Subject Reviews (with PDF compilation) (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter stazi
- Start date
FINC2011
Ease: 7.5/10
Not too bad a course. Keep on top of things, smash effective rates and you'll be fine. Assignment is seriously time consuming though, you will waste a good week on that if you want a good mark (80%+) which is very doable and probably required to get a good overall mark. Final was a bit tough, but fair. They asked us to do 3x3 covariance which was annoying but luckily id memorised that one
Lecturers: 7/10
Amy is great, 9/10, explains things well and is extremely nice. If you have her be happy. Craig 5/10. Pretty boring and not that helpful, go to his lectures if you like but not the biggest deal in the world if you miss em.
Interest: 8/10
I found the course overall to be pretty interesting, the capital budgeting was a bit boring but i liked time value of money, IRR and some of the risk parts.
Overall: 8/10 If you're majoring in finance, it's a solid intro to basic concepts. A little bit on the tricky side, so probably wouldnt pick it as a wam boosting elective
BIOL1003
Ease: 6/10
Extremely content heavy. never memorised so much content, had 100+ pages of notes on my computer. The issue is that lectures are fine content wise but then you have to add in all the online crap too which makes it an enormous course. But multi for the final, so it's not all bad. About the same level as the quizes in labs
Lecturers: 6.5/10
Big range. Osu is a 4/10. Occasionally difficult to understand, doesnt put up lecture slides and is just poor overall. Some of the others are great though. The bald guy especially, although I dont know what his deal is with phones. Also another lady for a couple of lectures was great
Interest: 9/10
Pretty interesting overall
Overall: 8/10 If you put in the work its a doable and very interesting subject. Quite liked it
STAT2011
Ease: 8/10
Everything seems insanely hard from the lectures to the weekly computer labs but the actual exam and computer lab exam were very doable and ended up doing well in the subject. If you want a HD then try stay somewhat ontop of the material (calculations etc.) and then learn the proofs before the exam. Quizes were identical to the practices so a free 15% there.
Lecturers: 6.5/10
He seemed to assume we were all genius and went pretty fast through the material and wasnt great at explaining. But at least he spoke well and seemed reasonable.
Interest: 7.5/10
Moderately interesting at times. Especially the estimator stuff
Overall: 7/10
ECON1002
Ease: 7/10
Surprisingly actually very difficult. The midsem was amazingly easy, shoulda done better but the essay was marked insanely hard. Average was under 50%. Final was a bit tricky too, but pretty sure they scaled, reweighted or just marked really easy cause they said i got 85% in the final and my friend got 95% which was a bit hard to believe. I think this changes from semester to semester. I heard he marked nicer on the essay in semester 2. Hate in class essays in general though, so probably avoid if you dont like that
Lecturers: 5/10
Mark melatos - So boring, so slow. Just went on and on and on. Was fine to understand though, and occasionally interesting
Interest: 8/10
I found it reasonably interesting overall. Some of the reserve bank stuff with money creation/destroying was nice
Overall: 7/10
Ease: 7.5/10
Not too bad a course. Keep on top of things, smash effective rates and you'll be fine. Assignment is seriously time consuming though, you will waste a good week on that if you want a good mark (80%+) which is very doable and probably required to get a good overall mark. Final was a bit tough, but fair. They asked us to do 3x3 covariance which was annoying but luckily id memorised that one
Lecturers: 7/10
Amy is great, 9/10, explains things well and is extremely nice. If you have her be happy. Craig 5/10. Pretty boring and not that helpful, go to his lectures if you like but not the biggest deal in the world if you miss em.
Interest: 8/10
I found the course overall to be pretty interesting, the capital budgeting was a bit boring but i liked time value of money, IRR and some of the risk parts.
Overall: 8/10 If you're majoring in finance, it's a solid intro to basic concepts. A little bit on the tricky side, so probably wouldnt pick it as a wam boosting elective
BIOL1003
Ease: 6/10
Extremely content heavy. never memorised so much content, had 100+ pages of notes on my computer. The issue is that lectures are fine content wise but then you have to add in all the online crap too which makes it an enormous course. But multi for the final, so it's not all bad. About the same level as the quizes in labs
Lecturers: 6.5/10
Big range. Osu is a 4/10. Occasionally difficult to understand, doesnt put up lecture slides and is just poor overall. Some of the others are great though. The bald guy especially, although I dont know what his deal is with phones. Also another lady for a couple of lectures was great
Interest: 9/10
Pretty interesting overall
Overall: 8/10 If you put in the work its a doable and very interesting subject. Quite liked it
STAT2011
Ease: 8/10
Everything seems insanely hard from the lectures to the weekly computer labs but the actual exam and computer lab exam were very doable and ended up doing well in the subject. If you want a HD then try stay somewhat ontop of the material (calculations etc.) and then learn the proofs before the exam. Quizes were identical to the practices so a free 15% there.
Lecturers: 6.5/10
He seemed to assume we were all genius and went pretty fast through the material and wasnt great at explaining. But at least he spoke well and seemed reasonable.
Interest: 7.5/10
Moderately interesting at times. Especially the estimator stuff
Overall: 7/10
ECON1002
Ease: 7/10
Surprisingly actually very difficult. The midsem was amazingly easy, shoulda done better but the essay was marked insanely hard. Average was under 50%. Final was a bit tricky too, but pretty sure they scaled, reweighted or just marked really easy cause they said i got 85% in the final and my friend got 95% which was a bit hard to believe. I think this changes from semester to semester. I heard he marked nicer on the essay in semester 2. Hate in class essays in general though, so probably avoid if you dont like that
Lecturers: 5/10
Mark melatos - So boring, so slow. Just went on and on and on. Was fine to understand though, and occasionally interesting
Interest: 8/10
I found it reasonably interesting overall. Some of the reserve bank stuff with money creation/destroying was nice
Overall: 7/10
Last edited:
Amundies
Commander-in-Chief
did it sem 1. thought id put up my reviews now though cause i didnt then haha
Ronnie Coleman
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2014
- Messages
- 6
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2015
Sem 1 2016
KRNS1621 - Korean 1
Ease: 10/10
I went into this course having already done about 1 year (on/off) study in my own time, and found it extremely easy, so don't take this at face value. Already knowing virtually all of the grammar and vocab was a massive advantage. I was able to basically do nothing for the first few weeks while we learnt spelling/pronunciation of the alphabet. The course was exceedingly easy for me, but I know this isn't the case for many people, I saw many people getting 15-20/55 in quizzes. I think I enjoyed this course a lot more because of this prior knowledge.
Lectures: 8/10
Lectures were 2 hours on grammar, taken by Park Duk-Soo. He knows his stuff, particularly about phonetics and morphology, as well as syntax. His lectures could get a bit rambly at times, and he had trouble using the mic/recording a few times, I sat front row to ensure I didn't miss anything. I'm personally interested in these areas as well, so I think that made me enjoy his lectures a lot more than I may have otherwise. He sometimes went through somewhat complicated concepts fairly quickly, losing some stuff in the process, and explained some concepts weirdly, but he was pretty good at answering any follow up clarification questions.
Tutor was Anna (안경자), was good but slow at times, didn't explain some concepts that well. Pretty good at answering questions though. Would have enjoyed more chances to practice speaking, as it's where most people are lacking most. I'd give her 6/10, mainly because they were boring as I already knew content. Other tutors were allegedly better, I don't personally know.
Interest: 8/10
This is for my major and I want to get good at the language, so I payed attention and tried to stay engaged. Tutorials were boring mostly, but I had to attend to hand in homework and do the weekly quizzes (8 of them, 10 words, pretty easy if you study). The lectures were great, but I enjoyed them a lot more because I knew most of the Korean and didn't have to pay that much attention.
Overall: 9/10
I loved it, only downside is rambles in lectures/boring tutes, but nothing big. I'm continuing Korean 2 next sem as it's my major. I haven't sat the final yet but I'll update with my marks when I get them. Also I think I got marked slightly harsher because I have prior knowledge, but that's fair enough.
CHNS1101 - Chinese 1A Beginners
Ease: 7/10
Listening, reading and writing is fine, pronunciation and remembering pinyin is the only issue. If you memorise the characters you won't have a problem for most of the course. I fell behind and suffered because of it, if you don't fall behind you'll enjoy it. It's a fun course, Chinese isn't as bad as it seems. I have no prior Chinese experience fyi.
Lectures: 7/10
1 hour of grammar by Linda Tsung (I think that's her) was pretty good, she knows her stuff, able to explain most concepts. Good practice for speaking in these, keeps it interesting with videos etc. Guest lecturer for two weeks in the middle, don't know her name, can't remember anything about her, she wasn't shit probably, was fine.
Tong Peiru was my tutor, she was fantastic. Really really helpful and willing to communicate via email outside of class. Did her best to answer from a native perspective about natural speech, and explaining some phonetic concepts nicely with diagrams. Kept classes fun and really engages with us. Forces you to speak, which is good. 9/10
Interest: 8/10
My interest dropped off late in the sem because I got lazy, lost some marks because of it. Work on your pronunciation and you'll be good.
Overall: 8/10
Pretty good teachers, interesting course and super fun with other beginners. Definitely recommend, but you have to stay on top or you'll get fucked over down the line, unless you go on exchange (I'll have to probably). They had two language exchange sessions arranged every week, I wasn't able to go but definitely do if you can, they're fantastic for putting these on, invaluable.
LNGS1001 - Structure of Language
Ease: 7/10
Not the easiest subject ever, nearly most all of the concepts make sense in the lec/tute, but it was hard to put some of them into practice in the assignments. A bunch of typos in assignments made it difficult, threw me off a bunch. Phonetics was pretty straightforward, it's easy to make small mistakes but they can cost you a bunch of marks. Phonology was pretty interesting, but again it's sometimes difficult to see patterns. Morphology is cool but combining this with phonology is annoying as fuck and usually tiring. Grammar and syntax were pretty straightforward, not many complaints. The cohort didn't perform that well this semester so they gave us an extra optional assignment and would count our best 4 of 6 instead of just the normal 5 for 50% of the course, but this 6th assignment had fucking arabic tri-consonants so I didn't bother submitting it, I knew it wouldn't be in my top 4. Make sure you make friends in your tute and work on assignments together, you will do much better (unless you already know everything), many people failed a few assignments before they worked this out.
