Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

October 18, 2019, 12:47:10 am

Author Topic: University of Melbourne - Subject Reviews & Ratings  (Read 1042342 times)  Share 

0 Members and 5 Guests are viewing this topic.

M909

  • Forum Obsessive
  • ***
  • Posts: 216
  • Respect: +42
Re: University of Melbourne - Subject Reviews & Ratings
« Reply #690 on: June 28, 2018, 12:45:42 am »
+6
Subject Code/Name: COMP20005 Engineering Computation

Workload: 3 × 1hr lectures, 1 × 2hr workshop

Assessment: Assignment 1 (10%), Assignment 2 (20%), Mid Semester Test (30 minutes,10%), End of semester exam (2 hours, 60%), where there is a hurdle requirement of 12/30 for assignment 1 and 2 combined, and 28/70 for the test and exam combined

Lectopia Enabled:  Yes, with screen capture

Past exams available:  There were two sample exams and a past special exam, all with solutions. There were also 3 samples provided for the test, also with solutions - Note for code/programming writing questions, solutions are not the only possible correct answer.

Textbook Recommendation:  Programming, Problem Solving, and Abstraction with C by Alistair Moffat - Pretty much vital as most the practice problems in workshops are taken from the book. The book also provides a very good summary and explanation of the concepts, examples with the full code and extra questions to work through

Lecturer(s): Alistair Moffat

Year & Semester of completion: 2018, Semester 1

Rating: 4.5 Out of 5

Your Mark/Grade: H2A (78)

Comments: This was a really well taught subject that could be both challenging and genuinely enjoyable. As many other reviews both here and elsewhere will say, Alistair is a very passionate and engaging lecturer, which really contributes to the subject experience. The key to doing well is to code throughout the whole semester, and also practice hand-writing your code as well. If you're like me and don't live on or very close to campus, download the (free) software (Jedit, MinGW) needed to do the lab work at home.

The only prerequisites for this subject are some form of first year linear algebra and calculus, so you don't really need programming experience to enroll in this subject. That being said, ENGR10003/ESD2 is listed as the recommended background knowledge. I took this subject the summer before, and found that it helped with the first few weeks (since it gave me the basis gist of the programming skills/concepts used), as well as with some of the theory behind number storage, which wasn't really directly taught in Eng Comp such as binary and hexadecimal number conversions. It wouldn't be impossible to pick this stuff up without ESD2, but would definitely required more effort and research.

The subject will mainly teach tools used for programming - Numbers in and out, branching/selection, loops, functions, arrays, pointers and structs. After being introduced to this, you start to look at the theory behind how numbers are stored (E.g. Types of binary, floating point representation ect), and types of problems that utilize the skills taught such as root finding, numerical integration, computation involving matrices and simulation.

Lectures:
Involved Alistair talking through a bit of the theory, but primarily showing programs and how they work, as well as other illustrations of the concepts (E.g. By writing on paper, getting the audience involved). Although attendance was strongly encouraged, I usually only attended around 1 a week due to timetabling and found that the lecture capture was sufficient. However, they are definitely worth a least watching, as you pick many important tips and tricks, as well as code you might not see elsewhere.

Workshops:
Was split into two distinct phases; the first hour would involve your tutor explaining/reviewing the concepts, and group discussion of questions. The second hour involved you working individually on prescribed book questions, while the tutor/s would assist if needed. You could probably get away with not attending if you have experience with programming and are clear on the expectations, but as someone new to programming I found them to be very helpful, especially for assignments. On a slightly related note, the tutors were also all very dedicated, offering help and answering questions promptly on the subject discussion forum on the LMS throughout the whole semester.

Assignments:
Both assignments were very time consuming and challenging, but could also be enjoyable and easy to get stuck into. A rubric, as well as samples from past assignments were provided, so expectations were very clear, but applied strictly so be careful to check thoroughly. You are assessed on the presentation of your program, structure/approach and output. Submission must be done through dimefox, which involves a few steps, and possibly downloads if you want to do it from home. It took me a while to figure out, but became easy once I got the hang of it - Definitely take him seriously when he says to submit as you go, or at least submit a practice before due date is close (you can submit as early and often as you want). The results distribution for both assignments was (and usually is) very top heavy, so although it requires a lot of thinking, if you start early and put in the effort, great grades are very doable in this aspect of assessment.

Mid-semester test:
Although it only tested basic concepts (selection, loops and functions), it was a tough test (From the test page, "mean=4.6; median=4.0"!) and many felt pressed for time. Make sure you review the practice tests, as well as book questions and problems from workshops, but don't be too discouraged if you're not happy with your mark as it's a stressful test with very limited time!

Final Exam:
Was surprisingly a bit easier than expected (Probably due to the lower than usual test scores in this semester/year), but don't expect this in the future, especially if Alistair is your lecturer. The structure of the exam is outlined pretty clearly in the exam prep lecture slides so you pretty much know the types of questions to expect. In general, there will always be enough "basics" so that anyone who made some effort and knows the basic tools of C can pass, a 90/95er separator which is very difficult but worth a small number of marks and questions at the levels in between, testing the slightly more complicated C tools, and the theory based questions on topics such as number representation, and practical computation problems such as integration. I'd highly recommend going into the final exam being able to quickly code simple mathematical functions (Specifically exponential and factorial), insertion sort or some other sorting algorithm, swaps with pointers, exit failures, and whatever else seems to be frequently needed. In fact, I'd also recommend this for the test, but only involving functions using the skills taught thus far.
From the exam page, the final mark distribution was "min=5.0; max=92.0; mean=64.2; median=67.0; sd=16.1; 14.8% below 50"
« Last Edit: June 30, 2018, 09:48:24 am by M909 »

silverfox

  • Trailblazer
  • *
  • Posts: 35
  • Respect: +5
Re: University of Melbourne - Subject Reviews & Ratings
« Reply #691 on: June 28, 2018, 04:39:10 pm »
+5
Subject Code/Name: UNIB10006 - Critical Thinking With Data

Workload: 3 x one hour lectures per week, 1 x one hour practice class per week.

Assessment: Six short assignments: three written amounting to a total of up to 600 words and three 1 hour on-line assessments, both due at regular intervals throughout the semester (30%), 10 weekly on-line revision quizzes, made up of 10 multiple answer questions (5%), one 1200 word written assignment due at the end of semester (15%), a group project involving production of a poster and a 4-minute oral presentation due after mid-semester (10%), 2 hour written examination (40%)

Lectopia Enabled:  Yes, with screen capture.

Past exams available: Yes, all past exams since the subject was created in 2008 with (brief) solutions.

Textbook Recommendation: None required - the lecture notes were sufficient.

Lecturer(s): Dr Paul Fijn

Year & Semester of Completion: 2018 Semester 1

Rating: 4/5

Your Mark/Grade: H1 (92)

Comments:
This was a very interesting subject to take as breadth. As someone who is planning to major in Statistics, I wanted to take a subject that was relevant/would complement my studies, so this subject caught my eye. Honestly, it gave a very solid introduction to (basic) statistics and data analysis, with tutorials being very thorough in detail (reviewing key concepts) and lectures being rather interesting. If anything, this subject made me critically analyse the data we were provided in news articles, research journals, etc., which is a very useful attribute to have in life and a future career. Now, whenever I read a source and its associated data, I'm able to determine whether it is reliable or not.

Subject Content
The subject starts off with introducing data quality (particularly in reports and articles) and the context of data. That is, who wrote the source, is it reliable (i.e. are there any financial motives?), and what actual context is the data in. Then we are introduced to variation in data (and hence data that has no variation should be worrying), followed by samples. Here, the subject focussed on the different types of sampling (simple random sample, stratified sampling, clustered sampling), which ones are most efficient to use in various contexts, as well as types of bias and how they arise (recall bias, self-selection bias, response bias, etc.). After about 4 weeks, the subject then dives into experimental design, particularly the key strengths of experimental design (randomisation, blinding, blocking, replication, control/placebo, etc.) and uses case studies to reflect these features (particularly randomised controlled trials in medicine).

Next, the subject focusses on graphics and the principles of 'good' graphics (visual summaries), followed by numerical summaries (mean, median, mode, standard deviation, correlation) and how to interpret these statistics. Then, for a few weeks the subject focusses on observational studies. These are rather interesting as, compared to experiments, one can not determine causation directly from observational studies, and the Bradford Hill criteria are outlined in order to determine if causation is warranted.

