Login

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

March 29, 2024, 03:45:12 am

Author Topic: University of Melbourne - Subject Reviews & Ratings  (Read 1735158 times)  Share 

0 Members and 13 Guests are viewing this topic.

hums_student

  • MOTM: SEP 18
  • Forum Obsessive
  • ***
  • Posts: 379
  • Respect: +520
Re: University of Melbourne - Subject Reviews & Ratings
« Reply #810 on: November 26, 2020, 04:31:39 pm »
+3
Subject code/name: HIST30010 Hitler's Germany and Fascism

Workload: 1 x 1.5 hr lecture & 1 x 1 hr tutorial a week

Assessments:
   - 3 x multiple choice tests (15% total)
   - 1,200 word document analysis (30%)
   - 2,500 word research essay (55%)

Lectopia Enabled: Yes, with screen capture

Past exams available: N/A

Textbook Recommendation: N/A

Lecturer(s): Angel Alcalde

Year & Semester of completion: 2020 Semester 2

Rating: 5 out of 5

Your mark/grade: H1 (83)

Comments:

This is the first third-year history subject I've done (I'm a current 2nd year student), and I found it to be a massive, absolutely massive step up from all the 1st/2nd year history subjects. The focus on historiography as opposed to historical events threw me off at first. For instance, in 1st/2nd year, the first assignment is always a primary document analysis - a speech, a journal, a letter, etc. In this subject, the first assignment is a secondary document analysis - analysing a historian's interpretation. That said, I loved this subject and I'm really glad I did it early to get a taste of what harder history subjects involve.

Assessments

Multiple Choice Tests: There are 3 tests spread throughout the semester worth 15% total. Each test only has 5 questions, which is great, until you realise that means each question is one mark to your final subject score. They cover mostly content from lectures and occasionally readings. Each test has a time limit of 10 minutes each.

Document Analysis: This was in the form of a 1,200 word book review. Most books are quite lengthy (around 600 pages) so it's pretty time consuming. But otherwise, it's an easy assessment as not much external research is required. There was a subtle focus on historiography which tripped up a lot of people, myself included.

Research Essay: 2,500 words due prior to the exam period. I found this to be an incredibly difficult assignment, due to the intense focus on historiography. You have to analyse at least 5 interpretations or historiographical schools in relation to an aspect of fascism (eg. violence, antisemitism, leadership, etc). Actual historical content accounts for only around 1/3 of the essay. There was also a large focus on recent historiography, which I found was the most difficult part of the assessment.

Final thoughts

This subject can be incredibly challenging for non-arts students due to the heavy historiographical focus, so if you are thinking of doing this for breadth, you've been warned. I also found that those who study Politics/Philosophy did better than actual History majors. That said, it was an amazing subject and I highly recommend. Also, this is the second subject of Angel's I've done and I can confidently say he is an amazing lecturer.
2019-21: Bachelor of Arts (Politics & Int'l Relations / Economics)

hums_student

  • MOTM: SEP 18
  • Forum Obsessive
  • ***
  • Posts: 379
  • Respect: +520
Re: University of Melbourne - Subject Reviews & Ratings
« Reply #811 on: November 26, 2020, 04:35:15 pm »
+3
Subject code/name: HIST20060 Total War: World War II

Workload: 1 x 1.5 hr lecture & 1 x 1 hr tutorial a week

Assessments: 2 x 2,000 word essays (50% each)

Lectopia Enabled: Yes, with screen capture

Past exams available: N/A

Textbook Recommendation: Subject reader available online

Lecturer(s): Mark Edele

Year & Semester of completion: 2020 Semester 2

Rating: 3 out of 5

Your mark/grade: H1 (86)

Comments:

First off, obligatory disclaimer that I did this during the online semester so the review might not be a 100% true reflection of what the subject would be like normally. That said, there wasn't many big changes to subject in terms of content and assessments.

Assessments:

Primary Document Analysis: 2,000 words worth 50%. Your usual first assignment in history. You get a choice of speeches made by important WWII-era leaders such as Churchill, FDR, Hitler, Chiang, Hirohito etc and do the usual analysis.

Research Essay: 2,000 words worth 50%. Your usual research essay in history - responding to a prompt out of several choices given. You can also create your own prompt but it must be approved by the subject coordinator.

Final thoughts

Overall, I thought this was a very standard history subject. There's not a big difference from first-year subjects and is also very similar to the other second-year ones I've done. As there are no weekly quizzes or a final exam with multiple questions/prompts, you can get away with basically attending only the relevant weeks' lectures as you are not tested on anything else. It's not a difficult subject, the assessment criteria were fairly standard, and Mark is quite approachable and always really happy to answer questions.
« Last Edit: January 15, 2021, 11:43:23 am by hums_student »
2019-21: Bachelor of Arts (Politics & Int'l Relations / Economics)

dahyun

  • Adventurer
  • *
  • Posts: 9
  • that isn't dahyun!!!
  • Respect: +5
Re: University of Melbourne - Subject Reviews & Ratings
« Reply #812 on: December 01, 2020, 03:36:31 pm »
+2
Subject Code/Name: ECON10003 Introductory Macroeconomics

Workload:  2x 1 hr lectures, 1x 1 hr tutorial per week

Assessment: 2x written assignments (each worth 10%)
2x MCQ (5% each) 
1x exam (60% of final) Note that this is a hurdle, 50% on the exam is required to pass.
The remaining 10% comes from tutorial participation, i.e. this was literally free since they waived this for sem 2 2020.

Lectopia Enabled:  Yes, with screen capture. More importantly, the lectures were not pre-recorded!! (this should make sense, considering the nature of the subject :) )

Past exams available:  Yes, around 4-5 past exams.

Textbook Recommendation:  Feel free to obtain a copy of the book, but it isn't needed other than for further understanding of the content. The lecture slides + tutorials do more than enough.

Lecturer(s): Lawrence Uren and Nahid Khan. Lawrence presented all the lectures, and Nahid ran the fortnightly review sessions to provide students with additional questions.

Year & Semester of completion: 2020 Semester 2 - note this was delivered fully online owing from COVID-19 restrictions.

Rating: 4.5 Out of 5

Your Mark/Grade: H2A !

Comments:
This subject is a core subject for the B-COM, and a core within anyone majoring/minoring in economics, meaning this is one of the most popular subjects in first year. A pass in Introductory Microeconomics (ECON10004) is required to enroll in this subject. 

As a second semester BCOM student, I initially didn't think much about this subject since at the time I was planning on majoring on actuarial studies (ACTL10001 review soon?!!), and really only did it since it's a core subject for BCOM. However, as soon as I watched the first lecture, I felt like I had to major in economics! Lawrence is easily the best lecturer I've had (in a small sample size lol) so far within the uni and I actually doubt anyone will top him for me. There are many reasons why I enjoy his style of teaching, but perhaps the best part of Lawrence is his tone and demeanour - I really found it relaxing and kept myself grounded during these turbulent times. There were some caveats with his teaching - he did not have many examples on slides, relying on Nahid's review sessions and the tutorial sheets to do that for him. He was receptive to feedback, so there were more examples in the second-half of the course. I also knew some students who found his voice annoying...I digress.

