Riproot
Addiction Psychiatrist
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2009
- Messages
- 8,227
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2011
- Uni Grad
- 2017
isn't that like all philosophy units though?
Subject Reviews (with PDF compilation) (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter stazi
- Start date
Obvious
Active Member
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2010
- Messages
- 735
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2013
- Uni Grad
- 2016
I'm going to write a review for chemistry, math and MBLG.
Do MBLG and chemistry. Your feedback/rage always makes me lol.
Riproot
Addiction Psychiatrist
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2009
- Messages
- 8,227
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2011
- Uni Grad
- 2017
I will.
MBLG probably won't get the rage you're expecting/it deserves.
The guy who marked the last 4 Chem questions gets all my rage. Cunt. :3
Re: Subject Reviews (PDF updated 17/01/09)
Hi,
I am doing HSPC 2100 and I am finding it really difficult in how to write a really good essay on Bacon and Paracelsus, is it okay if you could help me?
Thanks alot,
Dominique
Hi,
I am doing HSPC 2100 and I am finding it really difficult in how to write a really good essay on Bacon and Paracelsus, is it okay if you could help me?
Thanks alot,
Dominique
Re: Subject Reviews (PDF updated 17/01/09)
Hi (addressed to symple)
Anyone that has done HSPC 2100!!
I was just wondering if you could help me out with my essay to do with Bacon and Paracelsus, I am actually finding it really difficult! Is it okay if you could help me?
Thanks,
Dominique
Hi (addressed to symple)
Anyone that has done HSPC 2100!!
I was just wondering if you could help me out with my essay to do with Bacon and Paracelsus, I am actually finding it really difficult! Is it okay if you could help me?
Thanks,
Dominique
JRock
Browncoat
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2011
- Messages
- 74
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- N/A
- Uni Grad
- 2017
^ I would suggest you post that question in the main forum.
someth1ng
Retired Nov '14
When I finish my subjects, I will write a chunky review on each of them - CHEM1901, PHYS1901, MATH1001, MATH1002, GEOS1001.
asianese
Σ
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2010
- Messages
- 2,225
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- 2012
madharris
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2011
- Messages
- 2,160
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- N/A
I thought he enjoyed his subjects?!
well that's what I remember reading anyway, maybe i just completely made that up!!
Ill review health subjects... that is if i feel like it, as it will be likely that they won't be used
someth1ng
Retired Nov '14
In my language, if I say - "it's okay..." - it means, it's incredibly shit or it's good. But I only really dislike PHYS1901 and GEOS1001.I thought he enjoyed his subjects?!
well that's what I remember reading anyway, maybe i just completely made that up!!
Ill review health subjects... that is if i feel like it, as it will be likely that they won't be used
Essentially, yes.
madharris
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2011
- Messages
- 2,160
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- N/A
haha ok!
Tbh i was going to major in geology and geophysics if i ended up choosing adv science
My friend really loves it and keeps telling me that i ditched him, trying to make me jealous and such
IBUS3101 - International Business Alliance
Ease - 6/10
Should have been an easier subject but the lecturer (Nimer Uraidi) marks pretty harshly in all components. There are tons of subject components, the tutorial participation is really tough. He marks very very harshly. Subject ease depends a lot on finding good group mates in my opinion. The mid sem exam was pretty hard and researching about a real life alliance coupled with the lecturer's harsh marking makes it a relatively hard subject in terms of obtaining D-HD marks. The BSG online component was easy in terms of getting easy marks, overall its one of those subjects where hard work does not equal to good marks because of the amount of uncertainty involved and the amount of reliance on finding good group mates.
Lecturer - 2/10
Hated the lecturer in terms of incompetence, he seems to not know much about the subject content (Nimer Uraidi). I really regret taking this subject despite getting a considerably good mark. I didn't learn anything useful. Do it only if you want a pass and you're not needing to get D/HD.