From here on in, the subject becomes more 'maths' based. Paul discusses statistical models (binomial, poisson, normal distributions), probability (as well as odds, relative risk, sensitivity, specificity), introduces confidence intervals and P-values and concludes with meta-analysis (basically combining everything together).

Assessment
Now, there is a LOT of assessment in this subject. The online quizzes were, on the most part, relatively easy (you get 3 attempts) but most questions were a 'tick all that apply' kinds of questions, and most options were very trivial and similar to each other which kind of detracts from the purpose of the course. The short assignments were very annoying, if anything. The written assignments had strict 200 word limits (which you easily go over for your first draft), and you feel like you can barely get anything in. The online assignments were basically an online quiz worth 5% each, similar to the online quizzes except you had 1 hour to complete it and only one submission was allowed. The major assignment consisted of a group project as well as an individual essay which focussed on a case study (observational study). The group project involved the production of a poster and speech, which was relatively easy to do well in, but the essay destroyed most of us. I think the tutors were rather subjective in their marking as it wasn't entirely clear what they wanted in the essay, but alas. The final exam (worth 40%) was very fair, and there were no nasty trick questions.

Overall, this subject could probably benefit from having less assessment pieces (19 assessments kills a student) and the requirements in each assessment task be made more apparent/clear. Regardless, I think this was a very good introduction to the basics of statistics and critical thinking, and I would recommend to anyone wanting to get a taste of stats!
2016: ATAR 99.85
2017-19: BSci (Statistics) @ UniMelb

dddknight

  • Trailblazer
  • *
  • Posts: 26
  • Respect: +6
Re: University of Melbourne - Subject Reviews & Ratings
« Reply #692 on: June 28, 2018, 06:53:53 pm »
+4
Subject Code/Name: BCMB30002: Functional Genomics and Bioinformatics 

Workload:  3 lectures/week, 1 tutorial/week and 2 computer lab sessions

Assessment:  A computer based assignment (5%), 2 x MST (10% each), a written assignment (20%) and a final exam (55%)

Lectopia Enabled:  Yes

Past exams available:  Yes, from 2012 to 2014 and 2016 as well. Past format MSTs included.

Textbook Recommendation:  Alberts et al, Molecular Biology of the Cell, 6th edition (Not really necessary)

Lecturer(s): Stuart Ralph (Introduction to Bioinformatics)
                             Ian Van Driel (Genes and Chromosomes, Oncogenes)
                             Marie Bogoyevitch (mRNA world)
                             Danny Hatters (Genes and diseases)
                             Elizabeth Hinde (Protein - protein interaction quantification)
                             Paul Gleeson (Tumour Suppressor genes)

Year & Semester of completion: 2018, Semester 1

Rating: 3 Out of 5

Your Mark/Grade: H1

Comments: I'm writing this review because the past review provided is no longer available and the format of this subject has changed quite a lot from past years. This subject is a pre-requisite for people interested in majoring in biochemistry and molecular biology. Based on what i've heard, some people do this subject as part of biotechnology as well. This subject has a major focus on the molecular biology side of the major. Please be warned - I will try to be as objective as I can in this review because this subject has made me frustrated on many occasions and has a different atmosphere compared to BCMB20002 and BCMB20003.

Lectures - I'll start with the positives of the lectures. What makes this subject great is that all the lecturers have slides that have comprehensive notes that are very detailed and explain everything you need to know. You won't have the issue of lack of info on the slides. It was clear the lecturers did know what they were talking about and explained clearly 80% of the time. The content was interesting at times by exploring the CRISPR/cas9 system used for gene editing or miRNA therapy. If you're like me in that you are used to only studying the biology, you may find the bioinformatics section confusing as it moves towards a bit of computing but that's fine. It's hard to grasp at first but with enough time and thinking, it will make sense.

The biggest issue with the lectures was that things felt very uncoordinated. On paper, the topics mentioned above felt like they should link to one another but it was a mess. The final section on cancer felt like we moved away from everything we learnt on finding genes and were asked to memorise oncogene and tumour suppressor gene names. The content was given to us and there was no flow from one topic to the next when the next lecturer took over their block of lectures. There were moments where content was being repeated but it didn't really help keep things connected. When revising for the final exam, it felt like each block of lectures were separate subjects and was hard to keep them together.

Tutorials - The tutorials were a disappointment when compared to BCMB20002 and BCMB20003. It was a simple Q and A session where people were given a week in advance to send questions via emails or bring it up during tutorials. This is a poor method to conduct tutorials and this was evident in 1 tutorial where the whole 50 min slot consisted of only the lecturer talking and answering questions from their email sent by students. It felt like a lazy attempt to conduct a tutorial. It was clear from the flipped lecture by Stuart that it was possible to conduct these kind of tutorials where we would answer MCQs based on a scientific paper (similar to the subjects i mentioned above). Danny's tute was also good in that it forced us to have discussions on a question with one another.

Assessment - The computer tutorial is a breeze and shouldn't be extremely difficult to complete. There were 2 computer sessions replacing our tutorials and we would follow instructions on a worksheet and get an idea of conducting a bioinformatics search. You would then have to answer a set of questions which aren't difficult. A free 5%. You can bring your own laptop to the computer lab and do the search from there. 

The 2 msts are now similar to the ones in 2nd year. Marie's questions were a bit tricky but all in all, they should be a breeze as well and aren't too complicated. For myself, I freaked out a lot in prepping for these assessments but they were honestly not too challenging. For those who did this subject, it was clear why the lecturers were lazy in the 1st MST. On a side note, it's not really clear why we aren't given detailed feedback compared to 2nd year. On another side note, the feedback given was fast based on university standard (2 days) but slow if compared to 2nd yr biochem.

The assignment is based on a topic that's given by each lecturer of the course and we pick one based on what we find most interesting. I felt what made this assignment stressful was that we had very little guidance on what to do or how we were supposed to write it. The tutorial helped in some sense but it provided little help. BCMB20003 does help in that it builds you up to read scientific articles more easily. The process of writing the essay was painful but I would say the marking is less strict than techniques but I can't really say for sure.

The final exam is the monster itself. No matter how well you did for everything else, it doesn't guarantee a H1 for this subject. The final exam is a written exam with no MCQs. This has been the format for this subject for the last few years. While it's great that the weightage of the final exam has been reduced, the difficulty has increased and this took me and my friends by surprise. In the past, it was a 3 hour paper that awarded 100 marks. Now, it has become a 2 hour paper that awards 120 marks. Each lecturer is given a section based on their content. What sucks is that only a small section of their content will be examinable so you could be extremely unlucky and not study for those sections or not given enough attention. I felt extremely defeated at the end of this exam because it felt like I wrote too little. I felt like they should have at least told us the new format of the exam but very little info was given for this.

Overall: The final exam was what made me question to continue pursuing a biochemistry and molecular biology major. It can be extremely dry if you're not interested in the molecular level of the cells especially if you hate genes. To top it all off, this subject can be quite daunting in that the lecturers don't seem like they're interested in educating us. During discussion on the facebook group (yes, no piazza), much discussion was happening for the past papers but the lecturers wouldn't help guide us when we were stuck on things. I understand that the answers may be given away for the final exam but it was honestly not too engaging. Do this subject if you really love molecular biology and don't mind looking at experiments throughout the semester. Here's hoping that Terry makes it interesting next semester.

PM if there are any questions :)
BSci @ Unimelb (2016-2018)
Year I: BCMB20002 BIOL10004 BIOL10005 CHEM10009 HPSC10001 MAST10010 PHYC10005 UNIB10006
Year II: ANAT20006 BCMB20002 BCMB20003 CLAS10004 FOOD20003 MUSI20150 PHRM20001 PHYS20008
Year III: BCMB30001 BCMB30002 BCMB30004 BCMB30010 NEUR30002 NEUR30003 PSYC10003 SCIE20001

clarke54321

  • MOTM: OCT 17
  • Victorian Moderator
  • Part of the furniture
  • *****
  • Posts: 1036
  • Respect: +348
Re: University of Melbourne - Subject Reviews & Ratings
« Reply #693 on: June 28, 2018, 09:32:48 pm »
+3
Subject Code/Name: BLAW10001: Principles of Business Law

Workload: One 2-hour lecture per week

Assessment: 2x quizzes throughout the semester (10% each) and a final examination (80%)

Lectopia Enabled:  Yes

Past exams available:  No. A practice test is provided, however.