Assessments
Back to the actual course, the MCQs were quite easy as long as you kept up to date with content. I think the first quiz was in week 4, and the second in week 10. The assignments were also quite easy; with Lawrence admitting that the averages for the assignments being a lot higher than expected. These assignments were done in groups of 1 to 3 - i.e. you can solo these assignments. If you were to work in a group (which I did for both), then you had to choose your group-mates from your own tutorial. I actually became pretty good friends with my two group-mates and it made the assignments a lot easier, since you can just delegate work to others whilst also discussing your own work with others. Since the assignments were easy, I don't think people doing the assignments solo had any real disadvantage. 

Tutorials
I didn't go to many tutorials, but my tutor was quite nice and always made sure that you understood the content well. I highly recommend going to the first few weeks of tutes, then to leave since having a good relationship with a good tutor helps a lot in the long run.

Coursework/content
Coursework wise, if you did VCE Economics or equivalent, then you'll recognise a lot of the content in this subject, specifically AD/AS curves and its properties, Keynesian and Classical economics (even though we weren't told it explicitly back then :P) and balance of payments. If you didn't, then don't worry since everything was accessible if you did intro micro. Difficulty wise, I found it easier than micro (I guess represented by my marks) especially if you enjoy real-life applications of economics. We examined a lot of the effects of COVID-19 and other great economic events (Great Depression, GFC) with respect to the theory we learnt, so I found that very cool!

Exam
The exam was alright, being 25 MCQ (usually 20) and 8 short-answer questions. There were no diagrams on this exam as noted by Lawrence as drawing diagrams would be time-costly on this online exam, so there were some weird and wacky questions but overall I felt good about it and I'm pretty happy with my mark.

Concluding remarks
As noted I will more than likely major in economics now as a result of this subject. I really enjoyed this subject and definitely would recommend this as a breadth if you've done intro micro. If you're doing this as a core, I hope you have Lawrence and Nahid (I think they only teach sem 2) and I'm sure you'll have a blast! Or not, since you know, this is a core subject for all BCOM students regardless of your major. Thanks for reading :)




« Last Edit: December 01, 2020, 03:39:04 pm by dahyun »
rip old forums... :(

dahyun

  • Adventurer
  • *
  • Posts: 9
  • that isn't dahyun!!!
  • Respect: +5
Re: University of Melbourne - Subject Reviews & Ratings
« Reply #813 on: December 01, 2020, 04:15:32 pm »
+2
Subject Code/Name: ACTL10001 Introduction to Actuarial Studies

Workload:  2x 2 hr lectures*, 1x 1 hr tutorial per week.
*this varied between week, but expect around 3-4 hours of lecture content per week.

Assessment: 2x written assignments (each worth 10%)
1x MST (midsem test) (worth 10%)
1x exam (70% of final) Note that this is a hurdle, 50% on the exam is required to pass.

Lectopia Enabled:  Yes, with screen capture. More importantly, the lectures were not pre-recorded, since we had a new lecturer.

Past exams available:  No - this is explained later in the review.

Textbook Recommendation:  Feel free to obtain a copy of the book, but it isn't needed other than for further understanding of the content. The lecture slides + tutorials do more than enough. To obtain the book, ask a past student to send it since it's out of print and it's way too expensive.

Lecturer(s): Benjamin Avanzi - he is a new lecturer at unimelb, but has taught courses similar to this in UNSW. (i.e. he knows what he's doing lol)

Year & Semester of completion: 2020 Semester 2 - note this was delivered fully online owing from COVID-19 restrictions.

Rating: 4 out of 5

Your Mark/Grade: TBA

Comments:
This is the only level 1 subject within the actuarial major (denoted by ACTLXXXXX) and it's actually the only one that's not needed to satisfy the major itself. As per title, this subject serves as an introduction to the actuarial and what exactly actuaries do. Benjamin in particular is a new lecturer at Unimelb, so we had a new curriculum to reflect this change.

It's obvious that Benjamin is a huge geek over actuarial studies and anything actuarial related, making this subject very interesting (I mean, if the lecturer doesn't seem interested, then why should you be?) as it could be but at the end of the day - it's actuarial studies, so it's quite hard and for me, a little bit boring. If I could sum-up this review, it would be to do it if you are interested in the actuarial major since it provides a GREAT overview of the profession. I cannot recommend this as a breadth if you're just good at maths; Ben makes an emphasis on theory more so than previous years.

Assessments
Definitely the worst part of the subject are the two group assignments. You are randomly assigned to groups of 5, where you have to co-ordinate who's doing what on the assignment. You also have to submit a group contract, signalling what is expected from the 5 of you and what happens if someone does complete their obligations.

The first assignment was an application of financial cash flows (which is weird way of saying it...) via the form of purchasing an investment property. We "roleplayed" as consultants to a wealthy client who wanted to purchase a property. We were to use Excel (which isn't taught in the subject, so you'll need learn it somehow) to record all cash-flows and any interest gained or taxes etc. This was actually pretty alright, but my group didn't do too well for a multitude of reasons. Average here was a 79%.
Assignment 2 fared better for all groups on average - an 85 I think. This was a continuation of the first assignment so we had the same groups. In this assignment, we had to research how insurance providers price their plans with respect to certain risk factors - e.g. age, location etc. This was a lot more interesting and hell-of-a-lot-easier than the first one.

Ben is quite responsive to any allegations of a group member(s) not doing their part - as long as you have proof somewhere and you listed it on the contract you submitted as a group, then he'll recognise it and will mark their assignments as 0.

The MST was very hard, average was 9/18 and the highest mark was a 16. If you've read past reviews of this subject, then this shouldn't come too much of a surprise :)

Tutorials
Like most of my subjects, I went for the first month (4 weeks) and came to the last few just to consolidate on work. The tutes weren't too useful since solutions were provided at the end of the week anyways, along with a certain tutor being kind enough to provide detailed solutions. There is no guarantee that you'll have access to these detailed solutions in the future however.

Coursework/content
The first four weeks relate to financial mathematics - so if you've done Principles of Finance (FNCE10002), then this shouldn't be too hard. The hardest part is the notation used - you need to remember what "v" means or "an" (I can't do the symbol lol). It's not too bad however, but there is a large difficulty spike in tutorial questions by week 3.

The next few weeks (5-9?) cover demography - the data of which actuaries use within their risk modelling. This was my favourite part of the subject, since this is actually why I was interested in actuarial studies in the first place. Alas, this is just me I feel lol.

The last weeks feature a lot of theory regarding insurance pricing and superannuation, the two most interesting topics to discuss on a coffee date I am sure. In all seriousness, these were actually alright and were the hardest topics to grasp both mathematically and theoretically. The superannuation lecture was taken partially by former VIC Premier John Brumby, who is now chancellor of La Trobe Uni (I had no idea lol). This was definitely a highlight for me since it made superannuation more interesting by providing an "insider's view" of the concept. Hopefully Ben gets him back next year! 


Exam
I can't actually comment on this - I am awaiting a special consideration regarding technical issues. From what I've heard, it is a bit weird and odd, with a huge emphasis on applications of theory - this was an open book exam.
The main issue for studying for this subject was that there were no past exams - Ben made a comment about how it would take too long and how the actual past exams were certainly not indicative of this exam. Take that as you will but I felt like it would have been easy to pass. I apologise that I could not provide an adequate review here.

