Subject Reviews (with PDF compilation) (1 Viewer)

[bored6]

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

PHIL 2623: Moral Psych.

Ease 9/10: Very easy subject, only really need to focus on half the course. But having said that if you want a D/HD you'll need to do some proper thinking to get a critical response down.

Interest 8/10: Some parts interesting (error theory) some parts not (forgiveness and abortion).

Lecturers: Didn't go to lectures so unsure, however my tutor Daniel Wodack was pretty good and interesting.

Overall 8/10: Do this subject if you want a reasonably low workload that is often interesting and insightful.

 

[271828]

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

FINC3017 - Investments and Portfolio Management

Ease: 4/10
The lectures are deceptively easy and brushed over very quickly. However, this is not what is reflected in the assessment tasks. They are delibrately designed to trick you as they are supposed make you "think" and test if you really understand everything clearly. There are hardly any straightforward questions at all. It's one of those subjects where you can study for the entire course early and still not get half the questions in the exam. Also, there are REQUIRED readings of specific journal articles (In particular, the Roll paper to criticise CAPM) which are directly examined in the final exam (much like HSC English where you have to read a text and then get asked questions about it). I did not like reliving those days of regurgitating an analysis of a prescribed text.

Lecturer: 5/10
Kerry is an evil witch. She's okay at lecturing and often gives some quite entertaining anecdotal examples. That's probably the only good thing I can say about her. However, she is ruthless when it comes to exam questions and she enjoys it. She has one of those "arrogant grumpy old lady" personalities and always tries to assert her views onto the lecture. For example, this course is supposed to be about fund management and ironically she has a grudge against active fund managers for ripping people off because they never beat the market in their portfolios. For fks sake why lecture this course if that's how you feel about them?

Interest: 7/10
Not exactly interesting, it's just about extensions of CAPM and pricing models along with portfolio management strategies, derivatives, bonds and hedging. However, I did find the behavioural finance lecture very interesting (basically psychology and finance put together). There should really be a behavioural finance unit in 3rd year.

Overall: 6/10
This unit was not what I expected it to be. Before Kerry came along, apparently this course used to be really easy. Thanks to her for killing it.

I think this is too kind for one of the most disgusting displays of vile attitude and course philosophy I have seen.

 

[Trebla]

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

ECOS2901 - Intermediate Microeconomics Honours

Ease: 7/10
The content itself isn't too difficult, however it's applying your knowledge on unseen questions that is difficult because a lot of the solutions are based on assumptions of "intuition". Many questions which can be solved analytically if you had the right mathematical knowledge (e.g. maximising utility solutions) require you to solve it by "intuitive" means instead which can be difficult if the intution doesn't come naturally. Game theory is particularly difficult especially when done with payoffs functions that are continuous rather than discrete (again these can probably be solved mathematically but you are required to use your "intuition" to solve it). Also, some equilibrium analysis questions that ask whether a certain condition is satisfied require you to come up with examples that contradict the condition if possible which can be difficult because you have to consider all permutations of possibilities and not overlook anything.

Lecturer: 8/10
Kunal is a good at explaining, but this year he fell behind schedule and had to delay our second mid-semester and we had to have evening catch up lectures which was not good. Also, 9am lectures meant I fell asleep most of the time lol, unfortunately the lecturer doesn't have that command and flair that stops you from falling asleep.

Interest: 7/10
Most of the early topics were pretty ordinary. Game theory was interesting but hard to get your head around when it comes to solving more difficult questions. Choice under uncertainty was quite good (moral hazard and adverse selection).

Overall: 8/10
Good course, but unfortunately due to early morning lectures and the fact I am a macro person (at the moment) meant that I didn't quite embrace the unit for all it was worth. Not sure if I can handle the third year advanced microeconomics because I'm not good at game theory...

 

[danz90]

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

PHAR2813 Therapeutic Principles

Ease: 6/10
This is a very challenging course hands down. Completely new concepts of pharmacy are introduced in this UoS and it really requires you to work hard to understand the concepts well. But once you understand it properly, questions aren't that hard to tackle.

Lecturer: 8/10
I was generally satisfied with the way lectures were given.

Interest: 10/10
In my opinion one of the most interest subjects in the Pharmacy course up until this point, and also the most relevant and important to drug therapy as a whole. I guess I found the pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics aspects of the course most interesting.

