, but easy marks.
 

sirable1

Active Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2012
Messages
709
Location
Sydney, Australia
Gender
Male
HSC
2012
Uni Grad
2016
COMP1917: Computing 1

Ease: 3/10 – This is not an easy course, goes over material fairly quickly.
Content: 8/10 - Topics I liked were binary search trees and sorting. Most difficult were undoubtedly linked list I found.
Lecturer: 9.5/10 - Alan Blair. I’ll admit that he’s funny definitely in good and fun ways. The time when I showed him my unintelligible code and replies “what is this man?” while giggling – made me laugh too. People who had Alan in the past, I'm sure you can picture this. :haha: Interesting, I was really surprised that he has a Mathematics degree at a doctoral level from MIT!
Tutor: 9/10 – David. I liked him as our tutor, kept it really casual as possible (he’s still an undergraduate).
Overall: Solid course.
COMP1917 in semester 2 is better, purely my opinion because the course is actually taught in person by a lecturer in the school, rather than having to watch videos in the lecture theatre that was taught years ago. Another reason is that we don’t have to do any non-sense assignment tasks. Alan Blair the lecturer was a great guy as well.
Assignments we had were quite difficult, especially the second one where we’re meant to compute quad trees using various types of data structures. Prac exams were okay. Weekly lab tasks + presentation were easy marks, but just make sure that you submit it within a week. It occurred to me a couple of times where I totally forgotten about the labs, missed about 2 – 3 labs altogether? Another note is that people in CSE, both students and academics are really great people. One time I was in the CSE labs and raised my hand to a higher year student who I mistakenly thought was a consultation tutor, happily helped me anyways – was definitely a good feeling.

MATH1231: Mathematics 1B

Ease: 7/10 - Better experience than MATH1131. The Calculus part of the course is more algorithmic way of solving the problems, whereas the Algebra part focuses more on proving theorems.
Content: 8/10 (Calculus), 6/10 (Linear Algebra) - Integration, Differential Equations, Eigenvectors/Eigenvalues, and Probability/ Statistics were good topics . All other topics were mediocre, like Linear Transformations and Vector Spaces.
Lecturers: 7/10 - Chris Tisdell (Calculus): He was much better and classes were more fun in the past.
10/10 Peter Brown (Calculus, Final Lecture): Peter Brown took the final lecture of Calculus and he was great (like always).
8/10 - Daniel Chan (Algebra): Great, fast speaker and reiterate topics in a good manner. However, I think sometimes he’s a little bit too technical with some of the topics for a course like this.
Tutors: 8/10 - Geoff (Calculus): He’s alright.
5/10 - Forgot name (Algebra): Writes all over the board which makes it very confusing to follow.
Overall: 8/10 I liked MATH1231 than MATH1131, I just found it easier to follow. Maple Lab Test was easy marks, you can literally study the syntax the day before and score full marks in. Do the problem sets and you should have no problem with the class test. Practice as many past papers as you can (you know the drill). The final exam was probably one of the easiest out of all past papers, EXCEPT probability and statistics – which I found was the hardest throughout the past papers, but for other topics, its was doable.


PSYC1011: Psychology 1B

Ease and Content: 8/10. Favourite lectures were Abnormal and Perception psychology. The Animal Learning lectures were quite easy to follow if you know most conditioning topics (if you did Psych 1A in first semester). Memory and cognition was alright. Least favourite were psychobiology.
Lecturers: All lecturers were good, especially Dr Thomas Whitford – the most articulate lecturer I had so far at uni, and easily one of the best. Rick Richardson was good as well.
Tutor: 9/10 – Antonio. Good also, likes how he changes his outfit every week.
Overall 8/10: SONA research participation /SSP points were essentially free points. Also, make sure if you have the opportunity, you should complete the extra 4.5% points with 4 extra hours of the 4% and complete at least 3 hours before Week 7 – easy, did all it before Week 2 to get things done and over with. It was not the same story for the research report though, I was 11 days late and lost 22% (deduction of 2% each day - which wasn’t so bad compared to other schools and departments). For the mid-semester exam, you don’t have to read the assigned textbook to pass the exam, you just had to know the lecture material – in the past you had to, and this is the first time they made that change. The presentation was ok, but our group was lazy and lacked a proper communication medium (i.e. one did not have Facebook), so it became very confusing, and we all decided to do most of the work the day before. We got a credit for that task, so it wasn’t so bad.
Overall, it was great course.
 