Concluding remarks
If you read my review above here, then you would know I am no longer pursuing the actuarial major - the maths isn't for me and whilst there was some interest with some aspects of the profession, I think I prefer other things like economics more. With that being said, I would have not made the switch away from actuarial if it wasn't for this subject, so I am grateful that this subject really did its job of introducing first years to, actuarial studies! I really did enjoy this subject and I wish everyone pursuing this major the best of luck. Like I said earlier, I wouldn't do this subject as a breadth if you're only good at maths - Ben loves his qualitative aspects perhaps more than the quantitative aspects. Thanks for reading.



« Last Edit: December 01, 2020, 08:04:53 pm by dahyun »
rip old forums... :(

cancer1123

  • Fresh Poster
  • *
  • Posts: 3
  • Respect: 0
Re: University of Melbourne - Subject Reviews & Ratings
« Reply #814 on: December 05, 2020, 03:34:42 pm »
+4
Subject Code/Name: MAST30028 Numerical Methods & Scientific Computing 

Workload:  two 1 hour lectures and one 2 hour lab class a week

Assessment:  two assignments worth 20% each and final exam worth 60%

Lectopia Enabled:  Yes, with screen capture etc.

Past exams available:  Yes, 2 past exams available

Textbook Recommendation:  Moler Numerical Computing with Matlab

Lecturer(s): Hailong Guo

Year & Semester of completion: 2020 sem2

Rating: 3.5

Your Mark/Grade: 83

Comments:

Overall the lectures were very dry and it was rather difficult to learn anything from watching them the first time around. They contained a lot of non-important excess information that only really served to obfuscate what is actually important and make it harder to understand what was going on. The lecturers were only useful to me after having read the relevant textbook chapters and having spent a considerable amount of time attempting the assignment questions.

The lecturer was also quite dry in his delivery and wasn't able to intonate his voice in a way that emphasised what was important in the lectures which further complicated things.

Due to this I relied quite heavily on the textbook, which luckily is quite well written.

The exam was a bit of a curveball, the theory behind each of the questions in the exam was essentially the same as what was done in the past exams but the approach required and way the questions were asked were very different from the past exams.

There's another reply about this subject this semester I would like to address because I don't entirely agree with it:

The assignments were a bit heavy but they did a fantastic job at teaching the content, and they were worth 20% each so I feel like that justifies the time that was required to complete them.

Outputting everything in the right format and putting everything together was a bit tedious so I agree on that part, but it's also sort of just what creating a report entails and is a skill and of itself. It's also the exact sort of thing required in a lot of jobs anyway so   
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I also disagree entirely that Matlab isn't a good language, I think it's a fantastic language. It's easy to use, has a really nice dynamic environment, has just the right amount of syntax so that programming doesn't take forever and it's really clear what everything is doing, is really fast and also has plenty of ready functions available without having to import a whole bunch of stuff like in python.

I agree that some of the questions were a bit vague but honestly all you had to do was go to the labs or consultation and ask about it he would spend as much time explaining and clarifying it to you as was needed.

One thing I took particular notice of is that the commenter criticised the marking for requiring the use of vectorisation (rather than a bunch of for loops and if statements):
Vectorisation makes the program FAR faster and also condenses what would otherwise at times take 5-10+ lines of code and a large amount of effort into a single, easily understood line of code.
That's a pretty basic concept and important lesson that strikes at the heart of what you want to accomplish in programming and numerical computing.

Overall I'd sum it up at crappy teaching, great subject.

kiwikoala

  • Trailblazer
  • *
  • Posts: 37
  • Respect: +19
Re: University of Melbourne - Subject Reviews & Ratings
« Reply #815 on: December 06, 2020, 01:27:05 pm »
+3
Subject Code/Name: ECON20005 Competition and Strategy

Workload:  Weekly 2 x 1 hour lectures,  1 x 1 hour tutorial

Assessment:  3 x 10% assignments, 70% exam (Assignment style)
Final mark = max {assignments + exam weighted, exam only}

Lectopia Enabled:  Yes, Pre-recorded, no live zoom chat. High quality recordings though, he uses OBS, facecam and edits his vids!

Past exams available:  Plenty of materials

Textbook Recommendation:  "A. Dixit and S. Skeath, Games of Strategy, fifth edition W.W. Norton and Company. This textbook, while useful for all students, is not strictly required for the subject." - subject guide (I didn't use)

Daniel made plenty of supplementary materials like exercises (I didn't use them either)

Lecturer(s): Dr. Jun Xiao

Year & Semester of completion: 2020 Sem 2 (Corona Time!)

Rating:  5 Out of 5

Your Mark/Grade: H1

Comments: It was great. My best breadth. Content is shallow and math is basic but very fun to learn. It's even easier if you remember content from intro micro such as Nash Equilibirium, monopolies and welfare.

Just wanted to update from the previous review that Jun and Daniel are still teaching 4 years later and are both still incredible. Worth doing as a breadth/elective for any student who is interested in game theory concepts.

Content is almost the same as the last review, week 12 is different from what I see.

I copped a H1 from doing assignments well and watching lectures (lol). I watched the appropriate recorded tutorials uploaded by Daniel before each assignment. Killing the assignments (i.e. understanding the concepts) set you up for the exam quite well as they were in the same format.

For more stuff on content read: https://atarnotes.com/forum/index.php?topic=43031.msg921945#msg921945

The hardest questions of assignments/exams are based on some of the games learnt in lectures but with a mild extension to the rules. If you were comfortable doing 1st year math, then this will also be pretty good. Otherwise it's not too bad with some practice. A lot of questions were just resolving the exact game from the lectures with different numbers.
« Last Edit: December 06, 2020, 01:32:47 pm by stevenhuyn »

ganksau

  • Adventurer
  • *
  • Posts: 8
  • Respect: +3
Re: University of Melbourne - Subject Reviews & Ratings
« Reply #816 on: December 09, 2020, 05:03:59 pm »
+4
Subject Code/Name: BCMB20002: Biochemistry and Molecular Biology

Workload:  1 modules/week (11 total) ~ 10-12 short videos per module + 1 tutorial/per week

Assessment:  11xweekly quizzes 1% each; 2xMST 15% each; 3x assignments 3% each; exam 50%

Lectopia Enabled:  Yes, with/without screen capture etc.

Past exams available:  Yes, answers on MCQ sections

Textbook Recommendation:  Nelson and Cox, Lehninger Principles of Biochemistry, 7th edn. 2017 IS RECOMMENDED BUT NOT NEEDED

Lecturer(s): Prof. Terry Mulhern and Prof. Heather Verkade

Year & Semester of completion: Sem 1 2020

Rating:  6 Out of 5

Your Mark/Grade: 86

Comments: I decided to do a review of this subject because the previous ones are quite old and the structure was changed. It used to be 3 lectures a week, but now its short videos that you can watch as you wish and 1 tutorial a week in which the lecturer goes through questions (usually PollEv style) about the module from the previous week and gives you a chance to ask questions and all that. I personally think the new version is perfect. The videos range from 10-12 per week and go from 3-12 min. The videos are extremely well made and both Terry and Heather are terrific lecturers.

The content ranges from pH and basic chemistry to protein structure, enzymes kinetics, metabolism and regulation (taught by Terry) to the more molecular side i.e. transcription, translation, laboratory techniques, etc (taught by Heather). It is quite content heavy, but its also very easy to keep up with the content, especially with the short videos.