Overall: 9/10
Great course, well-organised and good structure. The most relevant and useful UoS in pharmacy up until 2nd year 1st sem. Although, this course is very challenging and you really need to put in effort to understand the concepts.

_________

PHAR2811 Drug Discovery and Design A

Ease: 7/10
Certain aspects of this course are a little tedious in terms of content density, particularly the Metabolism and Genetics topics.

Lecturer: 8/10
Gareth and Dale were excellent, most Pharmacy lecturers were good as well.

Interest: 8/10
Pharmacodynamic and pharmacology aspects towards the end of the course were interesting, and the metabolism content as well.

Overall: 8/10
Some aspects of the course could be improved a little, such as the lab course, but overall this UoS is a fairly important Medicinal chemistry subject.

_________

PHAR2812 Microbiology and Infection

Ease: 8.5/10
The content and concepts were not really difficult or challenging, although just required a lot of memorising in order to do well.

Lecturer: 7/10
There can be some improvements with some of the lecturers.

Interest: 7/10
The initial microbiology content wasn't that interesting, but the latter half of the course with sterile pharmaceutical manufacture etc. seemed more relevant and interesting.

Overall: 8/10
An overall decent, solid course with fairly interesting labs.

_________

PHSI2601 Physiology for Pharmacy

Ease: 8/10
Content and concepts were not very difficult to understand, although memory consolidation was tedious with the huge volume of content. Tricky exam questions.

Lecturer: 9/10
Most lecturers taught very well.

Interest: 9/10
Physiology always seems pretty interesting, and this course covers pretty much all main human body systems fairly well.

Overall: 9/10
Challenging, but very well-organised and interesting course. Practical classes could be improved.

 

[Moshe Sharett]

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

ENGL 2603: Imagining America
Lecturer: David Kelly

Ease: 7/10
Nothing too hard. There's a wide range of texts, not a lot of reading to be done, and the texts available were mostly accessible and interesting. Negative points for restrictive essay and take home questions; I'd have preferred more choice. The essay was ONLY on Huck Finn, where we had a choice of two passages.

Lecturer: 9/10
David Kelly was a lot better in this subject than in subjects I'd previously taken with him. I think that might be more to do with interest, than his skill as a lecturer, because he's pretty good, clear and enthusiastic about the subject. Extra points for his use of webCT, online lectures, etc.

Interest: 9/10
The thread that holds the course together concerns how America was created, imagined and sustained. Very original content, especially when it came to contemporary texts like Gangs of New York. Perhaps not so interesting when it came to Walt Whitman.

Overall: 8/10
Very decent English unit. Texts were given a thorough analysis in how they relate to the imagining of America. Well put together, good lecturer, good texts, though the assessment questions were perhaps too restrictive.

 

[Moshe Sharett]

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

ENGL 2603: Imagining America
Lecturer: David Kelly

Ease: 7/10
Nothing too hard. There's a wide range of texts, not a lot of reading to be done, and the texts available were mostly accessible and interesting. Negative points for restrictive essay and take home questions; I'd have preferred more choice. The essay was ONLY on Huck Finn, where we had a choice of two passages.

Lecturer: 9/10
David Kelly was a lot better in this subject than in subjects I'd previously taken with him. I think that might be more to do with interest, than his skill as a lecturer, because he's pretty good, clear and enthusiastic about the subject. Extra points for his use of webCT, online lectures, etc.

Interest: 9/10
The thread that holds the course together concerns how America was created, imagined and sustained. Very original content, especially when it came to contemporary texts like Gangs of New York. Perhaps not so interesting when it came to Walt Whitman.

Overall: 8/10
Very decent English unit. Texts were given a thorough analysis in how they relate to the imagining of America. Well put together, good lecturer, good texts, though the assessment questions were perhaps too restrictive.

 

[Moshe Sharett]

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

CHEM 3110: Biomolecules: Properties and Reactions
Lecturers: Lou Rendina, Richard Payne, Ron Clarke

Ease: 9/10
The DNA (Rendina) section was pretty trivial and straightfoward, as long as you attented lectures. There was a fair bit to remember though, I suppose, so start studying early for the exam. Richard Payne's section on organic chemistry was (and it pains me to say this) a bit dense. Far too much content, especially compared to the DNA section. None of this content was too difficult though. Mostly curly arrows and what not. I more or less skipped Ron Clarke's section in the exam. None of the lecture material was hard, but I found his choice of exam questions a little confusing. It's a bit of a lucky dip. There is no pre-exam assessment for this subject.