fizzbylightning

Active Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2011
Messages
367
Location
Sydney
Gender
Female
HSC
2012
Uni Grad
2020
ANAT3121: Visceral Anatomy
Ease: 6/10. This is a very content-heavy subject. There is a lot of information you have to absorb in a short period of time. Two lectures followed immediately by two labs are scheduled for each week. It's best for you to pre-read the labs ahead of each lecture/lab so you have some idea as to what is going on so you don't completely waste lab time. So so important to review the two lectures/labs at the end of each week otherwise be prepared for a majorly painful cramming session come final exams. The assessment format consists of 2 x 20% spot tests, a 10% MCQ clinical case test and a 50% final.
Content: 8/10. If you are an anatomy major and you don't do this subject, there will be a big hole in your learning. There are clinical case studies attached to the back of most labs which is good to consolidate what you've learned so that it doesn't feel like you are entirely rote-learning but rather getting a small insight into common presentations in hospitals. You learn about the organs quite systematically and the autonomic nervous and lymphatic systems appear in each lab so it's important to understand how those systems function early on.
Lecturer: 10/10. You get Dr. Pandey for all of your lectures and she's the best. Her style of teaching is to give you all the resources she has at her disposal so expect to be taken aback by how many lecture slides there are and how quickly she flies through them. There are a lot of diagrams on the slides and you won't be familiar with a lot of the labels at the start of the semester (don't worry about learning these as you'll cover them with time) but by the end, you'll be able to identify everything. There are a couple of trouble-shooting lectures for reviewing information where you can email her questions, though you can always email or talk to her regardless.
Tutor: 10/10. I was lucky enough to get Dr. Pandey. Self-directed learning as I said but I feel that by third year, you should be taking the initiative to direct your own learning, if you have the motivation and drive.

ANAT3131: Functional Anatomy of the Head, Neck and Back
Ease: 8/10. Just study for it like any other anatomy course and you'll be fine. There are 2 spot tests of 18-19% each, quizzes you take at the start of each lab, adaptive tutorials, and a 45% final exam.
Content: 8/10. I enjoyed the content more than I did for its counterpart, Functional Anatomy of the Limbs. If you did Neuroanatomy the semester before, you go into further detail on the cranial nerves (which you probably felt like you were memorising in Neuroanat in terms of the nuclei and innervation). Cranial nerves is a recurring topic throughout the semester as you explore different regions of the head and neck.
Lecturers: Irina (9/10) takes most of the lectures while Nalini (8/10) and Dr. Pandey (10/10) take a couple.
Tutor: 9/10. I had Irina for all my labs which I was happy about. She did a very good job at organising the course, with the variety of assessments held throughout the semester to encourage us to revise and always gave us thorough feedback on how we were doing. She's always open to hearing your ideas on how she can teach better so she can tweak and improve things as the semester goes by.