Overall - 5/10
I'd give it a 5 purely because I had "okayish" groupmates. But I really regret taking this subject...
Ease - 6/10
Should have been an easier subject but the lecturer (Nimer Uraidi) marks pretty harshly in all components. There are tons of subject components, the tutorial participation is really tough. He marks very very harshly. Subject ease depends a lot on finding good group mates in my opinion. The mid sem exam was pretty hard and researching about a real life alliance coupled with the lecturer's harsh marking makes it a relatively hard subject in terms of obtaining D-HD marks. The BSG online component was easy in terms of getting easy marks, overall its one of those subjects where hard work does not equal to good marks because of the amount of uncertainty involved and the amount of reliance on finding good group mates.
Lecturer - 2/10
Hated the lecturer in terms of incompetence, he seems to not know much about the subject content (Nimer Uraidi). I really regret taking this subject despite getting a considerably good mark. I didn't learn anything useful. Do it only if you want a pass and you're not needing to get D/HD.
Overall - 5/10
I'd give it a 5 purely because I had "okayish" groupmates. But I really regret taking this subject...
someth1ng
Retired Nov '14
I'll write my review once results come out so I actually have a measure of how well I went.
flashyGoldFish
Active Member
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2013
- Messages
- 465
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- N/A
What can people say about AMME1550
zxreth
Member
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2009
- Messages
- 775
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2011
Dynamics? heard it's pretty GG.
BIOL2021 - Zoology
Ease: 7/10, content is easy, final exam easy, but everything is marked quite hardly
Lecturer: Wilder 6/10, Clissold 9/10, Thomson 10/10, Seebacher 6/10, Ward 10/10 absolutely excellent!
Interest: 8/10 an extremely interesting course! Everyone will have different preferences for the different components though
Overall: 4/10 tbh despite the good ratings for interest etc. it is very poorly organized! Includes a mass invertebrate collection which is irrelevant and stupid, labs are boring and irrelevant, presentation was horribly marked and GROUPWORK, groupwork is absolutely horrible and no consideration is given to those in bad groups HOWEVER the final exam was very easy.
CHEM1901 - Chemistry 1a Advanced
Ease: 8/10 but the final exam is a 3/10, much more difficult then any other component
Lecturer: Tim Schmidt is awesome and funny! Great guy 8/10, Chris Ling mumbles and should be banned from using the words "this is easy" and skipping over things, 3/10
Interest: 10/10, a relevant and interesting course
Overall: 8/10 great course just do a lot of past papers because the final is hard! Labs are pretty boring though
GEOS1001 - Earth, Society & Environment
Ease: 10/10, very easy course, going into the final I was already sitting on a credit
Lecturer: Webster 3/10 unorganised, his slides are a joke, Aitchison 8/10 pretty decent and good content, great slides, Pritchard 8/10 really nice guy and good slides, Gillespie 7/10 really lovely lady but reads direct quotes a bit to much, super helpful if stuck on anything though
Interest: 10/10 then 5/10, the change from geology to geography (human) is not one I personally enjoyed
Overall: 8/10, great course, easy so would make a good wam booster, would and will recommend
Tutorials are a bit boring but generally don't go for long, presentation involves groupwork but luckily I had a good group, scientific report and midsemester were extremely easy, final exam was a bit more difficult
Any questions feel free to pm guys
Ease: 7/10, content is easy, final exam easy, but everything is marked quite hardly
Lecturer: Wilder 6/10, Clissold 9/10, Thomson 10/10, Seebacher 6/10, Ward 10/10 absolutely excellent!
Interest: 8/10 an extremely interesting course! Everyone will have different preferences for the different components though
Overall: 4/10 tbh despite the good ratings for interest etc. it is very poorly organized! Includes a mass invertebrate collection which is irrelevant and stupid, labs are boring and irrelevant, presentation was horribly marked and GROUPWORK, groupwork is absolutely horrible and no consideration is given to those in bad groups HOWEVER the final exam was very easy.