Lecturer: 9/10
Rendina and Payne are fine lecturers. Notes were clear, both were open for consultation, both were approachable. Ron Clarke is a bit boring, though his notes are good. Consult previous subject reviews for a summary on Ron Clarke.

Interest: 7/10
Pretty good, but Clarke's section is boring and it brings down the mark. I find curly arrows and the chemistry of DNA pretty interesting, so it gets a good score. If you enjoy thinking about how molecules can interact, build, destroy and bond to/with DNA you'll enjoy that section. Payne's bit is all about constructing peptides via mechanisms (read: curly arrows).

Overall: 8/10
It was alright. Be forewarned about curly arrows, and boring Ron Clarke stuff. Start studying early.

 

[Moshe Sharett]

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

GEOS2111: Natural Hazards: A GIS Approach
Lecturers: Patrice Rey & Maria Seton

Ease: 9/10
The first half of the course on cyclones, earthquakes and tsunami's seems difficult when considering the maths involved, but you learn that none of that is assessable in the final exam, and hardly any appears in the onlines quizzes. So instead, you're assessed on the more basic stuff about those natural hazards. The second half of the course is about the easiest shit I've done at uni. It's year 7 crap.

Lecturer: 4/10
Patrice is fine, he gets a 4/5. Bit hard to understand at times. Maria is terrible. She gets a 0. Boring, boring, boring. You'd be right not to turn up once Patrice is finished.

Interest: 4/10
The disaster stuff was pretty cool. Everyone loves learning about cyclones and earthquakes. The GIS stuff was dry, and like I said, more suited to a year 7 class. It was hard to remain focused, and hence, my study for this section was inhibited by how boring it was.

Labs: 8/10
The first half of the course has labs concerning data manipulation in Excel, which is a little dry. But later on, you get to map earthquakes and construct a pretty cool hazard map using ArcGIS, based on what data you found in the field trip. Learning how to use this program, ArcGIS, is of supreme utility and it was fairly rewarding. Easy too!

Overall: 5/10

 

[Moshe Sharett]

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

PHIL 2622: Metaphysics - Reality, Time and Possibility
Lecturers: Kristie Miller & Sam Baron

Ease: 4/10
Jesus, I had no idea what was going on half of the time. What is this four-dimensionalism crap you're on about? Sadly, the course is kinda progressive, meaning that the early stuff is needed to understand the later stuff. I guess the point is that none of the material is terribly difficult, but it's simply hard to get in the door. Once you're in, it's easy...ish.

Lecturer: 8/10
Kristie and Sam are fine lecturers. Extra kudos for their use of webCT, and online lecture recordings.

Interest: 2/10
Yeah this is too wanky for my liking. It's unlike anything in first year as well, which makes it hard to judge before you enrol, if you want to do it. Bit boring. Sorry I can't give more info, lol. :rofl:

Overall: 5/10

 

[psytrance123]

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

Sociological Theory SCLG2601

Ease: 6/10

Difficult! All the readings were primary sources from sociological heroes (Marx, Weber, Foucault ect.). They are difficult to grasp. Lectures helped a little in getting an overview of the different theories and theorists.


Lecturer: 5/10

Craig was boring but at least I could tell he tried. Every week is a 2 hour lecture covering a different theory or theorist. My tutor was a weirdo....


Interest: 7/10

Some topics are more interesting then others. Personally I liked rational choice, phenomenology and critical theory they were cool topics.


Overall: 6/10

It is a prereq for a sociology major, I would not recommend it to anyone else. I do think it will be useful for other sociology units however.

 

[psytrance123]

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

SCLG3605 Environmental Sociology

Ease: 8/10

This course was pretty easy. It was just one 2 hour seminar with Dr Fiona Gill. As long as you did the readings and knew a bit about environmental issues it is easy. The major essay is a research task where you get to create the question to answer!

Lecturer: 10/10

Fiona was awesome! Her job was pretty easy just guiding the conversation as it was a seminar. Basically it was 15 people coming together to talk about greeny issues for 2 hours a week, she didnt follow any particular structure but that was the point I guess. Unfortunately the course wont be offered any more as the department saw it as a waste of resources. (so few enrolments).

Interest: 10/10

You cover everything! It was really interesting, discussion can go from heavy Marxian ecology to the consumption of vegan food. Radical!