Lectures: 10/10
Nick Enfield was fantastic, really engaging and good at explaining all the concepts. They were, in order, phonetics, phonology, morphology, syntax, grammar. Great powerpoints with diagrams/pictures/videos of his own research sometimes (and shitloads of examples). Some idiot in the lectures kept asking dumb questions which got annoying for everyone. Nick asks lots of questions to us in the audience which is great, and lots of homework for tutorials was good practice for assignments.
Tutor was Georgia Carr, really great at explaining stuff also. Helpful via email. If you contribute the tutes are 10x better, if you sit quiet it's just awkward and shit. 9/10.
Interest: 10/10
I went in with little linguistics knowledge and absolutely loved it. Super fun to learn about phonology and morphology. As someone learning two languages this stuff feels very practically applicable even if it isn't really, makes it a lot more engaging.
Overall: 8/10
Very interesting course, highly recommend to anyone doing languages. Taught well and interestingly, I'm taking two linguistics units next semester, that's how much I enjoyed it.
ASNS1601 - Introduction to Asian Cultures
Ease: 8/10
A pretty straightforward course, if you pay attention and take notes you'll be fine. Easy as shit 15% quiz, mid term was pretty easy, got 75%. Final was fine, questions not that hard, I passed the course before it and didn't study for it though. I'll update with marks when I get them.
Lectures: 6/10
Retarded mandatory online pre-recorded lectures were boring, and not-recorded mandatory Q&A live session was not bad, boring at times. The live sessions were loosely planned with some pre-prepared questions and then just questions from students, and so often were vary varied in terms of content they covered, some felt quite all over the place, little structure to be found.
China: Sean Moores (5/10). Not bad but 90 minutes of this soft-spoken Irish man's voice over a powerpoint would put anybody to sleep. Most interesting of the regions, agricultural shit was cool.
Korea: Su-Kyoung Hwang (7/10). Not bad, didn't watch all her online lectures though. Fairly interesting lectures, but not that good.
Japan: Matthew Stavros (9/10). Very enthusiastic guy, he took the online section only. Lionel Babiscz for the Q&A was pretty enthusiastic too, kind of rambly though (7/10).
South Asia/India: Mark Allon (6/10). Didn't watch his online stuff, didn't pay that much attention at live session. Kept talking about Buddhism which I don't care about so was kind of boring. Knows his shit though, just wasn't personally interested.
SEA: Adrian Vickers (8/10). Pretty good, interesting enough area and interesting enough guy.
Tutor was Tomoko Horikawa (6/10), nice but clearly didn't know that much about the regions other than Japan. Had some good resources some tutes, others was pretty boring. Some decent discussions, but she couldn't contribute that much.
Interest: 4/10
I didn't realise it was as much of a history subject as it is. Too much focus on religion/cultural beliefs for my liking, I don't care at all about that, the civilisational aspects are a lot more interesting, but you can't ignore either unfortunately. Interest severely dropped later on due to boring lectures/live sessions, not taking next semester unit.
Overall: 6/10
Not the worst but not that interesting. I don't like the online lecture component at all (everyone always says how online recorded lectures aren't substitute and then they go and make it fucking mandatory). Pretty straightforward course though, I just lost interest once I got 51%.
I'll update with my marks when I get them.
KRNS1621 - Korean 1
Ease: 10/10
I went into this course having already done about 1 year (on/off) study in my own time, and found it extremely easy, so don't take this at face value. Already knowing virtually all of the grammar and vocab was a massive advantage. I was able to basically do nothing for the first few weeks while we learnt spelling/pronunciation of the alphabet. The course was exceedingly easy for me, but I know this isn't the case for many people, I saw many people getting 15-20/55 in quizzes. I think I enjoyed this course a lot more because of this prior knowledge.
Lectures: 8/10
Lectures were 2 hours on grammar, taken by Park Duk-Soo. He knows his stuff, particularly about phonetics and morphology, as well as syntax. His lectures could get a bit rambly at times, and he had trouble using the mic/recording a few times, I sat front row to ensure I didn't miss anything. I'm personally interested in these areas as well, so I think that made me enjoy his lectures a lot more than I may have otherwise. He sometimes went through somewhat complicated concepts fairly quickly, losing some stuff in the process, and explained some concepts weirdly, but he was pretty good at answering any follow up clarification questions.
Tutor was Anna (안경자), was good but slow at times, didn't explain some concepts that well. Pretty good at answering questions though. Would have enjoyed more chances to practice speaking, as it's where most people are lacking most. I'd give her 6/10, mainly because they were boring as I already knew content. Other tutors were allegedly better, I don't personally know.
Interest: 8/10
This is for my major and I want to get good at the language, so I payed attention and tried to stay engaged. Tutorials were boring mostly, but I had to attend to hand in homework and do the weekly quizzes (8 of them, 10 words, pretty easy if you study). The lectures were great, but I enjoyed them a lot more because I knew most of the Korean and didn't have to pay that much attention.
Overall: 9/10
I loved it, only downside is rambles in lectures/boring tutes, but nothing big. I'm continuing Korean 2 next sem as it's my major. I haven't sat the final yet but I'll update with my marks when I get them. Also I think I got marked slightly harsher because I have prior knowledge, but that's fair enough.
CHNS1101 - Chinese 1A Beginners
Ease: 7/10
Listening, reading and writing is fine, pronunciation and remembering pinyin is the only issue. If you memorise the characters you won't have a problem for most of the course. I fell behind and suffered because of it, if you don't fall behind you'll enjoy it. It's a fun course, Chinese isn't as bad as it seems. I have no prior Chinese experience fyi.
Lectures: 7/10
1 hour of grammar by Linda Tsung (I think that's her) was pretty good, she knows her stuff, able to explain most concepts. Good practice for speaking in these, keeps it interesting with videos etc. Guest lecturer for two weeks in the middle, don't know her name, can't remember anything about her, she wasn't shit probably, was fine.
Tong Peiru was my tutor, she was fantastic. Really really helpful and willing to communicate via email outside of class. Did her best to answer from a native perspective about natural speech, and explaining some phonetic concepts nicely with diagrams. Kept classes fun and really engages with us. Forces you to speak, which is good. 9/10
Interest: 8/10
My interest dropped off late in the sem because I got lazy, lost some marks because of it. Work on your pronunciation and you'll be good.
Overall: 8/10
Pretty good teachers, interesting course and super fun with other beginners. Definitely recommend, but you have to stay on top or you'll get fucked over down the line, unless you go on exchange (I'll have to probably). They had two language exchange sessions arranged every week, I wasn't able to go but definitely do if you can, they're fantastic for putting these on, invaluable.
LNGS1001 - Structure of Language
Ease: 7/10
Not the easiest subject ever, nearly most all of the concepts make sense in the lec/tute, but it was hard to put some of them into practice in the assignments. A bunch of typos in assignments made it difficult, threw me off a bunch. Phonetics was pretty straightforward, it's easy to make small mistakes but they can cost you a bunch of marks. Phonology was pretty interesting, but again it's sometimes difficult to see patterns. Morphology is cool but combining this with phonology is annoying as fuck and usually tiring. Grammar and syntax were pretty straightforward, not many complaints. The cohort didn't perform that well this semester so they gave us an extra optional assignment and would count our best 4 of 6 instead of just the normal 5 for 50% of the course, but this 6th assignment had fucking arabic tri-consonants so I didn't bother submitting it, I knew it wouldn't be in my top 4. Make sure you make friends in your tute and work on assignments together, you will do much better (unless you already know everything), many people failed a few assignments before they worked this out.
Lectures: 10/10
Nick Enfield was fantastic, really engaging and good at explaining all the concepts. They were, in order, phonetics, phonology, morphology, syntax, grammar. Great powerpoints with diagrams/pictures/videos of his own research sometimes (and shitloads of examples). Some idiot in the lectures kept asking dumb questions which got annoying for everyone. Nick asks lots of questions to us in the audience which is great, and lots of homework for tutorials was good practice for assignments.
Tutor was Georgia Carr, really great at explaining stuff also. Helpful via email. If you contribute the tutes are 10x better, if you sit quiet it's just awkward and shit. 9/10.
Interest: 10/10
I went in with little linguistics knowledge and absolutely loved it. Super fun to learn about phonology and morphology. As someone learning two languages this stuff feels very practically applicable even if it isn't really, makes it a lot more engaging.
Overall: 8/10
Very interesting course, highly recommend to anyone doing languages. Taught well and interestingly, I'm taking two linguistics units next semester, that's how much I enjoyed it.
ASNS1601 - Introduction to Asian Cultures
Ease: 8/10
A pretty straightforward course, if you pay attention and take notes you'll be fine. Easy as shit 15% quiz, mid term was pretty easy, got 75%. Final was fine, questions not that hard, I passed the course before it and didn't study for it though. I'll update with marks when I get them.
Lectures: 6/10
Retarded mandatory online pre-recorded lectures were boring, and not-recorded mandatory Q&A live session was not bad, boring at times. The live sessions were loosely planned with some pre-prepared questions and then just questions from students, and so often were vary varied in terms of content they covered, some felt quite all over the place, little structure to be found.
China: Sean Moores (5/10). Not bad but 90 minutes of this soft-spoken Irish man's voice over a powerpoint would put anybody to sleep. Most interesting of the regions, agricultural shit was cool.
Korea: Su-Kyoung Hwang (7/10). Not bad, didn't watch all her online lectures though. Fairly interesting lectures, but not that good.
Japan: Matthew Stavros (9/10). Very enthusiastic guy, he took the online section only. Lionel Babiscz for the Q&A was pretty enthusiastic too, kind of rambly though (7/10).
South Asia/India: Mark Allon (6/10). Didn't watch his online stuff, didn't pay that much attention at live session. Kept talking about Buddhism which I don't care about so was kind of boring. Knows his shit though, just wasn't personally interested.
SEA: Adrian Vickers (8/10). Pretty good, interesting enough area and interesting enough guy.
Tutor was Tomoko Horikawa (6/10), nice but clearly didn't know that much about the regions other than Japan. Had some good resources some tutes, others was pretty boring. Some decent discussions, but she couldn't contribute that much.
Interest: 4/10
I didn't realise it was as much of a history subject as it is. Too much focus on religion/cultural beliefs for my liking, I don't care at all about that, the civilisational aspects are a lot more interesting, but you can't ignore either unfortunately. Interest severely dropped later on due to boring lectures/live sessions, not taking next semester unit.
Overall: 6/10
Not the worst but not that interesting. I don't like the online lecture component at all (everyone always says how online recorded lectures aren't substitute and then they go and make it fucking mandatory). Pretty straightforward course though, I just lost interest once I got 51%.