Textbook Recommendation:  First Principles of Business Law (textbook and enclosed e-tutorials) - latest edition. While Arlen summarised key content from the textbook on the lecture slides, the textbook is still necessary. It clarifies and expands on crucial concepts covered. Further, the enclosed e-tutorials contain quizzes and interactive activities, which complement the quizzes nicely (in terms of style and structure).

Lecturer(s): Arlen Duke

Year & Semester of completion: Semester 1 2018

Rating:  4.5 of 5

Your Mark/Grade: H1

Comments:

Principles of Business Law (PBL) is an excellent introduction to law at a tertiary level. It certainly confirmed my desire to study the JD in future years. The holistic structure of the course is very logical, with topics such as the Australian parliamentary system, legislation and case law preceding the more technical realm of contract law. While some of the ideas underpinning contract law were complex, Arlen made these more than clear with his articulate and thorough explanations. Indeed, Arlen’s hypothetical cases (presented in the second half of the lectures), sought to consolidate the sometimes disparate material from the first part of the lecture.

A commonly perceived drawback of this subject is the absence of tutorials. I, however, did not believe this to be an issue. Through a diligent use of the e-tutorials and the PBL tutor (whom one could either visit during consultation hours or via email), all relevant queries could be addressed.


Quiz 1:

Like the second one, this quiz contains 40 multiple choice questions. Given that students will have only covered 4 cases by this stage (relating to case law), Arlen looks to the finer nuances of the textbook to test knowledge. It is therefore critical that the lecture slides are not the only material being consulted.

PBL’s approach to results was disappointing. While students receive their marks on the LMS, they cannot access their quiz again and review their mistakes. Only a small dot point relating to very general knowledge is provided (ie. review court hierarchies). To me, this defeats the whole purpose of the quizzes, and learning in general.

Quiz 2:

By this quiz, around 60 case studies will have been studied. And so, I would classify this assessment as being much harder than the first. While the quiz is open book, it is extremely easy to run out of time if you do not have a clear understanding of each case’s material facts and ratio decidendi. Many of the questions involved Arlen relating several cases to a hypothetical problem. Students needed to interpret the essential ‘hooks’ of the hypothetical, and reconcile them with the corresponding case. Other questions involved a series of statements, which students had to validate or reject.

Final exam:

The final exam was more difficult than the quizzes. Arlen tended to focus on some areas much more heavily than others, which resulted in major areas of the course becoming lost or entirely absent. In turn, a comprehensive understanding of every lecture must be attained by students. An interesting trend that occurred in both the quizzes and exams was Arlen’s propensity to incorporate examples that he had provided in lectures. So, if you are astute in lectures, some answers may come more easily in the exam.

Unfortunately, a printing error occurred in this exam, resulting in 9 questions being omitted. This was a poor mistake, which precluded students who had studied the course from being able to distinguish themselves. Apart from this glitch, the exam was of a reasonable standard.
« Last Edit: June 28, 2018, 09:58:57 pm by clarke54321 »
BA (Linguistics) + DipLang (German) I University of Melbourne
Tips and Tricks for VCE English [50]

PM for VCE English/German Tutoring

wobblywobbly

  • Victorian
  • Trendsetter
  • **
  • Posts: 112
  • Respect: +9
Re: University of Melbourne - Subject Reviews & Ratings
« Reply #694 on: June 29, 2018, 08:08:12 pm »
+3
Subject Code/Name: ECON30010: Microeconomics

Workload: 2 x 1 hour lectures, 1 x 1 hour tutorial per week. The lectures were held in the same day this semester, with a 75 minute break in between (to have lunch or whatever). This was also when the lecturer, Georgy, held his consultations.

Assessment:  60% - hurdle exam, 40% - assignments (There are five assignments due fortnightly, each are worth 10%, the worst result is discarded. This also means you can skip out on one assignment)

Lectopia Enabled:  Yes, and pre-recorded lectures are available before hand if you're into pre-watching lectures before they are actually given.

Past exams available:  Three year's worth of exams and answers are given at the very end of the semester (as some of the exam questions were given to us as assignment questions this year)

Textbook Recommendation:  The three textbooks we were given were: Serrano and Feldman (A short course in intermediate microeconomics with calculus), Mochrie (intermediate microeconomics), and Varian (intermediate microeconomics with calculus: a modern approach). All are not necessary, you are only assessed on content from assignments, tutorials and lecture slides. No reading is necessary, only if you want to further your knowledge/don't really understand Georgy's explanations.

Lecturer(s): Georgy Artemov

Year & Semester of completion: 2018, Semester 1

Rating: 3.5 Out of 5

Your Mark/Grade: H1 (9X)

Comments:

Lectures
The topics in Microeconomics are : The utility function, constrained optimisation, Slutsky decomposition/Giffen goods, Game theory (sequential and simultaneous games), applications of game theory (congestion games, political competition, Bertrand/Cournot extensions), information cascades and bilateral trade (Myerson-Satterthwaite theorem). Basically, the first half of the semester is dedicated to learning the fundamentals of microeconomics, then the second half is a grab bag of random topics based on applications. In previous years, auctions were covered -- I was a bit sad we didn't cover auctions but oh well. Each topic had pre-recorded lectures so if you were keen, you could watch Georgy give a pre-recorded lecture on Echo which is much longer than the ones given in person (but is given in more detail, e.g. going through calculations slowly). I found them useful, but others didn't. There were also some interactive polling sessions but they seemed to be abandoned in the interests of time towards the end of the course. Some of the lectures were slow, and some were way too fast (the last topic was covered in the last half of the last lecture). Be warned: there is a lot of maths and leaps in thinking, so make sure you're not distracted, otherwise you will find yourself lost after just a few slides.

Assignments
These are full-on. The first assignment was given out in the third week or so? You basically get a fortnight to complete each assignment, and as soon as the midnight deadline passed for one assignment, the next one was posted. Basically, assignments were due every fortnight up until the very last day of the semester. The assignment questions are also very involved, and often you will find that you will need to rewrite your assignments twice, or three times -- talking with your friends is essential, in picking up on errors you may have missed. They are also good exam preparation as some of the questions were taken from previous exams. Some assignment questions you might not know how to do -- they are usually explained in the next lecture, which was not good -- would have preferred if assignments tested on stuff already covered in class. Despite the difficulty, you should do well, the median and means for the assignments were around 80-90%.

Tutorials
The tutorials were a good way to consolidate knowledge, especially if you have a good tutor. Jump around the tutorials to see which tutor you like, attendance is not assessed. The tutors teach techniques to help tackle the problems given, but as solutions for the tutorial were given the week before, you could get away with not doing homework, which I think is a bad thing since I got lazy and often got lost during tutorials. Also, the questions are too tough (i.e. excessively long proofs, or solutions that take pages), and they go into way too much detail. It's something that can be improved.

Exam
Two hours long, you get a ten page cheat sheet (20 sides) which probably won't be useful. Probably the most controversial part of the subject this semester. It had four questions, the first was a standard game theory question, then one was a variation of a proof that we did on an assignment, the final two were on topics that we learnt on the very last week. The last three were pretty controversial. The proof question I thought was alright, since we did see it before, but some people thought it was a bit too creative for the exam. The questions on topics that we learnt in the very last week, in my opinion, shouldn't have been on the exam. We didn't get sufficient practice for one of them, and it was very surprising to see it appear on the exam. Microeconomics is a really hard subject to write questions for because there were so many topics, and people were upset that major topics like Giffen goods or constrained optimisation weren't on the exam, which is a fair criticism.

Summary
This is without a doubt, one of the most conceptually difficult subjects I have ever taken at University. It is a great big leap from Intermediate Microeconomics, and goes into making and deriving proofs, a lot more involved calculus, and mind-bending concepts. Even though it was a difficult subject, I also found it the most rewarding subject to study as well, it's a subject that really teaches you how to think like an economist, even if some of the applications are a little bit abstract. I didn't give it as high as grade as I probably should, considering how glad I am to have done this subject, because of the tutorials and the exam.
« Last Edit: June 29, 2018, 08:14:31 pm by wobblywobbly »
:)

wobblywobbly

  • Victorian
  • Trendsetter
  • **
  • Posts: 112
  • Respect: +9
Re: University of Melbourne - Subject Reviews & Ratings
« Reply #695 on: June 29, 2018, 08:36:40 pm »
+4
Subject Code/Name: ECON30020: Mathematical Economics

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

Assessment:  60% - hurdle exam, 40% - assignments (There are five assignments, each are worth 10%, the worst result is discarded. This also means you can skip out on one assignment)

Lectopia Enabled:  Yes.