Overall: 10/10

If this course comes back and Fiona runs it, enrol enrol enrol!

 

[psytrance123]

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

Economics of Modern Capitalism ECOP2011

Ease: 4/10

Very difficult. Lots of algebra and heavy logic. It is not too bad if you keep up with everything but the sheer amount of reading and coursework makes this nearly impossible. Assignments however are not too bad.

Lecturer: 9/10

I really liked Joseph. He is unbelievably smart. I think sometimes he made stuff sound more complicated then it was to scare us off. Brilliant man.

Interest: 8/10

Very interesting and important to know the theory behind everything. Joseph many times quoted another economist saying "You need to understand economics so you are not fooled by economists", I tend to agree with this.

Overall: 7/10

Difficult course but I think if you get through it you are better off.

 

[psytrance123]

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

ECOP2911 Political Economy Honours II

Ease: 8/10

Pretty easy, although there is a lot of reading and many assessment tasks. There is only one 1.5 hour seminar which is awesome.

Lecturer: 8/10

I liked Joy, she basically just had to guide discussion as it was a seminar with a small number of people talking about class for a while. She was good at connecting the fragmented ideas about class into one tool that is not caught up in Marxist preconceptions.

Interest: 10/10

I loved talking about class for an hour and a half. It is important to see class as an analytical tool rather than a topic dominated by Marxists. This course allows political economy kids to use class in research as a critical concept rather then a preconcieved Marxist notion.

Overall: 9/10

I really like the seminar style of learning, small class numbers and learning guided by discussion; this is how uni is meant to be. It is a prereq for doing honours in PE obviously and it is easy to see why so when finishing the unit.

 

[vanush]

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

For the benefit of people searching in the future...

ELEC3305 - Digital Signal Processing
Ease: 2/10
Hard as fuck and textbook is a piece of shit. Lots of study from textbook won't guarantee you a good mark; you need multiple references for this UoS.
No solutions in assigned textbook

Lecturer: 9/10
Brilliant lecturer, quality notes.

Interest: 9/10
Fundamental topic for budding electrical and telecommunications engineers.

Overall: 6/10
Content is not that difficult - it is in fact dumbed down from other DSP courses. Most of the difficulty comes from the way the run. A 67% final and 28% midterm with no past papers or textbook solutions. Screw up once and you are resigned to a terrible mark


ELEC2602 - Digital System Design
Ease: 8/10
Easy subject, a continuation of digital logic study from first year. Laboratory focused so make sure you pay attention to the labs

Lecturer: 7/10
Decent lecturer but you feel he may not know his stuff 100%

Interest: 8/10
Fundamental topic for budding electrical engineers.

Overall: 7/10
Pretty cruisy subject

COMP3520 - Operating Systems Principles
Ease: 6/10
The course has fairly intensive assignments but there is a lot of resources given on how to complete them. In addition, the course uses a thick textbook reminiscent of commerce or humanities subject, so you will have to study like those students.

Lecturer: 1/10
Absolutely terrible lecturer.

Interest: 7/10
Fundamental topic for budding computer engineers. But Course is boring as fuck due to the lecture notes being a shitty rehash of the textbook.

Overall: 5/10
Irritating subject.

 

[Hello2U2]

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

ENGL2650 Reading Poetry

Ease 7/10
You are expected to read a lot of poetry but I actually got away with only reading a handful of poems. I did really well in this and I was quite suprised. Also, you do not need to buy the Norton Anthology. All the poems you will need can be accessed on Google. Save yourself the money and the back pain.

Lecturer 5/10
The lecturers know their stuff, but there were no visual aides, audio files etc which made it way too easy to fall asleep or lose concentration. The yeats lecturer was particularly hard to listen to.

Interest 7/10
Sonnet bit was good because it was quite diverse and short. However the 'type' of poem studied in this subject changes every year. We also did Yeats and Victorian Religious Poetry, both of which I found quite boring.

Overall 6/10
It's an alright course, Its not as intimidating as they make it seem. You just need to show a bit of initiative and you should be fine.
---
ENGL2607 Drama: Classical to Renaissance

Ease 7/10
You are expected to read every play, althought I actually got away with only reading about three of them. I wouldn't say this subject is easy because its asking you to combine drama with english, but you do get a lot of help and guidance which made it an easier ordeal

Lecturer 7/10
You can tell the subject is Huw's baby. He was really enthusiastic about the subject. It also meant he was more willing to give feedback and offer suggestions.