The assessment is also very helpful in keeping you up to date. 1 short quiz every week worth 1% that helps you consolidate your learning of the week's module (and you get 3 tries so its pretty much a free 11%) plus 3 super easy assignments worth 3% each. The MSTs are fully MCQ and can be a bit tricky. Terry particularly likes to test your understanding of his content not just rote learning, but don't let that deter you, his explanations are amazing and make it very easy to study. Final Exam is 50% and is part MCQ (which is pretty much the same as MST), part SAQ which is pretty much the same sort of questions as the assignments, albeit a bit harder.

This is the subject that made me wanna major in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. Cannot recommend it enough. Especially if you're doing something bioscience related. Absolutely loved it. One of my favourite subjects of all time.
2016-2018: IB (HL: Chemistry, Physics, English LAL. SL: Maths, Economics, Spanish B) 40 points
2019-2022: BSci Unimelb (Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, H1)
2022-2023: BSci Honours Unimelb (Biochemistry and Molecular Biology)

Feel free to DM if you have any questions :)

c.lim37

  • Fresh Poster
  • *
  • Posts: 1
  • Respect: 0
Re: University of Melbourne - Subject Reviews & Ratings
« Reply #817 on: December 10, 2020, 01:15:21 am »
+4
Subject Code/Name: ECON10004 Introductory Microeconomics 

Workload:  Weekly: 2 x 1 hour lectures, 1 x 1 hour tutorial

Assessment: 
- Weekly multiple choice quizzes (10%)
- MST (5%)
- Assignment 1 (10%)
- Assignment 2 (15%)
- Exam (60% hurdle)

Lectopia Enabled:  Yes, with screen capture.

Past exams available:  Yes. Since this was Jeff's first semester teaching Intro Micro again, he provided us with past exams that he wrote (2011 and 2014 I believe..?, as well as a 2020 mock exam). They were all pretty much the same structure as the actual exam so I'd recommend paying particular attention to these, or at least read through the sample answers during SWOTVAC so you know what kind of answers they're looking for. (I didn't really look through these until the night before the exam oops)

Textbook Recommendation:  Didn't bother looking at the recommended texts beyond week 2, don't feel like I missed out on much.

Lecturer(s): Jeff Borland - I really enjoyed Jeff's lectures this semester. They were well-structured, clear and concise, and he provided just enough examples to get the point across without boring you. I'd recommend printing out the slides before the lecture, having a flick through and taking notes of anything that doesn't make sense to you and paying particular attention to those parts during the lecture. I'd then make summary notes at the end of each week to solidify my understanding (but I'm sure most people could get by with just annotated lecture slides). I found that drawing graphs to understand cause and effect really helped too.

Year & Semester of completion: 2020 Semester 2

Rating:  4.5 Out of 5

Your Mark/Grade: 91 (H1)

Comments:
Assessment Advice:
- Weekly multiple choice quizzes (10%), of which your top 7 scores are averaged to make up 10% of your grade. (Note that since this was done during one of the COVID semesters so tutorial attendance was waived and we just had to do the pre-tutorial quizzes, pretty much a free 10% since we were allowed 2 attempts at each quiz)
-MST (5%) is a 10 mark MCQ quiz. This is probably the easiest to score well in, as the questions are basically the same as those in the weekly pre-tute quizzes with a few numbers or words switched out. If you pay attention to the weekly quiz feedback, you should be able to score high in this one.
- Assignment 1 (10%): 1000 words, fairly straight forward, we just had to answer questions on the first area of study (supply/demand, market equilibrium, international trade). If you spend a couple of hours on this it should be fairly easy to get 9 or 10%. One piece of advice for all assessments, USE GRAPHS!!
- Assignment 2 (15%): 1500 words, again very similar to assignment 1, but this time with 1100 words to answer questions, and a 400 word case study (which is pretty easy to get marks on, I waffled quite a bit here). This assignment was largely focused on the second area of study (theory of the firm, price discrimination, marginal cost/marginal revenue), but also included some stuff on market failure.
- Exam (60% hurdle): Straightforward, no hidden surprises exam. Section A consisted of 10 multiple choice questions, section B consisted of 3 short answer questions and section 3 included 3 sections of questions more similar to that of the assignments. Though the exam itself is not difficult, I'd recommend really making use of graphs to show your thinking, planning your time out well and working fast, as I ran out of time at the end and struggled to upload all my graphs (online exams amirite).

The three main areas of study for this subjects are: Weeks 1-4 Market Outcomes in Perfectly Competitive Markets, Weeks 5-9 Theory of the firm and managerial economics, Weeks 10-11 Game theory and Week 12 Exam Revision. For lecture 24, Jeff asks students to email him for any topics they want him to go over so I'd recommend making use of this as he further explains the requested topics here.

As a first year with no background in economics at all, this ended up being my favourite subject this semester. Jeff kept his lectures short enough as to not be overly time consuming or boring, and really kept us in the loop via LMS announcements. He was also pretty quick to reply to emails too so I'd recommend emailing him or your tutor if you're unsure about anything. As for tutorials, I attended them for the first 5 or so weeks but quickly found them to be useless. The tutorial worksheets are actually VERY useful for exam revision (basically the same format as sections B and C of the exam) but I ended up just doing them in my own time and checking the solutions at the end of the week, as the tutor's explanations were hard to understand and ended up just confusing me. Overall a great subject, I'd say I recommend it to all but it's a Comm core so y'know :P
« Last Edit: December 10, 2020, 02:15:24 am by c.lim37 »

Tau

  • Trendsetter
  • **
  • Posts: 147
  • Respect: +28
Re: University of Melbourne - Subject Reviews & Ratings
« Reply #818 on: December 12, 2020, 11:40:07 pm »
+3
Subject Code/Name: MAST20018 Discrete Maths and Operations Research 

Workload: 1 hour tutorial, lectures were a mess

Assessment: Exam worth 80%, Assessments were also an unpredictable mess

Past exams available:  Yes, about 5, solutions were not really provided

Textbook Recommendation:  Linear & Integer Optimization by Sierksma for the OR part, but not required and not really necessary

Lecturer(s): Alysson Costa

Year & Semester of completion: 2020 Semester 2

Rating:  1.5/5

Mark/Grade: 90 H1

Comments:

The lecturer and subject coordinator this year was new, and without going into too much detail, kinda messed up the whole subject experience. Lectures were frequently a mess, assessment requirements and weighting changing on a daily basis, foisting unwanted software and platforms on us and just created an all-round complete mess and chaos on a daily basis. At least tutorials were good though.

The Operations Research side of the subject was interesting and enjoyable, but the Discrete Maths portion was a hodge-podge of subjects, that whilst sometimes interesting felt a little out of place on a uni curriculum and honestly a little pointless. Overall, the subject honestly ended up as a bit of a failure this semester, which is disappointing as it had some potential.
2020 - Bachelor of Science, The University of Melbourne

2019: UMEP Mathematics Extension [First Class Honours (H1)], English [44], Specialist [42 ~ 52], Algorithmics (HESS)
ATAR: 99.50
2018: Physics [46 ~ 48], Methods [41 ~ 46]

Tau

  • Trendsetter
  • **
  • Posts: 147
  • Respect: +28
Re: University of Melbourne - Subject Reviews & Ratings
« Reply #819 on: December 13, 2020, 12:07:55 am »
+3
Subject Code/Name: MAST20026 Real Analysis

Workload: 3x1hr Lectures, 2x1hr tutorial

Assessment: 5 Assignments, worth 4% each, Exam, worth 80%

Past exams available: Yes, 5 with solutions

Textbook Recommendation:  None required, but I found Understanding Analysis by Abbott helpful

Lecturer(s): Paul Norbury

Year & Semester of completion: 2020 Semester 2

Rating: 3/5

Your Mark/Grade: 80 H1

Comments:

Overall, I kinda felt this subject was a bit boring, and I didn't find Paul to be the best lecturer; a bit too reserved and often pulled things from nowhere in his proofs without bothering to explain them. It wasn't a terrible subject, and I found it got more interesting after Calculus (Differentiation, Riemann Integration, Series and Taylor Series) was introduced, but I didn't particularly enjoy this subject and hence engaged poorly with it, and so my marks also suffered for it.