I'll update with my marks when I get them.
Last edited:
Sem 1 2016
Comp1917 – Comp1A – semester 1
Difficulty: 8.5/10
.Fuck. I suggest that NO ONE EVER TAKE THIS COURSE IN SEMESTER ONE EVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! First 5 weeks are actually pretty mad though. Enjoyed so much and pretty easy actually, with small challenges.
Next though, everything is online on this website called open learning, and you need to make IN DETAIL and MULTIPLE blogs every fucking week proving u watched online lecture videos, and show reflection and how u improved ur skills and just random BS that takes so long. Then you need to juggle doing assignments (the last of which is a MAJOR PROJECT THAT YOU WORK ON FOR WEEKS) and lab activities that don’t even count directly, they just go to ur RESUME (dumbest shit out). Then u need to study for exams (prac exam and theory exam), both being quite hard. Prac exam is pass or fail as well. This subject would have been good if run like a normal subject without blogging and all that bs. Overall, you spend like70% of your time on this subject with not that much to gain from it.
Lectures: 0/10
Recorded in 2011. Are all online. Richard Buckland rambles on in the lectures meaning 10 minutes of content takes 1 hour. Lectures not in a structured order so to speak. just shit. Also u are forced to watch these lectures and prove you watched them...wat even.
Tutorials/Labs: 9/10
These were awesome. Had a really good tutor that made the course really interesting and fun and pushed us to our potential. Good to work with other people in the course.
Interest: 8/10
pretty interesting content, but course is difficult do to the amount of time u need to spend on it in SEM 1.
Overall: 1.5/10 (DO IN SEMESTER 2 IF U WANT TO DO THIS. MUCH BETTER COURSE )
Comp1917 – Comp1A – semester 1
Difficulty: 8.5/10
.Fuck. I suggest that NO ONE EVER TAKE THIS COURSE IN SEMESTER ONE EVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! First 5 weeks are actually pretty mad though. Enjoyed so much and pretty easy actually, with small challenges.
Next though, everything is online on this website called open learning, and you need to make IN DETAIL and MULTIPLE blogs every fucking week proving u watched online lecture videos, and show reflection and how u improved ur skills and just random BS that takes so long. Then you need to juggle doing assignments (the last of which is a MAJOR PROJECT THAT YOU WORK ON FOR WEEKS) and lab activities that don’t even count directly, they just go to ur RESUME (dumbest shit out). Then u need to study for exams (prac exam and theory exam), both being quite hard. Prac exam is pass or fail as well. This subject would have been good if run like a normal subject without blogging and all that bs. Overall, you spend like70% of your time on this subject with not that much to gain from it.
Lectures: 0/10
Recorded in 2011. Are all online. Richard Buckland rambles on in the lectures meaning 10 minutes of content takes 1 hour. Lectures not in a structured order so to speak. just shit. Also u are forced to watch these lectures and prove you watched them...wat even.
Tutorials/Labs: 9/10
These were awesome. Had a really good tutor that made the course really interesting and fun and pushed us to our potential. Good to work with other people in the course.
Interest: 8/10
pretty interesting content, but course is difficult do to the amount of time u need to spend on it in SEM 1.
Overall: 1.5/10 (DO IN SEMESTER 2 IF U WANT TO DO THIS. MUCH BETTER COURSE )
Silly Sausage
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2014
- Messages
- 594
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2014
wrong uni ..
Librah
Not_the_pad
CHEM2915
Ease: 9/10
First 5 weeks were pretty much revision of organic from first year, more curly arrows and more things to memorise. Quantum was a little wishy-washy, wasn't very rigorous. I don't really know if spectroscopy was hard or not, but it felt like some of the things we were supposed to know for the exams wasn't taught or covered properly. For SSP, first half was run more tutorial-like and covered stuff of fluorescence and presenting figures, which was alright. Second half was on drug discovery, which i personally didn't like, too biology-ish for my taste, would've liked to have done something quantum.
Labs : 5/10
Might just be because I’m horrible at practicals, but I really didn't like the labs. Your basically just reading off the lab manual without really understanding what you’re doing, didn't help with my sandbox organisational skills. Reports were annoying as well, most of the feedback for the reports was incredibly vague, and I was losing marks every week for things that they didn't comment on the previous weeks. In the end I lost around 5% weighed overall just from labs.
Lecturers:
--- Skipped most ?/10
Interest:9/10
Always fun to draw curly arrows, i think quantum/spectroscopy could be a little more rigorous, but i guess that's asking too much for a second year chemistry unit.
Overall:7/10
Labs are killing it for me, but the content was alright.
PHYS2911
Ease: Optics- 8/10 Thermodynamics- 5/10
Optics was on mostly diffraction through slits, resolution, thin film interference and polarization. Thermodynamics involved a whole range of proofs on the corollaries of the 2nd law of thermodynamics for heat engines then a range of topics covering internal energy, entropy, thermodynamic potentials and more entropy. Also might just be me, but I thought the final exam was a bit long for two hours.
Lecturers: Tim Bedding- 9/10 Martjin De Sterke - 9/10
Of the lectures i went to, they were good and most explanations were reasonably easy to understand.
Computation lab: ?/10
I really can't assign this one a rating, I really slacked off here (tried cramming 13 weeks into one night) and I’m pretty sure I failed the last lab test. Was the first time I had any programming experience but people with experience coding shouldn’t have much problems with these labs.
Experimental lab: 5/10
Everyone hated these. Main problem I had was the marking system they had, the experiments themselves though weren’t very exciting either.
Interest: 6/10
Optics was a little dry, but thermodynamics was quite interesting.
Ease: 9/10
First 5 weeks were pretty much revision of organic from first year, more curly arrows and more things to memorise. Quantum was a little wishy-washy, wasn't very rigorous. I don't really know if spectroscopy was hard or not, but it felt like some of the things we were supposed to know for the exams wasn't taught or covered properly. For SSP, first half was run more tutorial-like and covered stuff of fluorescence and presenting figures, which was alright. Second half was on drug discovery, which i personally didn't like, too biology-ish for my taste, would've liked to have done something quantum.
Labs : 5/10
Might just be because I’m horrible at practicals, but I really didn't like the labs. Your basically just reading off the lab manual without really understanding what you’re doing, didn't help with my sandbox organisational skills. Reports were annoying as well, most of the feedback for the reports was incredibly vague, and I was losing marks every week for things that they didn't comment on the previous weeks. In the end I lost around 5% weighed overall just from labs.
Lecturers:
--- Skipped most ?/10
Interest:9/10
Always fun to draw curly arrows, i think quantum/spectroscopy could be a little more rigorous, but i guess that's asking too much for a second year chemistry unit.
Overall:7/10
Labs are killing it for me, but the content was alright.
PHYS2911
Ease: Optics- 8/10 Thermodynamics- 5/10
Optics was on mostly diffraction through slits, resolution, thin film interference and polarization. Thermodynamics involved a whole range of proofs on the corollaries of the 2nd law of thermodynamics for heat engines then a range of topics covering internal energy, entropy, thermodynamic potentials and more entropy. Also might just be me, but I thought the final exam was a bit long for two hours.
Lecturers: Tim Bedding- 9/10 Martjin De Sterke - 9/10
Of the lectures i went to, they were good and most explanations were reasonably easy to understand.
Computation lab: ?/10
I really can't assign this one a rating, I really slacked off here (tried cramming 13 weeks into one night) and I’m pretty sure I failed the last lab test. Was the first time I had any programming experience but people with experience coding shouldn’t have much problems with these labs.
Experimental lab: 5/10
Everyone hated these. Main problem I had was the marking system they had, the experiments themselves though weren’t very exciting either.
Interest: 6/10
Optics was a little dry, but thermodynamics was quite interesting.
Last edited:
Librah
Not_the_pad
MATH2961
Ease:7/10
Difficulty can be a little deceiving, since the majority of lectures and the course notes go through proofs/theory and hardly any examples are covered and your left to figure out a lot of stuff on your own. Vector calculus was mostly just computations and number crunching and learning when or where to apply stoke's/divergence theorems. Linear algebra (L.A) was definitely harder, a lot more proofs were involved and definitions to learn. There were some concepts in L.A that took ages for me to even understand, and others that were just a struggle to interpret, like generalized eigenvalues and nilpotent matrices. The final exam however, made the course alot easier.
Lecturers: Ruibin Zhang:6/10 Daniel Daners:9/10
Both lecturers were very friendly and willing to answer anything questions you had after lectures. Was a bit of a struggle trying to understand Ruibin's accent, but i think most people got used to after a couple of days. Some of the things he explained though weren't very clear, and i don't think anyone actually understood his example on multi variable Taylor polynomials. Daners was pretty good, but i think he covered things a bit too slowly, and rushed alot of the linear algebra section in the last week.
Ruibin Zhang's laugh: 10/10
Tutorials: Had Daniel Daners: 10/10
Daners was a wonderful tutor.
Interest: 7/10
It was alright, some of the proofs for theorems in vector calculus didn't seem very rigorous though, a lot of them were just approximating things with shapes which i thought was a bit bizzare. I think in this course you finally see some actual applications of linear algebra/matrices in real life.
CHEM2404
Ease: 7/10
Alot of the things taught was really random and unorganized in forensics, it just seemed like a course you'd take as an elective if you weren't doing science for interest. Environmental/green chemistry were slightly better, but still a bit of a mess. There's alot to remember for the finals and i'd try to remember every small detail like definitons of pph, LD50, every type of forensic technique if you want to ace the multiple choice ( I lost like 7 marks here cause i didn't memorise those definitions). The short response in the final exam was almost exactly the same as the previous years paper, they didn't even bother to change some of the values. Also for the online quizzes, don't make the mistake of accidently shifting your answers down by one after scribing it on a piece of paper
.
Labs: 7/10
Alot shorter than main chemistry labs, most are done by 2 out of the 4 hours. Some experiments were interesting, but i was seemingly losing marks for the experiments somehow, which was all a bit dodgy. Although a problem i had with some of the experiments was that they just didn't make sense, or the answers to them was impossible to determine without a google search.
Lecturers: ?/10
Didn't go
Tutorials: ?/10
These were like revision sessions every 2 weeks, not much of a tutorial, cycled through 3 tutors.
Interest: 5/10
Looking back, would i take this subject again? Probably not. I guess this would be a bit of a WAM boost for people in science if you put in the effort.