Interest 4/10
I tried to stay very positive about this subject, but upon reflection I feel that I didn't really ever fully enjoy the subject. It was certainly enlightening but everything felt forced.

Overall 6/10
A well-thought out and supportive subject. However it is not for everyone.
---
EDUF2006 Educational Psychology

Ease 6/10
Theories. Names. Years.

Lecturer
Richard Walker was a pretty boring and abysmal lecturer but thumbs up for Nigel Goodwin who made every lecture of his enjoyable.

Interest 5/10
It was a real mixed bag. Highly likely that you will find only certain aspects of the content interesting.

Overall 7/10
Certainly informative subject, but its heavily theoretical and textbook based.
---
EDSE2001

Ease 9/10
Laid back. Just show up and let the good marks roll in.

Lecturer:
A lot of guest lecturers.

Interest: 8/10
Really interesting subject, I felt mentored more than lectured. Very promising.

 

[DayOT]

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

COMP2129 - Operating Systems and Machine Principles

Ease: 5/10

For those who haven't previously encountered C or Unix, it's a steep learning curve requiring considerable self-directed learning of C and playing around with the OS. Fortunately, the final is very C-based and a lot of the more theoretical material (eg the machine basics, threads) isn't examined.

Lecturer: 9/10

Bob Kummerfeld really inspired my curiosity about the content. The slides are a bit sparse on the detail though, so listening to the lectures (live or otherwise) is a must.

Interest: 8/10

As mentioned, a sizable chunk of the course is pretty much for interest's sake. Especially enjoyed the regular trips through the history and philosophy of C/Unix development.

Overall: 7/10

It's a bit rough getting started, but the weekly labs will ensure that one picks up what's needed by the end of the course. However, unless one is going down the IT path, it's not all that relevant to anything else.

 

[Spik3balloon]

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

INFO1903 - Informatics (Advanced)

Ease: 7/10
This is a rigorous course, covering the basics of Unix, Python, SQL, HTML, Excel and dabbling in CGI, CSS and LaTeX. There is no assumed knowledge, but the course moves quite quickly and it certainly helps to have a background with some of these areas.

The labs certainly help with this aspect though. There are 2 1.5hr (that usually run over into 2hr) labs a week that supplement the 3hrs of lectures. The tutors are fantastic (especially Tim!) and are willing to help you with whatever issues you may be having.

Lecturer: 10/10
Dr James Curran is probably the best lecturer I had all semester. He delivers the content in an engaging manner with little anecdotes and stories on the side, and he puts the slides on the course website, each containing a summary of what we needed to know for the exam from each lecture.

Interest: 10/10
This course is about data - the management and processing of it by computers. If you're interested in programming, this course should suit you well.

Overall: 10/10
A challenging, but fantastic course.


ACCT1001 - Accounting IA

Ease: 7/10
IA covers mostly financial accounting - transactions, journals, GST, inventory, internal control. There's a fair amount of tutorial homework every week, but if you do that then most of the course becomes clearer.

Lecturer:
Sharron O'Neill/Abdul Rahzeed: 9/10 Fantastic lecturers, explained the content clearly and gave good examples. Abdul is a little harsh with crowd control though.
Peter Edwards: 6/10 He tries, he really does. But nothing really made all that much sense. (maybe it was the topics - internal control was especially boring and confusing)
Clarke/other guy week 2 history lecture: 4/10 What a useless lecture. The history of accounting - and we could barely hear one of the lecturers, making what they were saying also nonsensical. Yes, they might be smart, but this lecture was a bore.

Interest: 7/10
Is there anything to really be excited about? Debits, credits, inventory cards...

Overall: 7/10
It's an introduction to financial accounting. Having an essay for the mid-semester exam though was completely irrational.


MATH1901 - Differential Calculus (Advanced)

Ease: 6/10
The more you don't do the tutorial sheets, the more confusing the course gets. Also, the practice quizzes are diabolical.

Lecturer: 5/10
Chris Cosgrove was frequently talking to the board, while most of us looked on in confusion. He sure knows a lot, but whether that translates to good teaching, I'm not too sure.

The tutorials were very helpful though. (thanks Justin!)

Interest: 6/10
Eh, it's maths. It's a compulsory part of my degree.