I must admit that I did practically none of the Problem Book questions for this subject, which was probably a mistake, but I just wasn't particularly engaged in this subject. Unlike other maths subjects, there are two tutorials each week, but I honestly didn't find them to be particularly useful and hence skipped a number of them towards the end of the year.

IMO there was way too much time spent on basic Mathematical Logic (~first 4 weeks), where that time could've been better spent on later parts of the subject or simply fleshing things out better.  For example, there was a ridiculously inordinate amount of time spent on truth tables, yet Taylor series were extremely rushed and crammed in at the end.

Assignments often had a mix of some very easy proof questions, and some very hard questions. The tutors generally gave marks for trying to sketch a proof though, even if not completely correct. The exam this year was a lot more 'creative' in the style of its questions, probably to compensate for COVID and online exams. There must've been some scaling of this subject to compensate for the exam difficulty imo.

Also note that, from next year, there will be a new Advanced version of this subject on offer.
2020 - Bachelor of Science, The University of Melbourne

2019: UMEP Mathematics Extension [First Class Honours (H1)], English [44], Specialist [42 ~ 52], Algorithmics (HESS)
ATAR: 99.50
2018: Physics [46 ~ 48], Methods [41 ~ 46]

Tau

  • Trendsetter
  • **
  • Posts: 147
  • Respect: +28
Re: University of Melbourne - Subject Reviews & Ratings
« Reply #820 on: December 13, 2020, 12:43:51 am »
+4
Subject Code/Name: LING10001 The Secret Life of Language 

Workload: 2x1hr lectures, 1x1hr tutorial

Assessment:  3 Problem Solving Assignments worth 50%, 1 2-hour Exam worth 50%

Past exams available:  1 Sample exam (NOT representative of the final exam at all)

Textbook Recommendation: An Introduction to Language by Fromkin (9th AU Edition) - I found readings to be helpful, but there weren't super necessary

Lecturer(s): Peter Hurst

Year & Semester of completion: 2020 Semester 2

Rating:  5/5

Your Mark/Grade: 90 H1

Comments:

I absolutely loved this subject! I've always wanted to study Linguistics at Uni, and this subject was a wonderful introduction to it. It was impeccably organised and coordinated, the teaching staff were incredible (shout-out to Peter for awesome lectures, and to Nick for super fun tutorials - Nick's solo singing at the end of each tutorial was a true highlight  :) )

Tutorials this semester were very cramped, having 30 students and 1 tutor, which was not fair on either the students or the tutor. However, I found that everyone worked really well together in the breakout rooms. 'Reading Groups' were also made available, which to me was new coming from Science, but I definitely benefited from them and made a good friend from it too!

The assignments took some work, but with time and effort they were fine. They tested linguistic reasoning, knowledge and application in a Problem-solving or structured argumentation context.

The content was super interesting, I personally enjoyed Syntax & Morphology and the smaller topics like Language & the Brain, Language Variation, and First & Second Language Variation. Semantics & Pragmatics were the most wishy-washy of the lot, and felt like it belonged in a Philosophy class more. I personally found Phonetics, Phonology to be trickier (but completely doable with effort), as I'm not a natural auditory learner.

Overall, I thought this subject was pretty straightforward, super enjoyable and interesting, well coordinated, and I'd definitely recommend it to anyone interested in Linguistics!
2020 - Bachelor of Science, The University of Melbourne

2019: UMEP Mathematics Extension [First Class Honours (H1)], English [44], Specialist [42 ~ 52], Algorithmics (HESS)
ATAR: 99.50
2018: Physics [46 ~ 48], Methods [41 ~ 46]

Tau

  • Trendsetter
  • **
  • Posts: 147
  • Respect: +28
Re: University of Melbourne - Subject Reviews & Ratings
« Reply #821 on: December 13, 2020, 12:56:30 am »
+4
Subject Code/Name: MAST20004 Probability 

Workload: 3x1hr Lecture, 1x2hr Tutorial

Assessment:  4x5% Assignments, 3hr 80% Exam

Past exams available:  Yes, many, and with solutions

Textbook Recommendation: Fundamentals of Probability by Saeed Ghahramani recommended. Personally I did not find it useful, and I think the lecture slides and lectures are plenty sufficient.

Lecturer(s): Xi Geng

Year & Semester of completion: 2020 Semester 2

Rating:  5/5

Your Mark/Grade: 95 H1

Comments:

Xi was an absolutely amazing lecturer, coordinator, and warm and genuine human-being. His assignments were often extremely challenging, but I gained a lot from them. He focused on building up a rigorous intuition of the subject from scratch, and developed the subject in a fantastic manner whilst providing useful resources and lecture-by-lecture supplementary notes. My tutor was also excellent, very engaged, passionate and knowledgeable, and we often spent a large amount of the class chatting about further Probability. Stochastic processes was very interesting, it’s a shame we didn’t go into more detail, but Stochastic Modelling is more the subject for that.

Overall, Probability was an immensely interesting and satisfying subject that I’m incredibly glad I took. The exam was very fair and straightforward with Xi, with no surprises. Each of the topics covered in Probability are quite interesting, and the subject definitely does have quite a rapid pace, so it's important to keep up to date (although I admit I did almost none of the Problem Book for the subject). Probability is a wonderful subject, and in my opinion, far less difficult than the reputation it has acquired.
2020 - Bachelor of Science, The University of Melbourne

2019: UMEP Mathematics Extension [First Class Honours (H1)], English [44], Specialist [42 ~ 52], Algorithmics (HESS)
ATAR: 99.50
2018: Physics [46 ~ 48], Methods [41 ~ 46]

PLACEHOLDER123

  • Fresh Poster
  • *
  • Posts: 2
  • Respect: 0
Re: University of Melbourne - Subject Reviews & Ratings
« Reply #822 on: December 24, 2020, 09:17:28 pm »
+3
Subject Code/Name: MAST30022 Decision Making

Workload:  3x 1hr Lecture, 1x 1hr Tutorial

Assessment:  4x assignments spread evenly since week 3, worth 5% each; final exam, worth 80%

Lectopia Enabled:  Y

Past exams available:  Yes, at least from 2016 and onwards

Textbook Recommendation:  No need

Lecturer(s): Mark Fackerll

Year & Semester of completion: 2020s2

Rating:  4.5 Out of 5

Your Mark/Grade: H2

Comments:

I found that there isn't even a single review for this subject so I thought I make one, it will be quick;

First of all, this subject centered around game theory, and it is probably the most interesting
3rd year MAST subject in my opinion.