CHEM1901 - Chemistry 1a Advanced
Ease: 8/10 but the final exam is a 3/10, much more difficult then any other component
Lecturer: Tim Schmidt is awesome and funny! Great guy 8/10, Chris Ling mumbles and should be banned from using the words "this is easy" and skipping over things, 3/10
Interest: 10/10, a relevant and interesting course
Overall: 8/10 great course just do a lot of past papers because the final is hard! Labs are pretty boring though
GEOS1001 - Earth, Society & Environment
Ease: 10/10, very easy course, going into the final I was already sitting on a credit
Lecturer: Webster 3/10 unorganised, his slides are a joke, Aitchison 8/10 pretty decent and good content, great slides, Pritchard 8/10 really nice guy and good slides, Gillespie 7/10 really lovely lady but reads direct quotes a bit to much, super helpful if stuck on anything though
Interest: 10/10 then 5/10, the change from geology to geography (human) is not one I personally enjoyed
Overall: 8/10, great course, easy so would make a good wam booster, would and will recommend
Tutorials are a bit boring but generally don't go for long, presentation involves groupwork but luckily I had a good group, scientific report and midsemester were extremely easy, final exam was a bit more difficult
Any questions feel free to pm guys
someth1ng
Retired Nov '14
^Ooo, you did CHEM1901 and GEOS1001 :O
I have to agree mostly with what you said about both courses.
For GEOS1001, I did fuck up my scientific report pretty badly. I didn't do greatly in the course, partly because I didn't really like the course, at all but even then, I would still say that it's a rather easy course and I should get a pretty clear pass.
I have to agree mostly with what you said about both courses.
For GEOS1001, I did fuck up my scientific report pretty badly. I didn't do greatly in the course, partly because I didn't really like the course, at all but even then, I would still say that it's a rather easy course and I should get a pretty clear pass.
someth1ng
Retired Nov '14
Re: Subject Reviews
Writing it now...
Writing it now...
Last edited:
asianese
Σ
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2010
- Messages
- 2,225
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- 2012
ASNS1601 - Introduction to Asian Cultures (2013 S1)
Ease: 8/10 - If you went to just some of the lectures, wrote notes for the study questions you'll on your way to a credit easily. The questions for the final exam are literally given, aiding the ease of the course. They don't provide feedback or classes on how to write essays, so for those who are not familiar with writing a strong essay will struggle (as I did - but sitting on borderline C/D without much effort).
Lecturer: 10/10 + 1/10 - Matthew Stavros was AMAZING - he was the coordinator and the life and soul of the Japanese lectures (with other smatterings of India). If it weren't for him I would have dropped the subject. He is so engaging and a true story teller - I wish we had him for all the lectures. Eileen Walsh was 'ok' for China but her setting out of her powerpoints were terrible and so confusing, even if you had a copy beforehand. Mary Nasr, a PhD student for the Korea component read off slides and did nothing enriching. Adrian Vickers for South East Asia should not have a job at USYD. He degrades the entire Asian studies department and even the Arts faculty itself. He talked about irrelevant details, when the study questions focussed on the bigger picture, of which he would waft over saying: oh it happened but we don't know how... Rather he'd spend his time looking at statues of sandstone vaginas and other Buddhist monuments. I didn't turn up to 2/3 of his 2 hour lectures. Looking back - you really didn't need to attend lectures...just attend tutes (Dallas Peterson was a great tutor - went through things swiftly and was good at presenting it).
Interest: 10/10 + 1/10 (no, not 11/10, you know what I mean) - I was fully engaged in the Japan component (Matt Stavros), somewhat engaged in the China component, knew parts of the Korea component, and knew literally nothing of the South East Asia parts. I am so disappointed in the Asian studies department for serving up some of the worst teachers I've had. If the others could only be 1/2 of what Matt Stavros was, it would have been a fascinating course. I was looking forward to Asian culture and history, but many parts just became a series of memorisation acts and I didn't enjoy this.