PATH3207: Musculoskeletal Diseases
Ease: 7/10. At first when you look at the course outline, the lecture titles seem quite random. You have things that seem to belong in the realm of musculoskeletal disease, but then you have these random topics in between. The hard part about this subject is filling in the gaps. The lecture slides provided can at times be quite sparse and you get the feeling like you aren't getting the full picture that you need in order to be confident in your understanding of the content. In comes your best friend, Robbins. Borrow it, buy it (it's well worth investing in), do whatever you can to get your hands on it. Do the readings, even if people say they aren't testable. Things make so much more sense when you fill in those gaps. So do the work behind the scenes at the end of each week and it will pay off. Tutorial quizzes (10%) were at times difficult (the format is similar to that of PATH2201). The evidence based symposium (15%) was a bit of a hit and miss, it really depended on what topic/question your group got and group work is as we all know gross. The mid-semester exam is only 10% but try to do well regardless - your results will be a good indicator as to whether you are studying or not. There's a 20% practical exam at the end of semester so don't neglect labs and turn up to them and focus. The final exam is 45% and consists of only two written response questions and MCQs.
Content: 9/10. If you're not interested in clinical medicine, this might not be the best subject for you. This is precisely why I enjoyed this subject; Nico made it relevant all the time just cos he couldn't help it and for me, it feels a bit of a bore when lecturers don't make clinical correlations and applications to the real world, however you want to call it. My favourite lectures were head injury and intracranial haemorrhage and arthritis and gout. You get some really interesting speakers come in for those seemingly random lectures I mentioned earlier, like a forensic pathologist (so cool!)
Lecturers: So many lecturers. I will mention the notable ones. Nicodemus Tedla (10/10) because I have a soft spot for him, he is funny and energetic and interacts with students in lectures and labs. Mark Dziegielewski takes the bone tumour and head injury lectures (10/10) - I enjoyed his lectures because he'd ask questions on the side just out of interest to see whether we'd know them. As an anatomy major studying a pathology subject, who has also studied a bit of immunology, it was nice to see that I could answer these questions and bring in knowledge from another areas - this is what medicine is about, integrating everything. I like pathology because it has everything - anatomy, physiology, pharmacology, etc. and tests your knowledge
Tutor: 10/10. Steph Isaac is encouraging and very knowledgeable.

BIOM1010: Engineering in Medicine and Biology
Ease: 7/10. The first topic (mechanics and the human body) was a cakewalk for me as it was basically a simplified version of what I've learned in medical science. That mindset partially contributed to my habit of not turning up to lectures or even catching them up on Echo so after that, I struggled with the last two topics (cardiorespiratory and renal systems) which both involved quite a bit of formula work. I felt like I was out of my depth when it came to tutorials and using those formulas and it didn't help that I hadn't turned up to lectures or even bothered to review the slides. So I am biased when it comes to commenting on the subject's ease. If you've done some biology or have an interest in it, it will help. I know the engineering students who hadn't done biology struggled with it because of this. There is a 25% group report on a medical device/system of your choice and a 10% oral presentation but they mark quite easily on both of these. There are 2 online quizzes of 15% in total. The final is 45% and was fair if you studied for it.
Content: 6/10. I chose this (my initial choice was to choose microeconomics as my gen ed but that didn't work out) as I thought it would be neat to tie in my medical science knowledge with devices used in the field of medicine. The renal system was boring. I've covered most of it before in physiology 1A or 1B (I forgot which one) and it was just as boring as I recalled it. I've covered the anatomy and physiological side of the cardiorespiratory system so that helped but when it came to using the formulae, I was dying. Mechanics of the body was good I guess just because I was familiar with it but overall, none of the core topics were really mind-stimulating. I found the guest lectures to be the most thought-provoking, such as stem cell grafts and neuroprosthetics.
Lecturers: Ross Odell (6/10) - I did review some of his lectures at high speed on Echo during STUVAC and he is quite boring but he is a nice person lol. To be fair he covered the renal system topic and that's not interesting. Mark Butlin takes the cardiorespiratory topic I think but I didn't have a chance to listen to him.
Tutors: Most of the 2 hour tutorials are split into 2 - one for the academic writing and research side of things (for your report, presentations and career) and the other for doing problem sets on the core topics. I had Robert Nordon (8/10) for the former and the latter is taken by a number of people.
 

ilbemanhaha

New Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2014
Messages
11
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
Uni Grad
2016
ECON2101

Ease: 8.5/10 - I personally found this course fairly simple. Some of the concepts can be moderately difficult, but both the mid-sem and final are problem based, meaning that having a thorough understanding of the concepts is not necessary.

Content: 7/10 - There's quite a bit of content, but fortunately it's moderately simple and interesting.

Lecturer: Hodaka M - Really good lecturer; explained concepts thoroughly and never went too fast. The only negative was that his lecture slides lacked detail, which made attending the lectures essential.

Tutor: 8/10 - Sasha B - Solid tutor, knew her shit.