Ease:7/10
Difficulty can be a little deceiving, since the majority of lectures and the course notes go through proofs/theory and hardly any examples are covered and your left to figure out a lot of stuff on your own. Vector calculus was mostly just computations and number crunching and learning when or where to apply stoke's/divergence theorems. Linear algebra (L.A) was definitely harder, a lot more proofs were involved and definitions to learn. There were some concepts in L.A that took ages for me to even understand, and others that were just a struggle to interpret, like generalized eigenvalues and nilpotent matrices. The final exam however, made the course alot easier.
Lecturers: Ruibin Zhang:6/10 Daniel Daners:9/10
Both lecturers were very friendly and willing to answer anything questions you had after lectures. Was a bit of a struggle trying to understand Ruibin's accent, but i think most people got used to after a couple of days. Some of the things he explained though weren't very clear, and i don't think anyone actually understood his example on multi variable Taylor polynomials. Daners was pretty good, but i think he covered things a bit too slowly, and rushed alot of the linear algebra section in the last week.
Ruibin Zhang's laugh: 10/10
Tutorials: Had Daniel Daners: 10/10
Daners was a wonderful tutor.
Interest: 7/10
It was alright, some of the proofs for theorems in vector calculus didn't seem very rigorous though, a lot of them were just approximating things with shapes which i thought was a bit bizzare. I think in this course you finally see some actual applications of linear algebra/matrices in real life.
CHEM2404
Ease: 7/10
Alot of the things taught was really random and unorganized in forensics, it just seemed like a course you'd take as an elective if you weren't doing science for interest. Environmental/green chemistry were slightly better, but still a bit of a mess. There's alot to remember for the finals and i'd try to remember every small detail like definitons of pph, LD50, every type of forensic technique if you want to ace the multiple choice ( I lost like 7 marks here cause i didn't memorise those definitions). The short response in the final exam was almost exactly the same as the previous years paper, they didn't even bother to change some of the values. Also for the online quizzes, don't make the mistake of accidently shifting your answers down by one after scribing it on a piece of paper
.Labs: 7/10
Alot shorter than main chemistry labs, most are done by 2 out of the 4 hours. Some experiments were interesting, but i was seemingly losing marks for the experiments somehow, which was all a bit dodgy. Although a problem i had with some of the experiments was that they just didn't make sense, or the answers to them was impossible to determine without a google search.
Lecturers: ?/10
Didn't go
Tutorials: ?/10
These were like revision sessions every 2 weeks, not much of a tutorial, cycled through 3 tutors.
Interest: 5/10
Looking back, would i take this subject again? Probably not. I guess this would be a bit of a WAM boost for people in science if you put in the effort.
Last edited:
RenegadeMx
Kosovo is Serbian
- Joined
- May 6, 2014
- Messages
- 1,302
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2011
- Uni Grad
- 2016
MATH1131/41
Ease:10/10
basic matrices and vector stuff, calc stuff was decent
Lecturers: Peter Brown:10/10 Chris Tisdell:10/10
Both lecturers are engaging and make the maffs rly easy
Tutor: some random 6/10
just mostly did homework question nothing special
Interest: 5/10
Boring first year course where u have already seen most of the stuff from high school
Ease:10/10
basic matrices and vector stuff, calc stuff was decent
Lecturers: Peter Brown:10/10 Chris Tisdell:10/10
Both lecturers are engaging and make the maffs rly easy
Tutor: some random 6/10
just mostly did homework question nothing special
Interest: 5/10
Boring first year course where u have already seen most of the stuff from high school
sida1049
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2013
- Messages
- 926
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2015
Semester 1 2016
ECON1001 – Introductory Microeconomics
Ease – 7/10
Fun fact: 20% of students who take this course fail. Initially I expected this unit to be fairly easy, especially since the first three to four weeks were all similar to HSC economics. However, don’t let that fool you. There comes a point in the subject where a lot of students are thrown off – specifically around week 7 regarding the study of markets. While the mathematics of economics are basic HSC 2U algebra and calculus, it can be quite easy to lose sight of the context behind the mathematics. That being said, however, as long as one can grasp the analytical approach towards markets, an HD in this subject isn’t too difficult.
Lecturer – 7.5/10 (Pablo Guillen Alvarez)
Among the most amusing lecturers I’ve had all semester – digresses often to mildly amusing jokes about “kinky maths” and how he’s only rich because he “married well”. He goes through the content in a relaxed and comprehensible way.
Tutorials, however, were incredibly dry. It was due to a mixture of only going through the set questions each week and a dry tutor.
Interest – 7/10
The section on government intervention can get quite dry at times. The first few weeks were essentially all from HSC and preliminary economics. While difficult, the section on market analysis can prove to be interesting in a counterintuitive way. Game theory was also intriguing, though it was only small section of the course.
Overall – 7/10
Probably the driest course I’ve done all semester, but I can’t complain about my HD. As a compulsory subject for quite a few majors, it’s a reasonably decent course.
HPSC1000 – Bioethics
(Special thanks to Amleops for recommending me this unit!)
Ease – 8/10
No homework. No final exam. Three take-home essays. Class discussions. That being said however, tutors have been known to be picky when it comes to marking. An HD in this unit does take some effort. As long as you work with your feedback and at least be somewhat up-to-date with readings, you should be fine.
Lecturer – 11/10 (Anson Fehross)
Probably the most memorable lecturer I’ve had all semester. Loaded with deadpan humour, somewhat edgy, amusingly sarcastic, sassy – all making it very worthwhile to attend his lectures. While he has a notable utilitarian slant, his lectures are highly informative, packed with debate and rewarding to attend.
Interest – 10/10
It’s philosophical ethics. Of course it’s interesting! The content is far and wide, so you’ll be sure to find areas of interest. The assessments give you a large degree of freedom regarding topics and stances.
Overall – 10/10
Have a spare elective? Do it. Particularly if you are a lover of debate, controversy and/or philosophy.
Also, a special shout-out to my tutor Adam who invited us to drinks.
INFO1103 – Introduction to Programming
Ease – 7/10
The content itself isn’t difficult. Problem solving was required, and rewarding to do. The assessments were perfectly doable. The final exam however was a slight leap in terms of difficulty, but also manageable.
Lecturer – 7.5/10 (John Stavrakakis)
I can’t concentrate in his lectures because his smile is too bright. Aside from his seemingly unending joyfulness, he is an adequate lecturer who goes through the content in a comprehensible way. However, he sometimes goes through content too slowly, particularly when it comes to examples of codes. As a result, his lectures can get quite dull at times.
The seminars weren’t that helpful for most people, and often quite dry, hence I got into the habit of doing maths or readings during them. Tutors, on the other hand, were often helpful, engaging and friendly.
Interest – 7.5/10
Programming itself is pretty interesting. Exercises during labs were often enjoyable. Assignments were interesting and satisfying to finish. Lectures and seminars can sometimes be a little boring. Certain topics, such as testing, were incredibly dry.
Overall – 7.5/10
Overall a rather interesting and engaging course. The IT staff and tutors were amazing; they were highly active and helpful on the forums, friendly and professional.
MATH1901 – Differential Calculus (Advanced)
Ease – 9/10
Most of this unit is fairly straightforward. Some aspects of limits and functions may prove to be challenging. Despite this unit being relatively straightforward for the mathematically inclined, the second quiz had an average less than 50%. The final exam was perfectly manageable.
Lecturer – 10/10 (James Parkinson)
Parkinson teaches in a highly effective manner. His lectures are well structured, engaging and definitely worth attending. The only objection I have is the fact that he cut his beautiful hair during the last week. It doesn’t take much to work out that a huge portion of the cohort (female and male) are too lost in his handsomeness to focus on understanding multivariable calculus.
Interest – 10/10
This course has a heavy emphasis on proofs and theorems, thus making it more abstract than your average first year differential calculus course. I’d definitely recommend this course to anyone who takes an interest in mathematics.
Overall – 10/10
Amazing lecturer. Organised content. Perfectly manageable assessments. Mathematics. What more can you ask for?
MATH1902 – Linear Algebra (Advanced)
Ease – 6/10
The content wasn’t too difficult, albeit the difficulty did notably increase towards the end with diagonalization and whatnot. The tutorial questions can get quite challenging (got into a routine where I stopped every week at 80-90%) The assignments and quizzes weren’t that difficult. The final exam, however, destroyed me (along with the rest of the cohort). The extended answers section of the exam is quite abstract and really tests you on areas of the course that were glossed over. A massive contrast to the difficulty of the final exam of MATH1901.
Lecturer – 8.5/10 (Holger Dullin)
A friendly lecturer who presents the content in a comprehensive way. Considering the difficulty of this course towards the end, it would be a mistake not to take advantage of his lectures.
Interest – 8.5/10
Linear algebra is definitely different to the maths most students hitherto have been exposed to, so some may find it’s foreignness dry, particularly since there were very little opportunities to apply the theory in a practical context. However, if one persists, one can really get into it (particularly towards the end).
Overall – 8/10
This is definitely harder than MATH1901. While this course is quite difficult and few students can get upwards of 80, it’s a course well worth doing, especially if you expect to encounter more maths in later years.
MATH1906 – Mathematics (Special Studies Program) A
Ease – 8/10
The content itself can get quite abstract and difficult to follow. It’s not uncommon for the class to get completely lost during seminars. However, since all assessments are take-home assignments, getting high marks in SSP isn’t difficult (most people did). Regardless whether you understand the seminars, you’ll always receive notes for every topic, so no biggie. That assignment on cardiac arrhythmia was probably by far the most difficult assignment all semester.
Lecturers – 9/10 (Daners, Wechselberger, Cirstea)
The topic on maps by Daners was brilliant. Cardiac arrhythmia by Wechselberger was also somewhat interesting, however he had to go through some background biology context. Furthermore, since the algebra was very long and messy, it was really easy to get lost during his seminars. Fractals by Cirstea was also fascinating, however once again, some parts of it were quite difficult to follow.
Interest – 10/10
I mean seriously, where else in an undergraduate course will you learn these kinds of maths…?
Overall – 10/10
Highly interesting, challenging and rewarding course. Furthermore, considering that the extra-credit is easy to get, and that you can’t do worse than your MATH1901 mark, why wouldn’t you do this course? We even threw Dr. Daners a class party for his 18th birthday. (It wasn’t actually his birthday, but at least we got to party for an entire tutorial… with Cirstea too.)