Past exams available: Only last year's previous exam and answers were given. The tutor, Daniel, also wrote us some practice questions which were helpful.

Textbook Recommendation: Mathematics for Economics by Hoy, Livernois, McKenna, Rees and Stengos. Basically the lectures follow the textbook closely. You can live off the lecture slides, but some tutorial/assignment questions you might not know how to do might appear in the textbook as an example.

Lecturer(s): Svetlana Danilkina

Year & Semester of completion: 2018, Semester 1

Rating: 4.5 Out of 5

Your Mark/Grade: H1 (8X)

Comments:

Lectures
The topics in Mathematical Economics follow the first four parts of the textbook: The fundamentals (logic, proofs, set theory), univariate calculus (continuity and epsilon-delta definition, derivatives, differentials, optimisation - minimising and maximising), linear algebra (systems of linear equations, matrices, determinants, inverses, eigenthings, quadratic forms) and multivariate calculus (calculus of n-variables, constrained optimisation, comparative statics, Kuhn-Tucker conditions). Basically look at the handbook. As someone who did no MAST subjects at university, I found the content manageable, but it did take a lot of hard work in trying to remember how to do everything for the first time. Obviously students who did Calculus2/LinAlg/RA had a real advantage, but the subject goes through more economics applications of said subjects, so we all had something to learn. Svetlana's an alright lecturer, sometimes she was just speaking too quickly, or rushed through things without explaining them more throughly. The notes are easy to follow (again, you could use the textbook as a substitute).

Assignments
Not too bad. They were mainly based on questions given in tutorials, or extensions of questions done in tutorials. Obviously the tough stuff were the proofs, but it was still manageable. It made up 40% of the score. Average assignment grade for the top 4 assignments was 80.95%, median was 93.75%. Be warned, the subject operates at nearly the same timetable as Microeconomics, with fortnightly submissions (although offset by a few days). Sometimes assignments were given out late and we didn't get the full two weeks to do them. You can submit them online or in-person by dropping it off at the FBE building.

Tutorials
Daniel is an excellent tutor. He sprinkles his tutorials with puns and memes, and he gives free candy. Tutorials are done on the document camera, answers for the tutorials come out at the end of the week. Some tutorials had summary sheets with the main points of the previous lecture. Some tutorial questions were pretty simple (e.g. find the determinant of this 3x3 matrix!) and some required a bit more thinking, so there was a good variety.

Exam
Svetlana made it clear that she wasn't there to trick us, she was there to test us on how well we understood the content. We were given the topics of the questions that were going to come up on the exam before hand (logic, epsilon-delta definition of continuity and at least two questions on linear algebra and multivariate calculus each). There were a few curveballs, but they could be dealt with if you did the tutorial work. It was two hours long, and you could bring in a two sided cheat sheet.

Summary
If your mathematically minded, then do this subject, especially if you're planning to do Honours.
« Last Edit: June 29, 2018, 08:41:37 pm by wobblywobbly »
:)

abc12345j

  • Victorian
  • Forum Obsessive
  • ***
  • Posts: 221
  • Respect: +43
Re: University of Melbourne - Subject Reviews & Ratings
« Reply #696 on: June 30, 2018, 05:20:55 pm »
+2

Subject Code/Name: NEUR30003 Principles of Neuroscience

Workload:  3 x 1 hr lectures per week.

Assessment:  50 minute Mid Semester Test held around week 7 (worth 30%), 2 hour Final Exam (worth 70%)

Lectopia Enabled:  Yes, with screen capture.

Past exams available:  No, but there were sample questions given in the form of 'formative' (practice) mid semester tests.

Textbook Recommendation:  Purves et al. Neuroscience 5th edition, 2012 Sinauer. A very pricey but nevertheless very useful text book. I would encourage everyone doing the subject to buy or have access to this textbook, as it explains/clarifies the concepts presented in the lectures really well.

Lecturer(s): Peter Kitchener (takes ~80% of the lectures), Joel Bornstein and various others.

Year & Semester of completion: Semester 1, 2018

Rating:  4.5 Out of 5

Your Mark/Grade: H1

Comments: I must say from the outset that I thoroughly enjoyed this subject. The content is, on the whole, incredibly fascinating and well presented. The first half of the course deals with topics that are related to synaptic transmission, sensory systems (hearing, vision, taste, touch and smell), the functioning of the autonomic and enteric nervous systems, as well as upper and lower motor control. The second half of the course deals with more abstract (though nevertheless equally interesting) topics such as the neural basis for emotion, social function and consciousness. In terms of assessment, the mid semester test is composed entirely of questions relating to the first half of the course while the exam emphasises the second half of the course (while still containing some questions from the content of the first half).

An important tip that I would give anyone considering taking this subject is to work consistently at it throughout the semester; I took my foot of the gas in the first half of the semester and this was reflected in my poor (62%) mark in the MST. Thankfully, I managed to make up for this poor result in the more heavily-weighted final exam. The consensus was that the MST was far harder than the exam (and I tend to agree with this, particularly as I finished the exam with 45 minutes to spare). Also, I would note that (Peter's) lecture slides do not always entirely cover what you are 'expected to know'; this caught me out in the MST when I got several questions on neural imaging technology that were only briefly touched on in the lecture slides. Peter has a separate section of notes (called 'key points') for each lecture he gives; do not make the same mistake as me and be sure to thoroughly revise these! Also a word of warning- Joel Bornstein's lectures are very unstructured and he tends to ramble on and on (sometimes for 15 minutes) while staying on the same lecture slide (which usually doesn't have much content on it). To compensate for this, I advise using the textbook to ensure that any gaps in your knowledge can be adequately filled in. 

All in all, however, this subject was a fantastic introduction to the field of neuroscience. Good marks are definitely achievable with hard work and most of the content is enjoyable to learn. I would highly recommend this subject to science/biomed students!
ATAR: 99.40

VCE English (50)

abc12345j

  • Victorian
  • Forum Obsessive
  • ***
  • Posts: 221
  • Respect: +43
Re: University of Melbourne - Subject Reviews & Ratings
« Reply #697 on: June 30, 2018, 05:54:35 pm »
+2
Subject Code/Name: POLS30011 Chinese Politics and Society

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

Assessment: Research Essay (worth 50%), Final Exam (worth 50%)

Lectopia Enabled:  Yes, for lectures up until week 7. From week 8 onwards, the lectures are not recorded.

Past exams available:  Yes, there were some older past exams on the unimelb library database. Although these were quite old (the most recent was from 2015), the format and types of questions asked were similar to this year's exam.

Textbook Recommendation:  No prescribed text (readings are made available via the LMS), although Tony Saich's 'Chinese politics and governance' was recommended. In hindsight I probably should have bought/borrowed this textbook but you can definitely do well without it.

Lecturer(s): Pradeep Taneja (fantastic lecturer)

Year & Semester of completion: Semester 1, 2018

Rating: 5 Out of 5

Your Mark/Grade: H1

Comments: This was an absolute cracker of a politics subject. I must admit that I was initially a little apprehensive about picking a subject so left of field (up until this year I had mainly picked politics subjects which focused on Western systems of government), but this subject did not disappoint. With the rise of China globally, it has never been so important to gain an understanding of and insight into the Chinese political framework, history, and policy making apparatus.

The first half of this course is quite historical and is in many ways more of a history subject. Topics include the context surrounding the formation of the Communist Party of China in Shanghai in 1921, the long march and Chinese civil war, Mao Zedong's rise to power, the great leap forward and the cultural revolution. The topics for the research essay are based off of these key events- for instance, I wrote my essay on the policies and politics of the great leap forward. Like any politics/humanities/social sciences essay, you will do well if you make a clear argument that is backed up by evidence (ie. the literature, found both inside the set readings and elsewhere in academic journals etc). The second half of the course is based on more modern topics concerning Chinese politics, including the open-door economic policies and reforms of Deng Xiaoping in the post-Mao (1978 onwards) era, civil society in China, and Human rights and democracy movements in China. From memory, the vast majority of the exam questions were centred around topics which were covered in the second half of the course. In the exam, you are given a set of about 7 or 8 questions and you must pick two of these to write 2 essays on (within a 2 hour timeframe). The expected length of responses is approximately 1000 words, but the added bonus of doing a sit-down exam at the Royal Exhibition Building is that you are not required to reference the literature (readings) at all. There weren't too many surprises in terms of the questions asked, and if you study the second half of the course extensively, you should have no issues churning out two high quality essays within the two hour timeframe.