Overall: 8/10 - I enjoyed this course ... not sure how practical the course is, but easy marks.
+1.
The lecturer was very good. Honestly I had some doubts due to my negative perceptions towards non-Australian english accents but he wasn't that bad and he delivered quality teaching effort throughout the semester.
 

Hunny

New Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2015
Messages
6
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2014
ACCT1511 - Accounting & Financial Mgt 1B
Ease: 7/10. If you did well in ACCT1501, it should be very easy to get a Credit.
Content: 7/10. There is quite a lot of new content. Very interesting stuff yet can be intimidating/hard to understand. Though, much of the content is pulled from ACCT1501 and is just more in-depth/ of higher level.
Lecturer: 1/10. Boring. Very, very boring. The seminar was compulsory so yeah. Had to go over the content twice a week to learn it.
Overall: 7/10. I actually liked this course. Not a very difficult course - much of the harder content is covered at the end of the course (such as costing, FSA and budgeting) and is built from previous weeks and from ACCT1501. The finals were a bit of a pain the ass and tested earlier weeks (in greater difficulty) with some curveball questions.

ECON1102 - Macroeconomics 1
Ease: 6/10. Sure you may think its a breeze in tutorials, but the finals will bite you in the ass, even with decent economics knowledge.
Content: 4/10. It's qutie mathematical based, supporting dry theory. Through 12 weeks you learn how one simple equation becomes a big equation for everything.
Lecturer: 6/10. Very good at explaining key concepts but can be very confusing at times on harder aspects of the course.
Overall: 6/10. I didn't use a textbook nor did I study a lot for this course (did not completed tutorial homework). I think I've only spent <15 hours in the semester studying this course. I attended all lectures even if I took nothing out of it. I relied too much on my previous/current economic knowledge from high school and the tutorial tests (averaging Distinctions in all tests). Final exams were another story...

ECON1401 - Economic Analysis
Ease: 9/10. Most assessments were easy but very time consuming (done at home). There's lots of reading and writing/typing. No finals for this course which is a bonus.
Content: 8/10. It depends what kind of person you are but I did find some of the history and thinking to be very interesting on how modern economics is shaped. Otherwise, content can be droning and boring, and the readings won't be much interesting either.
Lecturer: 5/10. Good ol' Gigi. Tries to be exciting and fun - seems very passionate about this course. Loves to engage with students for this one.
Overall: 8/10. Easier than you think! You can achieve Distinction from doing absolutely nothing - requires very little effort to most people; just be creative.

FINS1612 - Capital Markets & Institution
Ease: 5/10. Did this in semester 2. Gross. Heard it was easier to do in semester 1 - or if you have completed FINS1613 and/or FINS2624 then you can easily achieve D/HD
Content: 5/10. Wow. Very dry and content heavy, some maths involved.
Lecturer: 3/10. Natalie... Don't like her. She crazy.
Overall: 4/10. Tried to like this course but I never did well in it. Quizzes and final were pretty tough for most people without good finance knowledge. I did use a textbook and I did complete all tutorial homework, still quite challenging for me overall.
 

4025808

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2009
Messages
4,377
Location
中國農村稻農
Gender
Male
HSC
2011
Uni Grad
2017
This semester onwards for my reviews, I’ll add a Teaching Resources review for each subject, which involves reviewing the availability of past exams, the extent of the detail of lecture slides, tutorial questions, other resources and stuff.