ECON1001 – Introductory Microeconomics
Ease – 7/10
Fun fact: 20% of students who take this course fail. Initially I expected this unit to be fairly easy, especially since the first three to four weeks were all similar to HSC economics. However, don’t let that fool you. There comes a point in the subject where a lot of students are thrown off – specifically around week 7 regarding the study of markets. While the mathematics of economics are basic HSC 2U algebra and calculus, it can be quite easy to lose sight of the context behind the mathematics. That being said, however, as long as one can grasp the analytical approach towards markets, an HD in this subject isn’t too difficult.
Lecturer – 7.5/10 (Pablo Guillen Alvarez)
Among the most amusing lecturers I’ve had all semester – digresses often to mildly amusing jokes about “kinky maths” and how he’s only rich because he “married well”. He goes through the content in a relaxed and comprehensible way.
Tutorials, however, were incredibly dry. It was due to a mixture of only going through the set questions each week and a dry tutor.
Interest – 7/10
The section on government intervention can get quite dry at times. The first few weeks were essentially all from HSC and preliminary economics. While difficult, the section on market analysis can prove to be interesting in a counterintuitive way. Game theory was also intriguing, though it was only small section of the course.
Overall – 7/10
Probably the driest course I’ve done all semester, but I can’t complain about my HD. As a compulsory subject for quite a few majors, it’s a reasonably decent course.
HPSC1000 – Bioethics
(Special thanks to Amleops for recommending me this unit!)
Ease – 8/10
No homework. No final exam. Three take-home essays. Class discussions. That being said however, tutors have been known to be picky when it comes to marking. An HD in this unit does take some effort. As long as you work with your feedback and at least be somewhat up-to-date with readings, you should be fine.
Lecturer – 11/10 (Anson Fehross)
Probably the most memorable lecturer I’ve had all semester. Loaded with deadpan humour, somewhat edgy, amusingly sarcastic, sassy – all making it very worthwhile to attend his lectures. While he has a notable utilitarian slant, his lectures are highly informative, packed with debate and rewarding to attend.
Interest – 10/10
It’s philosophical ethics. Of course it’s interesting! The content is far and wide, so you’ll be sure to find areas of interest. The assessments give you a large degree of freedom regarding topics and stances.
Overall – 10/10
Have a spare elective? Do it. Particularly if you are a lover of debate, controversy and/or philosophy.
Also, a special shout-out to my tutor Adam who invited us to drinks.
INFO1103 – Introduction to Programming
Ease – 7/10
The content itself isn’t difficult. Problem solving was required, and rewarding to do. The assessments were perfectly doable. The final exam however was a slight leap in terms of difficulty, but also manageable.
Lecturer – 7.5/10 (John Stavrakakis)
I can’t concentrate in his lectures because his smile is too bright. Aside from his seemingly unending joyfulness, he is an adequate lecturer who goes through the content in a comprehensible way. However, he sometimes goes through content too slowly, particularly when it comes to examples of codes. As a result, his lectures can get quite dull at times.
The seminars weren’t that helpful for most people, and often quite dry, hence I got into the habit of doing maths or readings during them. Tutors, on the other hand, were often helpful, engaging and friendly.
Interest – 7.5/10
Programming itself is pretty interesting. Exercises during labs were often enjoyable. Assignments were interesting and satisfying to finish. Lectures and seminars can sometimes be a little boring. Certain topics, such as testing, were incredibly dry.
Overall – 7.5/10
Overall a rather interesting and engaging course. The IT staff and tutors were amazing; they were highly active and helpful on the forums, friendly and professional.
MATH1901 – Differential Calculus (Advanced)
Ease – 9/10
Most of this unit is fairly straightforward. Some aspects of limits and functions may prove to be challenging. Despite this unit being relatively straightforward for the mathematically inclined, the second quiz had an average less than 50%. The final exam was perfectly manageable.
Lecturer – 10/10 (James Parkinson)
Parkinson teaches in a highly effective manner. His lectures are well structured, engaging and definitely worth attending. The only objection I have is the fact that he cut his beautiful hair during the last week. It doesn’t take much to work out that a huge portion of the cohort (female and male) are too lost in his handsomeness to focus on understanding multivariable calculus.
Interest – 10/10
This course has a heavy emphasis on proofs and theorems, thus making it more abstract than your average first year differential calculus course. I’d definitely recommend this course to anyone who takes an interest in mathematics.
Overall – 10/10
Amazing lecturer. Organised content. Perfectly manageable assessments. Mathematics. What more can you ask for?
MATH1902 – Linear Algebra (Advanced)
Ease – 6/10
The content wasn’t too difficult, albeit the difficulty did notably increase towards the end with diagonalization and whatnot. The tutorial questions can get quite challenging (got into a routine where I stopped every week at 80-90%) The assignments and quizzes weren’t that difficult. The final exam, however, destroyed me (along with the rest of the cohort). The extended answers section of the exam is quite abstract and really tests you on areas of the course that were glossed over. A massive contrast to the difficulty of the final exam of MATH1901.
Lecturer – 8.5/10 (Holger Dullin)
A friendly lecturer who presents the content in a comprehensive way. Considering the difficulty of this course towards the end, it would be a mistake not to take advantage of his lectures.
Interest – 8.5/10
Linear algebra is definitely different to the maths most students hitherto have been exposed to, so some may find it’s foreignness dry, particularly since there were very little opportunities to apply the theory in a practical context. However, if one persists, one can really get into it (particularly towards the end).
Overall – 8/10
This is definitely harder than MATH1901. While this course is quite difficult and few students can get upwards of 80, it’s a course well worth doing, especially if you expect to encounter more maths in later years.
MATH1906 – Mathematics (Special Studies Program) A
Ease – 8/10
The content itself can get quite abstract and difficult to follow. It’s not uncommon for the class to get completely lost during seminars. However, since all assessments are take-home assignments, getting high marks in SSP isn’t difficult (most people did). Regardless whether you understand the seminars, you’ll always receive notes for every topic, so no biggie. That assignment on cardiac arrhythmia was probably by far the most difficult assignment all semester.
Lecturers – 9/10 (Daners, Wechselberger, Cirstea)
The topic on maps by Daners was brilliant. Cardiac arrhythmia by Wechselberger was also somewhat interesting, however he had to go through some background biology context. Furthermore, since the algebra was very long and messy, it was really easy to get lost during his seminars. Fractals by Cirstea was also fascinating, however once again, some parts of it were quite difficult to follow.
Interest – 10/10
I mean seriously, where else in an undergraduate course will you learn these kinds of maths…?
Overall – 10/10
Highly interesting, challenging and rewarding course. Furthermore, considering that the extra-credit is easy to get, and that you can’t do worse than your MATH1901 mark, why wouldn’t you do this course? We even threw Dr. Daners a class party for his 18th birthday. (It wasn’t actually his birthday, but at least we got to party for an entire tutorial… with Cirstea too.)
Last edited:
porcupinetree
not actually a porcupine
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2014
- Messages
- 664
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2015
Memories <3
Last edited:
sida1049
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2013
- Messages
- 926
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2015
ur the only memory i need xoxo
sida1049
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2013
- Messages
- 926
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2015
Posting for a friend: from cool kid
MTRX1701 – Semester 1 2016
Ease: 8/10
The course content was extremely eclectic and briefly touched upon various topics which will be covered in more detail in later years, hence was at times difficult to grasp/understand. Many students had no clue what they were learning since the course content is for the most part, irrelevant to the assignments, especially the first one. The assignments do seem extremely daunting at first but it’s mostly self-research and once realising that it’s not impossible to do, everything somewhat starts making sense. Getting high marks also isn’t too difficult so long as one spends the time and effort on it, adding in as much detail as possible. Having said that, a lot of time was spent on this unit outside the tutorials, the assignments were essentially released one after another and so I couldn’t focus as much on other units are preferred (but then again there are no final exams). The 40% workshop component was also alright, can be somewhat challenging but workable.
Lecturer: 7/10 (Dr David Johnson)
He did a pretty swell job for his first time teaching, although it was predominantly reciting off power points at amazingly high speeds, tantalising our futile attempts to keep up with him. He’s quite apt in replying to emails and questions, but then again most of his answers are “whatever you want” (although such is the ambiguity of the unit).
Interest: 7/10
Personally I enjoyed the unit, but if you came into the course expecting literally robots, then you’ll probably be disappointed and lose interest quickly. It’s literally an introduction to the field, so races through many topics which may come off as boring, the majority of the cohort didn’t attend the lectures, but the main purpose of the unit is to foster a design approach. The assignments I found were quite interesting and at times absurdly amusing.
Overall: 7.5/10
Pretty sick stuff.
MTRX1701 – Semester 1 2016
Ease: 8/10
The course content was extremely eclectic and briefly touched upon various topics which will be covered in more detail in later years, hence was at times difficult to grasp/understand. Many students had no clue what they were learning since the course content is for the most part, irrelevant to the assignments, especially the first one. The assignments do seem extremely daunting at first but it’s mostly self-research and once realising that it’s not impossible to do, everything somewhat starts making sense. Getting high marks also isn’t too difficult so long as one spends the time and effort on it, adding in as much detail as possible. Having said that, a lot of time was spent on this unit outside the tutorials, the assignments were essentially released one after another and so I couldn’t focus as much on other units are preferred (but then again there are no final exams). The 40% workshop component was also alright, can be somewhat challenging but workable.
Lecturer: 7/10 (Dr David Johnson)
He did a pretty swell job for his first time teaching, although it was predominantly reciting off power points at amazingly high speeds, tantalising our futile attempts to keep up with him. He’s quite apt in replying to emails and questions, but then again most of his answers are “whatever you want” (although such is the ambiguity of the unit).
Interest: 7/10
Personally I enjoyed the unit, but if you came into the course expecting literally robots, then you’ll probably be disappointed and lose interest quickly. It’s literally an introduction to the field, so races through many topics which may come off as boring, the majority of the cohort didn’t attend the lectures, but the main purpose of the unit is to foster a design approach. The assignments I found were quite interesting and at times absurdly amusing.
Overall: 7.5/10
Pretty sick stuff.
Amleops
Perpetual Student
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2011
- Messages
- 811
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2012
MATH3063 - Nonlinear ODE's and Applications
Ease - 7/10
The content isn't too difficult; the quizzes in particular just focused on theoretical concepts and they were quite easy. The three assignments were based around formulating mathematical models of different biological phenomena which were discussed in a particular journal article, and due to the fact quite a few of the questions were different to what was taught in lectures and tutorials, they were a little difficult at times. The exam also seemed to pick the hardest questions from each topic. So overall you will need to put some effort in to do well, but it is definitely not unachievable.