This was a brilliant subject, and I would 100% recommend it to anyone interested in politics who wants to better understand the context behind the rise of China in our world today. Of course, do not do this subject if you are looking for a 'bludge' subject as a breadth- the content is very intellectually stimulating and at times difficult to wrap your head around, so only do it if you are prepared to work hard!
« Last Edit: June 30, 2018, 10:54:30 pm by abc12345j »
ATAR: 99.40

VCE English (50)

Meddling

  • Forum Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 81
  • University of Melbourne
  • Respect: +6
Re: University of Melbourne - Subject Reviews & Ratings
« Reply #698 on: June 30, 2018, 11:21:59 pm »
+2
    Subject Code/Name: PHYC10003 Physics 1 

    Workload:
    • 3 x 1 Hour Lectures per week
    • 1 x 1 Hour Problem solving class per week - Attendance not a Hurdle
      • 8 x 2.5 Hours Practicals (worth 25%)
      • 10 x Weekly assignments (worth 15%)
      • 1 x 3 Hour Final Exam (worth 60%)

      Lectopia Enabled:  Yes, with screen capture, however, when professor uses the black board it is not recorded. Also, some experiments done in class are recorded with a camera.

      Past exams available:  Yes, from 2008 to 2017 with answers to all papers. Only hard questions have working out for them.

      Textbook Recommendation:  Recommended. This textbook was the easiest to obtain from the web!. The lectures should be used as a supplement to the content; not as a primary source of your learning. I & many other peers have felt the same way. The lectures assume you know the content before you enter the lecture room. So make sure you read the chapters prescribed to you!.

      Lecturer(s):

      Prof Harry Quiney: He will be taking majority of the lectures in week 1 to 6 (Motion & Force). The first lecture of physics 1 seems reaaaaally simple and easy, but this is because he is covering very basic definition of concepts or words that you must know (Even an year 10 physics student could define some). However, do not be fooled by these introductory lectures. I was lost throughout the whole semester in this subject. (Very content heavy for someone that thought it was a simple extension of VCE Physics). It is important to note that it is unlikely for complex concepts or calculation questions to be assessed in the final exam. Quiney's style of teaching is very concise and clear, and is arguable the one of the best lecturer for this subject. However, I did feel like that he over-complicates the content/course. (Like half of the content covered during the first 6 weeks were examined in the exam - but who knows in the future!).

      Prof Steven Prawer
      He is very approachable if you have any problems, and does try to be funny. However, most of the content covered (Friction etc.) are very dry, and again, over complicated. He does drop some hints for the final exam (Topic that will be in the exam), so make sure you note it down!

      After week 6, there were two streams available: a morning stream and an afternoon stream.

      Dr Jeff McCallum
      He was the lecturer that took the afternoon stream of the remaining half of the semester. I like McCallum's lecture the most, as it did show that he was trying his hardest when teaching special relativity & gravitation & optics. His lectures were the least driest, and also the one that made sense. (Special relativity is hard at first though). No complaints for him because i could feel that i was going to be alright for the remainder of the semester. However, as i was behind from the first half of semester, there was this burden that i felt throughout this semester & course.

      Dr Matthew Dolan
      He is a young lecturer that took the morning stream of the remaining half of the semester. I personally did not enjoy this stream, partly because it was in the morning, but it was very dry compared to Dr McCallum's lectures. His lectures are also pretty understandable compared to the first half of the semester. He was the only lecturer that seemed to utilise the blackboard, but it is not important. So do not worry if you want to use the lecture capture.

      Year & Semester of completion: 2018, Semester 1.

      Rating:  1 Out of 5

      Your Mark/Grade: H1 (81)

      Assessments

      Weekly online homework:
      Personally seemed like a waste of time. Do not be afraid of the questions that they ask in these homework assignments as the exam is literally 1000 times easier. The questions are really hard and requires a lot of thinking. If you really care about your marks, i strongly do not recommend you solving them by yourselves (it is possible but it is not worth the risk, and time). If you copy and paste the question on google, you will find a answer to them 95% of the time. So just try to understand the answer given on the websites and it should be adequate. It is an easy 15% you can earn throughout the semester.

      Practicals
      Very annoying how there is a prac pretty much every week, and how they do not link with the materials you learn in your lectures. (They are meant to, but the schedule is off). The marks you get in this component is dependent on your demonstrators. I was lucky to have nice demonstrators, because they were lenient on how they marked your report. You must manage your time well with this subject, as they do require you to write reports in class after each experiment. The experiment itself is very simple, but it can yield really bad results in some. You must also do error analysis, which is annoying but you can do it with the demonstrator's help. Also, before you go into your prac, make sure you read the practical, but don't bother with pre-prac questions in your book; because your demonstrator will go through the whole experiment when the class begins.

      Lectures
      I personally hated the lecture component in this subject, because it was really hard to get your head around the content they throw at you. You will not have any time to write notes by hand, so a computer is advised. (They talk really fast, and flick through the slides very quick - who likes that?). I have only attended the first few lectures of this subject, as it did not help my learning. Just read the textbook chapter they prescribe to you after each lecture, and make simple notes because chances are, it wont be assessed.

      Exam
      As they provide you with so many past exam papers, you will start to identify patterns in the questions they ask you. Past students have said that the exam will be very similar to the past exams. However, this wasn't the case this year (2018), 70% of the question were in different formats, and actually required you to stop. and think for a while. So make sure you utilise your time during reading time. But don't be afraid, you will be 100% fine if you do all the past exam papers, and memorise some answers (for worded answer questions), and working outs (for complex questions). The reason i was able to do well in this subject is all thanks to these past papers, because without them, i would have failed undoubtedly. If you need any tips, just pm me and i will reply!. But do not rely on this approach if you have not done physics 3/4 in VCE.

      Comments:
      This subject is definitely not suitable as a subject filler, because it has so much contact hours. If you have done physics in VCE to a good level, you wont need to attend the lectures but just skim through the text book and try to absorb as much information as you can. In my case, i have probably spent less than 20 hours of my time during the semester on this subject, but as i did have prior knowledge i was able to perform good. Remember: Doing past exam will guarantee you a pass! but if you do all of them, and just leave them without going through them again; chances are, you will make many mistakes and wont be awarded any marks. So remember to highlight what you had trouble with in the past exam and memorise their answers or working out.
    [/list]
    𝟤𝟶𝟷𝟾 - 𝟤𝟶𝟤𝟶⎬BSc (Microbiology and Immunology) @ UniMelb
    𝟤𝟶𝟷𝟾⎬⧼BIOL10004⧽⧼BIOL10005⧽⧼CHEM10007⧽⧼CHEM10003⧽⧼PHYC10003⧽⧼PHYC10008⧽⧼UNIB10009⧽⧼MUSI20150⧽
    𝟤𝟶1𝟿⎬⧼ANAT20006⧽⧼PHYS20008⧽⧼BCMB20002⧽⧼MIIM20001⧽⧼MIIM20002⧽⧼SCIE20001⧽⧼EDUC10051⧽⧼CHEM10004⧽
    𝟤𝟶𝟤𝟶⎬⧼MIIM30002⧽⧼MIIM30003⧽⧼MIIM30011⧽⧼MIIM30014⧽⧼MIIM30015⧽⧼MIIM30016⧽⧼TBA-Breadth⧽TBA-Breadth⧽


    abc12345j

    • Victorian
    • Forum Obsessive
    • ***
    • Posts: 221
    • Respect: +43
    Re: University of Melbourne - Subject Reviews & Ratings
    « Reply #699 on: July 01, 2018, 09:55:03 pm »
    +2
    Subject Code/Name: PSYC30013 Research Methods for Human Inquiry

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

    Assessment:  Assignment (worth 35%), final exam (worth 65%)

    Lectopia Enabled:  Yes, with screen capture.

    Past exams available:  No. There were weekly sample multiple choice questions given, as well as 10 sample exam questions.

    Textbook Recommendation:  Gravetter and Wallnau Statistics for the Behavioural Sciences (not necessary to purchase at all; I didn't since the lecture notes were very detailed and generally superb)

    Lecturer(s): Paul Dudgeon (weeks 1-10), Geoff Saw (weeks 11 and 12)

    Year & Semester of completion: Semester 1, 2018

    Rating:  4 Out of 5

    Your Mark/Grade: H1

    Comments: This subject is essentially a statistics subject, and is compulsory for all students wishing to major in psychology. Statistical analyses for predictions, associations and differences between groups are covered (primarily in weeks 1-10), while a small psychological assessment unit (centred around the concepts of validity and reliability) is covered in weeks 11 and 12. Although the content is quite dry at times, I never the less enjoyed the subject matter as it was presented in an array of applicable and practical contexts.