MATH2121 – Differential Equations

Ease: 7/10 – This subject is pretty easy (imo) as long as you do the tutorial questions as well as the past class tests and past final exams (which are very readily available either on moodle or on UNSW library). You do have to put in some effort in order to do well however. I noticed a lot of students doing poorly in this subject simply because they believed they could cram it.
Oh and there is no scaling cap for the lower course (only for DEs though), so I think this course is pretty easy to HD/DN if you put in some effort.
Content: 7/10 – the content is quite decent, with the first few chapters being a repeat of first year mathematics. From chapter 4-7 it will be basically all new content. Some of the content can be difficult to grasp for those who are not very mathematically inclined (i.e. the partial differential equations section of the course), but overall just take some time to study and try to understand how to do the questions.
Lecturer: Anna Cai – 5/10. She’s a nice lecturer but imo too quiet and sometimes boring. She’s pretty nice though, but in general she puts up her examples on the board to copy (and that’s pretty much what happens), and then she just uploads them on moodle (i.e. no need to come to lectures).
Tutor: Anna Cai - 7/10 – was pretty good in answering all of the questions but the thing that let her down is that she’s pretty boring to listen to. You do not need to go to tutorials because they have the answers anyway.
Teaching Resources: 9/10 – lecture slides could have been slightly better. Apart from that, nice collection of tutorial questions, lots of past final exams (with solutions as well) and having sample class tests were also great.
Overall: 8/10 – if you’re a stats major or anyone looking to boost your WAM, I reckon take this course so as long as you put the work in. I got a 90 in this course by studying a week before each assessment task (might be different from person to person though).


MATH3821 – Statistical Modelling and Computing

Ease: 3/10 – This subject is pretty fucked up, let me tell you that. In the final exam you really walk in blinded as you don’t know what to expect (coz unlike PTRL exams, maths generally don’t release past exams for those subjects that recycle questions every year) to be in the exam. Not much scaling for the final exam either, so hence a LOT of people end up getting below 50 for this course (out of say 50 students, around 15-20 students get below 50, which is a lot, and around 15-20 or so will have marks lying around 50s-low 60s. The rest are Ds and HDs, which are indeed very hard to get for this course).
Content: 2/10. Ewww. It’s mostly proofs and a lot of things are very boring and dry. Its statistics so generally will be very dry and boring.
Lecturer: Yanan Fan – 4/10 – she’s kinda meh. Pretty boring and usually doesn’t seem to care too much about teaching (I could be wrong though, but that’s what I saw out of her).
Tutor: Yanan as well – can’t say much because I’ve never really been to the tutorials.
Lab: Yanan as well – haven’t been to many labs but its more like you try out the question and she gives you the answer. Only useful if you intend to ask her questions and that you’ve already prepped for the stuff she’s going to assess.
Teaching Resources: 3/10 – imo there aren’t enough tutorial questions to go around, the lecture notes are not detailed enough and generally do not have enough context. No sample exams for both midsem and final are given so you’re essentially walking in blinded into the exam. R coding isn’t being assessed enough in general (which is actually more important in the real world, as opposed to memorizing proofs). The final and the supplementary exams had a lot of memorizing derivations from the lecture slides, which is pretty stupid imo.
Overall: 3/10. I really disliked this course maybe due to its lack of practicality (computing is very important) since it’s unfortunately more of a maths based subject instead of assessing computing, and thus forcing us to memorize proofs instead of writing code to answer questions. The matters didn’t help when the final exam was pretty hard and didn’t scale up that much.
 
Last edited:

4025808

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2009
Messages
4,377
Location
中國農村稻農
Gender
Male
HSC
2011
Uni Grad
2017
PTRL3002 – Reservoir Characterization (PTRL3002A/5021) and Simulation (PTRL3002B/5004)