Overall: 7/10
It scaled alright, so I'm not too fussed.


MATH1902 - Linear Algebra (Advanced)

Ease: 7/10
Slightly easier to grasp than differential calculus.

Lecturer: 8/10
David Easdown is a great lecturer. Although there were points where I was lost and confused, his teaching style is engaging and humorous. His review questions before the quizzes/exams, and the fact that he rand an additional class the week before was also extremely helpful.

Interest: 6/10
Same as above.

Overall: 8/10
It's better than Differential.


ENGG1805 - Professional Engineering and IT

Ease: 4/10
This course should have been a cakewalk. But when half your group drops out/never shows up, it can be hard. Also, I don't see how bridge building (specifically, the marking of said bridge) is relevant to IT students. The quizzes (which comprise most of the course's marks, as there is no final exam) contained trivial questions, and questions on lecture(r)s that didn't exist and lab content that we had not been through.

Lecturer(s): 3/10
One of the lecturers had a tendency to go 'ehhhhhhhmmmm' after every sentence, which I found hilarious. (probably because I had been driven into a state of insanity by the tenacity of the course) But other than that, the 2 hour lectures they delivered were unbelievably boring. Lecture attendance dwindled to below 20% by the end, and people were only really attending because they were assessing us on the trivial content of the guest lecturer's speeches. (eg. What was the role of X at X company?) Even most of the guest lecturers managed to be as boring as the standard lecturers.

Interest: 1/10
This is core unit, which apparently only exists due to the requirements for ACS accreditation. Having to build a bridge, write pointless reports and presentations, maintain a 'lab notebook' on trivial lab content and be tested on content that had nothing to do with anything - this course really only exists to frustrate you.

Overall: 0/10
This really is an abomination of a unit. If I knew how to make a formal complaint, I probably would. The only redeeming factor would be my tutor (thanks Aengus!) - and even so, it was initially so bad that I had to change labs (my previous tutor was incredibly condescending, and made the 2 hour lab feel like 2 years in Gitmo). I personally believe that the feedback sheets just get flushed down the Carslaw toilets, where they clog them up. They then remove them and then use them to paper mache a statue of a child slumped over his desk, having been abused by 13 weeks of grating, irrelevant torture.

 

[naisAtoN]

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

WRIT1002 - Academic Writing

Ease: 7/10
Moderately easy for those who can write essays and adhere to the lecturers' and tutors' strict marking regimes, which aren't really reflective of essay marking across the rest of the university.

Lecturers: 4.5/10
I'm not going to lie - the lecturers were boring and their lectures were completely monotonous. In the context of most of the assessments, the lectures seemed almost pointless. I think I attended a grand total of four. The lecturers seemed desperate to try and link the content with the assessments but it seemed a lot of the time like they were grasping to fill time with useless babble which appeared to be irrelevant to anything - even their own course guidelines.

Interest: 2/10
Almost everyone I know who did this course found it incredibly boring and, as I mentioned, monotonous. Most people stopped attending lectures after week 2. I'm lucky to have had a great tutor who tried to make it as 'interesting' as possible despite it being such a dry subject.

Overall: 4/10
I wouldn't recommend it. Probably the best thing I took away from it was learning proper citation techniques pretty early in my first semester, although I don't doubt I would've been able to learn these on my own in no time anyway. You can do well if you put in the work, but honestly, I think that most people's lack of interest had an adverse affect on how much they actually wanted to work in the subject. Very often I ended up avoiding it and putting more time into others. Very dry.

 

[Saph]

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

Monetary Economics ECOS3010

Ease: 7/10

No maths required, just memory and some decent essay skills.

Lecturer- 9/10

Tony Aspromourgos is a genius. Alternative, critical and with a dry humour that will make you laugh

Interest 9/10

NOW is the time to do this subject, post GFC. All the interesting stuff is going on whilst you learn!

Overall 9/10

Great course. Would recommend to any student, not just ecos majors



Capital and Dynamics ECOS3019

Ease- 9/10

This is a new subject in 2010, and it kind of shows. High-school algebra required, but apart from that, all you have to do is a bit of cramming before the exam. There is an optional essay, but you would be crazy to do it considering how easy the tests are

Lecturer- 7/10

Graham was very interesting, if a bit dry at times. He definitely went through the course too slowly for everyone though.