Lecturer - 8/10 (Leon Poladian)
Leon was very good at explaining all of the concepts, quite often they were more clear than what his notes were. So for that reason I would definitely recommend going to his lectures instead of trying to teach yourself.
Interest - 8/10
This is very much a "real world" type of unit, and you learn how a lot of mathematical models and concepts can be applied to biology. This was definitely enough to keep me interested.
Overall - 8/10
Comes highly recommended, especially to biology students. Just make sure that you don't take the unit for granted and slack off, because it does require constant effort.
MATH3066 - Algebra and Logic
Ease - 8/10
Logic has always come pretty naturally to me, so I found I picked up that section quite well. Algebra was a little more difficult, and there was a lot of theoretical concepts and proofs involved in quite a few of the questions. However, it is definitely doable, and is certainly a whole lot easier than MATH2968. The assessment questions had quite a mix of easy and harder questions, but if you spend enough time on the latter you can generally produce something that would give you at least some marks.
Lecturer - 9/10 (David Easdown)
While he's not a very animated speaker David certainly gets the job done. His explanations and notes were very detailed and clear, and his administration of the course was excellent. Definitely one of the better lecturers in the Maths department.
Interest - 10/10
Like I said, logic is my forte, and while I've spent most of my time learning it in the Philosophy department, the approach the Mathematics department took in teaching the material was quite refreshing. The algebra was a little abstract but it was certainly interesting to see how all of the concepts could be used.
Overall - 9/10
I'm looking forward to studying more logic in the semesters to come. It's a shame the university doesn't offer as many courses on it as it should.
HPSC1000 - Bioethics
Ease - 10/10
Very straightforward course. If you do the readings each week you'll be in a very good position for the class discussions; many people in my tutorial didn't so it made it much easier to make your case for those tutorial participation marks. All that needs to be done is three essays, and as long as you have kept up with the material and have a clear thesis you should do well.
Lecturer/Tutor - 8/10 (Anson Fehross, Sophie Ritson)
As a lecturer Anson was pretty good and made the subjects entertaining. Like Sida said, he was quite edgy and deadpan, and I know a few people who were put off by his somewhat abrasive personality. I didn't mind it though. Sophie was a great tutor, and it was good to see that she was able to come up with small group activities that were able to get around everyone’s unwillingness to talk. Seriously, do your readings.
Interest – 8/10
You start by learning about a few particulars of ethical theory, and after that you learn to apply it to practical issues such as euthanasia, abortion and genetic enhancement. I recently decided to pursue a career in medicine, and a lot of the issues discussed were definitely relevant to that, so that was enough to keep my interest. Plus the lecture and tutorial debates were very stimulating.
Overall – 9/10
Interesting subject matter, and probably the easiest first year science unit you can do. Comes highly recommended.
PHIL2647 – Philosophy of Happiness
Ease – 7/10
The assessment load was quite manageable; all that needed to be done was a short analysis, a research essay and a take home exam. It is definitely accessible to those who haven’t studied philosophy before, but just be wary that writing essays in philosophy are quite different to writing essays in any other subject areas. It took me a bit of time to get accustomed to what they wanted at first.
Lecturer/Tutor – 9/10 (Caroline West, Anthony Hooper)
Caroline was probably my favourite lecturer of the semester, she was quite friendly and was able to make even some of the drier concepts of the course that much more interesting. Anthony was an excellent tutor too, he would often revise key concepts from the lectures with his own take on things, so it was good to get varying perspectives on the content. Plus the tutorials were quite small and intimate, which made it much easier to engage with everyone in class discussions.
Interest – 7/10
Similar to HPSC1000, you start by learning about different theories of happiness, and then go into the impact that these have on areas such as religion, politics and our general quest for happiness. Some of it was a little dry at times, but it definitely challenged my notions about what happiness is and gave me quite a bit of food for thought.
Overall – 7/10
I originally did this subject thinking it would be a WAM booster. It was a little harder than I thought, but it was still quite an entertaining subject.
WRIT2002 – Advanced Writing and Research
Ease – 9/10
The course is not difficult at all. It is slightly harder than WRIT1001 as they expect a higher standard of writing, but overall it is still quite straightforward. The only assessments were daily journal entries (weekly if you do it during normal semester), a critical analysis of a text of your choosing, and a final research project. These were quite easy to do provided you had a clear idea of what you wanted to talk about.
Lecturers – 10/10 (Steven King, Lucinda Holdforth)
Both Steven and Lucinda did everything we could have asked for, and I have no complaints for either of them personally. In Winter School you’re really able to engage with your lecturers more, which I found to be quite helpful.
Interest – 5/10
Some of the psychology aspects of essay writing was a little dry, but it wasn’t too bad. My main problem with this unit was that, unlike in WRIT1001, the topic for your research project had to come from a list of conflicts (Occupy Movement, Syrian Civil War, Feminism etc.). Unfortunately none of the topics really interested me personally, so it was a little bit dull from that standpoint. But the good news was that in Winter School everything is over with rather quickly, so I didn’t have to dwell on the issues for too long.
Overall – 7/10
If I had my time over again I probably would have asked permission early on to do a topic outside of the list provided to us. But the unit itself was very good, and outside of class I was also given some pretty valuable advice on possible future degrees I could do. I’m definitely glad I took this unit.
Ease - 7/10
The content isn't too difficult; the quizzes in particular just focused on theoretical concepts and they were quite easy. The three assignments were based around formulating mathematical models of different biological phenomena which were discussed in a particular journal article, and due to the fact quite a few of the questions were different to what was taught in lectures and tutorials, they were a little difficult at times. The exam also seemed to pick the hardest questions from each topic. So overall you will need to put some effort in to do well, but it is definitely not unachievable.
Lecturer - 8/10 (Leon Poladian)
Leon was very good at explaining all of the concepts, quite often they were more clear than what his notes were. So for that reason I would definitely recommend going to his lectures instead of trying to teach yourself.
Interest - 8/10
This is very much a "real world" type of unit, and you learn how a lot of mathematical models and concepts can be applied to biology. This was definitely enough to keep me interested.
Overall - 8/10
Comes highly recommended, especially to biology students. Just make sure that you don't take the unit for granted and slack off, because it does require constant effort.
MATH3066 - Algebra and Logic
Ease - 8/10
Logic has always come pretty naturally to me, so I found I picked up that section quite well. Algebra was a little more difficult, and there was a lot of theoretical concepts and proofs involved in quite a few of the questions. However, it is definitely doable, and is certainly a whole lot easier than MATH2968. The assessment questions had quite a mix of easy and harder questions, but if you spend enough time on the latter you can generally produce something that would give you at least some marks.
Lecturer - 9/10 (David Easdown)
While he's not a very animated speaker David certainly gets the job done. His explanations and notes were very detailed and clear, and his administration of the course was excellent. Definitely one of the better lecturers in the Maths department.
Interest - 10/10
Like I said, logic is my forte, and while I've spent most of my time learning it in the Philosophy department, the approach the Mathematics department took in teaching the material was quite refreshing. The algebra was a little abstract but it was certainly interesting to see how all of the concepts could be used.
Overall - 9/10
I'm looking forward to studying more logic in the semesters to come. It's a shame the university doesn't offer as many courses on it as it should.
HPSC1000 - Bioethics
Ease - 10/10
Very straightforward course. If you do the readings each week you'll be in a very good position for the class discussions; many people in my tutorial didn't so it made it much easier to make your case for those tutorial participation marks. All that needs to be done is three essays, and as long as you have kept up with the material and have a clear thesis you should do well.
Lecturer/Tutor - 8/10 (Anson Fehross, Sophie Ritson)
As a lecturer Anson was pretty good and made the subjects entertaining. Like Sida said, he was quite edgy and deadpan, and I know a few people who were put off by his somewhat abrasive personality. I didn't mind it though. Sophie was a great tutor, and it was good to see that she was able to come up with small group activities that were able to get around everyone’s unwillingness to talk. Seriously, do your readings.
Interest – 8/10
You start by learning about a few particulars of ethical theory, and after that you learn to apply it to practical issues such as euthanasia, abortion and genetic enhancement. I recently decided to pursue a career in medicine, and a lot of the issues discussed were definitely relevant to that, so that was enough to keep my interest. Plus the lecture and tutorial debates were very stimulating.
Overall – 9/10
Interesting subject matter, and probably the easiest first year science unit you can do. Comes highly recommended.
PHIL2647 – Philosophy of Happiness
Ease – 7/10
The assessment load was quite manageable; all that needed to be done was a short analysis, a research essay and a take home exam. It is definitely accessible to those who haven’t studied philosophy before, but just be wary that writing essays in philosophy are quite different to writing essays in any other subject areas. It took me a bit of time to get accustomed to what they wanted at first.
Lecturer/Tutor – 9/10 (Caroline West, Anthony Hooper)
Caroline was probably my favourite lecturer of the semester, she was quite friendly and was able to make even some of the drier concepts of the course that much more interesting. Anthony was an excellent tutor too, he would often revise key concepts from the lectures with his own take on things, so it was good to get varying perspectives on the content. Plus the tutorials were quite small and intimate, which made it much easier to engage with everyone in class discussions.
Interest – 7/10
Similar to HPSC1000, you start by learning about different theories of happiness, and then go into the impact that these have on areas such as religion, politics and our general quest for happiness. Some of it was a little dry at times, but it definitely challenged my notions about what happiness is and gave me quite a bit of food for thought.
Overall – 7/10
I originally did this subject thinking it would be a WAM booster. It was a little harder than I thought, but it was still quite an entertaining subject.
WRIT2002 – Advanced Writing and Research
Ease – 9/10
The course is not difficult at all. It is slightly harder than WRIT1001 as they expect a higher standard of writing, but overall it is still quite straightforward. The only assessments were daily journal entries (weekly if you do it during normal semester), a critical analysis of a text of your choosing, and a final research project. These were quite easy to do provided you had a clear idea of what you wanted to talk about.
Lecturers – 10/10 (Steven King, Lucinda Holdforth)
Both Steven and Lucinda did everything we could have asked for, and I have no complaints for either of them personally. In Winter School you’re really able to engage with your lecturers more, which I found to be quite helpful.
Interest – 5/10
Some of the psychology aspects of essay writing was a little dry, but it wasn’t too bad. My main problem with this unit was that, unlike in WRIT1001, the topic for your research project had to come from a list of conflicts (Occupy Movement, Syrian Civil War, Feminism etc.). Unfortunately none of the topics really interested me personally, so it was a little bit dull from that standpoint. But the good news was that in Winter School everything is over with rather quickly, so I didn’t have to dwell on the issues for too long.