Assignments and lectures:
Unlike many other MAST3xxxx subjects, the assignments are very
approacheable, if you watch the lecture closely you shouldn't have any problem to score well,
it is kind of Calc2 style "do what I do" but there are more to it.The only more difficult part
of this subject is towards the end, the "dynamic programming" section, yes, you heard it right,
it's  almost mean the same as the term you heard from Computer Science: an algorithm that look back its past,
and do something about it. AND it is just like dynamic programming in CS, it can be pretty hard;

Exams:
The exam is very fair, and it is just like assignment questions, very approachable but it can be hard to finish everything
on time, so be sure to practice a lot. Notes were not allowed previously, but this year, 2020s2, has been an exception,
so this actually makes this year a bit easier.

Takeaways:
Now personally, I like this subject, like a lot, partly because it feels like I actually learnt something that is quite useful,
game theory can be easily applied to real life situations so that you will make more sensible, more rational decisions.
 
Finally, there is a "sequal" to this subject taught by Mark Fackrell as well, MAST90137 Mathematical Game Theory,
and I am very looking forward to that(if I am able to do it, that is).

tiredandstressed

  • MOTM: DEC 20
  • Forum Obsessive
  • ***
  • Posts: 248
  • pretty without the r (he/him)
  • Respect: +167
Re: University of Melbourne - Subject Reviews & Ratings
« Reply #823 on: January 08, 2021, 06:52:46 pm »
+6
Subject Code/Name: BIOM20002 HUMAN STRUCTURE AND FUNCTION 

Workload: 6x 1 hour lectures per week (usually, 2 x 2 hour lectures + 2 x 1 hour lecture)
4 x 2 hour anatomy practicals (optional- but is now introduced in assessment, so I recommend attending)
Physiology practical (since this was completed online in 2020 I am not sure how many hours it would be on-campus but I would say ~2-3 hours)

Assessment:  Significant changes to assessment this year, this was planned prior COVID-19, but COVID-19 definitely did ignite the changes in the assessment and they are detailed below.
5 x in-semester progressive assessments tasks as end-of-block quizzes (5 x 4% each to total 20%)
1 x mid semester test in week 6- blocks 1-3 are assessed (10%)
1 x physiology assignment submitted at the end of week 10 (15% split into 10% group report based of experiments & data viewed online + 5% individual MCQ quiz)
Anatomical practical test in week 12- workshops 1-3 are assessed (15%)
1 x 2 hour exam (40%)

Lectopia Enabled:  Yes (but online semester)

Past exams available:  We did not receive any past exams (the 2010-12 exams were available on the library website)

Textbook Recommendation:  Prescribed texts
Eizenberg, N., C. Briggs, C. Adams & G. Ahern.
General Anatomy: Principles and Applications.
Sydney: McGraw-Hill, 2007. Principles Of Human Anatomy And Physiology 2nd Asia-Pacific Edition Gerard J Tortora - Wiley Direct
I didn’t read much of the readings XD

Lecturer(s):
Block 1: Foundations
Spoiler
L2: Important principles of body structure and function- David Alan Williams
L3: Drugs - what do you need to know & why- Alistair Stewart
L4: Embryological Origins I- Dagmar Wilhelm
L5: Embryological Origins II- Dagmar Wilhelm
L6: Q&A Foundations Block
Block 2: Neuromuscular
Spoiler
L7: Nervous System and Nerves I- Stuart Mazzone
L8: Nervous System and nerves II- Stuart Mazzone
L9: Neurophysiology I- Yossi Ranther
L10: Neurophysiology II- Yossi Ranther
L11: Neurophysiology III- David Alan Williams
L12: Anatomical principles - muscular system- Michelle Rank
L13: Skeletal Muscle function I- Gordon Lynch
L14: Skeletal Muscle function II- Gordon Lynch
L15: Skeletal Muscle function III- David Alan Williams & Yossi Ranther
L16: Bioengineering - Bionics I- guest lecturers
L17: Bioengineering - Bionics II- guest lecturers
L18: Q&A Neuromuscular Block

Block 3: Musculoskeletal
Spoiler
L19: Anatomical principles - skeletal system & bone- Michelle Rank
L20: Anatomical principles - articular systems- Michelle Rank
L21: Vertebral column & back- Charlotte Clark
L22: Upper limb I- Charlotte Clark
L23: Upper limb II- Charlotte Clark
L24: Vertebral column and back Q&A- Charlotte Clark
L25: Upper limb live Q& A- Charlotte Clark
L26: Lower limb I- Charlotte Clark
L27: Lower limb II- Charlotte Clark
L28: Lower limb live Q & A- Charlotte Clark
Block 4: Cardiorespiratory
Spoiler
L29: Anatomical Principles - vascular system/vessels- Michelle Rank
L30: Principles of viscera- Jason Ivanusic
L31: Cardiovascular system I- Michelle Rank
L32: Cardiovascular system II- Michelle Rank
L34: Cardiovascular Physiology I- Yossi Ranther
L35: Cardiovascular Physiology II- Yossi Ranther
L36: Cardiovascular Physiology III- Yossi Ranther
L37: Cardiovascular Physiology IV- David Alan Williams & Yossi Ranther
L38: Cardiovascular Physiology V- David Alan Williams & Yossi Ranther
L39: Thoracic walls and diaphragm- Michelle Rank
L40: Upper respiratory tract- Jason Ivanusic
L41: Lower respiratory tract- Michelle Rank
L43: Respiratory Physiology I- David Alan Williams
L44: Respiratory Physiology II- David Alan Williams
L45: Respiratory Physiology III- David Alan Williams
Block 5: Guts & Gonads
Spoiler
L46: Female and Male Reproductive System I- Dagmar Wilhelm
L47: Female and Male Reproductive System II- Dagmar Wilhelm
L49: Reproductive Physiology I- Kristina Anevska
L50: Reproductive Physiology II- Kristina Anevska
L51: Gastrointestinal tract Anatomy I- Michelle Rank
L52: Gastrointestinal tract Anatomy II- Michelle Rank
L53: GI Anatomy + GI Live Q & A webinar- Michelle Rank
L54: Urinary Tract Anatomy- Rex Barton-Smith
L55: Gastrointestinal Physiology I- Joel Bornstein
L56: Gastrointestinal Physiology II- Joel Bornstein
L57: Renal Physiology I- Stephen Harp
L58: Renal Physiology II- Stephen Harp
L59: Renal Physiology III- Stephen Harp
L60: Renal Physiology IV- Stephen Harp
Block 6: Therapeutics
Spoiler
L61: Drugs in Clinical Practice- Paul Soeding
L62: How drugs work: the receptors and agonists I- Alistair Stewart
L63: How drugs work: the receptors and agonists II- Alistair Stewart
L64: Autonomic pharmacology: receptors in practice- Makhala Khammy
L65: How drugs really work- Graham Mackay
L66: Drug absorption, distribution & elimination- Michael Lew
L67: Toxicology, adverse effects and tolerability- Michael Lew
L68: Drug discovery- Alistair Stewart
L69: Clinical evaluation of drugs- Neil Crompton
L70: New drugs for COVID-19: what could possibly go wrong? I- Alistair Stewart
L71: New drugs for COVID-19: what could possibly go wrong? II- Alistair Stewart

Year & Semester of completion: 2020 Semester 2
*Note: since I completed this subject in the online COVID-19 semester some of my comments may not be applicable

Rating: 4 out of 5

Your Mark/Grade: H1

Comments:

Introduction:
This subject has experienced significant changes in assessment, there has been a shift from a final high stake assessment to more progressive assessments with a final low stake assessment, many of us endorsed this change and it was much needed after the hell of MCB. These changes were planned prior COVID-19.