    The tutorials for this subject are conducted in a computer lab, in which the SPSS statistics program is used to conduct statistical analyses on sets of data assigned to you. These sessions were useful as they helped to solidify the concepts learned in lectures by applying them in a practical scenario (research task). The lecture content itself was also very well presented, although many students thought that Paul was a bit of a dry lecturer and was difficult to follow as he often gave somewhat unclear or convoluted explanations of concepts. The consensus was that Geoff Saw, however, was an excellent lecturer who was great at explaining the key underlying principles of the subject matter clearly and in simple terms.

    In terms of the assessment for this subject, the assignment was a real pain in the rear end for me. For the assignment, each student is expected to independently carry out three different statistical analyses on three different data sets to answer three research questions. The research questions are the same for each student, however each student gets totally different data sets. I only got a passing grade on this assignment as I inadvertently carried out the wrong analysis on one of the data sets, which automatically meant I had lost around 30% of the total marks for the assignment. Do not make the same mistake that I did; check with other students doing the subject (this can easily be done via the discussion board on the LMS) that you are at least on the right track for each research question and are not totally wrong, as otherwise you risk losing a substantial number of marks. Nevertheless, the cohort did quite well on the assignment overall, with just over half of all students receiving an H1. I faired much better in the final exam- this merely required a thorough knowledge of the content in the lecture notes (including seemingly minor details). It is entirely multi-choice, and there are plenty of practice questions on the LMS to familiarise yourself with the style and level of difficulty of the exam. Also note that you are provided with a formula sheet in the exam; having said this, I memorised most of the formulas not only to speed up my performance in the exam, but also to gain a deeper understanding of the underlying statistical principles.

    In sum, this subject, while not the most outwardly exciting, rewards consistent hard work throughout the semester. This subject also has to be one of the most practical subjects I have completed so far at uni, as an understanding of statistics is so crucial to numerous fields and disciplines. 
    ATAR: 99.40

    VCE English (50)

    abc12345j

    • Victorian
    • Forum Obsessive
    • ***
    • Posts: 221
    • Respect: +43
    Re: University of Melbourne - Subject Reviews & Ratings
    « Reply #700 on: July 01, 2018, 10:20:11 pm »
    +2
    Subject Code/Name: The Psychopathology of Everyday Life PSYC30014 

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

    Assessment:  Mid Semester Test held in week 4 (worth 10%), 2000 word Essay (worth 40%), Final exam (worth 50%)

    Lectopia Enabled:  Yes, with screen capture.

    Past exams available:  No.

    Textbook Recommendation: E. Rieger (Ed.) Abnormal Psychology: Leading Researcher Perspectives. I bought it and used it once or twice to clarify concepts but you can honestly go without it and still do really well.

    Lecturer(s): Chris Groot (subject coordinator) and various others

    Year & Semester of completion: Semester 1, 2018

    Rating: 4.5 Out of 5

    Your mark/grade: H1

    Comments: This subject essentially covers the causes, signs and symptoms, cognitive models, and risk factors of a vast array of mental disorders including psychotic disorders, eating disorders, obsessive-compulsive disorders, dissociative disorders, mood disorders and a whole lot more. I thoroughly enjoyed the content of this subject and thought it was very well delivered, and would particularly recommend the subject to anyone interested in mental health or clinical psychology more broadly. The lecturers are, on the whole, exceptionally knowledgable in their fields of expertise and are very approachable. Tutorials for this subject, while at times somewhat less productive than I expected, were also useful in solidifying some of the core concepts covered in the lectures. There were also an array of set readings in this subject (including peer-reviewed studies and meta-analyses), although these were not directly examined unless they covered content that was explicitly referred to in the lectures (generally skim-reading the readings was more than sufficient to get the gist of them).

    The Assessment for this subject consisted of three components. Firstly, the mid semester test was an online assessment comprising three short answer questions (one from each of the first three weeks). This was pretty straightforward as you had access to notes when completing it, and time was not an issue as you had a whole hour. The Essay for this subject was based on a question concerning whether the diagnosis of schizophrenia does more harm than good. I didn't do as well in the essay as I did in other aspects of the subject; in hindsight, I probably should have consulted with my tutor at least once and asked more questions on the discussion board. The exam consisted of 9 short answer questions (one drawn from each of weeks 4-12 content), and was in my view fair although there were some questions that examined the finer details of the course- be sure to know the lecture notes back to front! You will have a sore hand by the end of this exam, as you are writing the whole time and there is therefore very little time to rest.

    I would definitely recommend this subject to both psychology students and those seeking to do an interesting elective or breadth subject. It was definitely one of the best psych subjects I have done at unimelb!
    ATAR: 99.40

    VCE English (50)

    Wilsonj

    • Adventurer
    • *
    • Posts: 15
    • Respect: 0
    Re: University of Melbourne - Subject Reviews & Ratings
    « Reply #701 on: July 02, 2018, 09:10:27 pm »
    +1
    Subject Code/Name: ELEN30009 Electrical Network Analysis and Design

    Workload: 36x1 hour lectures (3 a week), 5x3 hour workshops, 5x2.5 hour problem solving sessions

    Assessment: 4x Group assignments (10%), 4x Quizzes (8.5%), 5x in workshop assessment (11.5%), 1x midsem (10%), 1x exam (60%)

    Lectopia Enabled:  Yes, with screen capture.

    Past exams available:  Yes, from around 2012 onward. Only the most recent 3 had completely relevant questions, but the older ones were useful to as long as you skipped the questions that were outside of the current subject content.

    Textbook Recommendation:  Not really necessary, since you're given plenty of practice questions in the problem solving booklet.

    Lecturer(s): Brian Krongold (The same lecturer from Foundations of Electrical Networks)

    Year & Semester of completion: Semester 1, 2018

    Rating: 4 Out of 5

    Your Mark/Grade: H2B

    Comments: This subject is pretty much a direct continuation of Foundations of Electrical Networks, so it's pretty crucial to have mastered analysis techniques such as NVA and MCA. Topics covered include RLC series and parallel circuits, overdaming, underdamping and critical damping, Laplace Transforms, Filters, Op Amps, and two port networks.

    I feel they're pretty harsh with marking in this subject, if you make a small mistake during the question, you will not get any more marks for the rest of the question, even if the rest of your technique is correct. There are no consequential marks or anything, so having a keen eye for avoiding minor mistakes is pretty important if you want to do well in this subject. I was also told that in the advanced question in the exam, you either get it completely right, or get 0 marks for it, they don't even do partial marks for it, so my advice is to completely skip this question and focus on accuracy in the other questions, unless you're 100% confident you will get it correct.

    The workshops were a good way to see how the different concepts apply to actual circuits. There were only 2 demonstrators, so sometimes it could take a while to get help, or have them mark your work, but the labs were always doable within the 3 hours without having to worry about going over time. Quizzes were done at the start of the problem book sessions, and were a good way to force you to stay up to date. They were also multiple choice, so you weren't completely lost if you were a little behind. Unlike Foundations of Electrical Networks, you actually got to choose your group for the group work, so that was nice.

    Overall the topics covered subject was very interesting, and if you did well in Foundations of Electrical Networks, you're likely to well in this subject as well.

    dddknight

    • Trailblazer
    • *
    • Posts: 26
    • Respect: +6
    Re: University of Melbourne - Subject Reviews & Ratings
    « Reply #702 on: July 03, 2018, 02:32:44 pm »
    +4
    Subject Code/Name: NEUR30002: Neurophysiology: Neurons and Circuits  

    Workload:  3 lectures/week

    Assessment:  2 MSTs (25% each), 1 final exam (50%)

    Lectopia Enabled:  Yes, with screen capture etc.

    Past exams available:  None. But a sample MST paper was given for both MSTs

    Textbook Recommendation:  Purves etc al., Neuroscience, 5 th edition, 2012: Sinauer Associates (Not necessary. Will only cover the 1st quarter of the lectures)

    Lecturer(s): - Andrew Allen, Angelina Fong, Joel Bornstein, Graham Barrett, Stuart McDougall, Song Yao, Shitij Kapur

    Year & Semester of completion: 2018, Sem 1

    Rating:  2.5 Out of 5

    Your Mark/Grade: H1

    Comments: I decided to write a review on this subject because the current reviews are slightly outdated and i wanted to discuss some issues with this subject. This is a subject that can be part of a LOT of majors. You'll find that people majoring in neuroscience, physiology, HSF and apparently even cell and developmental biology. So this subject provides a lot of options for those undecided on their major. In essence, this is an extension of the neuro bits seen in PHYS20008 and the neurophysiology component in BIOM20002. The strange thing about this subject is the lack of prerequisites. To me, it seems like this subject punishes 1st yr adventurers who don't take into mind the recommended subjects because I would be completely lost and would be crying if I did this in 1st yr. This review will be subjective because I did do NEUR30003 as well but I will try to be objective here.