Ease:
Characterization component: 6/10 – tbh when I first learned the course it was very dry and nothing was absorbing. But once you get to do the assignments, then understanding the content is actually a lot easier than you think. The content is somewhat similar to the likes of MATH3841 or a watered down version of MATH2099, with lots of overlap in statistical concepts. Assignments can be quite challenging and you may need to seek consultation but final exams are generally easy as the lecturer recycles questions.
Simulation component: 4/10 – the content in this course was pretty hard to understand, despite Furqan being able to teach this well. The moodle quizzes were marked quite harshly and the final was quite difficult for people to finish.
Content:
Characterization component: 7/10 – the content is actually okay as long as you spend some time to understand it. Tbh I wish I spent more time understanding the content for this course. You learn about grids, basic statistics (MATH2901 and maybe some MATH2931), kriging (MATH3841) and upscaling. May or may not be interesting but I reckon the content for that course was taught in a much better way compared to the stats courses I’ve done.
Simulation component: 5/10 – As said earlier the content is pretty hard to understand, simply because there’s a lot of notation and mathematics involved (in which people have pretty rusty foundations due to the effects of cramming). There are also lots of proofs and formulas you need to memorize/understand and regurgitate in the final exam.
Lecturer:
Characterization component: Christoph Arns – 6/10 – he’s nice, but his lectures are boring and sometimes when you ask him questions he may unfortunately not give you the answer directly but will go off on a tangent. Not a strict marker I think – marks assignments pretty nicely.
Simulation component: Furqan Hussein – 6/10 – he’s helpful in lectures but nowadays becoming more cranky (idk why though), which really offset a lot of people from asking for help. He tries to enforce the 10 minute rule where you can’t enter the lecture after 10 minutes. Also tells off people for going on facebook/unrelated stuff during labs and lectures – he never used to do this but all of a sudden he does now. Also set a very hard final exam too (idk why he did that).
Tutor:
Characterization component: Muhan Yu – 9/10 – helped us with our code and helped us to guide on the assignments, as well as helping me for well testing (another subject).
Simulation component: Muhan Yu – as above, Fatemeh – don’t have too many opinions of her because I never attended or asked her for help. But she seems helpful somewhat.
Lab:
Characterization component: 6/10- The Matlab tutorials were quite good but only if you’re willing to learn in the lab and ask questions. It’s only good if you sorta know how to code already. If you’re clueless then good luck, expect one of your mates to carry you for assignments.
Simulation component: 8/10 –The Petrel/eclipse tutorials were generally a very good introduction to the software, as also given that furqan made sure that no one was behind, it was actually helpful. Though the negatives were that it was not scheduled on a proper timing (meaning it clashed with my MATH3821 labs, and people also had to change their work schedules), and that there are no video tutorials for it – would have made lives a whole lot easier if there were video tutorials.
Teaching Resources:
Characterization component: 6/10 – Past papers and past assignments were circulating around students, and turns out that Christoph reused lots of questions from the final exams. As for the assignments, they changed though (assignments 1 and 2) to a more computing based (MATLAB), instead of being heavily concentrated on theory. Apart from that, Christoph didn’t give too much.
Simulation component: 8/10 – Lecture slides were very good in general, as well as course notes. The in-class tutorials were also very helpful in terms of understanding the concepts, but too bad none of those were assessed in the final exam.
Overall:
6/10 – This subject overall has a LOT of content – it’s essentially 3UOC each but 6UOC worth of work each, meaning 12 UOC worth of work in total. Final exam is no longer two separate final exams but merged into one three hour exam. This course should be easy pass as long as you’ve done all the assignments and submitted the petrel tutorials, however it will be hard to get DN/HD though.

PTRL3022/5005 – Design Project for Petroleum Engineers

Ease: 4/10 – not easy at all, very time consuming and the exams will literally grill you without adequate practice. The assignments also take a crap tonne of time as well.
Content: 6/10 – you are assumed to know heat transfer calculations (ezpz), but the other shit including sizing and salt calculations is quite confusing. Content is somewhat okay in terms of theory context but calculations can get confusing (as in, you need to know what you’re doing and the steps you need to do). You also have to learn how to use Aspentech HYSYS, but that isn’t too bad.
Lecturer: Habib Zughbi – 6/10 – he’s a good lecturer to listen to especially during 6pm-8pm as he has a loud enough voice and can communicate in a way such that it is understandable. The downside is that he sets very hard exams in which everyone gets rekt. He doesn’t really give much advice to us (for both assignments and exams), and doesn’t release past exams to us.
Tutor: Ying Da Wang – 10/10 – very helpful and very knowledgeable in terms of explaining concepts and the insights of HYSYS. Was willing to help students despite him having to juggle thesis and work at the same time.
Lab: 6/10 – we go through the concepts quite slowly and we end up wasting a lot of time. But that also means that we get a relatively lot of time to try and know how to do the stuff on HYSYS. Imo there should be more tutors for the course, as having the lecturer and ying isn’t enough to accommodate the growing demand in terms of question asking.
Teaching Resources: 3/10 – very lacking. Habib forces you to go to class, and there is NOTHING on HYSYS that he uploads (as in how to use HYSYS, how to input a distillation column, etc.). He’s been teaching the same course for at least 10 years and still hasn’t bothered to improve his resources? Seriously?
Overall: 5/10, could be a lot, lot better. If the lecturer adds the past exams and the HYSYS tutorials, then the course evaluation will be a lot better. On another note, quiz 1 (general theory and calculations) iirc was pretty bad, quiz 2 (HYSYS) iirc was even worse and I’ve heard of cases of students crying after that exam, simply because their simulations didn’t work or converge. The final report was a LOT of work and it ended up being the first all-nighter I’ve ever done this semester. Habib also grilled us with a lot of questions for the final presentation.