The subject is divided into six blocks which are foundations, neuromuscular, musculoskeletal, cardiorespiratory, guts & gonads and therapeutics. With exception of musculoskeletal & therapeutics each blocks covered the relevant anatomy of that topic, then the corresponding physiology, the pharmacology component is taught in the end. Therefore, in contrast to MCB, in HSF it was a lot easier to examine the interrelationships between the different disciplines. Michelle was the best lecturer and broke down and taught anatomy very well.

Lectures:
The foundations block as the name suggests is the background of each discipline you will examine the principles of feedback loops (physiology), principles of drug action (pharmacology) and embryonic origins, only the embryonic origins was examined in the MST, there is no quiz for block 1 so it starts of very breezy, the content here is setting the foundations for your further studies, the foundation blocks lasts for a week.

Block 2 is neuromuscular and it lasts for two weeks, you will delve deeply in to the anatomy of the brain and spinal cord and learning about the basis of the neural networks of the CNS & PNS then you will explore neurophysiology whereby action potential, neurotransmitter release and electrical excitation is covered. Yossi does a good job in breaking down this topic, it starts of challenging but once you get your head around it is actually pretty good, you will notice they always ask similar questions (e.g. if the intracellular concentration of K+ increases, what will happen to resting membrane potential, they will just change the ion or concentration to vary question) once you understand the principle of equilibrium it makes sense. If you struggle with this topic this of the cell as a box and ions are coming in and out (either by leak channels or voltage gated channels, and you will need to determine what will happened to resting membrane potential when certain concentrations are altered). Then you will look at the principles of muscle anatomy and the process of muscle contraction in the neuromuscular junction this was also well taught.
Best way to go about this topic is to make summary notes on the processes and memorise, ANKI will also be your best friend.

Block 3 is musculoskeletal this is completely anatomy based; Michelle covers the principles of anatomical structures and then Charlotte will delve deeply into back & vertical column, upper limb and lower limb. Learning about the anatomy was a lot of fun because we could see the muscles and feel the bones and be like (ohh that’s my radius, but my biceps brachi are kinda small XD). However, this year they decided to teach back & vertical column, upper limb and lower limb by online modules instead of fast-paced lectures (and again this was planned prior COVID) tbh I actually prefer that compared to lectures because I could go ay my own pace and I felt like I was actually learning better this way, but there was a major issue with the modules and that was that each module was allocated 2 lecture sessions (i.e. the modules were expected to take two hours of time) however many of us took a lot more than that, labelling each structure on your own takes time and the allocated time was not enough and many of us ended falling behind in the course. So although I liked the module I felt like being allocated only two hour wasn’t an accurate representation of the time required to view the content, after each module a live Q&A was done where we could ask questions directly to Charlotte and she would provide feedback from a quiz done after the module. Overall, the musculoskeletal block is taught well, but like I said many of us fell behind and it didn’t help that the MST was the week after musculoskeletal finished, so many of us didn’t start the week 6 content since we were catching up lower limb right before the MST ^_^

Block 4 is cardiorespiratory where you will explore the anatomy & physiology of the heart and lungs and how they interact with each other. It beings with looking at the anatomical principles of vessels and viscera, then the anatomy of the heart specially looking and the significance of its structure (pericardium) and then looking at the greater vessels, Michelle teaches the anatomy of heart really well and I enjoy this lecture series. Next you will look at cardiac physiology, the content was really interesting we learnt about what a heartbeat actually is, how blood is circulated, the cardiac action potential and how the ECG measures heart rate. However, Yossi didn’t teach this very well it was information overload his slides were quite bare but he a lot to say, to overcome this a transcript was provided which was super helpful since we didn’t have to pause the lecture every three seconds to get everything down, since the transcript was provided. Interrelating the anatomy & physiology of the heart was not difficult since both lectures will mention the opposite discipline in their explanations which was nice.

Block 5 is guts and gonads- a creative name whereby you will delve deeply into the anatomy and physiology of the reproductive, digestive and urinary system. The anatomy section was taught very well, and dare I say the best, Michelle breaks down abdominal walls and the digestive tract very well, it was clear she was passionate about this area of anatomy and I can confirm you will not struggle memorising the anatomy and she does a good job ringing in your brain, there was also an additional webinar that gave us a preview of what to expect in the anatomy practical test (I will discuss this later). Moving on to physiology reproductive physiology was the easiest to gauge with, Kristina although monotone was good at getting her message across (basically it is all hormonal regulation and feedback systems). Moving on to gastrointestinal physiology, this was easily the worst taught topic with many of us very confused with the lectures series the day before the final exam ^__^. The lecturer was unengaging, and with no learning outcomes it was hard to determine what the point of his lectures were (his slides were content heavy). So here is my advice this is what you need to know
Spoiler
-   The enzymes/ locations involved in the digestion of proteins, fats and carbohydrates (and be able to compare and contrast- a summary table is a good way to do this)
-   The steps of digestion going from the mouth to the anus (what digestive process occur in each organ, and the consequences if one organ does not function correctly)
-   Strong understanding of the physiology behind important processes such as; chewing, chemical digestion, vomiting and defecation
Finally, we finish physiology with renal physiology (remember the loop of Henle, yes she’s back) Stephen’s slides were a lot more basic, and he emphaises that understanding the principles of filtration was all that was needed to do well in the exam. Renal physiology took a few times to get my head around, but apply it to you own life (e.g. what the colour of your pee means) did help in understanding the concepts. My tips for this section is have a diagram of the loop of Henle and write down the steps (like a flowchart) of what is absorbed/ secreted and at which limb, as well as other physiological processes.

Block 6 is therapeutics, and is solely pharmacology and keeping a glossary list and drug table will be helpful in your studies. You should be able to explain the following
Agonist, antagonist, selectivity, specificity, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, affinity, KA and KD, EC50, potency, efficacy, bioavailability, volume of distribution, clearance, half-life, different phases of a clinical trial.
As well as the name, receptor, and mode of action of the 30+ drugs covered in the lectures (PM ME IF YOU WOULD LIKE A DRUG SUMMARY TABLE)

Assessment:
The progressive quizzes, were as what you expected, one after each block (expect foundations) mostly MCQs/ EMQs (with the exception of the musculoskeletal block with a 6 mark extended response question).
The quizzes were fair, there were some issues with sone technical errors but otherwise they were fine.

The MST was online this semester; the average score being 85% with a mode of 39/40. As you can see the cohort scored very well on the MST, and this is due to the online nature of the assessment, being open-book most of the anatomy questions were straight-forward the physiology questions however really did test your conceptual understanding of the theory covered in weeks 1-6. If the MST is closed book I would recommending, revising using anki and study groups & for physiology getting a blank piece of paper and writing a feedback system / process without notes are good ways to revise.