    Lectures: I'll start off by saying that the the 1st few lectures were very basic in that they were review sessions of whatever we learnt in 2nd year. It was the same content with a few pedantic details to take note of. Simple concepts of the biochemistry in producing action potentials were present where we were expected to know how certain neurotransmitters were synthesized in neurons or what was the protein structure of certain channels. These were good lectures and they were presented very well. From the experimental techniques to record neurons, things just went downhill, things became dry and lecturers did not feel very engaging. The content was definitely interesting but they were presented in a way that it seemed like they wanted to fail students rather than educate. The content in this subject somewhat flows with each other with the exception of ENS which seems like a system on its own.

    From here on out (week 3 or 4 onwards), the textbook was almost useless because the lecturers focused on recent research in neurophysiology except Graham's content. Graham's content were biochemistry topics regarding signalling in neurons. If you took MCB, this is not challenging at all. I'm not going to mention which lecturer but it was clear from the piazza board that people were so frustrated with his lecturing style and found the MST questions completely unfair. I have to agree on this because I had to actually watch the lecture recordings and write things word for word because questions in the MST were asking things that seemed subtle and minor. It destroyed my ability to actually learn from lectures when the next set of lecturers took over. Rather than understanding which physiology often stresses on, it felt like I had to rote learn things comprehensively without understanding at all.

    It was mentioned in the beginning of our lectures that PollEv would be implemented and while it was useful when a certain lecturer was lecturing. It was not consistent throughout the semester and would've been great if each lecturer did use this.

    One saving grace of the lecture series though was that we had an opportunity to be lectured by the dean of MDHS - Prof Shitij Kapur. This definitely did not fail to disappoint because his lecturing style was the most simplest but most interesting and while it was not examinable, it was one of the best lectures I've ever had in my undergraduate studies.

    Assessment - After all the frustration and difficulty I've vented towards the subject, you would think that this means people did poorly on both 25% msts. On the contrary, you could actually see a negative skew in the grade distributions where 50% of the class scored H1s in the 1st MST and 40% scored H1s for the second one. Overall, 33% of students received H1s at the end of the subject. It was clear the coordinators knew that the class were very smart, hence the lack of help except in discussion board. Without any tutorials, limited exam papers, ok teaching styles, a lot of students were capable of doing well. This is still confusing to me because the grade distribution in NEUR30003 was nothing like this! Not only that but the MSTs would give less than 1 minute/question which really makes me think that those enrolled in neurophys are monsters (including me lol..) The final exam was fair though. It provided 108 questions with 2 hours given. However, there were clear signs that the coordinators were not careful in drafting this paper. One obvious sign was when we had an extended matching question and the abbreviation for an answer was given in the question. The abbreviation (SVZ) was next to the blanked space and you only had 1 option to pick from in the list hinting that things were messy behind the scenes.

    Overall After going through my list of complaints, one great thing about the subject was Angelina's coordination. While she may be busy coordinating the 2nd yr research subject, any student could see she was doing her very best in providing us information and helping us in discussion boards. Her replies would often be very prompt and helpful as well. One could see she understands our needs when she presented her respiratory lectures. Things were so clear and you knew what you had to study even though it was very complicated. You should only do this subject if you're interested in the nervous system and don't mind looking at its cellular and biochemical level. However, do not do this subject if you have interest in finding out how this explains behaviour. That is explained in Principles of Neuroscience. And more importantly, do not do this if you're a first year. This may be very painful to go through without the recommended knowledge. A few people were upset doing this subject and have expressed pain in the discussion boards.

    A side note: There were some people that complained it was unfair that those doing NEUR30003 had an advantage doing this subject. However, I think this is completely fair. People who chose to do both subjects are most likely actually interested in the areas of the nervous system. It is inevitable that both subjects have overlapping content because they need to go through big ideas already discovered.

    PM for any questions :)
    BSci @ Unimelb (2016-2018)
    Year I: BCMB20002 BIOL10004 BIOL10005 CHEM10009 HPSC10001 MAST10010 PHYC10005 UNIB10006
    Year II: ANAT20006 BCMB20002 BCMB20003 CLAS10004 FOOD20003 MUSI20150 PHRM20001 PHYS20008
    Year III: BCMB30001 BCMB30002 BCMB30004 BCMB30010 NEUR30002 NEUR30003 PSYC10003 SCIE20001

    Tvasa

    • Fresh Poster
    • *
    • Posts: 1
    • Respect: +1
    Re: University of Melbourne - Subject Reviews & Ratings
    « Reply #703 on: July 03, 2018, 05:58:02 pm »
    +5
    Subject Code/Name: ANAT20006 Principles of Human Structure

    Workload:  3 x 1 hour lectures per week
                               4 x 2 hour practicals throughout the semester
                               - Practical Class Week 7: Anatomical Structures
                               - Practical Class Week 8: Upper and Lower Limbs
                               - Practical Class Week 10: Back and Vertebral Column, Respiritary & Cardiovascular Systems
                               - Practical Class Week 12: Gastrointestinal, Reproductive and Urinary Systems

    Assessment:   ADSL Quizes x 8 (10% in Total)
                                    2 x 30 minute mid semester tests (worth 15% each)
                                    Final exam (worth 60%)


    Lectopia Enabled:  Yes, with screen capture

    Past exams available:  No. However for Sections B and C of the exam they release a few sample Questions for you to get an understanding of the way these sections are set out. They don't release answers however in the Exam Revision Lecture Junhua answers a few of them.

    Textbook Recommendation:  General Anatomy: Principles and Applications (Eizenberg) and Gray/s Anatomy are recommended. However often they emphasise in lectures how the textbooks cover topics in far more detail than they teach you. Hence I think reading any 'recommended' textbooks would only be confusing and probably a waste of time. I never used any textbooks as the lectures and ADSL online tutorials were enough.

    Lecturer(s):  Junhua Xiao, Dagmar Wilhelm, Jason Ivanusic, Stuart Mazzone, Simon Murray and Varsha Pilbrow. All the lecturers are pretty good, but Junhua is by far the best. As the subject coordinater, she always makes it VERY clear what is assessible as she goes through her lectures. I found it useful watching her lectures online for notetaking because of the quality of her explanations.

    Year & Semester of completion: 2018

    Rating:  4/5

    Your Mark/Grade: 87 (H1)

    Comments:

    Practicals

    The practicals are very useful. If you're lucky enough to get good demonstrators (which are medical students), then you'll gain a lot out of them. My advise would be to try if you can go through the prac booklet before each prac and start answering the questions. I found that going into the pracs with an understanding of the concepts they cover really helped. Often you'll see a lot of people who haven't even read the booklet and then when the demonstrators are asking questions and explaining things, these people look very lost. As you are in a small group of about 8 people, you often spend most of the practical having discussions with other students and your demonstrator. Hence, that's why it's a lot more useful to enter the pracs as prepared as possible because otherwise you won't be able to contrubute to any discussion.
    For clarification the pracs don't usually assess any content outside the lecture material, however sometimes demonstrators will inform you of some finer detail and hints to questions on the MSTs, so it's important that you're actually listening to what they say.