PTRL3023 – Formation Evaluation (PTRL3023A/5107) and Well Testing (PTRL3023B/5003)

Ease:
Formation Evaluation: 6/10 – lots of dry content but the midsems and finals were generally quite easy (although it’s stupid they make you memorize proofs). This course is run from week 2 – week 8 so the course is crammed to the core, meaning you gotta study a lot for this course for when it’s running.
Well Testing: 4/10 – this one is worse – content is even more dry and boring – midsems and finals were a lot harder in comparison – they needed to be scaled in order for students to do okay. Also lots of those 4% assignments that you have to do – in which they honestly became very annoying (but hey, free marks so why not).
Content:
Formation Evaluation: 4/10 – as stated above, the content is dry and you have to memorize a lot of it. A lot of the content and concepts fortunately do overlap with PTRL2018 (the logging part), but you at the same time need to memorize a lot of formulas in order to do the questions, since the lecturer doesn’t give anything.
Well Testing: 2/10 – the content is worse in this one compared to formation evaluation. Nothing seems to make sense unlike formation evaluation. You’re essentially memorizing a textbook and hoping that whatever you memorized popped up in the exam. So much RNG involved.
Lecturer:
Formation Evaluation: Liuqi Wang – 7/10 – normally when he lectures, when he goes through the content he gets boring, but as soon as he says stuff like “EASSSYYYYY” or “Don’t worry about the exam”, everyone just cracks up in the lecture. In other words, funny lecturer but he really can’t teach. I still tolerate him for being funny though. He’s very honest about the grading system; he even states that no one will fail the course, and that only a few ppl will HD the course. And he says he will scale the exam if everyone does badly, and even tells you how he will scale it, unlike other lecturers in SCOPE.
Well Testing: Nima Gholizadeh – 4/10 – pretty boring, just lectured and answered questions so not much to say about him. Did his job okay imo, nothing much else.
Tutor: N/A
Teaching Resources:
Formation Evaluation: 7/10 – it was very convenient that Liuqi uploaded everything you needed at the very beginning of the course – all the lecture slides, tutorials, course notes, assignments, etc. so you could easily get started. Pity there’s no sample exam, but past exams were definitely circulating around students.
Well Testing: 8/10 – at least the lecture slides were uploaded and somewhat understandable, and even a sample exam was uploaded too.
Overall: 4/10. Too much content and memorization involved in this course, making it very boring. Seemed like a pretty pointless course, but thankfully I got DN for it otherwise would have raged. Sometimes I feel as if the lecturers are there to teach coz there’s no one else better to teach. There's also two finals for this course, one during week 8 and the other during exam period. This course is also 3 UOC each but 6 UOC worth of work, making it 12UOC worth of work. However for postgrad, each component is 6 UOC each (thankfully), which means less work overall.
 
Last edited:

RenegadeMx

Kosovo is Serbian
Joined
May 6, 2014
Messages
1,302
Gender
Male
HSC
2011
Uni Grad
2016
This semester onwards for my reviews, I’ll add a Teaching Resources review for each subject, which involves reviewing the availability of past exams, the extent of the detail of lecture slides, tutorial questions, other resources and stuff.