Interest- 8/10

Will probably only appeal to econ nerds. It's a VERY alternative take on orthodox economics, seen through a historical lens. Good to know though

Overall 8/10

Easy and interesting, but not everyone's cup of tea



Advanced Microeconomics Honours ECOS3901

Ease- 7/10

Some of the mathematical proofs are a little difficult the first time around, but as the lecturer says, all you need to do is read them a few times before the logic becomes clear. The tests and problems are very lenient, considering how hard they could theoretically be. Usually are just rehash's of last year's test.

Lecturer 9/10

Abhijit is fantastic. No other word for it. He rambles a bit, but he is supremely intelligent and he knows his micro. He'll reinspire you after Don Wright in ECOS2903

Interest-9/10

Not conventional micro theory- no producers and consumers here. Its all advanced game theory, and I found it really interesting at least.


Overall- 8/10

Great course, but as its pre-Honours I can't see a lot of people liking the look of it. But it would still be interesting even if you didn't got to fourth year!



Politics of International Economic Relations GOVT2221

Ease 10/10

This subject is just an extension of first year GOVT and ECOP subjects. If you read the newspaper, you will ace this subject. The most difficult thing was finding the room.

Lecturer- 8/10

John Mikles is insightful, informative and I've never seen a lecturer whose views I agree with so strongly.

Interest 5/10

Most GOVT/ECOP students will find this subject terribly familiar, as there is a lot of crossover with other units (especially ECOP1003 AND ECOP3014). This can make it extremely boring at times, but on the plus side, there is absolutely no need to make lecture notes.

Overall- 6/10

I don't like repeating material, and this subject definitely took the cake there. However, the material itself is/was interesting (the first few times). As usual, the major essay is the pivot of the course- you don't want to mess it up. Tutes were fun, many a lively discussion.

 

[coudes]

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

Might as well.

GOVT1105 - Geopolitics
Ease - 7/10
The overarching concepts of the unit were pretty easy to understand. The essay topics were also straightforward - the first one was essentially describing various geopolitical theories. However, the readings were a bit heavy and some of the concepts in the readings seemed farfetched.

Lecturer - 6/10
I had Diarmuid Maguire. He's funny, in a pathetically dry manner. However, he primarily read off the lecture slides. After the first lecture, I stopped attending and I found that I could just copy and paste the slides content and leave it at that. The only lecture I really listened to was the exam topics lecture. My tutor, Patrick, was also hit and miss. He's sartorially down and obviously smart, but he needs to work on directing the class and explaining concepts better. After a mid-sem feedback session, he slightly improved.

Interest - 6/10
Hit and miss overall. The popular geopolitics section was very interesting. I think my interest in it might've been maintained if there was more enthusiasm from the lecturers/tutors.

Overall - 6/10
Relatively interesting content that could've been improved on by other aspects of the unit.

ECOP1001 - Economics as a Social Science
Ease - 8/10
This is my fault, because I hardly went over the content and when it was exam time, I was rushing to comprehend everything. But once exams were over, I did a second take and read over everything once again and it was relatively easy to grasp. Contest of Economic Ideas is an ace book.

Lecturer - 9/10
Frank Stilwell is fucking amazing - funny, critically engaging and amicable. He's like a genuinely cool grandpa. I'm so glad he was my lecturer, because apparently 2011 is the last year he'll be teaching ECOP1001. Tim, my tutor, was also great. Knowledgeable and laid back. Hot, as well.

Interest - 8/10
I like political economy because it focuses on the social and political aspects of economics. So if you're interested in that...

The tutes could've been more interesting - no discussion, and the tutor resorted to picking on people to answer questions.

Overall - 8/10
Solid content, man.

HSTY1076 - American History: From Lincoln to Clinton
Ease - 7/10
Assessments were source-based. WHAT DOES THIS SOURCE SAY??? Straightforward.

Lecturer - 5/10
The lecturer for the first half of the semester, Stephen Murray Robinson, was decent. Explained things well and at least attempted to inject some interest by making jokes and et al. However, Rebecca Sheehan was horrible. Before she started talking, she would play a youtube video related to the content of that day's lecture and I assumed she did so because she wanted to compensate for how monotonous her voice was and the fact that she read off a piece of paper.

Interest - 6/10
Relatively interesting content marred by the quality of the lecturers and the tutes. My tutes were personally very boring.

Overall - 6/10
Decent primer. There's also AMST1001.