Overall – 7/10
If I had my time over again I probably would have asked permission early on to do a topic outside of the list provided to us. But the unit itself was very good, and outside of class I was also given some pretty valuable advice on possible future degrees I could do. I’m definitely glad I took this unit.
Soulful
HSC Hipster
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2013
- Messages
- 332
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- 2015
JPNS2621
Ease - 8/10
If you did continuers during high school, you should find the difficulty to be on par with HSC Japanese. There is, however, a much bigger focus on Kanji, so be prepared to spend a lot of time rote learning hundreds of new characters. The emphasis of university Japanese seems to have shifted away from using and applying the language (as was sorta the case in high school), to being much more about studying the language as an academic discipline. Consequently, there was also a big focus on grammar, ESPECIALLY in the final exam. Assessments aren't hard if you study consistently. The one speaking assessment is rather difficult to get good marks in, not because it's hard or anything, but because you almost never get the chance to practise speaking in class.
Tutors
Basically, they divide the course into three different streams - Speaking, Reading and Grammar. Each section gets a different tutor, who have varying levels of teaching ability
Michael Lewis (reading) 6/10 - Great guy who knows his stuff and has interesting insights to share. Unfortunately, classes felt really stagnant because all we did was read and translate the texts in our textbook, and then he'd correct any mistakes we made.
Nerida Jarkey (grammar) 10/10 - LEGIT THE BEST TUTOR EVER. So so SO enthusiastic about Japanese grammar. Her bubbly personality and passion are really infectious. She can make something as mind boggling as indirect-causative-passive verbs very interesting. She is so patient when it comes to answering questions and I feel that she really cares about her students. I could go on and on about how great she is, and if I had my way I'd make her teach the whole course by herself. Only minor issue is that, as she is a linguist by training, her explanations are sometimes very technical and grounded in theory (as opposed to the real world). That said, it was really fascinating hearing her talk about the linguistic mechanics which go behind certain language structures.
Yasuko Claremont (communication) 5/10 - Lovely, sweet woman. Too bad the way she structured her lessons was really bad, and not at all conducive to improving speaking ability. In high school, I remember practising conversation all the time, but in her classes all we did was read out dialogues already written in our textbooks. It was very frustrating that we spent the majority of our so called "communication" class just reading off the textbook. In fact, the only bit of conversation practise we did through out the whole semester was during the final speaking exam, where we had to hold a discussion in Japanese. Needless to say I was ill-prepared for the task given how little in class practise we got.
Interest - 7/10
The score would be much lower if it wasn't for Dr. Jarkey's brilliant grammar tutorials. I always found HS Japanese to be very impractical and not really grounded in reality, but uni Japanese is so much worse in this regard. 2/3 of the tutorials felt very useless, and it was really hard to engage with the language because of it.
Overall - 7/10
Fascinating subject and language - just not the best teaching (bar one FANTASTIC tutor). I wish it had a much more practical focus, and my Japanese didn't improve as much as I wish it did. But regardless, if you're interested in Japanese, none of this really matters. For me at least, despite all my misgivings towards the teaching, studying Japanese was, and always will be, a pleasure.
Ease - 8/10
If you did continuers during high school, you should find the difficulty to be on par with HSC Japanese. There is, however, a much bigger focus on Kanji, so be prepared to spend a lot of time rote learning hundreds of new characters. The emphasis of university Japanese seems to have shifted away from using and applying the language (as was sorta the case in high school), to being much more about studying the language as an academic discipline. Consequently, there was also a big focus on grammar, ESPECIALLY in the final exam. Assessments aren't hard if you study consistently. The one speaking assessment is rather difficult to get good marks in, not because it's hard or anything, but because you almost never get the chance to practise speaking in class.
Tutors
Basically, they divide the course into three different streams - Speaking, Reading and Grammar. Each section gets a different tutor, who have varying levels of teaching ability
Michael Lewis (reading) 6/10 - Great guy who knows his stuff and has interesting insights to share. Unfortunately, classes felt really stagnant because all we did was read and translate the texts in our textbook, and then he'd correct any mistakes we made.
Nerida Jarkey (grammar) 10/10 - LEGIT THE BEST TUTOR EVER. So so SO enthusiastic about Japanese grammar. Her bubbly personality and passion are really infectious. She can make something as mind boggling as indirect-causative-passive verbs very interesting. She is so patient when it comes to answering questions and I feel that she really cares about her students. I could go on and on about how great she is, and if I had my way I'd make her teach the whole course by herself. Only minor issue is that, as she is a linguist by training, her explanations are sometimes very technical and grounded in theory (as opposed to the real world). That said, it was really fascinating hearing her talk about the linguistic mechanics which go behind certain language structures.
Yasuko Claremont (communication) 5/10 - Lovely, sweet woman. Too bad the way she structured her lessons was really bad, and not at all conducive to improving speaking ability. In high school, I remember practising conversation all the time, but in her classes all we did was read out dialogues already written in our textbooks. It was very frustrating that we spent the majority of our so called "communication" class just reading off the textbook. In fact, the only bit of conversation practise we did through out the whole semester was during the final speaking exam, where we had to hold a discussion in Japanese. Needless to say I was ill-prepared for the task given how little in class practise we got.
Interest - 7/10
The score would be much lower if it wasn't for Dr. Jarkey's brilliant grammar tutorials. I always found HS Japanese to be very impractical and not really grounded in reality, but uni Japanese is so much worse in this regard. 2/3 of the tutorials felt very useless, and it was really hard to engage with the language because of it.
Overall - 7/10
Fascinating subject and language - just not the best teaching (bar one FANTASTIC tutor). I wish it had a much more practical focus, and my Japanese didn't improve as much as I wish it did. But regardless, if you're interested in Japanese, none of this really matters. For me at least, despite all my misgivings towards the teaching, studying Japanese was, and always will be, a pleasure.
Amleops
Perpetual Student
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2011
- Messages
- 811
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2012
Riproot
Addiction Psychiatrist
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2009
- Messages
- 8,228
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2011
- Uni Grad
- 2017
I never wrote reviews for those subs and I don't remember anything about them now. Soz <3
miss you ~
sida1049
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2013
- Messages
- 926
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2015
Semester 2 2016
COSC1003 – Computational Science
Ease – 10/10
Programming in this course is easy to manage since it’s MATLAB (which is quick to pick up even for students who have not programmed before). The problem solving aspect of this course is interesting, and perfectly doable. In every lab, you have to complete a set of tasks in relation to the theory, and get it marked. This wasn’t too difficult. The practical exams were manageable (there are plenty of past papers) and the assignment was straightforward. The final exam purely tested the theory and involved no coding at all. The only issue I had was with the wording of some of the assessments, though markers were fairly lenient, so there’s that.
Lecturers – 8/10 (10/10 for Cliff Kerr, 6/10 for Paula Sanz-Leon)
Cliff is a great lecturer; he was very charismatic, engaging, amusing and effectively communicated the ideas. His lecture slides are very useful and takes time to write up additional notes. He also gives out chocolates during his lectures, so why wouldn’t you turn up? Paula was inexperienced, so naturally in contrast to Cliff, she wasn’t nearly as effective as a lecturer.
Interest – 10/10
This course covers a very eclectic range of topics, including information theory, probability, networks, techniques for numerically solving ODEs, and various modelling here and there. The content is satisfying for mathematics, physics and engineering students. However, it should be noted that the topics were only touched upon superficially, as every lecture covers a new topic, which may be completely unrelated to previous lectures.
Overall – 10/10
Great lecturer. Very interesting content. Scientific problem solving with programming. Easy marks. 100% recommend if you have a spare elective, are interested in developing scientific programming skills and/or interested in an eclectic range of topics.
ECON1002 – Introductory Macroeconomics
Ease – 8/10
The workload is comparatively less than ECON1001, as there are fewer assessments (a mid-semester exam, term essay and final exam), along with the fact that many students found ECON1001’s content more difficult to grasp. The assessments were perfectly manageable, and so is the final exam (surprisingly enough this year, the short-answer component of the finals was purely computational and involved very little written explanation). Assessment averages can be surprisingly low due to many international students who struggle with the wording and others who lack confidence in basic algebra.
Lecturers – 7.5/10 (8.5/10 for Mark Melatos, 6.5/10 for Edward Nelson)
Most of the lectures were delivered by Melatos, who was a very competent lecturer who tried to make the theory interesting and applicable to the real world. From time to time, however, Melatos’ pace can be uncomfortably slow as he goes through a bunch of graphs and statistics which emphasise trivial points that don’t really benefit anyone. Professor Nelson is very qualified, however he isn’t that great as a lecturer. His slides tend to have too many words, which he directly reads from. However, I personally think it’s still beneficial to attend his lectures, but that could be my optimistic bias.
Interest – 7/10
I was pleasantly surprised at the amount of maths in this course (which was little, whereas I expected very little). The most exciting aspects of the course are probably the macroeconomic models, so make sure you’re at least confident with basic algebraic manipulation. I personally found ECON1001 to be more interesting, though.
Overall – 8/10
Fairly useful and interesting, and relatively easy to do well in if you put apply the effort.
INFO1105 – Data Structures
Ease – 8/10
I found this unit to be easier and more enjoyable than INFO1103. This course has significantly more content which are more difficult to grasp than that of INFO1103, however I personally felt that the assessments were easier and more manageable. There is a quiz every two weeks, which involve 5 multiple choice questions, which are easy as long as you do the revision. The programming tasks each week are also perfectly manageable. The assignments were easier and more interesting than those of INFO1103 in my opinion, and the final exam was much easier than the introductory course.
Lecturers – 8/10 (8.5/10 Alan Fekete, 7.5/10 John Stavrakakis)
Both lecturers are very competent, friendly, and were effective in communicating the theory across to students. Alan Fekete was the more charismatic lecturer, who presented the content more engagingly and thoroughly. However, compared to Stavrakakis, his pace was far slower. Stavrakakis is arguably more efficient, and a fine lecturer by most standards, though at times awkward and difficult to follow.
Interest – 9/10
The content was very interesting. I was very pleasantly surprised by the variety and ingenuity of data structures introduced. The heavy use of recursion was quite intriguing.
Overall – 8/10
A decent, all-round course; Not difficult, good lecturers, great content.