MATH2121 – Differential Equations

Ease: 7/10 – This subject is pretty easy (imo) as long as you do the tutorial questions as well as the past class tests and past final exams (which are very readily available either on moodle or on UNSW library). You do have to put in some effort in order to do well however. I noticed a lot of students doing poorly in this subject simply because they believed they could cram it.
Oh and there is no scaling cap for the lower course (only for DEs though), so I think this course is pretty easy to HD/DN if you put in some effort.
Content: 7/10 – the content is quite decent, with the first few chapters being a repeat of first year mathematics. From chapter 4-7 it will be basically all new content. Some of the content can be difficult to grasp for those who are not very mathematically inclined (i.e. the partial differential equations section of the course), but overall just take some time to study and try to understand how to do the questions.
Lecturer: Anna Cai – 5/10. She’s a nice lecturer but imo too quiet and sometimes boring. She’s pretty nice though, but in general she puts up her examples on the board to copy (and that’s pretty much what happens), and then she just uploads them on moodle (i.e. no need to come to lectures).
Tutor: Anna Cai - 7/10 – was pretty good in answering all of the questions but the thing that let her down is that she’s pretty boring to listen to. You do not need to go to tutorials because they have the answers anyway.
Teaching Resources: 9/10 – lecture slides could have been slightly better. Apart from that, nice collection of tutorial questions, lots of past final exams (with solutions as well) and having sample class tests were also great.
Overall: 8/10 – if you’re a stats major or anyone looking to boost your WAM, I reckon take this course so as long as you put the work in. I got a 90 in this course by studying a week before each assessment task (might be different from person to person though).

MATH3821 – Statistical Modelling and Computing

Ease: 3/10 – This subject is pretty fucked up, let me tell you that. In the final exam you really walk in blinded as you don’t know what to expect (coz unlike PTRL exams, maths strictly don’t release past exams for those subjects that recycle questions every year) to be in the exam. Not much scaling for the final exam either, so hence a LOT of people end up getting below 50 for this course (out of say 50 students, around 15-20 students get below 50, which is a lot, and around 15-20 or so will have marks lying around 50s-low 60s. The rest are Ds and HDs, which are indeed very hard to get for this course).
Content: 2/10. Ewww. It’s mostly proofs and a lot of things are very boring and dry. Its statistics so generally will be very dry and boring.
Lecturer: Yanan Fan – 4/10 – she’s kinda meh. Pretty boring and usually doesn’t seem to care too much about teaching (I could be wrong though, but that’s what I saw out of her).
Tutor: Yanan as well – can’t say much because I’ve never really been to the tutorials.
Lab: Yanan as well – haven’t been to many labs but its more like you try out the question and she gives you the answer. Only useful if you intend to ask her questions and that you’ve already prepped for the stuff she’s going to assess.
Teaching Resources: 3/10 – imo there aren’t enough tutorial questions to go around, the lecture notes are not detailed enough and generally do not have enough context. No sample exams for both midsem and final are given so you’re essentially walking in blinded into the exam. R coding isn’t being assessed enough in general (which is actually more important in the real world, as opposed to memorizing proofs). The final and the supplementary exams had a lot of memorizing derivations from the lecture slides, which is pretty stupid imo.
Overall: 3/10. I really disliked this course maybe due to its lack of practicality (computing is very important) since it’s unfortunately more of a maths based subject instead of assessing computing, and thus forcing us to memorize proofs instead of writing code to answer questions. The matters didn’t help when the final exam was pretty hard and didn’t scale up that much.
godbless no downwards scaling, probs will be my first and only HD lel

ACCT2542: Got rektd
TABL1710: Got rektd
same
 

Drifting95

Should i change my DP?
Joined
Mar 14, 2012
Messages
3,160
Location
Point Piper
Gender
Male
HSC
2013
+1.
The lecturer was very good. Honestly I had some doubts due to my negative perceptions towards non-Australian english accents but he wasn't that bad and he delivered quality teaching effort throughout the semester.
Were the lectures available online?
 

Zen2613

Member
Joined
May 22, 2015
Messages
172
Location
Kirraymearonulla
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
I don't don't why they just don't make the tests easier - that would make the course tolorable, and prevent half the people from failing it.
Umm... What do you think a test is supposed to do ? Make a course tolerable ? If there were no hard tests then undergraduate degrees would literally be the same as going through high school.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 2)

Top