The physiology assignment was conducted quite poorly online, obviously there was not much they could have done but my experience was quite poor. We just watched videos of how to use the equipment, results that we had to interpret and answer a series of questions (often long extended response questions) all questions were assigned a number of marks so that’s how you should guide the length of your response. The report is completed as a group, so divided the questions and then cross-check your member’s response. The individual quiz was a simple 10 MCQ on the coronary vessels (not covered in lectures) the virtual heart was kinda cool, but the assessment was not challenging.

The anatomy practical test was interesting, all MCQs with a pictures from the online anatomy workshops. The anatomy workshops all covered the anatomy covered in the lectures you go through stations of different features of certain anatomical systems (a demonstrator will guide you through structures and often ask you questions to identify a structure/function). The anatomy workshops online were conducted well, the demonstrators were nice and answered all questions. The anatomy practical tests, is explained in the GIT bonus workshop, whereby all the questions include a cadaveric diagram questions will ask you to identify structure, function but go beyond that and asks questions on relationships with other structures, some question pointed to structure X and asked what nerve innervates it. Michelle explains that the anatomy workshops learning outcomes should be used as a checklist of what is to be examined on the final test, and I agree the tests was fair and the learning outcomes were a good guide on what to expect. Only workshops 1-3 are assessed on the practical test, workshop 4 is examined in the exam.

The final exam:
The exam was split in 2 x 20% 1 hour exams (due to online nature of assessment- and were scheduled on two different dates, a week apart)
The first exam was an integrated short answer exam, it consists of anatomy and physiology questions from Block 5 and (10 marks for each discipline) and then followed by 2x integrated 20 marks questions integrating the three disciplines (anatomy, physiology and pharmacology)  therefore it is important that upon completing block 6 you create flowcharts/mindmaps/links of how therapeutics links with physiology which links with anatomy, the questions were fair and one of them was predictable my main tip for revising is making your own integrated questions based of the interrelationships you have created.
The second exam was a multiple choice exam of 60 questions covering all blocks (but with a greater emphasises on block 5 & 6) with a smaller exam not everything was examined so as long as you cover all groups (especially blocks 5 & 6) you should be fine!

Final comments:
The coordination of the subject was not perfect, there were some gaps in communication but the coordinators are very active on piazza and I encourage you all to be active on piazza ask questions (you will find that you will get to the point where they will say “we don’t know”- highlighting what little we know about the human body) but helping others is a great way of learning (it’s all anom so no one will know if you get the question wrong). HSF was a great subject I enjoyed learning the content, the lectures although not perfect did a sufficient subject in teaching us, motivating me to major in Physiology. HSF is defs the better of the two second year cores.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2021, 06:54:46 pm by tiredandstressed »
VCE '17-'18
2017: Biology, Psychology
2018: English, HHD, Chemistry, Methods
2019-22: Bachelor of Biomedicine (Honours) @ UoM
My guides:
A quick guide to language and argument analysis
HHD sample questions
HHD 2019 Comprehensive examiner report analysis

dahyun

  • Adventurer
  • *
  • Posts: 9
  • that isn't dahyun!!!
  • Respect: +5
Re: University of Melbourne - Subject Reviews & Ratings
« Reply #824 on: February 27, 2021, 02:12:42 am »
+5
Subject Code/Name: MGMT20001 - Organisational Behaviour

Workload:  1x 1 hr lecture, 2x 1 hr tutorial per week.

Assessment: 
  • Tutorial participation (6% of total)
  • Pre-tutorial questions (4% of total)
  • Written assignment 1 (10% of total)
  • Written assignment 2 (30% of total)
  • Final exam (50% of total)
Note that the final exam is a hurdle. (50%+ required on the final exam itself in order to pass the subject.)

Lectopia Enabled:  Yes, with screen capture. Lectures were all pre-recorded (i.e. no live lectures)

Past exams available:  Only one past exam (presumably from last year), as well as a new sample exam made especially for this summer term. More on that later :)

Textbook Recommendation: whoops just realised i put the wrong book! The textbook changes quite frequently, but you are expected to have a copy and for assignments you'll need it as they want you to reference from it. Sorry!   

Lecturer(s): Joeri Mol.

Year & Semester of completion: 2021 Summer term. Note that this subject was held completely online - including the exam.

Rating: 3.5/5

Your Mark/Grade: 75

Pre-requisites: NONE

Comments: This subject is compulsory for all commerce students, and the nature of the subject (essay/word-based subjects + a dreaded group report) makes OB one of the most infamous subjects in all of the university...or maybe just amongst commerce students but I'm sure if you have any commerce friends they'll be sure to tell you all about how they *love* the subject! Hence it made sense to me to complete this subject over the summer, even though I think I'm okay at essay writing...but man I am glad I did it over summer :)

Lectures and content
Joeri is one of the more interactive lecturers that I've had, with his amazing life experience anecdotes appearing once in a while. I bring this up since this was my favourite part of the subject. Really though, Joeri's lectures were enjoyable and perhaps my favourite in all of uni right now...he was that good!
Content wise, it is a bit dry and shallow for my taste - albeit this may be the goal of the subject: to introduce behavioual terms to us commerce students and learn how to interact with others in the workplace! Still though, don't expect anything revolutionary - a lot of it is just common sense labelled with jargon. There are some interesting tidbits here and there, and applying it to case studies can be fun, but mostly this subject's content is pretty disjointed and boring. Don't expect to get anything revolutionary from this subject is really what I'm saying.
The most important part to focus is on the last 5 topics of the subject - these are the 'macro' topics (micro for the first few) - they make up 75% of the final exam, where one of them will be applied to one of the five case studies.

Tutorials
The tutorials in this subject featured a 6% participation mark (0.6% per tutorial) and a 4% pre-tute mark (0.4% per pre-tute). Pre-tutes were actually very helpful, especially in the second-half of the course where you learn about macro topics (which make up 75% of the final exam). Tutorials themselves were alright - worked in groups to answer tutorial questions, and present any findings to the rest of the tutorial. My tutor often enjoyed going on with her little soliloquy but I didn't really pay too much attention. Just complete pre-tutes since they're always useful and turn up to tutes for questions and the important 0.6%!

Assessments
The first individual assignment comes almost immediately when you start the course (at least in summer) and consists of applying topics learnt in the first few weeks to a case study. In my case, it was to do with the Victorian Government's handling of COVID-19. This was to be done in a report style. This wasn't too hard but as my first paper at university it was a new and a bit of a daunting experience, but the co-ordinators held a quick tutorial on how to write a research paper to a university level in the first week.

The second assignment is a bit different compared to the ones future and past students may do - for me, this was a similar report to assignment 1 (individual) with another case study with new topics learnt. However, for future students, the second assignment is actually a group assignment. See other reviews for...reviews of this part since I didn't do it. Unfortunately, I think 2021 summer term may be the last time the group assignment is removed. It does make sense as for why there is a group assignment in this subject (which is all about working in teams...).

This leads onto the exam - the exam is usually made up of one question regarding your group assignment, and the other questions about one macro topic and one case study. These were all long-answer based. I felt quite prepared for the subject, given that Joeri does let you know what combinations are not on the exam. Be prepared to write a lot, but time shouldn't be an issue if you had prepared some notes for the cases beforehand.

Concluding remarks
Wasn't as bad as I thought, but I'm happy to have got it out of the way and I can't recommend this as a breadth...good luck to all those doing it!

« Last Edit: June 12, 2021, 01:04:31 pm by dahyun »
rip old forums... :(