MATH1903 – Integral Calculus and Modelling (Advanced)
Ease – 10/10
If you did HSC Mathematics Extension 2, this will be a fairly accommodating course for you. The content isn’t difficult to grasp. The assignments were straightforward and the practice quizzes reflected the quizzes quite accurately. Final exam, however, wasn’t difficult, but rather that it was way too long, to compensate against the ease of the content.
Lecturers – 10/10 (Anne Thomas and Florica-Corina Cîrstea)
Both lecturers were absolutely amazing. They went through the content with great effectiveness, structure and style. Florica has the coolest accent I’ve ever heard.
Interest – 10/10
It’s mathematics.
Overall – 10/10
The proof of this is left as a trivial exercise for the reader.
MATH1905 – Statistics (Advanced)
Ease – 6.5/10
Probably the most difficult first year course I’ve done. The content is quite difficult to grasp, and most students end up learning how to do the questions as opposed to understanding the theory. That said, passing and doing well in this course isn’t too difficult (probably easier than MATH1902); the assignments weren’t too bad, and the quizzes were reflected very well by the practice quizzes. We had 6 different past papers to study from for the finals, which weren’t difficult themselves if you’ve caught up with the content. The final exam was far more doable than the MATH1902 exam. Essentially, while the theory was elusive and difficult, the assessments and final exam were quite reasonable.
Lecture – 7/10 (Michael Stewart)
I personally liked Michael Stewart. He was a quirky guy, who coined up several phrases which we ended up using as memes during the semester (e.g. “embrace the binomial”, “the unstoppable soft drink industry”, “the Homer Simpson woo-hoo is the best I’ve ever heard”, et cetera). As a lecturer, he was competent and knowledgeable, however his lectures and lecture notes were structured problematically, making them difficult to follow. That said, he is approachable if you need assistance. A lot of the time he’d concede that understanding some of the concept were beyond the scope of the course, though that’s no fault of his.
Interest – 8/10
Albeit a difficult unit, the content is very intriguing and useful. I’d argue that despite being the most difficult first year course I’ve done, it’s probably one of, if not the most useful.
Overall – 7.5/10
Not for the faint-hearted. Unless if you are up for a challenge, you should probably do MATH1005 instead. That said, it isn’t a WAM-killer by any means (since the assessments/exams were pretty manageable). Also, it should be noted that doing Mathematics Extension 2 gives you no benefit whatsoever.
MATH1907 – Mathematics (Special Studies Program) B
Ease – 8/10
As with MATH1906, while some of the content may be quite difficult to grasp and follow, the assignments were manageable. That said, they can prove to be challenging (I wrote a 5-page proof for a question), but the lecturers typically mark with leniency (and often accept a higher degree of vagueness and intuition than usual). Thus the extra credit is easy to obtain.
Lecturers – 10/10 (James Parkinson, Jean Yang and Sharon Stephen)
The lecturers were amazing. Especially Parkinson (of course).
Interest – 10/10
The first topic was an introduction to group theory, delivered by Parkinson, who everyone adores. The second topic was an overview of the ideas behind more advanced statistical methods, though the main attraction was the assignment, which involved forming a survey, gathering data and answering a question of your group’s choosing. The third topic is an introduction to fluid dynamics by Stephen, which involved quite a bit of complex transformations.
Overall – 10/10
Do it.
COSC1003 – Computational Science
Ease – 10/10
Programming in this course is easy to manage since it’s MATLAB (which is quick to pick up even for students who have not programmed before). The problem solving aspect of this course is interesting, and perfectly doable. In every lab, you have to complete a set of tasks in relation to the theory, and get it marked. This wasn’t too difficult. The practical exams were manageable (there are plenty of past papers) and the assignment was straightforward. The final exam purely tested the theory and involved no coding at all. The only issue I had was with the wording of some of the assessments, though markers were fairly lenient, so there’s that.
Lecturers – 8/10 (10/10 for Cliff Kerr, 6/10 for Paula Sanz-Leon)
Cliff is a great lecturer; he was very charismatic, engaging, amusing and effectively communicated the ideas. His lecture slides are very useful and takes time to write up additional notes. He also gives out chocolates during his lectures, so why wouldn’t you turn up? Paula was inexperienced, so naturally in contrast to Cliff, she wasn’t nearly as effective as a lecturer.
Interest – 10/10
This course covers a very eclectic range of topics, including information theory, probability, networks, techniques for numerically solving ODEs, and various modelling here and there. The content is satisfying for mathematics, physics and engineering students. However, it should be noted that the topics were only touched upon superficially, as every lecture covers a new topic, which may be completely unrelated to previous lectures.
Overall – 10/10
Great lecturer. Very interesting content. Scientific problem solving with programming. Easy marks. 100% recommend if you have a spare elective, are interested in developing scientific programming skills and/or interested in an eclectic range of topics.
ECON1002 – Introductory Macroeconomics
Ease – 8/10
The workload is comparatively less than ECON1001, as there are fewer assessments (a mid-semester exam, term essay and final exam), along with the fact that many students found ECON1001’s content more difficult to grasp. The assessments were perfectly manageable, and so is the final exam (surprisingly enough this year, the short-answer component of the finals was purely computational and involved very little written explanation). Assessment averages can be surprisingly low due to many international students who struggle with the wording and others who lack confidence in basic algebra.
Lecturers – 7.5/10 (8.5/10 for Mark Melatos, 6.5/10 for Edward Nelson)
Most of the lectures were delivered by Melatos, who was a very competent lecturer who tried to make the theory interesting and applicable to the real world. From time to time, however, Melatos’ pace can be uncomfortably slow as he goes through a bunch of graphs and statistics which emphasise trivial points that don’t really benefit anyone. Professor Nelson is very qualified, however he isn’t that great as a lecturer. His slides tend to have too many words, which he directly reads from. However, I personally think it’s still beneficial to attend his lectures, but that could be my optimistic bias.
Interest – 7/10
I was pleasantly surprised at the amount of maths in this course (which was little, whereas I expected very little). The most exciting aspects of the course are probably the macroeconomic models, so make sure you’re at least confident with basic algebraic manipulation. I personally found ECON1001 to be more interesting, though.
Overall – 8/10
Fairly useful and interesting, and relatively easy to do well in if you put apply the effort.
INFO1105 – Data Structures
Ease – 8/10
I found this unit to be easier and more enjoyable than INFO1103. This course has significantly more content which are more difficult to grasp than that of INFO1103, however I personally felt that the assessments were easier and more manageable. There is a quiz every two weeks, which involve 5 multiple choice questions, which are easy as long as you do the revision. The programming tasks each week are also perfectly manageable. The assignments were easier and more interesting than those of INFO1103 in my opinion, and the final exam was much easier than the introductory course.
Lecturers – 8/10 (8.5/10 Alan Fekete, 7.5/10 John Stavrakakis)
Both lecturers are very competent, friendly, and were effective in communicating the theory across to students. Alan Fekete was the more charismatic lecturer, who presented the content more engagingly and thoroughly. However, compared to Stavrakakis, his pace was far slower. Stavrakakis is arguably more efficient, and a fine lecturer by most standards, though at times awkward and difficult to follow.
Interest – 9/10
The content was very interesting. I was very pleasantly surprised by the variety and ingenuity of data structures introduced. The heavy use of recursion was quite intriguing.
Overall – 8/10
A decent, all-round course; Not difficult, good lecturers, great content.
MATH1903 – Integral Calculus and Modelling (Advanced)
Ease – 10/10
If you did HSC Mathematics Extension 2, this will be a fairly accommodating course for you. The content isn’t difficult to grasp. The assignments were straightforward and the practice quizzes reflected the quizzes quite accurately. Final exam, however, wasn’t difficult, but rather that it was way too long, to compensate against the ease of the content.
Lecturers – 10/10 (Anne Thomas and Florica-Corina Cîrstea)
Both lecturers were absolutely amazing. They went through the content with great effectiveness, structure and style. Florica has the coolest accent I’ve ever heard.
Interest – 10/10
It’s mathematics.
Overall – 10/10
The proof of this is left as a trivial exercise for the reader.
MATH1905 – Statistics (Advanced)
Ease – 6.5/10
Probably the most difficult first year course I’ve done. The content is quite difficult to grasp, and most students end up learning how to do the questions as opposed to understanding the theory. That said, passing and doing well in this course isn’t too difficult (probably easier than MATH1902); the assignments weren’t too bad, and the quizzes were reflected very well by the practice quizzes. We had 6 different past papers to study from for the finals, which weren’t difficult themselves if you’ve caught up with the content. The final exam was far more doable than the MATH1902 exam. Essentially, while the theory was elusive and difficult, the assessments and final exam were quite reasonable.
Lecture – 7/10 (Michael Stewart)
I personally liked Michael Stewart. He was a quirky guy, who coined up several phrases which we ended up using as memes during the semester (e.g. “embrace the binomial”, “the unstoppable soft drink industry”, “the Homer Simpson woo-hoo is the best I’ve ever heard”, et cetera). As a lecturer, he was competent and knowledgeable, however his lectures and lecture notes were structured problematically, making them difficult to follow. That said, he is approachable if you need assistance. A lot of the time he’d concede that understanding some of the concept were beyond the scope of the course, though that’s no fault of his.
Interest – 8/10
Albeit a difficult unit, the content is very intriguing and useful. I’d argue that despite being the most difficult first year course I’ve done, it’s probably one of, if not the most useful.
Overall – 7.5/10
Not for the faint-hearted. Unless if you are up for a challenge, you should probably do MATH1005 instead. That said, it isn’t a WAM-killer by any means (since the assessments/exams were pretty manageable). Also, it should be noted that doing Mathematics Extension 2 gives you no benefit whatsoever.
MATH1907 – Mathematics (Special Studies Program) B
Ease – 8/10
As with MATH1906, while some of the content may be quite difficult to grasp and follow, the assignments were manageable. That said, they can prove to be challenging (I wrote a 5-page proof for a question), but the lecturers typically mark with leniency (and often accept a higher degree of vagueness and intuition than usual). Thus the extra credit is easy to obtain.
Lecturers – 10/10 (James Parkinson, Jean Yang and Sharon Stephen)
The lecturers were amazing. Especially Parkinson (of course).
Interest – 10/10
The first topic was an introduction to group theory, delivered by Parkinson, who everyone adores. The second topic was an overview of the ideas behind more advanced statistical methods, though the main attraction was the assignment, which involved forming a survey, gathering data and answering a question of your group’s choosing. The third topic is an introduction to fluid dynamics by Stephen, which involved quite a bit of complex transformations.
Overall – 10/10
Do it.