    Mid Semester Tests

    I found the assessment quite fair. There are 2 MST's across the semester that are not too difficult if you know the lecture content.
    MST 1 covered material from Lectures 1-12 (Embryology, Nervous System, Human form and function, Skeletal System & Bones, Articular System, Muscular System, Inegumental System, Vascular System). I find this MST a bit harder than MST 2 despite the fact that MST 2 assessed more content. A lot of fine detail is assessed here, and in my opinion the embryology questions were the hardest (although some people from other reviews stated the Nervous System to be the most difficult concept, but I disagree). The average for MST 1 was 22/30  (I recieved 24/30) while the average for MST 2 was 21/30 (I recieved 27/30). While the average for MST 2 was lower, in my opinion MST 2 is much easier to do well in. While it assesses lectures 13-25 (Vertebral column & Back, Upper Limbs, Lower Limbs, Visceral Systems, Upper and Lower Respiratory Tracts, Thorax, Cardiovascular system), I personally found the nature of the content easier to remember. In saying this however, the upper and lower limb topics were EXTREMELY dense with content and it was often very difficult trying to remember this section. Luckily there was only a couple questions relating to this topic such as which muscles are innervated by what nerve/artery etc....
    At first 30 minutes for 30 MCQs seems daunting, but you will find that it usually only takes 15-20 minutes to complete the entire test, giving you time to go back and review your answers.
    They do not release the answers to either of the MSTs, however they do email you a report of which areas you got questions wrong in. For example, it may say you got Question 5 wrong and then below state that Question 5 assessed the Nervous System etc... It never really bothered me that they didn't release specific answers because the exam doesn't assess any of this content in Mutiple Choice format anyway.

    ADSL Tasks

    ADSLs were essentially weekly quizes. They release a 'Tutorial' each week (The name is a bit misleading - they are basically online modules that  include diagrams and more information from the topics covered in lectures), and then a quiz to be completed that accompanies each Tutorial. The tutorials are LENGTHY and it often took me multiple days to hand write all my notes from them. Some people may prefer to just read them, however I found it useful to actually write the information down and print out the images (or if you don't have the time you could just type them). The ADSL tutorials also are accompanied with links to a website called Anatomedia (which a lot of the lecture diagrams come from). Anatomedia and the ADSL tutorial information work hand in hand, and the Anatomedia content often goes into a lot more depth. Often you have to make an informed decision about which Anatomedia content is actually relevant (as a lot is extened knowledge that isn't assessed) and in the beginning it can be a bit overwhelming.  At the top of the page for each ADSL Tutorial it will provide 'refrences' for sections to go through in Anatomedia. FOLLOW THIS. Otherwise you will just get overwhelmed by the amount of sections/topics Anatomedia has and which ones to go through. In addition, having the lecture notes opened as you go through each ADSL Tutorial/Anatomedia helps work out which sections of Anatomedia are relevant and worth revising. The accompanied ADSL Test (which is open for a number of days) is a free 10% to your assessment. They have a 20 minute time limit each however you can complete them multiple times until you recieve 100% . However if you don't get 10/10 on the first go it won't tell you which ones you got wrong. I was usually always behind due to how long it took to go through each tutorial, so when the due date for the tests came, I always found myself using StudentDoc where people had uploaded the answers to the quiz. My suggestion is to screenshot your answers to the quiz because once the quiz closes you can't access them again for revision.

    Exam

    The exam this semester was very fair and in my opinion less difficult than expected. However, that isn't because the exam was necessarily easy (as I'm sure many people would have found it hard) but because of the way I approached my revision of diagrams. As stated extensively in other reviews the bulk of the exam assesses your ability to label and answer questions referring to DIAGRAMS. Any of the diagrams in the ADSLs, Anatomedia, prac booklet and the lectures CAN and WILL appear on the exam. At first this seems a bit fustrating because there is A LOT of potential diagrams that they could choose to put in the exam and it may come down to a bit of luck in terms of which diagrams you understand best. My advise is that during your exam revision, make a document of all the ADSL/Anatomedia diagrams from your revision notes and practise labelling them without any help. I would label them during SWOTVAC everyday before I began revising my other notes until I had them all commited to memory, and also to make sure I wasn't forgetting how to label things the next day.

    The format of the exam is:

    Section A: 20 MCQs on the remaining 1/3 of the course that wasn't assessed in the MSTS. If you have revised this content well enough then you will be able to pretty much answer all the questions during reading time.

    Section B: 4  x 10 mark questions each requiring you to label a diagram (so that's 4 diagrams). This is a "fill in the gaps" style of answering Q's so again, it's all MCQ. This semester  2/4 of the diagrams were from lectures and the other 2 were from the ADSLs. I was pretty relieved with this section because 3/4 diagrams I was familiar with (the other one less so but I managed to make a few educated guesses). An Embryology diagram from the lectures initially caught me off guard but when it came to answering it, it was actually not too difficult if you knew the basics. I didn't study embryology  much because one of the practical demonstrators told my group that they never really assessed embryology on the exam, but luckily it wasn't too difficult if you knew the general concepts of embryology.

    Section C: 4  x 15 mark questions that each include a diagram. This is the "extended response" section, that is broken down into numerous questions (It's not just a single 15 mark question). This section is the most difficult because you don't have the help of MCQ memory cues. Each of the 4 questions will include a diagram that you have to label, and in this section there will be no list of words to choose from when labelling. So you really do need to make sure you're familar with diagrams, but luckily each label was usually only worth 1/2 mark. In addition to labelling a diagram, you will get questions relating specifically to the diagram and questions not relating to the diagram. They will also assess clinical significance here.

    Again, you shouldn't really feel too pressed for time. I think I finished the exam with about 15 minutes to spare. If you're lucky enough to be familar with the diagrams from Section B, and the MCQ questions in Section A, then these 2 MCQ sections can be completed quicker than "a minute a mark".

    All in all, this subject rewards those who dedicate a lot of time into commiting a whole lot of facts and diagrams to memory. If you have completed revision notes throughout the semester, then by the the time SWOTVAC comes you can just spend your time revising and reading through them.

    Goodluck!!!!



    « Last Edit: July 03, 2018, 06:01:30 pm by Tvasa »

    j_820

    • Victorian
    • Fresh Poster
    • *
    • Posts: 4
    • Respect: +1
    Re: University of Melbourne - Subject Reviews & Ratings
    « Reply #704 on: July 07, 2018, 10:33:43 am »
    +5
    Subject Code/Name: UNIB10009 Food for a Healthy Planet I

    Workload: 2x 1hour lectures and one tute per week (note that tute attendance is a hurdle requirement, you need to attend a minimum of 8/10 tutes to pass)

    Assessment:  25% MST based on weeks 1-4, 25% Forum report, 50% exam.

    Lectopia Enabled:  Yes, with screen capture.

    Past exams available:  Yes, around 5 past exams for Section B but not sections A (MCQ) or C (forum qs). Also 5 past MST papers.

    Textbook Recommendation:  None, readings are supplied from the LMS, you can also purchase a printed version of it from the Co-op.

    Lecturer(s): so many haha, there is a new lecturer pretty much every week: Mohan Singh, Snow Barlow, Julia Steenkamp, Neil Mann, Anneline Padayachee, Bill Malcolm, Sengeetha Chandra-Shekeran, Rachel Carey, Paul Knight, Ingrid Appelqvist.

    Year & Semester of completion: Semester 1, 2018.

    Rating:  5 out of 5

    Your Mark/Grade: H1

    Comments: Overall I'm pretty happy that I took this breadth, it was relatively easy whilst being interesting at the time. At the end of the subject, I definitely felt that I learnt something from this subject, the content we learnt from the nutrition and obesity lectures were applicable to real life as well, which is always good to pique you're interest in the subject. We covered everything from food trends, climate change, nutrition, obesity, famines, how agriculture can pull people out of poverty, the city's food bowl and allergies. Even though it is more geared towards the style of a agriculture/science subject (ignoring the 3 lectures on economics), the content was at a basic level, so it is quite accessible to students from other disciplines too. That being said, I wouldn't call this a subject a total 'bludge' since all the content from the lectures, 10 tutorials and weekly readings is examinable (though the tutes kind of direct you to what you need to take away from the readings). However, the level of effort required to do well in this subject is definitely less than the level required for your other core subjects for sure.
     
    Assessments:
    The MST held in Week 5 was based on the first 4 weeks of class and was fair, with the MCQs being quite easy and straightforward, sometimes you could just answer them based off logic. However, the written questions are a little time-consuming, so make sure you keep an eye on the time when doing the MST. Same goes for the exam.
    The Forum Report was a 1000-word written piece based on the lecture from one guest lecturer (which they ended up calling a 'forum'), people did pretty well, the average was 75%. There was no need for citations because it was a succinct summary of the forum.
    The exam was 2 hours with 15 mins reading time, and consisted of MCQs, short answer questions (you answer 5 out of the 7 they give you, which is great because you can steer your focus to particular topics you're stronger in) based on the lectures, and 1 out of 2 questions based on the other 2 forums you have. You also get to bring in a double-sided A4 cheat sheet, which really helps if you haven't really had the time to properly study for it.
    Would recommend this subject because of its light workload and for being interesting overall, requiring a little effort but not to the level that it compromises your other subjects.