Overall: Amazing + Biggestshitasticdisplayofteachingever. The bottom line is: there is only 1 good lecturer. The rest are so bad that it left an appalling impression of the Asian studies dept on me that I am discontinuing this subject (Not doing ASNS1602 - Modernity in Asia).
JPNS2621 - Japanese 5 (2013 S1)
Ease: 9/10 - If you did Japanese Cont. / Ext at high school, this will be a piece of cake. If you did Jap 3/4 and or are transferring from other backgrounds of Japanese, you may struggle. They didn't do screening of all individuals this year, so many people of lower standards crept into Japanese 5, making the cohort weaker and making it easier for competent students. The textbook is very accessible and if you even study 10 minutes a day you should be on your way to a D/HD. Kanji quizzes were all seen, so full marks was readily achieved. Other grammar and reading quizzes were simple, however there were some pedantic points the teachers marked people down on. The final exam is relatively easy, provided you revise all sentence structures in the text, including those that weren't covered.
Lecturers/Teachers: 3-4/10 - all classes were tutorials. We had Yasuko Claremont (old Japanese lady), Samantha Haley (Australian lady), Michael Lewis (American man). All teachers were below what I expected of a department so famous among arts departments in Australia. Claremont sensei was out of touch and couldn't properly express herself. We had her for 'communication' but usually all the communicating that was done was: Yes, no. Goodbye. End of lesson. Not good at all. She created strange assessments esp. for speaking and was just generally terrible. A sentence in the textbook sums it up: Not all Japanese people are good Japanese teachers. Samantha Haley was below par. I had other Australian Japanese teachers in the past and they were excellent, so I am not saying that just because she isn't Japanese, she is terrible. She is terrible because she is terrible. Her powerpoints were alright, but covered few grammar points. Her activities were basically for yr7-9 students, not a 2nd year adv. Japanese class. The large range of levels in the classes made it difficult for her, as well as the non-responsiveness of the class. Generally these classes were fruitless and I ended up going for attendance only. Despite living in Japan she had a thick gaikokujin accent which perturbed study. Perhaps the best out of the 3 was Michael Lewis. He had previously studied Chinese and taught Japanese now. He was very knowledgeable culturally as well as with respect to Japanese language. We had him for reading, and the low levels of kanji reading ability as well as general intonation issues made these classes also unbearable for those who were at the standard expected. Lewis sensei couldn't do much - it would have been helpful to have him for other glasses as well.
Generally, I was extremely disappointed in the quality of teaching of Japanese at USYD. I know it is not completely the fault of the teachers, but it was seriously below what I expected (coming from high school - my wonderful teacher *tear*)
Interest: declined from 8/10 to about 3/10 by the end of semester. I am passionate about Japanese, but the courses just put me off of it...so disappointing.
Overall: 5/10. Poor teaching coupled with students who needed to be in lower levels created a dead classroom environment. Assessments were easy and high grades could be achieved if you are at a certain level (that is expected - nothing above the level of the text).
Ease: 8/10 - If you went to just some of the lectures, wrote notes for the study questions you'll on your way to a credit easily. The questions for the final exam are literally given, aiding the ease of the course. They don't provide feedback or classes on how to write essays, so for those who are not familiar with writing a strong essay will struggle (as I did - but sitting on borderline C/D without much effort).
Lecturer: 10/10 + 1/10 - Matthew Stavros was AMAZING - he was the coordinator and the life and soul of the Japanese lectures (with other smatterings of India). If it weren't for him I would have dropped the subject. He is so engaging and a true story teller - I wish we had him for all the lectures. Eileen Walsh was 'ok' for China but her setting out of her powerpoints were terrible and so confusing, even if you had a copy beforehand. Mary Nasr, a PhD student for the Korea component read off slides and did nothing enriching. Adrian Vickers for South East Asia should not have a job at USYD. He degrades the entire Asian studies department and even the Arts faculty itself. He talked about irrelevant details, when the study questions focussed on the bigger picture, of which he would waft over saying: oh it happened but we don't know how... Rather he'd spend his time looking at statues of sandstone vaginas and other Buddhist monuments. I didn't turn up to 2/3 of his 2 hour lectures. Looking back - you really didn't need to attend lectures...just attend tutes (Dallas Peterson was a great tutor - went through things swiftly and was good at presenting it).
Interest: 10/10 + 1/10 (no, not 11/10, you know what I mean) - I was fully engaged in the Japan component (Matt Stavros), somewhat engaged in the China component, knew parts of the Korea component, and knew literally nothing of the South East Asia parts. I am so disappointed in the Asian studies department for serving up some of the worst teachers I've had. If the others could only be 1/2 of what Matt Stavros was, it would have been a fascinating course. I was looking forward to Asian culture and history, but many parts just became a series of memorisation acts and I didn't enjoy this.
Overall: Amazing + Biggestshitasticdisplayofteachingever. The bottom line is: there is only 1 good lecturer. The rest are so bad that it left an appalling impression of the Asian studies dept on me that I am discontinuing this subject (Not doing ASNS1602 - Modernity in Asia).
JPNS2621 - Japanese 5 (2013 S1)
Ease: 9/10 - If you did Japanese Cont. / Ext at high school, this will be a piece of cake. If you did Jap 3/4 and or are transferring from other backgrounds of Japanese, you may struggle. They didn't do screening of all individuals this year, so many people of lower standards crept into Japanese 5, making the cohort weaker and making it easier for competent students. The textbook is very accessible and if you even study 10 minutes a day you should be on your way to a D/HD. Kanji quizzes were all seen, so full marks was readily achieved. Other grammar and reading quizzes were simple, however there were some pedantic points the teachers marked people down on. The final exam is relatively easy, provided you revise all sentence structures in the text, including those that weren't covered.
Lecturers/Teachers: 3-4/10 - all classes were tutorials. We had Yasuko Claremont (old Japanese lady), Samantha Haley (Australian lady), Michael Lewis (American man). All teachers were below what I expected of a department so famous among arts departments in Australia. Claremont sensei was out of touch and couldn't properly express herself. We had her for 'communication' but usually all the communicating that was done was: Yes, no. Goodbye. End of lesson. Not good at all. She created strange assessments esp. for speaking and was just generally terrible. A sentence in the textbook sums it up: Not all Japanese people are good Japanese teachers. Samantha Haley was below par. I had other Australian Japanese teachers in the past and they were excellent, so I am not saying that just because she isn't Japanese, she is terrible. She is terrible because she is terrible. Her powerpoints were alright, but covered few grammar points. Her activities were basically for yr7-9 students, not a 2nd year adv. Japanese class. The large range of levels in the classes made it difficult for her, as well as the non-responsiveness of the class. Generally these classes were fruitless and I ended up going for attendance only. Despite living in Japan she had a thick gaikokujin accent which perturbed study. Perhaps the best out of the 3 was Michael Lewis. He had previously studied Chinese and taught Japanese now. He was very knowledgeable culturally as well as with respect to Japanese language. We had him for reading, and the low levels of kanji reading ability as well as general intonation issues made these classes also unbearable for those who were at the standard expected. Lewis sensei couldn't do much - it would have been helpful to have him for other glasses as well.
Generally, I was extremely disappointed in the quality of teaching of Japanese at USYD. I know it is not completely the fault of the teachers, but it was seriously below what I expected (coming from high school - my wonderful teacher *tear*)
Interest: declined from 8/10 to about 3/10 by the end of semester. I am passionate about Japanese, but the courses just put me off of it...so disappointing.
Overall: 5/10. Poor teaching coupled with students who needed to be in lower levels created a dead classroom environment. Assessments were easy and high grades could be achieved if you are at a certain level (that is expected - nothing above the level of the text).
Last edited: