ATAR Notes: Forum

Uni Stuff => Universities - New South Wales => University of New South Wales => Topic started by: jamonwindeyer on December 23, 2016, 12:21:21 am

Title: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: jamonwindeyer on December 23, 2016, 12:21:21 am
(http://cgi.cse.unsw.edu.au/~kevine/images/UNSW_logo.jpg)

UNSW Course Reviews

This thread is a collection of course reviews and ratings for the University of New South Wales. Only reviews can be posted in this thread;  for all other purposes, use the general chat thread or message the person who posted the review.

We encourage everyone to review any/all courses they have taken, even if other reviews for the course already exist. The more reviews we have, the more useful this collection will be! :)

Scroll down for the review template!

Note: The views expressed in these reviews are those of the authors and do not represent the opinions of the university or ATAR Notes.  Keep in mind that despite best efforts, information provided may not be accurate.

Index

Click the spoilers below to see the available reviews for each faculty (this index will be updated regularly) :)


Faculty of Built Environment


Faculty of Engineering
COMP1511 - Introduction to programming (1) (2) (3)
COMP1521 - Computer Systems Fundamentals (1) (2) (3)
COMP1531 - Software Engineering Fundamentals (1) (2) (3)
COMP1917 - Computing 1 (Old version of COMP1511)
COMP2041 - Software Construction
COMP2511 - Object-Oriented Design and Programming (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
COMP2521 - Data Structures and Algorithms (1) (2) (3) (4)
COMP3121 - Algorithms and Programming Techniques/COMP9101 - Design and Analysis of Algorithms (1) (2)
COMP3151 - Foundations of Concurrency
COMP3161 - Concepts of Programming Languages
COMP3231/COMP9201 - Operating Systems (2)
COMP3311/COMP9311 - Database Systems (2) (3)
COMP3331/COMP9331 - Computer Networks and Applications (2)
COMP3411 - Artificial Intelligence (1) (2)
COMP3821 - Extended Algorithms and Programming Techniques (1)(2) (3)
COMP3891 - Extended Operating Systems
COMP3900 - Computer Science Project/COMP9900 - Information Technology Project (2)
COMP4121 - Advanced and Parallel Algorithms
COMP4141 - Theory of Computation
COMP4161 - Advanced Topics in Software Verification
COMP4418 - Knowledge Representation and Reasoning
COMP4920 - Management and Ethics
COMP6741 - Parameterized and Exact Computation
COMP9417 - Machine Learning and Data Mining
COMP9444 - Neural Networks and Deep Learning (2)

DESN2000 - Engineering Design and Professional Practice

ELEC1111 - Electrical and Telecommunications Engineering (2)
ELEC2117 - Electrical Systems Design
ELEC2133 - Analogue Electronics
ELEC2134 - Circuits and Signals
ELEC2141 - Digital Circuit Design
ELEC2142 - Embedded Systems Design
ELEC3104 - Digital Signal Processing (2)
ELEC3105 - Electrical Energy (1) (2)
ELEC3106 - Electronics
ELEC3114 - Control Systems (1) (2)
ELEC3115 - Electromagnetic Engineering
ELEC3117 - Electrical Engineering Design
ELEC3145 - Real Time Instrumentation (1) (2)

ENGG1000 - Introduction to Engineering Design and Innovation (2) (3)
ENGG1300 - Engineering Mechanics
ENGG1811 - Computing for Engineers
ENGG2400 - Mechanics of Solids 1

MMAN2130 - Design and Manufacturing
MMAN2700 - Thermodynamics

SENG2011 - Software Engineering Workshop 2A
SENG2021 - Requirements and Design Workshop



Faculty of Science
BABS1201 - Molecules, Cells and Genes

BIOS1101 - Evolutionary and Functional Biology
BIOS2061 - Vertebrate Zoology

CHEM1011 - Chemistry 1A: Atoms, Molecules and Energy
CHEM1041 - Higher Chemistry 1B: Elements, Compounds and Life
CHEM2021 - Organic Chemistry: Mechanisms and Biomolecules
CHEM2031 - Inorganic Chemistry: The Elements
CHEM2041 - Analytical Chemistry - Essential Methods

CLIM1001 - Introduction to Climate Change

DATA1001 - Introduction to Data Science and Decisions

MATH1081 - Discrete Mathematics (1) (2) (3)
MATH1131 - Mathematics 1A (1) (2) (3) (4)
MATH1141 - Higher Mathematics 1A (1) (2) (3)
MATH1151 - Mathematics for Actuarial Studies and Finance 1A
MATH1231 - Mathematics 1B (1) (2) (3)
MATH1241 - Higher Mathematics 1B (1) (2)
MATH1251 - Mathematics for Actuarial Studies and Finance 1B
MATH2018 - Engineering Mathematics 2D(2)
MATH2069 - Mathematics 2A (2)
MATH2089 - Numerical Methods & Statistics
MATH2099 - Mathematics 2B
MATH2111 - Higher Several Variable Calculus (1) (2) (3)
MATH2221 - Higher Theory and Applications of Differential Equations (1) (2)
MATH2241 - Introduction to Atmospheric and Oceanic Science
MATH2521 - Complex Analysis
MATH2601 - Higher Linear Algebra (1) (2)
MATH2621 - Higher Complex Analysis (1) (2) (3)
MATH2701 - Abstract Algebra and Fundamental Analysis (1) (2) (3)
MATH2901 - Higher Theory of Statistics (1) (2) (3) (4)
MATH2931 - Higher Linear Models (1) (2) (3)
MATH3161/MATH5165 - Optimization
MATH3171/MATH5171 - Linear and Discrete Optimization Modelling
MATH3201 - Dynamical Systems and Chaos
MATH3411 - Information, Codes and Ciphers (1) (2) (3)(4)
MATH3511 - Transformations, Groups, and Geometry
MATH3611 - Higher Analysis/MATH5705 - Modern Analysis (2)
MATH3701 - Higher Topology and Differential Geometry/MATH5700 Modern Differential Geometry and Topology (1) (2)
MATH3711 - Higher Algebra/MATH5706 - Modern Algebra
MATH3821 - Statistical Modelling and Computing (2)
MATH3871/MATH5960 - Bayesian Inference and Computation
MATH3901 - Higher Probability and Stochastic Processes/MATH5901 - Stochastic Processes (1) (2)
MATH3911 - Higher Statistical Inference
MATH5505 - Combinatorics
MATH5855 - Multivariate Analysis
MATH5945 - Categorical Data Analysis
MATH5975 - Introduction to Stochastic Analysis
MATH6781 - Biomathematics

PHYS1121 - Physics 1A (2)
PHYS1131 - Higher Physics 1A
PHYS1141 - Higher Physics 1A (Special)
PHYS1160 - Introduction to Astronomy (1) (2)
PHYS1221 - Physics 1B
PHYS1241 - Higher Physics 1B (special)
PHYS3116 - Astrophysics

PSYC1001 - Psychology 1A

SCIF1131 - Introductory Skills for Science
SCIF1121 - Advanced Science: Professional Perspective and Practice (2) (Old version of SCIF1131)
 

Template

Use the following template for your reviews (copy and paste into your reply, then fill in the gaps!) ;D

Code: [Select]
[b]Subject Code/Name:[/b] [url=insert link here]SUBJECT CODE - SUBJECT NAME[/url]
Insert the handbook link for the subject, and replace SUBJECT CODE SUBJECT NAME with the appropriate details)

[b]Contact Hours:[/b]  Specify how many lectures, pracs, tutes ect. and their duration

[b]Assumed Knowledge:[/b] Prerequisite courses, or knowledge that is useful heading into the course.

[b]Assessment:[/b]  Give a rough/detailed outline of the various assessment methods, and if possible, their weightings.

[b]Lecture Recordings?[/b]  Yes, Yes but audio only, No (etc)

[b]Notes/Materials Available[/b]:  If possible, provide links to any resources available to help with the subject.

[b]Textbook:[/b] What is the textbook? In your experience, is the textbook required, recommended, or completely useless?

[b]Lecturer(s):[/b] List your lecturer(s)

[b]Year & Trimester of completion:[/b] EG - 2016/2

[b]Difficulty:[/b] Out of 5

[b]Overall Rating:[/b]  Out of 5

[b]Your Mark/Grade:[/b] If you wish to provide it

[b]Comments: [/b]
Give your comments on any and all aspects of the course (refrain from overly denigrating lecturers, keep it objective)

Here is a duplicate version of the templates without the descriptions, for the sake of convenience in copying and pasting. However, please use the above descriptions as your reference ;)

Code: [Select]
[b]Subject Code/Name:[/b] [url=][/url]

[b]Contact Hours:[/b]

[b]Assumed Knowledge:[/b]

[b]Assessment:[/b] 

[b]Lecture Recordings?[/b] 

[b]Notes/Materials Available[/b]: 

[b]Textbook:[/b]

[b]Lecturer(s):[/b]

[b]Year & Trimester of completion:[/b]

[b]Difficulty:[/b]

[b]Overall Rating:[/b] 

[b]Your Mark/Grade:[/b]

[b]Comments: [/b]


Note: Trimesters begin in 2019.
Note2: Reviews that are shown in this colour, were taken during the COVID-19 pandemic and may not be an accurate representation for future iterations of the course.

Updated as of Reply #252
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: jamonwindeyer on December 23, 2016, 01:00:04 am
Subject Code/Name: ELEC2133 - Analogue Electronics

Contact Hours:  3 Hours of Lectures, 3 Hours of Laboratory, 1 Hour of Tutorial

Assumed Knowledge: ELEC2134 is a prerequisite - You need to be really good at AC circuit analysis (Kirchoff's Law and such)

Assessment:  Mix of assignments, lab work, lab tests and online quizzes. Final exam weighs 60%!

Lecture Recordings?:  Yes

Notes/Materials AvailableELSOC provides lots of notes and past papers, and some are provided by the lecturer also.

Textbook: Sedra & Smith, Microelectronic Circuits - Useful for extra study and additional exercises, not essential.

Lecturer(s): Aron Michael

Year & Semester of completion: 2016/2

Difficulty: 5/5

Overall Rating: 1.5/5

Your Mark/Grade: 85 HD

Comments:
This was an extremely difficult course for me, even with what I believe to be a strong underlying knowledge of the basics of circuit analysis. The laboratories seemed really unorganised - The demonstrators contradicted each other and the lecturer in the answers they obtained and how they obtained them. I don't feel I was taught the content effectively in lectures; the lecturer did not explain things well (in my opinion, obviously) and did not do enough exam style scenarios - Only a combination of tutorial work and lots of independent study helped me even start to access the concepts.

This course has the reputation of being the hardest course in the whole electrical engineering program - Right now, I'd say it is far ahead of any other in terms of difficulty, and this is worsened by the sub-par course structure and teaching quality that I experienced. Definitely not one to be taken lightly. It gets points for interest - You learn some really interesting stuff and go into lots of depth, which I loved!
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: RuiAce on December 23, 2016, 11:08:06 am
Subject Code/Name: ACCT1501 - Accounting and Financial Management 1A

Contact Hours:  2 hours of Lectures, 1 hour of Tutorial

Assumed Knowledge: Some good skills at handling numbers is recommended, but otherwise nil.

Assessment:  Tutorial participation makes up 10% of the marks. The final exam is weighted 55%, with the remainder spread over weekly online quizzes and a mid-sem exam.

Lecture Recordings?:  Yes

Notes/Materials Available: The same past paper is offered every year for the mid-sem and finals. In general, resources are hard to scavenge for.

Textbook: Trotman, K. Gibbins, M. & Carson, E., 2016 Financial Accounting: An Integrated Approach 6th edition + Management Accounting Supplement - Necessary, as tutorial questions are taken out of it. Note that the supplement must be purchased separately.

Lecturer(s): Yongdeok Lim (LIC), Jeffrey Knapp, Radzi Jidin

Year & Semester of completion: 2016/1

Difficulty: 2/5

Overall Rating:  3.5/5

Your Mark/Grade: 95 HD

Comments:
All students that study a degree offered by the UNSW business school must take this course. The first few weeks feel tougher than the later few, for someone like me who had no business background. Concepts are foundational and relatable to HSC Business Studies, however far more numbers are present now, requiring a calculator. It's not "about" certain concepts, it's actually demonstrating them using figurative examples.

The lecturers appeared to have changed in the next semester (not sure if it will stay the same). Between the lectures, some were better than others. This lead to people getting easily bored of this course (which damages people's marks easily), because the last few weeks of lectures were significantly more interesting. Participation in tutorials is easy provided you actually try.

In general, a WAM booster provided you're not bored to the point you don't understand stuff.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: RuiAce on December 23, 2016, 11:18:13 am
Subject Code/Name: ACCT1511 - Accounting and Financial Management 1B

Contact Hours:  2 hours of Lectures weekly, 2 hours of Tutorial fortnightly

Assumed Knowledge: ACCT1501 is a prerequisite as it is the immediate follow-up course. The first 5 weeks of ACCT1501 are essentially 'elementary knowledge'.

Assessment:  A team quiz and an individual quiz for every tutorial (excluding the first tutorial - practice week). The final exam is weighted 60%, with a challenging multiple choice section (worth 3x the marks of the objective responses).

Lecture Recordings?:  No - Instead, they have these 10-20 min clips which explain the concepts via questions more briefly

Notes/Materials Available: All tutorial questions are based off past paper questions, hence you do past papers as you go. The past papers are provided on Moodle. But there's little to no resources for multiple choice - serious scavenging required.

Textbook: Trotman, K. Gibbins, M. & Carson, E., 2016 Financial Accounting: An Integrated Approach 6th edition + Management Accounting Supplement - As opposed to 1A, generally not used at all.

Lecturer(s): Per Tronnes (LIC), Victoria Clout, Kevin Li

Year & Semester of completion: 2016/2

Difficulty: 3.5/5

Overall Rating:  3.5/5

Your Mark/Grade: 87 HD

Comments:
Conceptually, equally difficult to its prerequisite course. This course aims to fill in the gaps left behind 1A, thus provide everything you need to commence second year accounting.

This was the first time since 2.5 years they switched BACK to the lecture/tutorial scheme. Note that prior to this semester it was taught in a 'seminar' style. Lectures are, in general, similar to 1A. The fortnightly tutorials are taught in "The Place" (ground floor, ASB) and put a nice emphasis on group work, that is, if you try to work with your group. Personally, I managed to make some good friends out of the tutorials.

Quizzes are usually free marks, but they're not easy per se and it's possible to mess up. Final exam was a shocker; questions that were usually in the style of long responses got condensed into multiple choices and I found myself changing my answers too often. Definitely more content heavy than 1A, but if you did well in that then you can do well here.

It is generally recommended to take 1B (if you must take it) RIGHT AFTER you do 1A. Otherwise, you forget too many concepts too easily.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: RuiAce on December 23, 2016, 11:28:26 am
Subject Code/Name: MATH1151 - Mathematics for Actuarial Studies and Finance 1A

Contact Hours:  2 x 2 hours of Lecture, 2 x 1 hour of Tutorial

Assumed Knowledge: It is highly recommended that either of the following are achieved given the difficulty and depth of the course:
- Across 2U Mathematics and Mathematics Extension 1: A combined mark of 140
- Across Mathematics Extension 1 + 2: A combined mark of 175

Assessment:  Spread out across online quizzes, tutorial quizzes and computing (MATLAB - to be self taught) quizzes + laboratory test. Final exam is weighted an ugly 64%

Lecture Recordings?:  Algebra - Yes. Calculus - Mostly yes, however he uses an overhead projector for hand-written working so sometimes audio only. (Note that in general, yes or no always depends on the lecturers you have for MATH courses)

Notes/Materials Available: The course pack offers all the notes required for the course, including past exam papers. However, the past tutorial papers are outdated and somewhat irrelevant, in fact, too easy more often than not. My tutorial papers are available upon request.

Textbook: Not even the lecturers recommend the textbook. Just buy the course pack and you're set.

Lecturer(s): Josef Dick (Algebra), Ian Doust (Calculus)

Year & Semester of completion: 2016/1

Difficulty: 4/5

Overall Rating:  4.5/5

Your Mark/Grade: 90 HD

Comments:
Functionally similar to MATH1131/41, taken by science and engineering students, this course is designed in an altered and heavier format to target students taking the mathematically intense degree of actuarial studies. Difficulty is around the same as MATH1141.

The aim of first year first semester mathematics is to formalise many of the concepts just arbitrarily introduced in high school. Whilst it is possible for any exceptional mathematics student to perform well, many struggle to attain HD due to the sudden spike in abstractness in mathematics. The lecturers do look for places to give you marks, however become far more nitpicky with things like quoting the correct theorem, and setting out your proofs in a more presentable manner. Can be a struggle dealing with this course at times - lots of number crunching in algebra, and lots of cautious setting out in calculus.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: RuiAce on December 23, 2016, 11:34:48 am
Subject Code/Name: MATH1251 - Mathematics for Actuarial Studies and Finance 1B

Contact Hours:  2 x 2 hours of Lecture, 2 x 1 hour of Tutorial

Assumed Knowledge: The precursor course MATH1151 is a prerequisite.

Assessment:  Spread out across online quizzes, tutorial quizzes and computing (MATLAB - to be self taught) quizzes + laboratory test. Final exam is weighted an ugly 64%

Lecture Recordings?:  Calculus - Yes. Algebra - Audio only (lecturer uses blackboards)

Notes/Materials Available: The course pack offers all the notes required for the course, including past exam papers. However, the past tutorial papers are outdated and somewhat irrelevant, in fact, too easy more often than not. My tutorial papers are available upon request.

Textbook: Similar to 1A, however the textbook wasn't even brought up this time round.

Lecturer(s): Denis Potapov (Algebra), Thanh Tran (Calculus)

Year & Semester of completion: 2016/2

Difficulty: 3/5

Overall Rating:  4.5/5

Your Mark/Grade: 90 HD

Comments:
Same as first paragraph of MATH1151, albeit now with MATH1231/41. Note that MATH1251 learn two topics that the other two courses do not - functions of several variables, and double integrals

The aim of first year second semester mathematics is to take the now formalised concepts and start applying them to methods in mathematics. The shift in emphasis has resulted in a trend that students finding this course easier than the previous (however definitely not always the case). Only some knowledge of MATH1151 calculus is required for MATH1251 calculus, but all the algebra (excluding probability - used in ACTL1101) should be known here.

A step up in abstraction occurs in algebra, but a step down happens in calculus.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: RuiAce on December 23, 2016, 11:49:34 am
Subject Code/Name: MATH1081 - Discrete Mathematics

Contact Hours:  4 x 1 hours of Lecture (painfully disgusting), 2 x 1 hour of Tutorial

Assumed Knowledge: MATH1131/41/51 serves as a corequisite. It is recommended that a combined mark of 100 was achieved between Mathematics and Mathematics Extension 1. (Whilst not specified by the school, a combined mark of about 140 is the corresponding value to between Extension 1 and Extension 2)

Assessment:  Four online quizzes as with MATH1131/41/51, however no more computing component. The final exam is weighted a massive 80%!

Lecture Recordings?:  This semester, half yes half audio only

Notes/Materials Available: The course pack offers all the notes required for the course, including past exam papers. However, the past tutorial papers are outdated and somewhat irrelevant, in fact, too easy more often than not. My tutorial papers are available upon request.

Textbook: None, but the following textbook has been recommended: Franklin and Doud - "Proof in Mathematics". Not really needed, but a good read, since tutorial problems have been taken out of here.

Lecturer(s): James Franklin, Peter Brown

Year & Semester of completion: 2016/2

Difficulty: 3/5

Overall Rating:  5/5

Your Mark/Grade: 91 HD

Comments:
Unlike MATH1xx1, success in high school mathematics has generally no impact whatsoever on success in this course. The course places an emphasis on clarity in mathematics, requiring far more carefulness with setting out proofs, as well as the more computational and algorithmic side of mathematics. Whilst students majoring in mathematics need to take this course, the main focus is therefore to people studying a degree offered by the school of CSE.

Abstractness is essentially the same as for linear algebra, but in a different manner. Whilst some computer scientists are still hammered down by this course, in general they like it TREMENDOUSLY more to how they feel about MATH1xx1. The course is designed to be more friendly towards them.

The huge weighting on the final exam speaks for itself; consistency is key but relatively speaking, a greater focus towards the end will be required here.

This course, on the other hand, sometimes hammers down on people who are good at maths otherwise. It is nonetheless a 'fun' course to take, and many interesting things are taught here, which usefulness is far more than what meets the eye.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: RuiAce on December 23, 2016, 12:30:54 pm
Subject Code/Name: ACTL1101 - Introduction to Actuarial Studies

Course overhauled in 2017.

Contact Hours: 2 hours of Lecture, 1 hour of Tutorial on lecture topics, 1 hour of Tutorial on R software

Assumed Knowledge: MATH1151 is a prerequisite for this course. It is expected that you are good at handling matrices, integration and especially probability and statistics.

Assessment:  An open-book weekly quiz served free marks, but people seemed to get anxious all the time so this may be abolished. Other than that, a mid-sem and an assignment is included. Finals are weighted only 40% - this will not happen for second year ACTL courses and onwards.

Lecture Recordings?:  Yes

Notes/Materials Available: A bunch of past papers were posted on Moodle; some more can generally be found by asking actuarial students in older years (ASOC is a tight bunch).

Textbook: Sherris, Principles of Actuarial Science - Good if you make good use of it. But because it is so old and has no formatting whatsoever, it was too painful for me to read and I gave up after a while.

Lecturer(s): Benjamin Avanzi

Year & Semester of completion: 2016/2

Difficulty: 4/5

Overall Rating:  3/5

Your Mark/Grade: 87 HD

Comments:
There is a wide variety of things taught in this course. Being a legend among actuaries, Benjamin has taken action to reduce the content, but this course is inevitably going to be a bit over the place. The course is definitely introductory - whilst mathematics is definitely involved, it isn't outrageous yet and most calculations are kept to a reasonable difficulty. Can be a bit painful to study due to this nature of being over the place. The direct consequence of this is that there are heaps of methods that you need to remember.

The introduction of the R tutorials add one extra annoying contact hour, but pays off. Any actuary will need some skill in computing to stand out in modern society, and this is one way to get it going.

(I have to break a guideline and talk about the lecturer here: If you ask many people in my cohort they may evoke hatred for Benjamin. But if you ask ANYONE else, they'll say he is the best, which I believe.)

(This course does NOT contribute to obtaining Part I exemptions. Note that CT2 is fulfilled by ACCT1501, ACCT1511 and FINS1613, and CT7 is fulfilled by ECON1101 and ECON1102. You may only commence fulfilling other CTs in second year. For reference, CT stands for 'Core Technical'.)
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: RuiAce on December 23, 2016, 01:19:28 pm
Subject Code/Name: ECON1101 - Microeconomics 1

Contact Hours: 2 hours of Lecture, 1 hour of Tutorial

Assumed Knowledge: Nil, but I've heard that knowledge of Preliminary (Year 11) economics is beneficial. General maths skills would also help.

Assessment:  20% of the marks are free because you just have to play through a game to get them. Other than that, essentially every mark counts, because the 15% weighting quizzes are out of 15, and the 50% weighted final exam is 50 multiple choice.

Lecture Recordings?:  Yes

Notes/Materials Available: Extremely limited. Usually gotta count on higher years having scavenged hard enough.

Textbook: Dobrescu et. al., Principles of Microeconomics - An online textbook written by the lecturers specifically for this course. You will need it. Note that it also comes with some video recordings.

Lecturer(s): Scott French (LIC), Alberto Motta (Other lecturers include Peter Nichols, Sarah Walker)

Year & Semester of completion: 2016/1

Difficulty: 1/5

Overall Rating:  4.5/5

Your Mark/Grade: 96 HD

Comments:
By nature, economics builds upon itself. This course is somewhat hard to self-learn, but regardless of how you learn (I seriously liked the lectures) you find that everything links to each other. It is not content heavy, and is in general, regarded as the easiest of the first year business courses.

This course is mandatory to all students undertaking a degree offered by the UNSW Business School, with the exception of B Information Systems.

Some courses are nice to give free marks, but I haven't seen them "as freely" as here. All you're doing is playing a game, and it actually helped me understand economics concepts better. The final exam is a bit of a shocker because it shows you how difficult multiple choice is, but for many people it still isn't hard enough to push them out of an easy HD.

This was my favourite course. It was the first time I loved something over my life-long passion for maths.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: RuiAce on December 23, 2016, 01:29:58 pm
Subject Code/Name: SCIF1121 - Advanced Science: Professional Perspective and Practice

Course removed in 2017 - All students now take SCIF1131, which was overhauled.

Contact Hours: 2 hours of Discipline Stream, 2 hours of Graduate Attributes

Assumed Knowledge: Nil

Assessment:  Split evenly across the two. Each have 5% devoted to participation. The discipline stream varies depending on which discipline you chose (e.g. biology). Graduate attributes feature a classmate biography, followed by an interview with a scientist video task. NO exam.

Lecture Recordings?: N/A due to nature of this course.

Notes/Materials Available: N/A. You have to find your own materials for all assignments.

Textbook: N/A

Lecturer(s): Graduate attributes - Sue Schibeci. Math discipline stream - Pinhas Grossman

Year & Semester of completion: 2016/1

Difficulty: 1/5

Overall Rating:  1.5/5

Your Mark/Grade: 84 DN

Comments:
This course was free marks, but was dry for me. Graduate attributes was really just talking about general life skills e.g. interview preparation, ethics. The assignment for the discipline stream was too broad; nothing specific.

It's not necessarily a bad course. But definitely not my cup of coffee. It's also hard to describe because it's completely different to what you're used to at university, AND it changes too often.

This course is one of two options that all advanced science students must take (unless they combine with engineering and have done ENGG1000). The other option is SCIF1131.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: jamonwindeyer on December 23, 2016, 03:31:57 pm
Subject Code/Name: COMP2041 - Software Construction

Contact Hours: 3 hours of lectures, 1 hour of tutorial, 2 hours of lab

Assumed Knowledge: All programming languages used are taught from scratch, but they assume basic programming knowledge. COMP1917 or COMP1921 are the prerequisites.

Assessment:  Final exam is worth 60%, two assignments worth a total of 30%, with the remaining 10% assigned to lab work.

Lecture Recordings?  Yes (there is an online stream)

Notes/Materials AvailableThe CSE website has a heap of resources for the course. There is also usually a course forum.

Textbook: Useless - Lots of recommended reading but everything you could need is Google-able

Lecturer(s): Andrew Taylor (woo!)

Year & Semester of completion: 2016/2

Difficulty: 3/5

Overall Rating:  5/5

Your Mark/Grade: 84 DN
Comments:
A really fantastic course; the lab work is interesting and you see the practical applications immediately. Any course where the final assignment is building a website is fantastic in my books. The content is easy, but mastering the languages and developing your problem solving skills is the hard bit, and that is a continuing challenge. You get out exactly what you put in. Andrew was an awesome lecturer too! :)
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: jamonwindeyer on December 23, 2016, 03:55:57 pm
Subject Code/Name: ELEC2142 - Embedded Systems Design

Contact Hours:  3 hours of lectures, 1 hour of tutorial, 2 hours of lab work

Assumed Knowledge: The prerequisites are ELEC2141 and COMP1921/COMP1917, but basically, you just need to have done a bit of programming. No actual assumed knowledge is taken (though some of the initial topics are rushed since they were covered in 2141).

Assessment:  Final exam is worth 60%, a lab test worth 10%, a mid sem exam worth 20%, and 10% for lab work.

Lecture Recordings?  Yes

Notes/Materials AvailableELSOC provides notes and past exams

Textbook: None prescribed, but there are several recommended. I never used them though.

Lecturer(s): Dr. Chamith Wijenayake

Year & Semester of completion: 2016/2

Difficulty: 3 out of 5

Overall Rating:  4 out of 5

Your Mark/Grade: 81 DN

Comments:
This course is interesting on paper, learning about how microprocessors handle tasks and such. At times it is great, but coding in assembly can get really tedious when you aren't doing anything exciting with it. The content isn't hard, but there are lots of intricacies that can trick you when you are coding solutions to problems. The lab exam screwed me big time; the final exam (theoretical) was actually quite nice so it balanced.

A lot of people get scared of this course because of coding in assembly, but it's really not as bad as people say!! Having complete control over what gets done is really cool, even if the specific applications in this course are a bit 'dry.'
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: jamonwindeyer on December 23, 2016, 04:08:40 pm
Subject Code/Name: ENGG1000 - Engineering Design and Innovation  ELECTRICAL STREAM

Contact Hours:  3 hours of lectures, 2 hours of lab work

Assumed Knowledge: None

Assessment:  Totally depends on what stream you do, but it will usually be mostly based on an engineering report, and assessment of your project

Lecture Recordings? May depend, but I did not have them.

Notes/Materials Available: Depends on stream.

Textbook: None.

Lecturer(s): Depends on stream, I had an Industry Rep from Cochlear as my lecturer for the ELEC theory sections.

Year & Semester of completion: 2015/1

Difficulty: 3/5

Overall Rating:  2/5

Your Mark/Grade: 87 HD

Comments:
This is a course where you pick a stream, get into a group, and engineer a solution to a design specification. For ELEC, it was a self-driving car (scale working model). It had to be able to automatically respond to lane markings and traffic lights and such.

If this course was put in the 2nd year, after we actually learned some things about circuits, then I'd have been much happier with it. But as it stands, you are thrown into a problem you have no idea how to solve, and then you are taught how to solve it in a very rushed way while solving it. It doesn't feel like a deliberate problem solving exercise using things you understand; it feels like a desperate scramble to learn just enough to put together even a basic solution, and even when you have it, you only have a loose understanding of how it works. Too soon, and too rushed. I heard from a distance that they almost expect groups to fail to meet the spec, and it felt like that.

That said, engineering something from scratch is fun. There is group work, which is both a positive and a negative (there is always one person who doesn't contribute). You can do well if you document your processes well. That's what I took away from it more than anything - How to document a design process. I forgot everything I learned about electrical circuits, which seems like a massive waste of time.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: jamonwindeyer on December 23, 2016, 05:24:30 pm
Subject Code/Name: MATH2099 - Mathematics 2B

Contact Hours:  4 hours of lectures, 2 hours of tutorials (split evenly between Stats/Algebra), and then 1 hour of stats lab)

Assumed Knowledge: First year math is the prereq, but really, not that necessary. For Stats, no assumed knowledge, they literally go through how to find means and medians again. For Algebra, they'll assume you can do matrix arithmetic and will race through the concepts you did in 1st year (about half the algebra course is old content).

Assessment:  Final mark is the average of Stats mark and Linear mark. For both, the final exam is worth 60-70%. Stats does the rest through online quizzes, and mid sem exams (theory and lab). Linear spreads the rest through fortnightly quizzes in tutorials.

Lecture Recordings?  Stats yes, but linear only had audio (David uses the physical blackboard, not a camera)

Notes/Materials Available: ELSOC has notes available

Textbook: Useless; no one referred to it ever.

Lecturer(s): David Angell for Algebra, Scott Sisson for Statistics.

Year & Semester of completion: 2016/2

Difficulty: 3 out of 5

Overall Rating:  4 out of 5

Your Mark/Grade: 88 HD

Comments:
The Stats stream was quite difficult; lots of new concepts and all quite theoretical. Formulas are disgusting, thank goodness for the provided sheets in exams. Scott was a great lecturer, but I feel like he had to rush to get through everything at times. Lots of work in Matlab, which is similar to Maple from first year math subjects (and a little better imo). Really, really interesting content though. The final exam is easy to prepare for because it is almost always the same format.

The Algebra stream was much easier, because half of the course was revision of first-year theory. The latter half of the course was more difficult, but not as difficult as the Stats stream. David was a fantastic lecturer, he did a heap of worked examples, and moving quickly through the easy stuff meant he could move slowly when needed. A little dry at times, but a good balance in the difficulty. The fortnightly quizzes force you to keep up with the content (but having a quiz due every fortnight can be really nasty when other assessments are due).

As the last math course for many engineers, this was a nice finale.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: jamonwindeyer on December 23, 2016, 05:35:38 pm
Subject Code/Name: ECON1101 - Microeconomics 1

Contact Hours: 2 hour lecture, 1 hour tutorial

Assumed Knowledge: None

Assessment: 50% final exam, 30% tutorial quizzes, 20% Playconomics (a video game based on economic principles - Surprisingly easy, and literally a guaranteed 20% because all you have to do is finish it)

Lecture Recordings?  Yes

Notes/Materials Available: -

Textbook: Definitely required, you can buy it with Playconomics to make it easy. It was written specifically for this course.

Lecturer(s): Sarah Walker (there is a team of lecturers over several streams)

Year & Semester of completion: 2016/2

Difficulty: 1 out of 5

Overall Rating:  5 out of 5

Your Mark/Grade: 92 HD

Comments:
I took this as an elective - This is a really enjoyable course - Also the easiest course I've taken. 20% of the marks are literally free, most people I know who actually gave a damn in this subject got either a D or a HD. Playconomics is actually surprisingly enjoyable as a game, it's not a chore to play, just do it periodically to avoid massive all nighters near the end of semester to finish. The content is very interesting (though if you did HSC Economics, probably a bit repetitive), and although there is math involved, it's not hard. If you did alright in Year 10 math, this will be fine for you.

Sarah was good as a lecturer, but in the end I found it easier to self teach from the textbook (not difficult, the textbook is fabulous).

I highly recommend this as a Gen Ed. Not too difficult conceptually, so it won't take heaps of time away from more difficult courses from your stream, but very interesting nonetheless!
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: jamonwindeyer on December 23, 2016, 08:07:53 pm
Subject Code/Name: ELEC2134 - Circuits and Signals

Contact Hours: 3 hours of lectures (2 for circuits, 1 for signals), 3 hours of tutorial/lab hybrid

Assumed Knowledge: ELEC1111 is the prerequisite, basic circuit analysis skills (just Kirchoff's Laws, basically, and they reteach that too)

Assessment:  20% lab/tut work, 20% mid-sem, 60% final

Lecture Recordings?  Yep, for both

Notes/Materials AvailableA full extra set of video lectures available here

Textbook: “Fundamentals of Electric Circuits”, Alexander and Sadiku - A useful resource for practice questions (not many are provided otherwise), but it is not absolutely essential

Lecturer(s): Rukmi Dutta (Circuits), Julien Epps (Signals)

Year & Semester of completion: 2016/1

Difficulty: 4 out of 5

Overall Rating:  4 out of 5

Your Mark/Grade: 92 HD

Comments:
This was the hardest course I'd taken at the time (that was then obliterated by ELEC2133). The circuits part, while there is lots to remember, isn't overly difficult and was explained pretty well by Rukmi. It can get a little dry at times though. The signals part was more interesting, but also much more challenging. Very intense calculus. Julien was a fantastic lecturer but I feel like 1 hour per week wasn't quite enough to cover everything properly, felt a little rushed on occasion.

The lab/tuts are ridiculously difficult. Be prepared to spend more than the allocated time on them, unless you have someone who can explain things to you. The tutors are really helpful too. The lab/tuts are pretty boring compared to other ELEC courses; it is more tutorial work and math than actual circuit work.

This is the first time the ELEC program starts to put the pressure on, in my opinion. But I enjoyed the content and it isn't too difficult; just be prepared to give it lots of time.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: jamonwindeyer on February 20, 2017, 12:02:08 am
Subject Code/Name: COMP1917 - Computing 1

Contact Hours:  3 hours of lectures, 1 hour of tutorial, 2 hours of lab

Assumed Knowledge: None

Assessment:  A significant portion of the marks in this subject aren't based on coding; but instead tutorial participation, and a blog/portfolio you maintain throughout the semester. Several assignments, individual and group, as well as a final exam weighing about 60% (mix of theory and practical coding problems).

Lecture Recordings?  Yep - Used them instead of actual lectures/

Notes/Materials Available: They'll provide you with HEAPS, plus, there are a lot of resources around for beginner programming in C

Textbook: Not needed at all, especially given the subject matter

Lecturer(s): Salil Kanhere (and Richard Buckland for the videos)

Year & Semester of completion: EG - 2015/1

Difficulty: 3 out of 5

Overall Rating:  5 out of 5

Your Mark/Grade: 92 HD

Comments:
Really fantastic course to introduce you to programming. It is the advanced version, but don't let that scare you. I'd never done any coding (at least, beyond isolated hours in Python for shits and giggles when I was a little younger), but I kept up with only a reasonable amount of work, certainly no more than I'd expect to spend on a university subject. The online aspects of delivery were excellent - Richard is a great teacher, and Salil's lectures were great too (though I only went on occasion, the videos are just that good).

Assignments are challenging but not unfairly so - You could always access the problem at hand. 2/3 assignments were group work, so be ready for that. Lots of tutorial problems to prepare you for the trickier stuff in assignments and exams :)

Overall, highly recommend anyone who has the chance, even if you don't think coding is your thing, to give this subject a go. It really could surprise you ;D

Note: This subject is the old version of what is now COMP1511!
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: RuiAce on February 20, 2017, 12:03:09 am
Subject Code/Name: COMP1917 - Computing 1
Dropping a comment here: As of 2017 this course has been replaced by COMP1511
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: jamonwindeyer on February 20, 2017, 12:04:59 am
Dropping a comment here: As of 2017 this course has been replaced by COMP1511

Ah yes I know! My COMP lecturer this year mentioned it was being overhauled, I was surveyed on it ;D I'll pop a note in my review above :)
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: jamonwindeyer on February 20, 2017, 12:14:45 am
Subject Code/Name: ELEC1111 - Electrical and Telecommunications Engineering

Contact Hours:  3 hours of lectures, 1 hour of tutorial, 2 hours of lab

Assumed Knowledge: None, but knowledge of complex numbers will be immensely useful. It's taught in all the 1st year math courses, or you may have learned it in MX2. If not, not too difficult to catch up on. Some basic knowledge of Electrical Circuits is helpful (the level taught in Prelim Physics), but not mandatory)

Assessment:  60% final exam, 20% mid semester exam, 20% lab and lab exam

Lecture Recordings? Yes (with audio only at times, from memory)

Notes/Materials Available: ELSOC has heaps!

Textbook: “Fundamentals of Electric Circuits”, Alexander and Sadiku - It is used in later courses too and it is useful here; try and find a cheap used version.

Lecturer(s): We swapped between two lecturers, one of which was Dr Georgios Konstantinou (not sure of the other, unfortunately)

Year & Semester of completion: EG - 2016/2

Difficulty: 3 out of 5

Overall Rating:  5 out of 5

Your Mark/Grade: 84 DN

Comments:
I really enjoyed this course! The content was extremely interesting and not overly challenging, and the laboratories strengthened my understanding further (unlike so many labs that just seem to make things confusing). Assessment was fair - Got a bit wrecked by the mid semester but most did, overall the material is not super difficult as long as you are willing to do lots of practice (the textbook is the key there). The lecturers were good, not incredible, and I did self teach a fair bit of content.

My advice to electrical engineering students is to know this content really well - Everything builds, and if you don't know this stuff by the end then it causes real trouble in your 2nd year. It's not difficult, and it's interesting! Just be prepared to invest the time it deserves :)
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: jamonwindeyer on June 27, 2017, 10:13:28 pm
Subject Code/Name: DIP1112 - Introduction to the Workplace

Contact Hours:  0 in person hours, online activities are 2 hours a week max. Then two full F2F days, mine were in my midsem break.

Assumed Knowledge: -

Assessment: 10% online participation, 30% resume, 30% video interview task, 30% organisation analysis (an interview with someone from industry)

Lecture Recordings? Mixture of different material for online activities

Notes/Materials Available: -

Textbook: -

Lecturer(s): Mixture of people from the UNSW Careers and Employment Office

Year & Semester of completion: 2017/1

Difficulty: 0 out of 5

Overall Rating: 5 out of 5

Your Mark/Grade: 97

Comments:
Great course, does teach you some great stuff about the job market, LinkedIn, interviews - Lots of good little nuggets of information. Easy assessments, as long as you do the stuff on time there is virtually no way to fail this course. Works extremely well as a Gen Ed ;D
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: RuiAce on July 03, 2017, 03:28:01 pm
Subject Code/Name: MATH2111 - Higher Several Variable Calculus

Contact Hours: 4 x 1 hour lectures, 1 hour tutorial

Assumed Knowledge: A mark of 70 in either one of MATH1231/MATH1241/MATH1251. You should be well versed with the introductory several variable calculus taught in the first year courses. MATH1251 is slightly advantageous - Lagrange multipliers and double integrals done in advance.

Assessment:  12% - Reading/Writing Assignment, 2 x 14% - In lecture tests. The finals are weighted 60%

Lecture Recordings?  Somewhat for first half (blackboards obviously do not get recorded), Yes for second half

Notes/Materials Available: Detailed (albeit a bit confusing) notes by the lecturer for first half, limited for second half. Quizzes available on request. Most finals are uploaded onto the UNSW library website.

Textbook: N/A

Lecturer(s): Dr. Denis Potapov, Dr Jan Zika

Year & Semester of completion: 2017/1

Difficulty: 4.5/5

Overall Rating: 3/5 

Your Mark/Grade: 92 HD

Comments:
This is one of the three compulsory Level 2 courses to all mathematics disciplines, offered in semester 1. It is the higher counterpart of MATH2011. Students intending to major in mathematics and statistics must take this course or the standard version.

This course is generally regarded as the hardest of the three. It draws upon knowledge of elementary linear algebra and combines it with calculus in a more thorough and formal manner than in MATH1151/1231/1241. Mathematical analysis properly commences here, and throws students off within the first few weeks of the course.

Grasping the concepts of this course is not easy and requires quite a significant amount of time. In general, this course is only recommended to the students who believe they are capable of handling an appreciable amount of maths. Of course, lower courses have their maximum marks capped so if you feel you can achieve well you are encouraged to take this higher counterpart.

Please be advised, in advance, that this course can be a massive struggle if you're unfitted for it. MATH2011 is more computational than this course and can be easier to understand.

The final exam in 2016 baffled students to the point that this course got scaled outrageously. On the contrary, in 2017 the finals were much friendlier as they were really reflective of what was in the quizzes. Whilst the quizzes were certainly difficult, the easiness of the finals means that this course has been the easiest it's ever been since a good 6 or so years.

This was Dr. Jan Zika's first time ever at lecturing. He certainly tried his best, but I hope he keeps the improvement going.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: RuiAce on July 03, 2017, 03:42:45 pm
Subject Code/Name: MATH2601 - Higher Linear Algebra

Contact Hours: 2 x 2 hour lectures, 1 hour flipped-classroom tutorial

Assumed Knowledge: A mark of 70 in either one of MATH1231/MATH1241/MATH1251. You will mostly be needing only linear algebra (no probability) with a side of differential equations at the end.

Assessment: 3 x 10% - In lecture tests. 10% - Writing assignment. The finals are weighted 60%. (Note that this is the first year this means of assessment was used.)

Lecture Recordings?  Not really, as the lecturer uses the blackboard.

Notes/Materials Available:  The lecturer's notes are absolutely amazing. You may find extra material elsewhere, but the notes are all you need. The flipped classroom involves doing questions on the spot during the tutorials, and they become an extra question bank for you. Quizzes available on request. Most finals are uploaded onto the UNSW library website.

Textbook: N/A

Lecturer(s): Dr. David Angell

Year & Semester of completion: 2017/1

Difficulty: 3.5/5

Overall Rating: 4/5

Your Mark/Grade: 94 HD

Comments: This is one of the three compulsory Level 2 courses to all mathematics disciplines, offered in semester 1. It is the higher counterpart of MATH2501. Students intending to major in mathematics and statistics must take this course or the standard version.

This course is the first of many that emphasises the nature of proof on top of the actual content. Whilst a substantial amount of computation remains in this course, a huge shift towards the theoretical side of mathematics and the necessity of formalising concepts comes into play. Concepts from linear algebra in MATH1231/41/51 are explained in greater depth, and tools (e.g. rank-nullity theorem) are no longer verified, but properly proven and then used in other proofs. Essentially, all the gaps in first year linear algebra are filled here.

Many students come to appreciate the nature and/or power through linear algebra thanks to how it's been taught and through the content. David Angell, much like the recently retired Peter Brown, is regarded as one of the best lecturers in the faculty and potentially at the university.

As this was the first year a 2 hour exam was introduced (instead of a 3 hour paper), the final exam ended up being too long and students struggled. I am highly positive that scaling came into play this semester.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: jakesilove on July 03, 2017, 03:43:21 pm
How do you all get such unbelievably high marks.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: RuiAce on July 03, 2017, 03:44:41 pm
How do you all get such unbelievably high marks.
Please... Some people in my cohort got 98 in 2 courses this sem...

(No idea how  :o )
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: jakesilove on July 03, 2017, 03:46:46 pm
That is literally sickening. If anyone gets higher than an 85 in any of my courses, they are hailed as the next Einstein/Geoffrey Robertson (depending on which degree obvs).

Edit: If someone reminds me when I get back to Sydney, I'll post up all of my subject reviews
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: RuiAce on July 03, 2017, 03:49:24 pm
I'll post up my shittier mark one next then lol
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: RuiAce on July 03, 2017, 04:05:57 pm
Subject Code/Name: ACTL2111 - Financial Mathematics for Actuaries

Contact Hours: 2 hour lecture, 1 hour Excel laboratory, 1 hour tutorial

Assumed Knowledge: The prerequisites specified are ACTL1101 and MATH1251. Alternatively, students undertaking Adv Maths majoring in Quantitative Risk are only required MATH1251. Whilst concepts are reintroduced, you should know what's going on in the finance side of ACTL1101, else this course becomes ridiculously hard even at the start.

Assessment: 15% Mid-semester exam, 15% Assignment (Broken into 4 mini-submissions; 4 Excel submissions with the final submission including a report). Final exam weighted 70%

Lecture Recordings?  Yes

Notes/Materials Available: On Moodle, ample tutorial exercises and past papers are posted up. Short video recordings of Assoc. Prof. Benjamin Avanzi explaining the concepts are also available for you to view.

Textbook:  Broverman, S.A. (2015), Mathematics of Investment and Credit, 6th Edition (5th Edition also permissible). Not compulsory, but from what I was told it contains some nice summaries and questions. A separate solutions manual to the questions can be purchased.
Sherris, M. (1996), Money and Capital Markets, Pricing, Yields and Analysis, 2nd Edition, Allen & Unwin. Never heard of anything about this one.

Lecturer(s): Dr Jonathan Ziveyi

Year & Semester of completion: 2017/1

Difficulty: 3.5/5

Overall Rating: 2/5 

Your Mark/Grade: 71 CR

Comments:
This course is compulsory for any student undertaking actuarial studies to meet their Part I exemptions. This course contributes to CT1.

This course draws upon certain and contingent cash flows demonstrated in ACTL1101 as well as a few elementary concepts in probability. The first half of the course is mostly revision of material in ACTL1101, however more complex cash flows are also observed (e.g. the increasing annuity).

Proper treatment is given to various other concepts such as bonds. Unfortunately, I feel as though many concepts such as forwards, options and swaps were not explained very well. This lead to quite a disaster on my part in that I had attained substantially high marks prior to the exam, but the inability to do a whole module (there are 6 modules) lead to a mark I never wanted to see at uni.

Many concepts in Excel are very introductory, however powerful tools such as VLOOKUP are certainly studied. Much of the assignment is based off Excel as well. Note that the finals did not examine Excel,

This course helps make concepts in ACTL1101 appear more clearer, however it is of my opinion that without FINS2624 (Portfolio Management, compulsory to all finance majors in commerce degrees) this course can be substantially difficult than what was perhaps intended. Note that not everything in the course was hard; only certain aspects of it.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: RuiAce on July 03, 2017, 04:35:45 pm
Subject Code/Name: MATH2901 - Higher Theory of Statistics

Contact Hours:  2 x 1 hour + 1 x 2 hour (Total 4 hours) lectures, 1 hour tutorial

Assumed Knowledge: One of MATH1231/MATH1241/MATH1251. As the course outline is combined with MATH2801, no explicit requirement of a mark of 70 was stated. You should be familiar with basic probability and are expected to know elementary calculus techniques such as integration by parts.

Assessment: 20% In-lecture Mid-semester exam, 2 x 10% Assignments (2017 - Group assignments. 2016 and prior - Individual.)

Lecture Recordings? Yes (First time this has happened as the lecturer was encouraged by students to use the document camera)

Notes/Materials Available: An online course pack is uploaded onto Moodle and to be honest it has too much. The lecturer is nice and is selective of content to teach, and his notes that he uploads should be used as the primary reference. Whilst rarely, sometimes the course pack also explains differently to how the lecturer teaches it (in particular hypothesis testing).

Textbook: N/A

Lecturer(s): Dr. Libo Li

Year & Semester of completion: 2017/1

Difficulty: 2/5

Overall Rating: 5/5

Your Mark/Grade: 95 HD

Comments:
This is one of the three compulsory Level 2 courses to all mathematics disciplines, offered in semester 1. It is the higher counterpart of MATH2501. Students intending to major in mathematics and statistics must take this course or the standard version.

This course can (and should) be used to replace ACTL2131, the course that contributes to CT3. However, MATH2901 must be combined with MATH2931 to fulfil the exemption requirements.

The level of statistics taught in MATH1231/41 is quite minimal, and serves to be at most an introduction to the subject area. This course, along with its ordinary counterpart MATH2801, seeks to commence a formal treatment of statistics and some of its uses in society. Whilst number crunching is not avoidable, it is to be reminded that this course is theory of statistics. The emphasis on the theory of statistics means that it focuses on how the actual models of stats has been developed, and techniques that fall out of results we prove.

In practice, the theory of statistics is ignored and taken for granted. This course serves as a reminder as to how everything came to be, so that concepts observed from here onward makes sense.

Statistics is something I thoroughly enjoy now that I'm at uni (it was terrible in high school). I personally loved this course. However it is worth mentioning that the maths in this course is FULL of tricks and a good understanding of algebraic/calculus techniques is required to perform excellently.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: RuiAce on July 04, 2017, 10:17:56 am
Subject Code/Name: FINS1613 - Business Finance

Contact Hours: 2 hours lecture, 1 hour tutorial

Assumed Knowledge: Nil, but an equivalent of 2U mathematics is highly recommended so that the maths make sense.

Assessment: 10% - Participation (A bit easier to earn than in ACCT1501), 10% - Homework (You have unlimited attempts at the questions), 10%+15%+15% (Total 40%) Separate quizzes, with the first quiz being super easy. Finals weighted 40%

Lecture Recordings?  Yes

Notes/Materials Available: In semester 1, there are HEAPS of resources offered. Live streams before the quizzes and finals, the entire QUESTION bank for quiz 1, and sufficient past quizzes for the other forms of assessment as well. Tutors are generally really nice and send you their tutorial slides as well. 

Textbook: Fundamentals of Corporate Finance (2nd Australian Edition), by Berk, DeMarzo, Harford, Ford, Mollica, and Finch, Pearson Australia, 2014. Not necessary at all; preferably use the lecture slides and MyFinanceLab.

Lecturer(s): Dr. Robert Tumarkin, Ying Dou

Year & Semester of completion: 2017/1

Difficulty: 1.5/5 (Biased!)

Overall Rating:  4.5/5

Your Mark/Grade: 94 HD

Comments:
This course is one of the choices for the first year electives of all commerce students. This course introduces students to the bread-and-butter of finance and makes up the fundamentals of everything in the finance major. It becomes a core course for actuarial students to fulfil CT2.

This course was ridiculously easy for me given that I had undertaken ACTL1101 in advance. Most actuaries are aware that taking this course before FINS1613 makes it significantly easier than otherwise, and hence the bias in the difficulty rating. For many students, this course tends to achieve a difficulty of 4/5 as they are either not well versed with maths equivalent to 2U level, understanding of how multiple cash flows work or feel bombarded by the lengthiness of several questions.

This course does not neglect theory altogether, however the focus is on the calculations. FINS1612 (only required by finance majors) introduces more theoretical concepts.

It is imperative that students understand quickly what goes on in the first few weeks of the course as everything is somehow tied to it. Topic 3 (Capital budgeting) is notorious for being the hardest of the lot; students who are currently taking (or have previously taken) ACCT1501 find it slightly easier, withs students having taken ACCT1511 finding it a breeze as it's just ACCT1511 dumbed down.

Many students highly recommend this course be undertaken in semester 1 and here are the reasons for it
- The lecturer influences this the most. Robert Turnarkin is a godsend; he literally sets his assessment tasks in the best interests of the students (no details disclosed here). His level of 'chill' rivals that of the legendary ECON1101 lecturer Alberto Motta.
- The amount of resources in semester 1 is abundant. The amount of resources in semester 2 is very limited (not even many past papers let alone the livestream)
- The assessment is generally easier in semester 1.
It should be noted that the lecturer for semester 2 is not "bad". He just discloses limited stuff compared to Rob.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: jamonwindeyer on August 20, 2017, 06:31:43 pm
Subject Code/Name: ELEC3104 - Digital Signal Processing

Contact Hours: 3 hours lecture, 3 hours lab

Assumed Knowledge: ELEC2134 (particularly the part of the course on transform methods), as well as a variety of techniques from 1st and 2nd year maths courses

Assessment:  50% Final Exam, 10% Labs, 15% Assignment, 25% Prokect

Lecture Recordings?  Yes

Notes/Materials AvailableComplete online video course

Textbook: S. K. Mitra, Digital Signal Processing, McGraw-Hill, 2011. Explains stuff well, good buy if you are planning to do later courses in DSP.

Lecturer(s): Dr Vidhyasaharan Sethu

Year & Semester of completion: 2017/1

Difficulty: 4 out of 5

Overall Rating: 5/5

Your Mark/Grade: 83 DN

Comments: This is the first course in Digital Signal Processing that you can take, and it's a prereq for all the 4th year DSP courses.

This is a really, really interesting course, and if you put the work in super enjoyable! Project is fun and lets you do as much as you can handle (you can do a little bit and pass easily, or do a heap of work to try and scape out the full mark). Labs are really long but good, overall - Wish they'd do more to teach you the sorts of questions you'd get in the final though. Lecturer is good, explains stuff well, but could really do with some slides/notes to guide his explanations. Hard to know what the important stuff is sometimes - Very few lecturers can get away with just scribbling on a document camera for 2 hours and he probably isn't one of them. That said, put a bit of work in yourself and he'll give you the ins and outs nicely ;D

This is a mandatory course for Electrical Engineers, and it's a good one. Get ready for lots and lots and LOTS of coding in Matlab (it is criminal that they don't really have you do much properly with it until this point) :)
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: jamonwindeyer on September 18, 2017, 04:18:19 pm
Subject Code/Name: ELEC3106 - Electronics

Contact Hours: 3 hours lecture, 2 hour lab, 1 hour tutorial

Assumed Knowledge: 2133 - Analogue Electronics, but that's not super essential. Circuit knowledge from 2134 is probably enough to scrape by. Also need knowledge of logic circuits from 2141.

Assessment: 10% labs, 10% lab design task, 10% quizzes, 70% final

Lecture Recordings?  Yes

Notes/Materials Available: Not a whole lot, but the lecturer provides quite a lot!

Textbook: A. S. Sedra & K. C. Smith, Microelectronic Circuits. Oxford University Press, 6th ed., 2011.

Lecturer(s): Torsten Lehmann

Year & Semester of completion: 2017-1

Difficulty: 4 out of 5

Overall Rating: 4 out of 5

Your Mark/Grade: 78 DN

Comments:
This is probably one of the most interesting courses I've done in terms of what was covered - It's all about why the theoretical stuff you've learned to this point kind of goes to shit in practical applications. It's real world stuff and Torsten teaches it so well. It's the style of teaching you want - He literally just teaches with a pen and paper, and while it demands you to make sure you've done a bit of reading/know what's vaguely happening, if you do that his teaching style rewards you. Super cool.

What lets this course down, for me, is the labs. My demos weren't great, I don't think the structure of them with the reports really facilitated much additional understanding. Just felt like a slog. Plus I got buggy chips that screwed my final design task - :P

Overall, really cool course though. Challenging, but rewarding :)
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: RuiAce on November 30, 2017, 10:42:55 pm
Subject Code/Name: MATH2621 - Higher Complex Analysis

Contact Hours: 3 x 1 hour lectures, 1 hour tutorial

Assumed Knowledge: The formal prerequisite is a mark of 70 in one of MATH1231/MATH1241/MATH1251. However, a "lecture 0" is provided as revision and is essentially sufficient as a basis for the course.

Assessment: 2 x 45 minute quizzes (each weighted 20%), final exam weighted 60%

Lecture Recordings? Yes, but in saying that you miss out on anything drawn on the blackboard

Notes/Materials Available: Extremely comprehensive lecture notes provided, accompanied with lecture slides. Quite an abundance of past quizzes and exams.

Textbook: Nil

Lecturer(s): Dr Alessandro Ottazzi, Dr Michael Cowling

Year & Semester of completion: 2017/2

Difficulty: 3/5

Overall Rating: 4/5

Your Mark/Grade: 90 HD

Comments: This course serves as compulsory for two of the primary mathematics majors, and one viable choice out of two for the statistics major (the other being MATH2221). For the most part it was brilliant; everything about the maths in this course was fun. (This is also what draws students majoring in statistics to this course over MATH2221.) It is the higher counterpart of MATH2521.

This course, much like the first semester courses, is a continuation of what's been taught in MATH1231/41/51. Simply put, the first year math courses teach the algebra of complex numbers, whereas this course teaches the calculus of complex numbers. Many proofs in this course are examinable, but have the luxury in that you can figure them out on the spot, so long as you know all the basic ingredients.

The lecturers are very funny and keep you engaged decently well. In particular, Dr Michael Cowling drops hints on what might be in the exam, based off previous years. It still ended up being a bit of a bomb though with more twisted questions this year, but for the most part it is fairly relaxed. (In fact, if the final exam didn't drop the bombs, the difficulty would've only been 1.5/5)

The course really depicts how different and surprisingly beautiful the adapting of calculus to complex numbers can be. Many things that hold for real analysis are broken when taken to complex numbers, but more powerful results are derived.

Note that this course is the expansion of the former course MATH2620 (3 UoC), and was first taught in 2014.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: RuiAce on November 30, 2017, 11:25:50 pm
Subject Code/Name: MATH2701 - Abstract Algebra and Fundamental Analysis

Contact Hours: 3 x 1 hour lectures, 1 hour tutorial

Assumed Knowledge: The formal prerequisite is a CR in MATH1231/MATH1241/MATH1251 or enrolment in Science (Adv Maths) or Adv Science, but you really should have a bare minimum of DN in MATH1241/MATH1251 if you are considering this course.

Assessment:
  - Analysis half: 5 x small assignments (each weighted 2%), can collaborate with your peers and the internet on how to do the problems. 1 take-home test
    (weighted 15%), must be done alone.
  - Algebra half: A mixture of 10 minute quizzes and assignments (combined weighting of 25%)
  - Final exam weighted 50%

Lecture Recordings? No

Notes/Materials Available: Analysis half - Decently comprehensive lecture notes provided. Algebra half - The lecturer provides his notes, but they are hand-written and often hard to read. Notes written by a student also published but they are very brief. A few past papers provided; some more obtained through the lecturer.

Textbook: Nil

Lecturer(s): Dr Lee Zhao, Dr Jie Du

Year & Semester of completion: 2017/2

Difficulty: 5/5 - This course's difficulty is well beyond any other math course in the first two years.

Overall Rating: 3.5/5

Your Mark/Grade: 88 HD

Comments: This course is generally regarded as the pure mathematics "trademark" course. It is what distinguishes this major for the rest. It forms the bridge between the mostly computational nature of first year courses, and the extent of proof in the later pure courses. As implied multiple times above, it is divided into an analysis half, and an algebra half.

Analysis is the formalisation and extension of every idea used in modern calculus, whereas 'algebra' is the exploration of various structures that build and are used in mathematics. They generally involve quite different ways of mathematical thinking, but form the two main blocks (and debatably, pathways) of a pure mathematician.

Analysis is just intense by nature, but was something that I found quite neat and challenging. It is common to just spend hours at a problem and not get anywhere, and at the same time it's always a huge excitement when you figure it out. This half encourages you to draw upon ANYTHING you've been previously exposed to, and produce neat results out of it. Some topics include the big 'O' notation, inequalities and p-adic analysis.

The structures of abstract algebra are mostly groups and fields. Group theory is used in this section but to a small extent; the course's name feels like a misnomer as it's mostly focused on geometries (including projective geometry and transformations). Unfortunately, it really didn't work well with me for several months; I only managed to figure everything out at the end after receiving a lot of help. (There may have been other factors influencing this problem.)

Given the nature of pure mathematics, a bridge between first and third year is certainly necessary and this course serves that purpose quite well. However, whilst it may be easier than what's to follow, the content you learn can be a huge shock, hence the significantly lower candidature for the course. Most people do well in this course, but it's usually because they're just that capable.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: MLov on December 01, 2017, 12:19:49 pm
Subject Code/Name: ACTL2102 Foundations of Actuarial Models

Contact Hours:  1 x 2 hour lectures, 1 hour tutorial

Assumed Knowledge:  Prerequisite:ACTL2131 or MATH2901 and (enrolment in 3154, 3155, 3586, 3587, 3588, 3589 or 4737)

Assessment:
  - Mid semester exam weighted 20%
  - Group Assignment 20% (16% report + R codes, 4% reflection + peer reviews)
  - Final exam weighted 60%

Lecture Recordings?  Yes

Notes/Materials Available: N/A

Textbook: Ross, 'Introduction to Probability Models'

Lecturer(s): JK Woo

Year & Semester of completion: 2017/2

Difficulty: 2.5/5

Overall Rating:  4.5/5

Your Mark/Grade: HD

Comments: This course is regarded as one of the easiest ACTL courrses. It does not require a lot of knowledge in finance, and as the name suggest it has a lot of statistic components. The course can be broken down into two main components, Markov Process and Time Series. However, this course does need some knowledge about computing, as you will learn how to simulate different kinds of distributions (e.g. non-homogenous poisson, exponential, normal etc.) and implement them on R.

The application of Markov process should be the hardest component of this course, it requires you to have a strong understanding about the properties of Markov process and teaches you the necessity to consider every factor in your calculations(which is hard) like all other ACTL courses.

Overall, the course will be like a pleasant break after your suffering in ACTL2131 and 2111. :D
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: MLov on December 01, 2017, 09:44:22 pm
Subject Code/Name: MATH2931 - Higher Linear Models

Contact Hours: 3 x 1 hour lectures, 1 hour tutorial-laboratory (alternating every week)

Assumed Knowledge:
 - Prerequisite: MATH2901 or MATH2801(DN)
 - Not prerequisite: MATH2601 or MATH2501 but treated as assumed knowledge throughout the course

Assessment:
 - 3 x group assessments, each worth 10%
 - Final exam weighted 70% 

Lecture Recordings? yes

Notes/Materials Available:  N/A

Textbook: N/A

Lecturer(s): Dr. Libo Li

Year & Semester of completion: 2017/2

Difficulty: 2.5/5

Overall Rating:  3/5

Your Mark/Grade: HD

Comments: This course together with MATH2901 can be used to replace ACTL2131.

The course is pretty dry. It starts off with simple linear models, and then expands to take into considerations of higher dimensions and other factors such as non-normally distributed errors and non-constant variance. More than half of the course is implementing R outputs and "understanding the philosophy" behind them.

(Prepare yourself for all kind of hypothesis testing!)

Other half of the course is proofs. The proofs are mainly linear algebra (and some vector/matrix calculus).

(Now please take a moment of silence for those who enrolled in MATH2931 without learning MATH2601/2501)

Overall the course is relaxing and not time consuming as there isn't too much content, but you can easily lose motivation. Just lay back and listen to Libo's wonderful voice :D
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: MLov on December 02, 2017, 12:04:55 pm
Subject Code/Name: ECON1102 - Macroeconomics 1

Contact Hours: 1 x 2 hour lecture, 1 hour tutorial

Assumed Knowledge: Prerequisite: ECON1101

Assessment:
  - In game quiz weighted 10%
  - Class quiz weighted 10%
  - Mid semester exam weighted 20%
  - Final exam weighted 60%

Lecture Recordings? yes

Notes/Materials Available: Macroeconomic notes are all over the internet

Textbook: N/A

Lecturer(s): There are multiple streams, and multiple lecturers

Year & Semester of completion: 2017/2

Difficulty: 1.5/5

Overall Rating: 3.5/5

Your Mark/Grade: DN

Comments: If you think this would be the same as ECON1101, you have came to the wrong place.

This course talks about the economic system from an aggregated scale and introduces how government and central bank influences our economic system. Instead of analysing the behaviour of a single agent, you will be taught how the entire population responds to events like change in price, inflation and policies under specific assumptions.

This course requires much more mathematic computations and interpretations than ECON1101. The mathematics uesd in this course are very simple (you are not expected to know why those formula works, they are further explained, in greater depth, in later courses). However, there are quite a lot formulas you need to memorise.

You need to get your head around the ripple effect: how multiple events affect each other (you are recommended to construct a network of the relationships between each event, e.g. government buy bonds -> more money supply -> higher inflation -> weaker currency wrt foreign currency -> less import -> ...  ) and the beauty of equilibrium.

(Also you will know much more about what the economist are talking about on tv)

Overall, it is a really fun and relaxing course and give you a macroscopic view of our world. It is slightly drier than ECON1101 (less games, more theories) but more relevant to the real world.

Side note: they are currently building a game just like playeconomics for this course. :D
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: RuiAce on December 04, 2017, 09:38:03 pm
Subject Code/Name: MATH2931 - Higher Linear Models

Contact Hours: 3 x 1 hour lectures, 1 hour tutorial

Assumed Knowledge: MATH2901 is a prerequisite. For this course, some elements from MATH2501/MATH2601 are implicitly assumed (although not explicitly examined).

Assessment: 3 x Assignments (10% each), finals weighted 55%.

Lecture Recordings? Yes, but you miss quite a fair bit of what's done on the blackboard.

Notes/Materials Available: As with MATH2901, Libo releases his lecture notes.

Textbook: N/A

Lecturer(s): Dr Libo Li

Year & Semester of completion: 2017/2

Difficulty: 2/5

Overall Rating: 2.5/5

Your Mark/Grade: 80 DN

Comments: This course is basically the continuation of MATH2901 and essential to any statistics major student. It takes the concepts of statistical inference introduced in its predecessor and essentially seeks to introduce basic model fitting and analysis. Much of the content in this course revolves around R; you are not required to write R code but you will need to interpret given code in assignments and in the exam.

For me, this course felt significantly more dry and bland than its precursor. The first half of the course introduces all the essentials to model fitting and the concepts behind it, but it gradually turns into just grind and rote. It becomes more memorisation in the later half, and whereas the proofs are decent they start becoming very convoluted. It's more or less about how to fit a model that does whatever it does, and just what deductions you can make out of it. You also need to know the uses of various forms of measure (e.g. Mallow's Cp and the PRESS statistic for goodness of fit).

This course would've been rated a 1/5, but every course is made better by the presence of Libo and that can't be denied.

I don't regard this as a difficult mark despite getting a considerably lower mark in it than MATH2901. I just find it a lot less interesting.

It should be remarked again that linear algebra (MATH2501 OR MATH2601) is not a prerequisite for this course. Linear algebra is just an aid used for the proofs in this course. Remember that MATH2931 assumes MATH2901, WHICH assumes MATH1231/41/51, so elementary linear algebra concepts should not be foreign. Stuff like spectral decomposition, may, however, be a bit unfamiliar.

Note: The lectures for this course are combined with its ordinary counterpart MATH2831. This is due to the cohorts being appreciably smaller than that of MATH2801/MATH2901. MATH2831 students aren't expected to deal with much of the linear algebra components and have a few less things to memorise.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: RuiAce on December 13, 2017, 02:03:04 pm
Subject Code/Name: COMP1511 - Introduction to Programming (later renamed to Programming Fundamentals)

Contact Hours: 2 x 2 hours of lectures, 1 hour tutorial, 2 hour lab

Assumed Knowledge: Nil. But the nature of computing courses is that ANY prior programming experience is recommended.

Assessment:
- 10% allocated to milestone writeups
- 5% allocated to labs
- 30% allocated across three assignments (weighted 5%, 10%, 15%)
- Final exam weighted 35% (30% for theory, 5% for practical)

Lecture Recordings? Yes

Notes/Materials Available: The materials they provide for the lectures, tutorials and labs are all you really need. (Well, and of course assignments.) Exam skeletons provided which reduce reading time required in the actual exam room. Fairly abundant in quantity.

Textbook: As implied above, not required

Lecturer(s): Andrew Bennett (occasionally substituted in by Jashank Jeremy)

Year & Semester of completion: 2017/2

Difficulty: 3/5

Overall Rating:  3.5/5

Your Mark/Grade: 82 DN

Comments:
This course is one of the new courses introduced as part of UNSW CSE's massive renovation. It is the second time it's been offered (first offering was last semester), and replaces the old course COMP1917. It is generally regarded as the more intense of the bundle for engineering students that need only 1 computing course for their degree (the alternatives being COMP1911 and ENGG1811).

This course introduces C, which is essentially one of the fundamental languages of the programming world. The focus isn't necessarily on just C syntax itself, but its applications in solving relatively simple problems. Attempting to design methods to solve these problems is generally the hard part, not necessarily the actual coding element.

Content wise, the course is brilliant. It pretty much introduces all the basics expected for an introductory course without overkilling it. Everything is introduced from scratch, which really reflects the "no assumed knowledge" statement. Math required is fairly minimal (no calculus and such for sure). Teaching staff were also very helpful and taught really well. The staff and the content itself basically make up the bulk of the rating given. The extra .5 comes out of interesting assignments (again, content wise).

The teaching staff did their best to cut down on this, which was definitely something I appreciated, but personally I just find blogs effort when I'm marked on them. So any bit of it damages it for me, but it doesn't really damage it enough to make me dislike the course. It was also nice seeing some increase in marks towards the end, regardless of the reasons behind it and how little there were.

A small remark I do want to make before talking about the cons - you can never really know if you'll like coding unless you give it a go. Some people really loved doing it (including me) and other's hated it. This is just because coding doesn't work well with many people's brains; it's a bit algorithmically intense to be fair, and hence why the difficulty rating was above 2/5. So if it's of some interest, give it a shot, and then abort it only when you actually know you really dislike it.

A surprisingly large amount of my marks seem to have fallen from style during the second half of the course. The style guide is something essential to the first course - I've seen outrageously disgusting code be written by some programmers and it just isn't legible. But the extent of its strictness felt too far in some regards (not EVERY regard), and it resulted in many marks going to waste.

As well as being uncertain of where my code was incorrect every now and then. Quite disappointingly, just one of the three assignments ended up drowning away all of my expectations for my results (the other two were really great).

So essentially, marks negatively bias my ratings (at least, when they are a cause of disappointment and not expected). But I maintain the relatively good quality of this course. Apart from a bomb thrown in the final practical exam, everything did feel quite easy for me. Any student capable enough should give this course a try.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: jamonwindeyer on December 21, 2017, 10:26:11 pm
Subject Code/Name: ELEC3117 - Electrical Engineering Design

Contact Hours: 2 hours lecture (though none of them went for more than an hour or so), 3 hour labs

Assumed Knowledge: ELEC3106

Assessment: 40% on proposals and reports, 30% on final presentation, 5% attendance, 25% final exam

Lecture Recordings?  Yes

Notes/Materials Available: -

Textbook: Pretty much any textbook could be useful in this course depending on your project.

Lecturer(s): Dr Beena Ahmed, Dr Alex Von Brasch

Year & Semester of completion: 2017/2

Difficulty: 3/5

Overall Rating: 3/5

Your Mark/Grade: 91 HD

Comments: So this is the course you take as a prerequisite for doing your Thesis in Year 4 - It's a big design project. You pick a partner, and you build a consumer product prototype. No real assistance, no restrictions.

The project itself is really difficult because, I don't care if you got 90+ scores in every electronics course so far, that doesn't teach you how to design something. You need to be able to program a microcontroller, design a PCB, do stuff that no course teaches you (and this course won't either). That's my biggest criticism of this course - It would be the chance to have industry professionals come in and teach you things you'll actually use, introduce actual industry software and methods to help with the projects. But nope, they waffle on about phases of design and let you figure out the important stuff on your own. Don't get me wrong, some of it is really good to know, but it falls so far short of the potential of a course like this.

Labs are well designed - A few really knowledgeable people are around to help you navigate issues in what is essentially free time for your projects (you need every 3 hour session, and so much more time at home, to get it right). I envy them - $50 an hour (or something) for doing mostly nothing ;) assessments are fair, a couple of reports, a presentation and attendance are the things directly related to the project - Good practice on documenting things for industry.

Then there is the Final Exam, which is based on the almost completely useless lecture content. Waffle your way through it and it shouldn't be too difficult, and it weighs nothing (compared to other exams) anyway.

If you enjoy building and designing something from scratch that is yours (who wouldn't!), and you have a good partner, this course is fine. But it had the potential to be the best course they offered and instead it's just - Meh.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: jamonwindeyer on December 21, 2017, 10:40:15 pm
Subject Code/Name: ELEC3145 - Real Time Instrumentation

Contact Hours: 2 hours lecture, 1 hour tutorial, 3 hours lab

Assumed Knowledge: First year Mathematics, ELEC2141, and a fundamental programming course (COMP1511 or similar)

Assessment: 10% lab checkpoints, 10% lab exam, 10% midsem, 10% assignment, 60% final exam

Lecture Recordings?  No

Notes/Materials Available: -

Textbook: None prescribed, anything on Real-Time systems could be useful. Your textbook for Control Systems could come in handy.

Lecturer(s): Dr Branislav Hredzak

Year & Semester of completion: 2017/2

Difficulty: 2/5

Overall Rating: 5/5

Your Mark/Grade: 92 HD

Comments: This is a good course to take at the same time as Control Systems, because much of the content overlaps. I found the two courses nice to do in tandem because they expanded and played off each other - Made things easier to remember for me.

The course is essentially in two halves - An analytical section focusing on the mathematics behind certain control systems, and then a programming section on how you actually code using a real-time kernel. The two don't overlap in any meaningful way, and the programming section is far more useful and interesting than the analytical section. The analytical section is not that difficult - The programming section is extremely easy if you are a decent programmer.

Overall though, an interesting and enjoyable course. Branislav teaches it quite well - His style is always quiet but methodical, I've never gotten to the end of a segment of info and gone, "Wait, wtf did that mean." He knows his stuff, enjoyed his lecturing more here than in ELEC1111. The labs are fun, the exams are not difficult if you put a bit of work in. Overall, really good third year elective!! ;D
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: jamonwindeyer on December 22, 2017, 12:32:52 pm
Subject Code/Name: ELEC3105 - Electrical Energy

Contact Hours: 3 hours lecture, 1 hour tutorial, 3 hours lab

Assumed Knowledge: ELEC2134, ELEC3115 (particularly this second one is important)

Assessment: 20% lab checkpoints, 2% online quizzes, 10% midsem, 8% assignment, 60% final exam

Lecture Recordings?  Yes

Notes/Materials Available: -

Textbook: None prescribed, a variety could come in handy as the topics do cover a fair few different disciplines of Elec

Lecturer(s): Dr Rukmi Dutta

Year & Semester of completion: 2017/2

Difficulty: 4/5

Overall Rating: 2/5

Your Mark/Grade: 88 HD

Comments: Another semester, another course with Rukmi - Read any of my reviews above this one to get my opinions. She has still not ever done a full worked example in any of her lectures. Her explanations are, okay - But prepare for lots of work to make them actually relate to any realistic problem. Tutorials also handled by Rukmi, and she doesn't do worked examples there either.

The content is interesting, I'll give it that. It's really fascinating to explore how our motors and generators actually operate, even exploring things like solar cells and thermal engines. It's cool - It's just taught in a really boring way. The labs are really good, though the instructional videos for it are laughably bad. Just give them a chance.

This course normally has a huge fail rate - The quizzes and labs are fine, but the exams and assignment are brutal. However, someone must have been upset with so many people needing to repeat up above, because our final exam was the easiest exam for the course in years and years. So that was lucky.

Not a highlight in the program, that's for sure :(
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: jamonwindeyer on December 22, 2017, 12:42:36 pm
Subject Code/Name: ELEC3114 - Control Systems

Contact Hours: 3 hours lecture, 3 hours lab, 1 hour tutorial

Assumed Knowledge: ELEC2134, and second year mathematics

Assessment: 4% quizzes, 12% labs, 30% midsem, 54% final exam

Lecture Recordings?  Yes

Notes/Materials Available: Hendra provides a really great set of online video material, which is excellent

Textbook: N. S. Nise, Control Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, 6th or 7th Edition, but they provide essential excerpts if necessary

Lecturer(s): Dr Hendra Nurdin

Year & Semester of completion: 2017/2

Difficulty: 5/5

Overall Rating: 3/5

Your Mark/Grade: 77 DN

Comments: Control is probably the hardest course I've taken so far, but luckily I was warned how tough it was going in - Hopefully you are now as well. The content is really quite interesting, and Hendra teaches it decently well. Like Rukmi, some full worked examples on paper in front of us, and not just pointing at already derived results in sequence on a slide, would make things so much better. But anyway, he does a good job explaining things for the most part provided you are willing to work to fill in the connections to problems a wee bit.

Tutorials in this course are amazing, if you get Arash (not that Hendra is bad I just didn't have him). He re-explains the theory as he does a single problem covering everything from the lecture that week - I had the tutorial right after the lecture, and my god did it help. There's a heap of extra problems given for later revision too.

Labs were the let down for me in this course. There weren't enough demos, the demos we did have were not very good at all, and the links to our content were awkward at best and just non-existent at worst. Just a slog to me - If the labs were better I'd probably have a way better opinion of the course.

Quizzes are fine, but tough. Big questions and the slightest mistake gives you zero, but they aren't worth much. Midsem and exam are tough but they have to be for a course like this - I didn't study anywhere near enough for our final though, it was tougher than the last few years  ::)

It's a really tough course, but if you know that going in, it is manageable. Just grit your teeth, put up with the shitty labs, and get a heap of marks in the midsem because it is almost always easier ;D
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: Mechonics on January 11, 2018, 12:22:22 am
Subject Code/Name: DATA1001 - Intro to Data Science and Decisions

Contact Hours:  A 2 hour lecture every Monday, and 2x one hour labs every week

Assumed Knowledge: No formal prerequisites. But you will actually die if you don't know advanced statistics including things like Baye's Theorem, lots of probability theory, monte carlo methods etc.

Assessment:  3x 15% assessments and a 55% final exam.

Lecture Recordings?  Yes

Notes/Materials Available:  Lecture slides will be available on moodle. No other specific material that will help with the content.

Textbook:  N/A

Lecturer(s): Three different lecturers for the three different parts (Business, Computing and Maths)

Year & Semester of completion: 2017, sem 2

Difficulty: 4/5

Overall Rating:  1/5

Your Mark/Grade: 72

Comments:
Not a very well designed course at all. Firstly, let's sort out the data science part. This course is not real data science, it is basically business intelligence and data analytics. Real data science involves machine learning algorithms and artificial intelligence, which was not at all even mentioned in any aspect of the course. It was more related to SQL, business analytics and statistics etc. The ideal real data science course would have discussed ground-breaking advancements in AI such as deep learning, convolutional neural networks (and other types of neural networks), general AI, etc. Also, the mathematics section of the course had the cohort up in arms. The mathematics lecturer had a PhD in statistics and the content was extremely difficult, and definitely not suitable for this level - I would even argue that it would be at a masters level.

The 3x 15% assessments were pretty easy, I ended up with like 90+ in that, but then the finals were brutal (partially because I didn't put much effort into that, but also because of the statistics part of the course being extremely difficult and unsuitable) - I'd hope they'll improve on this after all the criticism received.

Overall, do not do this course if you don't need to (e.g. as a gen ed or elective). It is not worth it.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: Mechonics on January 15, 2018, 12:12:25 am
Subject Code/Name: ECON1101 - Microeconomics 1

Contact Hours:  3 (2 hr lecture, 1 hr lab)

Assumed Knowledge: None, but high school economics would help a lot.

Assessment: 20% free marks from an online game called Playconomics (which you have to buy for like $30), 2x 15% short answer exams, 50% multiple choice finals.

Lecture Recordings? Yea 

Notes/Materials Available:  Will be provided with playconomics when you purchase it.

Textbook: All playconomics!

Lecturer(s): Alberto Motta

Year & Semester of completion: 2017, Sem 1

Difficulty: 4/5 for me, 2-3/5 for literally everyone else

Overall Rating: 3

Your Mark/Grade: 73 

Comments: Very important if you're studying economics or commerce or anything of that sort in the Business School. For me it was just a course which needed to be completed, despite being irrelevant to my degree. Please take this review with a grain of salt, I'm sure you'll fly through it if you're passionate about economics or even if you try a little bit (which I didn't really).
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: Mechonics on January 15, 2018, 12:40:33 am
Subject Code/Name: MATH1141 - Higher Mathematics 1A

Contact Hours: 6

Assumed Knowledge: Combined mark of 175+ in Maths ex1 + ex2. If you did 3 unit maths, consider taking the 1131 variant, unless you did really well in 2u+3u.

Assessment:  4x class tests worth 20% (best 3/4 count), 8% from online tutorials (maple), 8% maple lab exam, 4% maple practice exams, 60% final exam

Lecture Recordings?  Yes

Notes/Materials Available:  Available on moodle upon enrolment

Textbook: N/A

Lecturer(s): Professor Wolfgang Schief (Calculus), Dr Alina Ostafe (Linear algebra)

Year & Semester of completion: 2017 Sem 1

Difficulty: 2.5/5

Overall Rating: 4/5

Your Mark/Grade: 76

Comments:
Very enjoyable course. It is split into two parts, Linear Algebra and Calculus. Your final mark pretty much entirely depends on the 60% finals. The remaining 40% is pretty much all free marks.

You will have a total of 12 online maple tutorials - one each week. Your best 8 will count to give you 8% of the course marks. These tutorials are very easy and you're allowed to check your answer before submitting it (There's literally a "How did I go" button which you can exploit an infinite number of times). Try and do a tutorial every week to finish all 12, as they can be pretty helpful. However, worst case scenario you can skip 4 weeks of work and still get full marks if you complete 8/12 of them. Make sure you get all 8% of these free marks.

There will be a 4 class tests throughout the semester. They are very short tests - you are given 20 minutes and there are 10 marks in each test. The first test is in like week 5 and the remaining are evenly distributed throughout the rest of the semester. These are very very easy tests and very similar to the past tests that are provided at the very back of your course pack. If you do them all (or even a few), you should be getting 10/10 for every test. Your best 3/4 class tests will be counted. i.e. each of your best 3 tests are worth 6.6666..% to give a total of 20% of the course. Make sure you get all 20% course marks here!

There will be a maple lab test in around week 10. It will test your understanding of the Maple software, which is used to perform many mathematical calculations. Here is a list of literally every possible question that can come - https://www.scribd.com/document/156497903/1131-and-1141-Maple-Exam-Sample-Solutions. They will choose some of these (not all) for your final exam. Make sure you memorise these (it's not hard, very repetitive). I started memorising the night before the test and got full marks, it's a very easy test - don't lose any of the 8% here.

4% of the remaining marks will come from 2 very simple and short maple practice questions (worth 2% each). These two tests will test your understanding of the maple syntax. There are only two questions in each test, and it is done online. You'll need to use the maple software to enter your answers. Each test should only take you like literally 5 mins at max, so don't put this off.

The remaining 60% of the marks is from final exams. These are harder than the normal class tests you do, so don't get complacent. I got all 40% of the course marks above easily, and underestimated the finals. That's why I only got a total of 76. Study very hard for the final exam, do all the past papers you possibly can do, and get an easy HD!
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: MLov on January 18, 2018, 08:20:26 pm
Subject Code/Name: FINS1612 - Capital Markets and Institutionshttp://www.handbook.unsw.edu.au/undergraduate/courses/2017/FINS1612.html

Contact Hours: 3 (2 hour lecture + 1 hour tutorial)

Assumed Knowledge: N/A

Assessment: 
-2 Quizzes each worth 20%
-Tutorial participation 15%
-Final Exam 45%

Lecture Recordings? Yes

Notes/Materials Available: http://www.unistudyguides.com/wiki/Capital_Markets_and_Institutions

Textbook: N/A

Lecturer(s): N/A

Year & Semester of completion: N/A

Difficulty: N/A

Overall Rating:  3.5/5 ??

Your Mark/Grade: N/A

Comments:
From my perspective, anyone who wants to pursue a business career should take this course first. It provides you a basic business framework and introduces you to many financial/business basics which many degrees neglect to teach. (ACTL especially treated this course as assumed knowledge and they will throw many business jargons at you without definitions.)

If this course is not one of your core courses, then I highly recommend you to study this by yourself. It is very simple and you do not have to stress out preparing for quizzes and exams. There is an abundant amount of related materials online (also on Khan's Acadamy), and you will not have trouble finding definitions and examples. Should take you about 2 weeks (one lecture a day)
(Also saves you bunch of money, now calculate its present value!)

Once you sleep through this course, you will be prepared for ACTL1101!
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: jyh6 on March 09, 2018, 05:50:58 pm
Subject Code/Name: ELEC3105 - Electrical Energy

Contact Hours: 3 hours lecture, 1 hour tutorial, 3 hours lab

Assumed Knowledge: ELEC2134, ELEC3115 (particularly this second one is important)

Assessment: 20% lab checkpoints, 2% online quizzes, 10% midsem, 8% assignment, 60% final exam

Lecture Recordings?  Yes

Notes/Materials Available: -

Textbook: None prescribed, a variety could come in handy as the topics do cover a fair few different disciplines of Elec

Lecturer(s): Dr Rukmi Dutta

Year & Semester of completion: 2017/2

Difficulty: 4/5

Overall Rating: 2/5

Your Mark/Grade: 88 HD

Comments: Another semester, another course with Rukmi - Read any of my reviews above this one to get my opinions. She has still not ever done a full worked example in any of her lectures. Her explanations are, okay - But prepare for lots of work to make them actually relate to any realistic problem. Tutorials also handled by Rukmi, and she doesn't do worked examples there either.

The content is interesting, I'll give it that. It's really fascinating to explore how our motors and generators actually operate, even exploring things like solar cells and thermal engines. It's cool - It's just taught in a really boring way. The labs are really good, though the instructional videos for it are laughably bad. Just give them a chance.

This course normally has a huge fail rate - The quizzes and labs are fine, but the exams and assignment are brutal. However, someone must have been upset with so many people needing to repeat up above, because our final exam was the easiest exam for the course in years and years. So that was lucky.

Not a highlight in the program, that's for sure :(


Good work! I'm wondering if there's a review for 3115 as well. Heard this is a tough one. Also like to know how important the textbook (Field and Wave, David K. Cheng) is for this course. There seem to be a lot of mathematical proofs but not sure if they will be examined on.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: katie,rinos on June 08, 2018, 12:59:32 pm
Subject Code/Name: EDST1104-Social Perspectives in Education

Contact Hours:  2hr lecture, 1hr tute each week, 80% attendance required & rolls passed around

Assumed Knowledge: Nil

Assessment:  600 word Article analysis (20%), 1800 Research Task (mix of 3 article analysis and school description, 40%), 2000 word sociological research report (40%). All education assessments must be passed to pass the course.

Lecture Recordings?  Yes

Notes/Materials Available:Slides were uploaded by the education society for help with assessments, however not much extra was needed.

Textbook: Education, Change and Society. I borrowed it from the library and it is also available as an ebook through the library. It wasn’t really necessary however was used sometimes in tutorials.

Lecturer(s): Dr Greg Leaney, Tutor-Sara Mashayekh

Year & Semester of completion: 2018/1

Difficulty: 2.5/5

Overall Rating:  2.5/5

Your Mark/Grade: 76 D

Comments:
I went into education really excited and found this course to be boring and a bit of a letdown. Though some of the information we learnt was important (topics such as inequalities, geographies of schooling and special needs), I felt like I’d already seen it happen only last year at school. I zoned out a lot during lectures, and the lecturer read from the slides which didn’t help.

There was a lot of help with assessments so they weren’t as daunting as they could have been. The education society ran workshops for each assessment that you could attend if you needed help, and also posted the slides on a Facebook group afterwards. The assessments were also discussed in detail in the tutes and lectures.   
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: katie,rinos on June 08, 2018, 01:43:30 pm
Subject Code/Name: MUSC1701-Performance Lab 1

Contact Hours: 2hr Lecture/Masterclass weeks 1,4,7,10,13, 2hr Studio wks 2,5,8,11, 2hr ensemble contribution per week

Assumed Knowledge: You must be enrolled in a Bachelor of Music to be in this degree stream. Arts students can do MUSC1703.

Assessment:  Performance critiques/blogs (15%, must do 3 out of 5, 400 words each), Performance workshop demonstration (15%, 5-10 minutes), Ensemble contribution/performance/part-checking test 20%, Practical exam (50%, 15-20 minutes)

Lecture Recordings?  No

Notes/Materials Available:  Nil

Textbook: No-however some readings for critiques are available on Moodle

Lecturer(s): Kim Burword, however had guest lecturers for some masterclasses.

Year & Semester of completion: 2018,1

Difficulty: 3.5/5

Overall Rating:  4/5

Comments:
The class was only every three weeks so there wasn’t a large amount of contact hours. Even though it was a performance class, I only had to perform twice, once in week 5 which wasn’t marked and again for the performance workshop. The environment when performance was always really supportive. The masterclasses were very interesting, even though some of them were on instruments I didn’t know a lot about.

Assessment wise, you need to be part of an ensemble that meets weekly and makes up 20% of your total assessments. There is a list here of all the ensembles you can be involved in, I really enjoyed wind symphony. There is a part checking assessment where you get into small groups of 4-5 people and play some of the pieces that you played for the concert.

The performance exam is worth 50% and needs a 15-20 minute set of pieces. You must play a study, pieces, and then do sight reading.  For the course, you need to have at least 10 hours of lessons with a registered UNSW music teacher. I was lucky enough that my clarinet teacher was already on the list. You are given a $600 subsidy for these lessons.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: katie,rinos on June 09, 2018, 01:26:41 pm
Subject Code/Name: MUSC1101-Music Reinvented

Contact Hours: 2hr lecture, 1hr tute per week

Assumed Knowledge: None

Assessment:  400-500 word definition of term (12.5%), 400-500 mini biography of composers early life (12.5%), 2000 word essay (45%), music literature/listening test (20%), Ethnomusicology test (10%)

Lecture Recordings?  Yes

Notes/Materials Available: Some readings and a listening list are available.

Textbook: Nil

Lecturer(s): Dr JJ Napier

Year & Semester of completion: 2018,1

Difficulty: 3/5

Overall Rating:  4/5

Your Mark/Grade: 70 CR

Comments:

I really enjoyed this course and most of the content in the lectures. The first half of this course focuses on the musicology of the early 20th century and is a mix of both historical background and different pieces/composers. The 2nd half of the course focuses on ethnomusicology and the music of different cultures.

With the writing assessments, there were three different topics that you could choose from (Modernism, Impressionism, and Nationalism). The definition, biography and essay built on your knowledge of the topic and you were able to use information from your bio and definition in your essay. There is a listening list of pieces that you need to know for the listening test, which is worth 20%. Napier could play any section of the pieces and you need to be able to recognise the piece and write down the title, composer, genre, section/mvt and 25-50 words of historical significance/techniques. This is something that definitely can’t be studied overnight and needs a lot of work.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: blasonduo on June 25, 2018, 10:20:17 pm
Subject Code/Name: EDST1104-Social Perspectives in Education

Contact Hours: a 2-hour lecture and a 1-hour tutorial each week, 80% attendance is required to pass the course.

Assumed Knowledge: None (A mark of 80+ in HSC English recommended).

Assessment:  600 word Article analysis (20%), 1800 word Research Task (40%), 2000 word Research Report (40%). All assessments must be passed to pass the course.

Lecture Recordings?  Yes (but weirdly still needed to attend :/ )

Notes/Materials Available: None - The education Society did hold sessions where they explained how to complete the assignments.

Textbook: Education, Change and Society. This is NOT needed unless you are aiming for 80+ marks. Tutorials do base some content off the textbook, but nothing googling can't solve.

Lecturer(s): Lecturer: Dr Greg Leaney, Tutor: Sara Mashayekh

Year & Semester of completion: 2018 Semester 1

Difficulty: 1.6/5

Overall Rating:  1.2/5

Your Mark/Grade: 68 CR

Comments:

This course was kind of all over the place; it didn't feel like a course that was caring. Their communication skills would vastly improve the overall quality of the course.

The staff almost never answered questions on the courses question forum, out of the 34 different questions asked during the semester, 3 of them got responded to by staff. This was very lazy of them and annoyed the cohort, we felt lost. Although the feedback in assignments wasn't actually that bad, it never gave me a defining explanation on what to improve on for the next task (like 1108 did).

The worst part of it all was the dates in which we should have received our marks back. The last two assignments were delayed by a week, and we weren't notified about this until 2-3 days after the due date, leaving us confused, it shouldn't be hard to let us know beforehand about the change of dates.

The lectures were fine for the quality of the course, just a man reading off the slides about things that were kind of already known (such as lower SES students struggle more in schooling). The lectures overall were very slow and easy to understand, and conversations about the content were encouraged which was nice.

The tutorial sessions mainly consisted of concepts introduced in the weekly readings or textbook. If you had already done the readings, this hour was spent by explaining to others what the concepts meant, but (on my table at least) just had everyone google them. :P

The assessments were quite fitting and actually quite enjoyable, and were the defining aspect of the course, they allowed for the insight of schools and the complexity of them, and the theories and strategies a certain school implements. The assessments were not hard to complete, but they were hard to get right, and this is where the tutorials and readings were able to help. Constantly in the feedback, I was told that the way I did an aspect of the assignment was not the way they were looking for, and hence losing marks, but  I really enjoyed this.

Overall, if this course were able to better communicate to us, the course would have been much better overall. Was this worth the $800? No. Should it be needed to get a teaching degree? Yeah, I think so, just needs a few tweaks. :)
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: fantasticbeasts3 on June 25, 2018, 11:05:57 pm
Subject Code/Name: ARTS1510 - Introductory German A

Contact Hours: 5 - 2 hour lecture, 2 hour tutorial and 1 hour tutorial

Assumed Knowledge: None

Assessment: 3x portfolios (45%), speaking test (15%), listening test (15%), written exam (25%)

Lecture Recordings? Yes

Notes/Materials Available: There was so much extra content on Moodle like grammar exercises, stuff about German culture, song recommendations, listening exercises - you name it, it's probably on Moodle.

Textbook: Kontakte 8th Edition

Lecturer(s): Dr Miriam Neigert, Tutor: Denise Hantel

Year & Semester/Trimester of completion: Semester 1, 2018

Difficulty: 3.5/5

Overall Rating: 4.5/5

Comments:

I really enjoyed this course! The course itself was quite organised - lecture slides go up a day or two before the lecture, and additional material is released pretty early which is quite helpful. The teaching staff were great. Any questions people had were answered and in general, the teaching style was super engaging. Intro German is also quite a small course (~90 people) which created a good learning environment because especially in the lectures, there aren't as many distractions and it's not as intimidating when speaking German in class! I was also really fortunate to have been in a small tutorial.

As for the assessments, my goodness the portfolios dragged on. The first one was fun, but the second time it came around... there was already one too many portfolios. The tests were all okay - just your standard language exams.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: blasonduo on June 25, 2018, 11:12:36 pm
Subject Code/Name: EDST1108-Indigenous Perspectives in Education

Contact Hours: a 2-hour lecture and a 1-hour tutorial each week, + a compulsory cultural walk mid-semester. 80% attendance is required to pass the course.

Assumed Knowledge: None (A mark of 80+ in HSC English recommended).

Assessment:  1500 word Teacher ‘standpoint’ statement (45%), 5-minute video + 1500 word film justification on support teaching and learning (55%) All assessments must be passed to pass the course.

Lecture Recordings?  Yes (but weirdly still needed to attend :/ )

Notes/Materials Available: None - The education Society did hold sessions where they explained how to complete the assignments.

Textbook: Phillips, J. & Lampert, J. (2012). Introductory Indigenous studies in education (2nd Ed.). This is NOT needed unless you are aiming for 70+ marks. Tutorials do base some content off the textbook, but nothing googling can't solve.

Lecturer(s): Lecturer: Dr Greg Vass, Tutor: Katherine Thompson

Year & Semester of completion: 2018 Semester 1

Difficulty: 3.7/5

Overall Rating:  2.4/5

Your Mark/Grade: 58 PS

Comments:

 This is a difficult course, the fail rate is high, and this is only because you do not get told what you need to do for the assignments, you are left in the dark. As for the content itself, it's not difficult, only implementing it in a resourceful way in the future, makes it difficult.

Apart from the vagueness in the assessments, most of the time, they would answer questions on the forum. Out of the 56 different questions, 52 were responded to by staff. The feedback in the assessments was impeccable, the critique and feedback were extremely useful, and it was shown that extra time was utilised to help us as much as possible.

The lectures were very repetitive imo, although the content was different, it continuously directed onto the same couple of points. The lecturer was very slow and monotone, it took forever for him to convey a certain point. I feel like the lectures could've been done by week 5.

The tutorials normally consisted of one whole big discussion where some students would always be the ones to share their opinions, rarely you are forced to comment, and that is terrifying :) The tutorials were normally based on set readings and the textbook, but going to the tutes without reading them does not affect anything.

The assessments, sadly were just the most mind-numbing frustrating thing, you have to be very particular and careful in which you are trying to convey, which was very difficult to do. It felt very repetitive, and you feel like you've done everything wrong. The 5-minute video that was required was just terrible (but better than a speech I guess haha).

Although much harder than the 1104 equivalent, this course was much more helpful and organised, which was really great.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: fantasticbeasts3 on June 25, 2018, 11:16:32 pm
Subject Code/Name: ARTS1090 - Media, Culture and Everyday Life

Contact Hours: 3 - 1.5 hour lecture, 1.5 hour tutorial

Assumed Knowledge: None

Assessment: Concept reflection (20%), annotated bibliography (20%), literature review (30%), final exam (30%)

Lecture Recordings? Yes

Notes/Materials Available: Yes - there was a bit of guidance for the assessments

Textbook: Media, Culture and Everyday Life

Lecturer(s): Scott Shaner, Tutor: Heather Ford

Year & Semester/Trimester of completion: Semester 1, 2018

Difficulty: 2.5/5

Overall Rating: 1/5

Comments:

This course was such a bore especially when compared to my other ones this semester. I dreaded going to the tutorials, and never went to the lectures, choosing to watch them online instead. The course wasn't hard; like the concepts aren't hard to grasp but some of the readings were quite complex. As for the textbook, buy second hand if you can! Some of the readings are from there but most aren't so it's not worth it to buy brand new.

Usually Media/Communications subjects don't have exams, and this one did which was really strange. The assessments were okay - they weren't hard, but they were very annoying to do and I don't think there was enough guidance, especially because most people who did ARTS1090 were first-years who had no idea what a concept reflection, annotated bibliography or literature review was, let alone how to write one. I was really fortunate to have had a great tutor who was super helpful with the assessments and the readings.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: fantasticbeasts3 on June 25, 2018, 11:36:20 pm
Subject Code/Name: INST1005 - Key Debates in International Studies

Contact Hours: 3 - 2 hour lecture, 1 hour tutorial

Assumed Knowledge: None, but if I'm not mistaken you have to be enrolled in B International Studies to take this course

Assessment: Weekly tutorial presentations (25%), essay (25%), final exam (50%)

Lecture Recordings? Yes

Notes/Materials Available: Extra readings every week, sometimes extra video content, assessment guide

Textbook: None

Lecturer(s): Anne Bartlett, Tutor: James Dhizaala

Year & Semester/Trimester of completion: Semester 1, 2018

Difficulty: 3.5/5

Overall Rating: 3/5

Comments:

This course was actually quite interesting. It's really hard to describe but it's mostly theories which are then applied to current world issues. I think the course tried to introduce a practical aspect to International Studies through the tute presentations which had a different topic each week relating to the lecture. However, one thing I didn't like about the tute presentations was the lack of feedback given, which was pretty much none. Marks really varied across different tutorials, and standards weren't consistent at all which was a pain. There weren't any comments with the marks either. This was the same with the essay, which we had hardly any guidance for. As for the final exam, there was always an air of mystery around it because we had no idea how it would be structured, yet it was weighted 50%. Despite this, a list of key terms from each week was provided for exam prep.

This course also had a lot of reading, but it wasn't really necessary because they were always summarised in the lectures. The lectures were very engaging and there was always a lot of room for discussion which was great. As for the tutorials, I didn't really like them because although we had the tute presentations, those took up a lot of the allocated hour, and an hour was definitely not enough to cover everything that could be discussed, especially with the readings - if there were questions, you couldn't have them answered in the tutorials.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: fantasticbeasts3 on June 25, 2018, 11:50:17 pm
Subject Code/Name: MDIA1002 - Media Industry Contexts

Contact Hours: 2.5 - 1 hour lecture, 1.5 hour tutorial

Assumed Knowledge: None, although if I'm not mistaken you have to be enrolled in B Media (Comms/Journalism or PR/Advertising) to do this course.

Assessment: 10x tute prep tasks (20%), multiple choice quiz (20%), 2x professional writing tasks (60%)

Lecture Recordings? Yes

Notes/Materials Available: Extra readings

Textbook: Media and Journalism: New Approaches to Theory and Practice

Lecturer(s): Louise Ravelli, Tutor: Diane Nazaroff

Year & Semester/Trimester of completion: Semester 1, 2018

Difficulty: 2/5

Overall Rating: 3/5

Comments:

Out of the two Media courses I completed this semester, this one was way more enjoyable. It definitely related more to actual Media rather than just a ton of theory so I didn't feel like I was wasting money.

The lectures were pretty much just the lecturer reading off the slides, so they were easy enough to skip and you could do alright just by reading the slides provided. The tutorials were much better - my tutor explained concepts in more depth than the lecture and especially with writing, gave detailed feedback on the tute prep tasks and assessments both in class and comments on the actual assessments.

In terms of assessment, marking was fair. The minimum requirement for the tute prep tasks were that you completed 6 in order to pass that component (and I think the course as well) and as long as you did them and it looked like you put effort into them, you got 100%. They were also quite simple to complete which didn't make them a huge burden. The MC quiz was okay, but there wasn't any content for preparation which was inconvenient because you didn't know how questions could be asked, and this semester there were two questions worth four marks at the end of the quiz which was strange. As for the professional writing tasks, you could choose to do either a news article or press release because the course is for both journalism and PR students. In my opinion, they were marked fairly and there was a lot of feedback which was helpful.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: katie,rinos on June 26, 2018, 11:14:19 pm
Subject Code/Name: MUSC1602-Materials and Structures of Music 1 Harmony Tute Stream.

Contact Hours:  1hr Lecture, 1hr Studio, 1hr Tute per week.

Assumed Knowledge: Basic knowledge of music theory, Recommended (but not needed) to have completed AMEB Musicianship grades (possibly grade 5 level?).

Assessment:
I found that there were a lot of assesments in this course compared to some of my others.
Portfolio of Harmony & Composition Exercises: In-class test during lecture (2 worth 15% each), Written Composition Assesment (20%).You must receive 50% or higher in this part to pass the course.

Portfolio of Harmony exercises/melodic dictation exercises: In-class quiz during tute (10%), Take-home exam (15%), two melodic dictation exercises held during the last two weeks (5% each)

Auralia test and progress: Student progress during Auralia exercises (5%), On-line Auralia test (10%)

Lecture Recordings? No :(

Notes/Materials Available: Some examples of music to analyze as well as definitions of non-harmonic tones. We also had to buy a program called Auralia for aural training. I didn’t find there was a lot of examples of excerpts to practise to prepare for the tests in the lectures: the lecturer expected that we could find pieces to use online.

Textbook: The musician’s guide to theory and analysis. It was really expensive so I brought it secondhand, however I think it can be used for all four M&S courses. The textbook did really help explain some of the more difficult concepts.

Lecturer(s): John Peterson: Lecturer, Brad Taylor-Newling: Harmony Tutor, David Taylor: Aural Studio Tutor

Year & Semester/Trimester of completion: 2018, 1

Difficulty: 4/5 (but would definitely depend on your prior knowledge of music theory)

Overall Rating:  2.5/5

Comments:
As someone who didn’t really have a lot of music theory or knowledge of piano chords going into this course I struggled at times and found the beginning of the course a bit difficult. The classes were also a little bit boring sometimes, which didn’t help. However, towards the end of the semester, I realized how much I had learnt and improved in analyzing music and chords.

The course is loosely split into three different parts: the harmony lecture, tute and aural studio.

The harmony lecture went for an hour a week and was unrecorded (which was annoying as I wasn’t able to listen to parts that I hadn’t understood during the lectures). During the lectures, we covered topics such as triads/chords, inversions, dominant 7ths, non-harmonic tones, & cadences. The lecturer worked on a whiteboard and moved fairly fast each week which would have been difficult to catch up if you had missed a class. He didn’t really make sure everybody understood a concept before moving on (which was difficult as everybody had a different level of theory knowledge going into the course). He picked on people to answer questions about chords which was terrifying as I wasn’t very confident. I found the two tests during the lectures to be fairly difficult, especially with the 50 minutes time limit. However, we did have some help/guidance with the composition assessment.

The harmony tute (which was the stream for people who weren’t at a high level of theory) mainly went over content that was covered in the lectures. It was a small class (around 10 people) and Brad was really helpful in trying to make sure we all understood the concepts and we were able to ask heaps of questions. The harmony tests and what we needed to study for them were both explained very well and were some of my best marks.

The aural studio was with everyone in the course (around 70 people) and began to teach us basic singing. We began just learning simple warm ups and then progressed to four-part harmony pieces in smaller groups. This felt weird at first because I’d never sung before, however was really fun, learning how to sing in four-part harmony especially with our last song ‘Chasing Cars’.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: RuiAce on July 02, 2018, 02:18:46 pm
Subject Code/Name: MATH3611 - Higher Analysis
Equivalent postgraduate variant: MATH5705 - Modern Analysis

Contact Hours: 3 x 1 hr lectures, 1 hr tutorial

Assumed Knowledge: Formal prerequisite involves 12 UoC of Level 2 mathematics courses, one of which must be (MATH2111 or MATH2011(CR)). Essentially, first year calculus and MATH2111 concepts are assumed knowledge. MATH2701 gives you useful skills to make this course easier, but is not required.

Assessment: 
- 3 x Short assignments, each 10%
- Main assignment, 20%
- Final exam, 50%

Lecture Recordings? No

Notes/Materials Available: The lecture notes and the past papers provided are generally all you need. Some other past papers may be floating around if you look hard enough.

Textbook: A.N. Kolmogorov and S.V. Fomin: Introductory Real Analysis (Dover, 1970; Call number: P517.5/125). All content is taken out of this textbook, but it's really unnecessary; the notes are enough

Lecturer(s): Dr. Pinhas Grossman

Year & Semester/Trimester of completion: 18 s1

Difficulty: 3.5/5

Overall Rating: 4/5 

Your Mark/Grade: 85 HD

Comments:
This course is one of the core courses for a major in Pure Mathematics.

Analysis generalises the concepts of limits, continuity and all of the basic stuff taken for granted in calculus. It goes into the theory of all such concepts, and expands their applications into not just involving what you see IRL, such as numbers and vectors. Analytic tools can appear less rigid; the whole notion of limits is not something that's really observed and requires us to believe in some kind of 'extension' on what we can actually see.

Personally, I find it works better with my brain. Especially after losing it with algebra, I needed some kind of pure maths left in my soul. I found that I was alright with constructing counter-examples a lot and didn't have too much figuring out the proof, but probably lacked the ability to write it out properly at times. More or less accepting this grade whilst biting my teeth because hey, an HD is an HD, but I would've much preferred a 90+.

Some analysis proofs are pretty long, whereas others are no-brainers. A part of the skill in this course is spot what you can do easily and then come back to the hard stuff later. Finding examples and counterexamples is pretty common stuff. Perhaps the other thing I'd say is that you really want to know all of your definitions and theorems. Because I've found that with analysis proofs, bashing definitions and theorems is quite a fair bit of what you do.

There's a mix of hard and soft analysis in this course, but I think there's slightly more soft analysis; epsilons were everywhere but still a fair bit of the course involved topological spaces and compactness.

(The course outline isn't really accurate in my year; the course content was somewhat cut down. Quite grateful to Pinhas for it; I had a better understanding of what was examinable as a result of it.)
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: RuiAce on July 02, 2018, 02:39:42 pm
Subject Code/Name: MATH5505 - Combinatorics

Contact Hours: 3 hours of lecture per week (1 x 2hr, 1 x 1hr)

Assumed Knowledge: Formal prerequisite is 24 UoC of Level 3 mathematics courses, but it can be wavered by permission from the lecturer. Having said that, MATH1081 is seriously strongly recommended as this course builds directly on it. MATH5425 is a recommended co-requisite.

Assessment:
- 3 x Assignments - 20%
- Open-book final exam - 40%

Lecture Recordings? Yes

Notes/Materials Available: Lecture notes and lecture slides released. (Also Facebook group.) Although no past papers

Textbook: N/A

Lecturer(s): Dr. Thomas Britz

Year & Semester/Trimester of completion: 18 s1

Difficulty: 4/5 (somewhat skewed - its difficulty could be as low as 1/5 for an actual honours/postgrad student)

Overall Rating: 4.5/5

Your Mark/Grade: 88 HD

Comments:
This is one of many courses offered in postgraduate pure mathematics studies and is typically offered once every 2 years.

Combinatorics is, from what I've been able to see, quite a unique and beautiful part of maths. Questions like "how many ways can we do something" and "what is the least/most amount of things we require for something" can seem quite elementary, but in practice actually requires deep thought. Yet these thoughts can be turned into seriously amazing proofs and results. It also helped me think algorithmically, which is good because I'm now in computer science.

I took on a gamble and subbed out one of my 3rd year electives for this postgrad course. The fact that I still came out with HD despite being carried the entire semester makes me pretty satisfied with it.

The course is taught somewhat differently to most traditional teaching methods. Lectures are more or less used to present amazing (although mindnumbing) proofs of pretty challenging results. The course's difficulty goes down as the semester progresses (the hard stuff is blasted out of the way first). No tutorials and problem sets are released; your thinking during the semester is mostly through the assignments. Assignments involve very proof-based questions and challenge you quite heavily, although sometimes you can do some research and then source a solution you found online. Final exam was very fair; half of it involves essentially free marks whilst the other half are somewhat lighter difficulty proofs. I couldn't get out every question on the exam but I found I was able to get at least halfway with almost all of them.

Thomas Britz was my supervisor for my summer research project, and also the lecturer for this course. As always, he's one of the nicest lecturers in arguably the entire university. Won't talk too much about why here though ;)

This is perhaps the most theoretical course I've done at uni so far. Definitely challenged me a lot more than what I ever had thus far. Which is to be expected for a postgrad level course really, but it was ultimately a fun one.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: Opengangs on July 02, 2018, 03:08:44 pm
Subject Code/Name: MATH1131 - Mathematics 1A

Contact Hours:
Lectures: Two 2 hour lectures per week; each lecture is split an hour each between Linear Algebra and Calculus.
Tutorials: One 1 hour tutorial per week, starting from the second week of semester.

Assumed Knowledge: A combined mark of 100 across both, Mathematics and Mathematics (Extension 1)

Assessment:
Class tests: Done twice in the semester; each class test is 45 minutes long on the timetabled class "Tut 1/2". They consist of both, Linear Algebra (25 minutes) and Calculus (20 minutes).
Maple lab test: Done once in the semester; you will just need your ID card.
Weekly online tutorials: Done each week through Maple TA. There is the theory component and then the Maple component at the end of each tutorial.

Lecture Recordings?  Yes.

Notes/Materials Available: The course packs are available in the book shop; I believe they're $40, which consists of the Linear Algebra and Calculus notes, as well as a past paper booklet. Alternatively, they can also be found digitally on Moodle for download.

Textbook: N/A

Lecturer(s):
Calculus: Dr. Christopher Angstmann
Linear Algebra: Dr. Daniel Mansfield.

Year & Semester/Trimester of completion: 2018, semester 1

Difficulty: 3/5

Overall Rating: 3.5/5

Your Mark/Grade: 76 (DN)

Comments:
Overall, most of the content can be done with 3U knowledge. MATH1131 started off quite nicely, introducing concepts that has been taught at high school level. However, it becomes apparent that new content can be quite difficult to grasp for many students (ie. formal definition of a limit, fundamental theorem of Calculus), and so extra support may be needed (which is provided through tutorials and the drop in centre).

Content-wise, nothing was too hard to understand conceptually, but applying these ideas to the questions can be quite difficult. And this was evident in the finals, which was seemingly more difficult than the previous years (at least for me). Definitely was a step up from high school, but if you have a good grasp and foundation at high school level, you should be okay with this course.

This is also a prerequisite for most engineering courses, and is a prerequisite for MATH1231.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: RuiAce on July 09, 2018, 09:57:38 pm
Subject Code/Name: COMP2521 - Data Structures and Algorithms

Contact Hours: 3 hours of lecture, 1 hour tutorial followed by 2 hours laboratory

Assumed Knowledge: COMP1511 is the sole prerequisite and is sufficient for this course.

Assessment: A bit complicated. Involves labs, assignments, prac exams and final exam.
Calculation
labs = mark for lab exercises (out of 5)
pracLabs = mark totalled over both lab exams (out of 12)
ass1 = mark for first assignment (out of 9)
ass2 = mark for second assignment (out of 14)

Finals:
finalPracExam = mark for practical component of finals (out of 36)
finalTheoExam = mark for theory component of finals (out of 24)

To pass the course, either one of the following two must be satisfied (similar to a double-pass criteria):
- finalPracExam >= 26
- finalPracExam >= 18 AND pracLabs >= 6

Calculation of mark:
assMarks = ass1 + ass2

// Convert marks into percentages:
assPerc = assMarks as a percentage
pracPerc = practical component of exam as a percentage

// Adjusts assMarks only if necessary:
if (assPerc > pracPerc) {
     adjusted_assPerc = (2 * assPerc * pracPerc)  / (assPerc + pracPerc)
    assignmentMarks  = 23 * (adjusted_assPerc / 100)
}

Then, the final mark is the sum:
marks + assignmentMarks + pracLabs + finalPracExam + finalTheoExam
The idea is that if you lose too many marks in the practical component of your final exams, your assignment marks get dragged down. The factor is in accordance to the harmonic mean (with appropriate weightings)

Lecture Recordings? Yes

Notes/Materials Available: Lecture notes, lab exercises, tutorial exercises all uploaded to webcms3.

Textbook:
- Algorithms in C, Parts 1-4: Fundamentals, Data Structures, Sorting, Searching (3rd Edition)  by Robert Sedgewick, Addison-Wesley
- Algorithms in C, Part 5: Graph Algorithms (3rd Edition)  by Robert Sedgewick, Addison Wesley
Both are VERY good, but not needed for this course.

Lecturer(s): Dr. Ashesh Mahidadia

Year & Semester/Trimester of completion: 18 s1

Difficulty: 2/5

Overall Rating: 3.5/5

Your Mark/Grade: 85 HD

Comments:
This course is one of the immediate continuations of COMP1511. It replaced COMP1927. UNSW CSE recommends taking it in second year, however there really is no problem taking it in the second semester of first year. It is a prerequisite to almost all future computer science courses.

The disappointing amount of marks I threw away in the final exam killed a bit for me. It's really my own fault and the course ain't to blame for it, but it does skew my rating quite far away from what it should've been.

Algorithms are perhaps the most fundamental tool computer science students use. The study of algorithms involves trying to solve problems as efficiently as possible and also create the program to do so. On one hand, you need to understand how the algorithm works, but then on the other hand you need to know (or figure out) how to implement it. They're quite fun to explore when you sit down and attempt to understand it.

This course serves as the introduction to algorithms, with two areas of focus: sorting and graphs. Sorting is quite self explanatory, but I think this video helps introduce the fun behind it all. The graph structure forms the basis for shit tons of stuff we do (it becomes clear that even Facebook is essentially just a huge graph). It leaves you with pretty much all the basic needs for you to get a job as a computer scientist, and you really should never forget what you learn in this course. It's just that important.

At times, I found some of the lab exercises and assignments quite draining. The only thing that bugged me was that occasionally, our tasks weren't clear enough with what we had to do.

I feel like the rumours that maths helps computer science starts here. My mathematical background certainly simplified a lot of bizarre algorithms for me a lot. But I don't think they're necessary though. At the end of the day, the algorithms are backed by logic, and that's a skill any computer scientist must have.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: blasonduo on July 10, 2018, 06:17:09 pm
Subject Code/Name: PHYS1121 - Physics 1A

Contact Hours: 3x 1-hour lecture, a 2-hour laboratory and a 1-hour problem-solving workshop each week.

Assumed Knowledge:  HSC Physics and Mathematics Extension 1 or equivalent. (however, in my opinion, math 2u is just fine)

Assessment:
10x weekly laboratory excersises (15%, 1.5% each)
10x weekly pre-laboratory online quizzes (5%, 0.5% each)
6x fortnightly online quizzes (10%, 1.67% each)
2x invigilated quizzes based on the fortnightly questions (20%, 10% each)
Final exam (50%)

Lecture Recordings?  Yes (but the blackboards weren't so it made it difficult to rewatch)

Notes/Materials Available: A really well made online set of videos based on the content, weekly homework question booklet.

Textbook: Halliday, D., Resnick, R., & Walker, J. (2014). Fundamentals of Physics, John Wiley & Sons. A really good textbook, but with the content this course provides, it isn't needed.

Lecturer(s): Lecturers: Dr Dimi Culcer (first half), Dr Elizabeth Angstmann (second half)

Year & Semester of completion: 2018 Semester 1

Difficulty: 3.3/5

Overall Rating:  4.7/5

Your Mark/Grade: 78 DN

Comments:

This is a really great course.

First off, this course mainly consists of mathematical questions, a vast contrast to HSC physics. This course has online videos which go over all the content in the course; they are short, succinct and very informative. They are also integrated into non-assessable quizzes which allows you to recognise if you have understood the concept. These videos are very entertaining and engaging, and a really great idea that I think should be used more often in other courses.

Out of the 687 different questions asked on the forums, 680 were answered by staff (most within 12 hours), which is absolutely amazing, the staff have really been on their toes. The forums also included weekly updates on the content that will be taught, and what we are expected to do in this week, which was really nice.

For the content itself, it really isn't that complicated, both the thermal and wave/oscillations topics are both pretty standard, the questions are all very similar, and the content itself isn't that difficult to understand. However, the difficulty does come with the mechanics side of the course. It at times is conceptually difficult to grasp, and the questions that come out of it can be almost anything, and at times, very difficult to understand. The mechanics questions are the ones that normally trip most people up in the final exam.

The lectures were great, it had a good balance between the concepts and questions, and it included regular practicals/demonstrations that were actually really cool, and probably the highlight for me. It was these demonstrations that will allowed me to think back and analyse my answers in exams to see if I got the expected result.

As for the lecturers, Dr Culcer was really great at showing applications to the concepts and completed questions at the end in a clear manner which was great. However, when explaining concepts, he does "blabber" on and it can get very easy to lose track on what he was saying which made it quite difficult to catch up in the lecture.
Dr Angstmann really had a lively environment and brought energy into the lectures, her explanations for the concepts were extremely clear, and had other resources to help. She was really engaging and really explored how fun physics is. However, the only complaint I had was the fact that we couldn't review what she was writing on the board, so it was difficult to revise. (luckily she had prerecorded ones anyway, but it would have been nice)

The workshops were quite nice and really empty, but I do emphasise the importance to at least look at the worksheets given out and to know how to answer them and to get the answers, these questions are like the final exam questions so if you don't understand a certain concept which they are covering in the workshop, go. These are in place to really help, and they do :)

When it comes to the assessments, it is really easy to get high marks and should be easy to receive a 40+/50 in the finals marks.

The labs, in my opinion, are really really really fun, they are just so fascinating, but are mostly simple. However, they are all assessable and are given about 2.5 hours of work to do in 1.8 hours, so if you don't know what you are doing walking in, you will not finish and lose marks. You are required to do this with a lab partner, so my recommendation is to find a good partner which you work well with and these marks are quite easy.

The fortnightly questions can be redone, and the highest mark counts, so this is really easy to get 100% (10% overall) I really liked these, it really allowed you to know what sections you were struggling with, this was the first year with these quizzes, so it did have many errors in it, but should fine fine in future years. Although the questions are more on the difficult side, you need to understand each question. Otherwise, you will struggle in the invigilated quizzes, and these are worth 20%. The invigilated quizzes are probably the only thing that I didn't enjoy in this course. They do consist of 4 question from the online quizzes, but the range of difficulty was large, some questions were incredibly difficult, while some were deadset easy. It felt a bit like chance where you were hoping you got the easy questions, because if you got a question which you found significantly difficult, you could say goodbye to 2.5% of your overall mark.

The final exam does not have any multiple choice but consists of questions such that it asks you to find certain properties (e.g. find the total work done) The exams normally don't have a consistent difficulty, and tends to spike occasionally, some of the questions are really enjoyable and really makes you think. The thing most people struggle with here is time, and most people struggle to even finish 80% of the exam and is the reason why I didn't achieve as high as I could've. You are also unable to double check your answers due to this time restraint.

I worry that this course may struggle in trimesters as the course worked out really well with the 14-ish weeks, it allowed for a consistent timetable that made it easier to know what was due, and also made it flow from one concept to another really easily.

Overall, this course was bloody good, it has been nurtured and the staff really really care about this course, it is clear that so much time and effort has been placed in this course to make it as prestigious as it is.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: HelpICantThinkOfAName on July 14, 2018, 09:32:04 pm
Subject Code/Name: BABS1201 - Molecules, Cells and Genes

Contact Hours:  2 x 1 hour lecture. 3 hour lab every other week

Assumed Knowledge: HSC Biology OR HSC Chemistry OR HSC Physics OR HSC Earth & Environmental Science

Assessment: 
2 x Mid Semester Exams (Completed Online) - 10% Each
Science Communication Project (Group Project) - 35%
5 x Mastering Biology Online Quizzes - 1% Each
Final Exam - 50%

Lecture Recordings?  Yes

Notes/Materials Available:  Lecture slides are available on Moodle. No past papers available, but questions are taken directly from Mastering Biology (An online version of the textbook). Course Manual is required for labs. It can be bought from the bookshop or printed from moodle.

Textbook: Urry et al. 2014. Campbell Biology. Mastering Biology has all the relevant information and is available for free in moodle. Don't bother buying the textbook.

Lecturer(s):
Rebecca LeBard, Anne Galea, John Wilson

Year & Semester/Trimester of completion: 2018 Semester 1

Difficulty: 2/5

Overall Rating:  4/5

Your Mark/Grade: 76 DN

Comments:
This course is fairly straightforward and enjoyable. The first few weeks are the only real difficult part of the course, where you are introduced to dozens of new terms to describe cells and cell function that you need to memorise. If you are able to overcome this then the rest of the course falls into place and it becomes easy to get a respectable mark.

Mastering Biology is the online component of the textbook. It has a dedicated study area where you can test yourself using multiple choice questions and flashcards. Lots of questions for the mid semester exams and the final exams are taken directly from the study area.

The group project serves as an interesting introduction to university presentations. You are assigned a group in your first lab and choose a topic from a list given in the course manual. You first write an individual essay analysing sources relating to your topic, a primary research article and a secondary review article and relate them to the course content. You then are tasked with making an educational presentation to your lab, due in the final lab. At first the group project seems like a waste of time, but it helps legitimise the content you have learnt in your lectures by linking the content to real world research.

The labs are the opposite of physics labs. Instead of having too much work to do, it often feels like they are taking a 1.5 hour lab and stretching it out to a 3 hour long lab. By the end of the lab you are exhausted and want to lie down. The labs are not marked, but content from the labs does appear on the final exam, and the group project primarily takes place in the lab.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: Brun on July 21, 2018, 04:08:21 pm
ECON1101 (Microeconomics
Ease: 8.5/10 - This is supposed to be the easiest core commerce subject. 20% of the marks come from simply completing the Playconomics game (however, the game was really riddled with bugs and server crashes, and I found the game didn't really relate to the content we learnt and was not useful). The two tutorial tests can be quite difficult due to the strict marking criteria. The finals is multiple choice but can have some difficult questions.
Lecturer: 8/10 - Alberto was an engaging lecturer and explained most concepts well.
Interest: 8/10 - Interesting to learn about introduction to basic economics.

ECON1203 (Business and Economics Statistics)
Ease: 5/10 - This is considered by many to be the most difficult core commerce subject. There is an overwhelming amount of new content every lecture and many new formulas to learn (only a fraction of these formulas are provided in exam). Lots of effort, with fortnightly quizzes, a project, a week 11 exam and finals. Make sure to go to the PASS classes - they are really helpful for revising content.
Lecturer: 6/10 - Lecturers weren't the best at explaining difficult concepts.
Interest: 6/10 - Kind of interesting learning how businesses use stats, but mostly not that great.

ACCT1501 (Accounting & Financial Management 1A
Ease: 8/10 - Not too bad, but there is quite a bit of new content to learn if you've never done accounting before.
Lecturer: 7/10 - A mixed bag, with some good some mediocre lecturers due to rotation system.
Interest: 7/10 - Many find accounting boring, but it is kinda interesting learning how a business records all its transactions. Good intro to accounting.

LAWS1052 (Introducing Law and Justice)
Ease: 6/10 - Most law students found the course overwhelming due to how much you are expected to learn and do for a first law course. The court report and case note were tough to score highly in. If you are well prepared for the final exam, with good notes and learned the relevant skills, you should be alright.
Lecturer: 10/10 - Jennifer Moore was a really engaging and funny lecturer. She is always so infectious in her enthusiasm for the subject.
Interest: 7/10 - Detailed intro to law but a bit too much history for me.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: katie,rinos on November 01, 2018, 11:11:08 am
Subject Code/Name: MUSC1604-Western Music: A Panorama

Contact Hours: 2 hr lecture & 1hr tute per week

Assumed Knowledge: Nil

Assessment:  Listening tests (10% wk 4, 25% wk 12), Lecture material tests (10% wk 4, 25% wk 12), Tutorial presentation (5% presentation, 10% executive summary), Tutorial participation (10%)

Lecture Recordings?Yes (however 80% attendance is required).

Notes/Materials Available: No, apart from the online listening list

Textbook: A history of Western Music by Burkholder, Grout and Palisca. This was really helpful for the presentation/executive summary but I’d definitely suggest to borrow it from the library.
The Oxford History of Western Music-Taruskin (available as ebook/online from the library)

Lecturer(s): Emery Schubert

Year & Semester/Trimester of completion: 2018, 2

Difficulty: 3.5/5

Overall Rating:  4/5

Your Mark/Grade: 68CR

Comments:
I found the lectures rally interesting and a great overview of Western music. In the lectures we looked at the Renaissance, Baroque, 18th C, Bethoven, Romanticism, Wagner/Verdi and the 20th Century.

Both the listening and lecture tests were completed through moodle and were either multiple choice or drop drop options.
   Listening tests: The 1st listening test in week 4 had 9 pieces and went for 10 minutes while the 2nd in week 12 had around 40 pieces and went for 20 minutes. For the listening tests, you can’t leave studying to the last minute because it’s something that needs a lot of time to go well. To study, I would make a Spotify playlist of all the pieces and then listen to it so I would be able to recognise them. I also had a table that included details such as the piece’s title, composer, era/date, genre, instrumentation and stylistic features.
   Lecture tests: The 1st test in wk 4 went for 30 minutes, while the one in wk 12 went for 40min. For the lecture tests it is expected that you are reading external resources such as the textbooks to get a higher mark. There were questions in these tests that weren’t covered in the lectures but were in these textbooks.

For our tutorial presentations, we were each given a piece to research (composer/historical background, technical aspects of piece) and make a 500-word executive summary about it. We needed to do a 5-minute presentation in class on the piece and had to be prepared to answer any questions our class may have about it. Each week, we had about 3 people do their presentations. There was a large focus on the use of scholarly sources and correct referencing throughout the tutes.

Tutorial participation marks were worth 10% and based on both talking in class and in the online moodle forum. We were meant to ask questions/clarify definitions after people’s presentations in class, or add extra information through moodle. I think I did 3-4, 200 word moodle posts and I got 90% so it wasn’t too bad. I also found that the communication on moodle was very good and all questions were answered quickly.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: fantasticbeasts3 on November 04, 2018, 05:47:38 pm
Subject Code/Name: MDIA1003 - PR & Advertising Foundations

Contact Hours: 3 - 1.5 hour lecture, 1.5 hour tutorial

Assumed Knowledge: None, but to do the course you have to enrolled in a Media degree

Assessment: Campaign Analysis (20%), 1000 word essay (35%), Client Pitch [45% - Part A (10%), which was a group pitch and Part B (35%), your individual pitch which is ~2500 words]

Lecture Recordings? Yes

Notes/Materials Available: All on Moodle

Textbook: None

Lecturer(s): Lecturer - Dr Michael Richardson, Tutor: Dr Jonathan Foye

Year & Semester/Trimester of completion: Semester 2, 2018

Difficulty: 2.5/5

Overall Rating: 4/5

Comments:
I really enjoyed this course. It went into a lot more depth and was infinitely more interesting than MDIA1002 and a great overview for PR/Advertising. The lectures were quite interactive but you don't miss out on much if you don't go, but if you do, you don't have to do the readings because they're summarised in the lectures.

However, if there's one thing that's not fair about this course is marking which I don't think had specific guidelines to ensure equality across tutors. Some tutors marked a lot more leniently than others. To put things into perspective, my friend had a more lenient tutor and got 80+ in all her assessments, and another friend had a different tutor and was lucky to get a 70; and they both put in a similar amount of effort for their assessments. This was very common across the cohort.

In saying that, half the assessments are group work. You don't get to pick for the Campaign Analysis, but for the Group Client Pitch you do. Make sure you're prepared at least two days before the assessment dates so you're not pulling everything together at the last minute. The final assessment (Individual client pitch) isn't explained very well so ask lots of questions!!
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: fantasticbeasts3 on November 04, 2018, 05:59:09 pm
Subject Code/Name: ARTS1511 - Introductory German B

Contact Hours: 5 - 2 hour lecture, 1 hour tutorial, 2 hour tutorial

Assumed Knowledge: A1 level of German at the European Framework for Languages or equivalent

Assessment: 3x Portfolios (45%), 3x tests (55%, writing and speaking)

Lecture Recordings? Yes

Notes/Materials Available: Extra resources on Moodle

Textbook: Kontakte 8th Edition, Tschirner

Lecturer(s): Lecturer/Tutor - Silke Schoppe

Year & Semester/Trimester of completion: Semester 2, 2018

Difficulty: 3.5/5

Overall Rating: 3.5/5

Comments:
Compared to Intro A, Intro B wasn't as good. I came out of Intro A having done really enjoyed the course and doing well, and Intro B flipped everything.
 
While I still find studying German very interesting, the concepts were harder this semester and I found it more difficult to go out of my way and actually practice. Frau Schoppe is new to UNSW and it took a while for her to get into the swing of things, but as the semester progressed, I did find German getting better. Poor timetabling is part of what made me not so happy about the course because on a Monday morning I had the 2 hour lecture and then the 1 hour tutorial straight after.

However, I definitely felt a sense of accomplishment after completing this course because the concepts taught tie up a lot of loose ends from Intro A. I feel like I can actually write a decent sentence without consulting Google Translate after this semester :-)
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: fantasticbeasts3 on November 04, 2018, 06:17:35 pm
Subject Code/Name: ARTS1091 - Media, Society, Politics

Contact Hours: 3 - 1.5 hour lecture, 1.5 hour tutorial

Assumed Knowledge: None

Assessment: 1000 word essay (20%), Discussion Paper (30%), Research Portfolio (50%)

Lecture Recordings? Yes

Notes/Materials Available: All on Moodle

Textbook: None

Lecturer(s): Lecturer - Dr Collin Chua, Tutor - Dr James Dutton

Year & Semester/Trimester of completion: Semester 2, 2018

Difficulty: 3/5

Overall Rating: 3/5

Comments:
This course wasn't as bad as ARTS1090, but it wasn't amazing either. It seemed very promising at first, but gradually it gets so tedious -- especially the assessments.

I'll start wth the content: I will give points to the lectures and content in general for trying to be relevant with the 21st century, but that's about it. The discussion in tutorials could be quite interesting and it provoked deeper thought on current issues in relation to media consumption and activity based around it. On the other hand, the assessments were awful. There's nothing else to say about them but tedious and boring and I hated every second of the assessments. The good thing is instructions are clear but the actual act of writing them wasn't enjoyable whatsoever.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: fantasticbeasts3 on November 04, 2018, 06:36:10 pm
Subject Code/Name: INST1006 - The World in Transition

Contact Hours: 3 - 2 hour lecture, 1 hour tutorial

Assumed Knowledge: None, but you do need to be enrolled in B International Studies

Assessment: 2x essays (60%), mid-term (30%), group presentation (10%)

Lecture Recordings? Yes

Notes/Materials Available: All on Moodle

Textbook: None

Lecturer(s): Lecturer - Dr Emma Christopher, Tutor - Dr James Dhizaala

Year & Semester/Trimester of completion: Semester 2, 2018

Difficulty: 3/5

Overall Rating: 2.5/5

Comments:
This course was so promising. The content is really interesting but the execution was terrible. As a history lover, looking at historical events and seeng how they shaped the world today was very fascinating and the course provided me with a better understanding of different perspectives regarding the world today and how history (and more specifically, colonialism) impacts current events. The course is structured like this: colonial theories are taught in the first few weeks and then there are case studies based on the continents of the world for the rest. Sometimes there were guest lecturers who were experts on certain topics and they were amazing.

What I didn't like, rather, despised were the tutorials and assessments.

I'll start with the tutorials. The tutorials required students, who in groups of 2 were to create a presentation on the lecture and readings from the week prior. What was so annoying about this was these presentations weren't assessed and it took so much time to make them. For some people, they didn't do readings in certain weeks because they didn't want to focus on that specific region of the world for their essays which makes sense, because some of them were ridiculously long (one week had over 150 pages). The tutor just sat at his desk and didn't really foster discussion later and didn't clarify questions on the readings because most of the time students tried to understand the readings but didn't really get them.

The assessments are another story. The mid-term was fine because it was straightforward, but the hand-in tasks... my goodness. Both essays had such vague instructions to "encourage discussion", "room to move", and "creative arguments" to the point where no one knew what they were doing. The essays were framed as totally different tasks, but upon reflection they were so similar I felt like I spent 4500 words repeating myself. The marking is another story in itself, which was very inconsistent (we didn't have marking criteria) and were told what was right or wrong after we had submitted the essays -- and apparently the vague instructions were supposed to allow us to form unique arguments and discuss different things? The group presentation was fine, however, the feedback across different groups contradicted each other.

I'll give points to the content, which speaks for itself because it's super interesting and I liked the guest lecturer thing, but the assessments and marking were awful.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: katie,rinos on November 08, 2018, 10:12:22 am
Subject Code/Name: MUSC1704-Performance Lab 2

Contact Hours:
2 hr lecture/masterclass:wks 1,4,7,10,13
2 hr studio:wks 2,5,8,11
2 hr ensemble weekly

Assumed Knowledge: You must be enrolled in a music degree (Arts students can choose MUSC1706). I think you need to have done Performance Lab 1 as well.

Assessment:  Workshop demonstration (20%), Ensemble contribution/part checking (20%), Performance critiques (choose 2 of 5-5% each), Performance Exam (50%).

Lecture Recordings?  No

Notes/Materials Available:  Nil, however some small readings/Powerpoints for critiques.

Textbook: None

Lecturer(s): Laura Chislett

Year & Semester/Trimester of completion: 2018,2

Difficulty: 3.5

Overall Rating:  3.5

Your Mark/Grade: 69CR

Comments:
This course is changing next year for trimesters: each performance lab unit will be 12 uoc, and 1yr/3terms long from 2019. There may also be changes to the course structure/assessments.

This course was incredibly similar to performance lab 1 in terms of structure and assessments (however, we were expected to be at a slightly higher level than last semester). Therefore, I already knew the general structure, and expectation of our assessments and the marking.

However, I found the communication worst then last semester. There were heaps of times where I would email or ask the lecturer a question and she would either take ages to reply or would tell me to go and talk to the SAM office which was really frustrating.

The lectures were normally pretty interesting and it was a mix between masterclasses (Singing, performance anxiety, viola de gamba) and class performances (jazz & class concert). The critiques were 500 words each and we had a week to do each one (the questions were released either during/after the lectures). We had to do 2 questions out of the 5 lectures and each was worth 5%. The first two studio classes were intro performances, and the last two were the assessed performance workshops. The performance workshop was a 3-5 minute presentation where you had to play a piece and then talk about it (technical/interpretative issue).

Ensemble/Assessment: As part of the course, you must be a part of an ensemble and attend at least 80% of all weekly rehearsals, and the concert. There is a list of ensembles here. I was in wind symphony this year and it’s been really fun! The part checking assessment is in small groups 4-5 people, and you play through parts of the pieces from the concert.

Performance Exam: The performance exam is 20 minutes long and includes a study, pieces and sight reading. The course includes a subsidy for private lessons (10 lessons- $600). If you want to practise at uni make sure you book a room in advance because they can fill up very quickly.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: RuiAce on November 22, 2018, 11:01:05 pm
Subject Code/Name: MATH3701 - Higher Topology and Differential Geometry
Equivalent postgraduate variant: MATH5700 - Modern Differential Geometry and Topology

Contact Hours: 3 x 1 hours of lecture, 1 hour of tutorial

Assumed Knowledge: 12 UoC of Level 2 mathematics courses is required, but within that 12 UoC it is expected that 6 UoC comes from one of the following: MATH2111 or MATH2601 or MATH2011 CR or MATH2501 CR. However, I would recommend bare minimum DN in both MATH2111 and MATH2601, because whilst comparatively little linear algebra and calculus are used explicitly, a lot seems to get mentioned in passing.

MATH3611 or MATH3711 completed beforehand is highly recommended to understand the more abstract concepts, but not necessary.

Assessment: 30% Midsem Exam, 40% Assignment, 30% Finals Exam

Lecture Recordings? No

Notes/Materials Available: Handwritten notes. Have cons but the handwriting is very legible. A reasonably abundant supply of past papers is provided.

Textbook:
 - Topology (2nd Edition) by James Munkres - This one can be hard to read, but I've been reported that it's really useful.
 - Elementary Differential Geometry by Andrew Pressley - This one is awesome

Lecturer(s): Dr. Mircea Voineagu

Year & Semester/Trimester of completion: 18 s2

Difficulty: 4/5

Overall Rating: 2.5/5 

Your Mark/Grade: 89 HD Potentially subject to change, but if this comment is not edited out then assume no change was necessary

Comments:
Please be advised that this review is subject to becoming outdated immediately. The course structure in 19 t3 is expected to be different under the new lecturer.

This course is one of the core courses for a major in Pure Mathematics.

Topology is sort of a bridge between analysis and algebra - it uses concepts in both. Whilst its roots seem to stem from elementary set theory, it adds in various algebraic and analytic structures. It is of course, the field of maths that talks about the coffee cup and the donut. Whereas differential geometry is, as I like to summarise it simply, putting some kind of calculus (differential structure) on curves and surfaces that we already know of. (Although it does touch on manifolds, which generalises upon surfaces.)

I had a lot of trouble with this course throughout the semester. I found it difficult dealing with the fact that I had to forfeit any sense of mathematical rigour to understand the concepts, because many rigourously defined things were just too bizarre (although fortunately not examinable either). Eventually I relied heavily on two things - intuition and rote learning. Intuition can be helpful especially when dealing with topology because trying to formalise something built on algebraic topology can be hard, but being able to picture a loop or some shit in your head turns out to be sufficient most of the time. Same goes for certain aspects of differential geometry, most notably the basic definitions. On the other hand the rote learning was disappointing - I still don't fully understand Van Kampen's theorem or geodesics (or other unlisted stuff) yet. I've mostly been taking for granted how to use it.

I definitely do advise "intuition" as something to develop and utilise in this course. It pushed me through a fair lot of the course despite constantly being in agony over it.

What was certainly a bit of a shock was that this course had some very nasty computations. I wasn't expecting that for a level 3 pure mathematics course and it can get quite annoying, so that's something to keep in mind about. But other than that, the proofs in this course didn't require full detail (or so I felt). So long as you displayed some understanding of the concepts, something wishy-washy wasn't necessarily so bad it seems.

The teaching quality was something I was really uncomfortable about with this course. Occasionally concepts made sense, but at other times they were just skimmed with insufficient intuition. On the other hand things I found the consultations were a lot more life-saving (the 1-on-1 help helps a lot) and I am very thankful for both the 40% assignment and the generous marking across all tasks. I believe that the lecturer's personality should be praised.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: katie,rinos on November 23, 2018, 02:40:42 pm
Subject Code/Name: MUSC1603-Materials and Structures of Music 2

Contact Hours: 1hr lecture, 1hr aural tute, 1hr rhythm studio per week

Assumed Knowledge: MUSC1602-M&S1

Assessment: 
Harmony lectures: 2 in-class tests (wks 4 & 8, worth 20% each), Composition (20%). You must receive 50% or higher in this part to pass the course.
Auralia: Progress (checked twice during the sem, 5%), Test (wk 11, 10%)
Aural tute: Transcription (10%), Sight singing (5%)
Rhythm workshop: 2 in class tests and a Rhythm etude/exercise (10%)

Lecture Recordings?  No

Notes/Materials Available:  Some notes and practise exercises were available on moodle for the harmony lectures and the rhythm studio.

Textbook: The musician’s guide to theory and analysis. It’s the same textbook as last semesters course, and can be used for M&S 3&4 (next year’s courses). The textbook does explain some concepts well but I didn’t use it too much.

Lecturer(s): Lecturer: Harrison Collins, Aural tutor: David Taylor, Rhythm Tutor: Steven Machamer

Year & Semester/Trimester of completion: 2018, 2

Difficulty: 4/5

Overall Rating:  2.5/5

Comments:
Some of this course and assessments are very similar to M&S1, however it is a step up and I did find it a bit difficult. All of the content from last semesters course is quickly revisited at the start of the course, but is all assumed knowledge and the foundations for later content. Although, I did find it a difficult class it was one that I learnt a lot of new information and concepts.

I found that the harmony lectures were pretty interesting most of the time and that Harrison tried to go over new concepts in a way that was easy to understand. He went over concepts both with simple definitions and examples (that he made up, and from piano music). We started the semester with revision (cadences, minor/major scales, secondary dominants) and then moved to secondary leading tone chords, pivot chord modulations, non-harmonic tones, periodicity/phrases & structure. I found the 2 in class tests really difficult, especially in 50 minutes, however the composition wasn’t too bad (as you could check off everything that was needed). Harrison was approachable if you had any questions and he put up extra practise exercises on moodle when anyone emailed him. He also set up an extra harmony tute, the week before a test, going over some of the concepts which helped improve my marks.

The aural studio mainly just included us listening to music, and answering question (normally in a small group). We also needed to use an online program called auralia (which we brought last sem), consistently work through it for our progress mark and had a test on it at the end of the sem. Some people didn’t put too much effort into this and got a really low mark, however it is easy to get 90’s for progress if you do a few exercises a week.

The rhythm studio was incredibly boring and started off very easy. The lecturer wasn’t very interesting and some of the later concepts, I didn’t fully understand when I’d left the class. The course was only worth 10% but we had three assessments: two tests (one on signs of duration/binary time, the other on polyrthyhms), and also had to perform an etude (by doing conducting patterns, and speaking the rhythms using comparative counting (1e&a, 1234, Ta ka di mi).
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: RuiAce on November 27, 2018, 03:02:46 pm
Subject Code/Name: MATH3411 - Information, Codes and Ciphers

Contact Hours: 3 hours of lecture (chopped up into 1+2 this year), 1 hour tutorial

Assumed Knowledge: The listed prerequisite is MATH1081 or MATH2099 or CR in: {MATH1231 or MATH1241 or MATH1251}. I do highly agree with the MATH1081 prerequisite, but the only 1231 stuff you really need is just vector spaces and an understanding of eigenvalues.

Assessment:
- 1 x 10% in-lecture test
- 2 x 15% in-lecture tests
- 60% final exam

Lecture Recordings? Yes

Notes/Materials Available: Course pack, Thomas's notes, Thomas's slides, past papers for tests back to 2011. (Also Facebook group and Piazza forum.) That equates to tons in my opinion.

Textbook: See page 6 of the course outline, but honestly none of them are necessary given the resources already available.

Lecturer(s): Dr. Thomas Britz

Year & Semester/Trimester of completion: 2018 s2

Difficulty: 0.5/5 for me. A first year student taking this course would probably give it a 3.5/5 though.

Overall Rating: 4.5/5

Your Mark/Grade: 96 HD

Comments:
This is one of the few third year mathematics elective courses that falls under Pure Mathematics. Of course, you do not need to be taking that major to be eligible to enrol in the course.

Essentially this course is an introduction to the theory of encryption. Topics included error correcting codes and compression codes etc., which essentially provide differing perspectives on how information can be transferred from one party to another. Many fundamental techniques are covered such as Huffman coding, however there's also some more advanced applications. Plus a fun chapter on cryptography at the very end.

This was the first course ever where I was able to walk into every lecture, and pretty much almost always understand everything. The only times I got lost were when I zoned out myself. All of the non-mathsy stuff made complete intuitive sense to me and the maths was just stuff I had already seen over and over again in the past. I found that this course was basically just the first time I saw some real-world based applications of stuff I already understood conceptually.

The learning spike in this course starts in topic 5 where number theory and abstract algebra is introduced. But as opposed to MATH3711 content which I didn't comprehend, this stuff barely scratches the surface of algebra and only teaches the few things you require for BCH coding (which was one of the hardest things in the course). Usually if you can get your head around topic 5, you've gotten your head around the entire thing.

Topic 7 (cryptography) should probably be treated as a standalone thing. It was examinable, but the concepts are (slightly) more independent from the rest of the course and should hopefully be more of an enjoyable topic.

I mean, all I have for this course is praise. Biggest WAM booster I've had and comparatively speaking one of the easiest courses I had ever touched. Some people do actually take this course in first year sem 2 (they take MATH1081 in sem 1 which is sufficient as a prereq), but even then whilst it'd be harder for them relatively speaking, it's still manageable. Every maths student should consider taking it for either ease or the chance to witness some cool applications of the stuff they learn, but it does also work as a gen ed for anyone who has taken MATH1081 previously.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: RuiAce on November 27, 2018, 03:38:34 pm
Subject Code/Name: MATH3871 - Bayesian Inference and Computation
Equivalent postgraduate variant: MATH5960

Contact Hours: 2 hours of lecture, 1 hour of tutorial, 1 hour of laboratory

Assumed Knowledge: MATH2801 or MATH2901, but the latter is seriously recommended. (Apparently the lecturer was told by someone that MATH2931 was also a prerequisite when it was not, but fortunately he kept the 2931 content minimal. Although even if not mandatory, MATH2931 is still helpful.)

Assessment:
- 20% Group Assignment
- 15% Individual Assignment
- 5% Class Participation (not too hard to get)
- 60% Final Exam

Lecture Recordings? Mostly yes - at times Zdravko used the whiteboard, but not frequently.

Notes/Materials Available: Lecture slides (+ notes for the MCMC section) and tutorial/lab exercises provided, but that was it. Felt insufficient, but it seemed to be fine - you just had to be able to redo the tutorial exercises.

Textbook: Statistical Modeling and Computation, D.P. Kroese and J.C.C. Chan, Springer, 2014. Was not necessary but it was still a decent textbook.
Also provided was Handbook of Monte Carlo Methods, D.P. Kroese, T. Taimre, Z. Botev - had some helpful techniques included.

Lecturer(s): Dr. Zdravko Botev

Year & Semester/Trimester of completion: 18 s2

Difficulty: 3.5/5

Overall Rating: 4.5/5 

Your Mark/Grade: 92 HD

Comments:
This is one of the third year electives for a Statistics major. Completion of this course along with the three core gets accreditation with the Statistics Society of Australia.

Bayesian inference stems from a probabilistic approach of inference - it literally falls out of Bayes rule. In the classical frequentist approach, parameters to be estimated were fixed, but Bayesian approaches treat the parameter itself as a random variable, consequently invoking lots more probabilistic techniques (credible intervals, hypothesis tests, expectation of the parameter, predictive distribution etc.)

This course also introduced simulation techniques. Basic methods (inverse transform, accept/reject method) were covered but there was a lot of depth put into Markov-chain Monte Carlo.

The computations in this course are quite interesting. On one hand, some of them are fairly straightforward thanks to the shortcuts you're introduced in weeks 1 and 2. But then at other times they get completely chaotic and it feels a bit like a war trying to fight through all of it (cough Bayes factors). A part of the course was recognising distributions, because that helped you simplify down nasty integrals (including multivariate integrals).
Those tricks were so convenient though. Trivialised pretty much half of the computations you saw in this course.

The simulations were examined through making you do a few computations in advance and also writing pseudocode. For example, with the usual rejection sampling you had to understand high school optimisation to find the optimal enveloping constant. But you pretty much just had to adapt your distributions/values/etc. to the algorithm itself to write out the pseudocode, and there was no strict style guide for it either.

Much like with combinatorics last sem, I found I actually liked this course despite having various difficult concepts. It helped that the tutorials/assignments/exam were all made fairer by the new lecturer (this course used to be a 5/5 difficulty course). But it was still pretty easy to get lost in the lectures because the lecture examples were much harder to grasp (a lot of multivariate computations).

You did need to know all the definitions, techniques and tricks the course teaches you to do well in the exam. A bit of all of that was asked.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: MLov on November 27, 2018, 08:15:41 pm
Subject Code/Name: MATH3821 - Statistical Modelling and Computing

Contact Hours: 2 Hours of Lecture, 2 Hours of Laboratory

Assumed Knowledge: MATH2831/MATH2931 is prerequisite

Assessment:  2 * 10% Assignments, 20% Mid-semester (Lab) Test and 60% Final Exam

Lecture Recordings?  Yes

Notes/Materials Available: N/A

Textbook: N/A

Lecturer(s): Dr. Pierre Lafaye de Micheaux

Year & Semester/Trimester of completion: 2018/2

Difficulty: Depends entirely on your effort, but I would say it is pretty easy 2/5

Overall Rating: 4/5

Your Mark/Grade: HD

Comments:

If you think this is an easy computing course, then you've walked yourself to the wrong door. MATH3821 is a *Math* course, so it is bound to have massive amount of theory (mathematical proofs). It serves as an introduction to statistical modelling (mostly regression analysis). It is *very* fast paced and it gives a brief overview of parametric and non-parametric modelling method (both theory and computing), as well as introducing Bayesian inference and Monte Carlo simulation. The main software used in this course is R (or R-studio, but be sure to know how to use R-Markdown for assignments. Iirc, Python is also acceptable for assignment, but you may be asked to write R codes for the final exam).

This course is fairly easy as long as you put efforts in, but it is very daunting if you leave it until the last minute (good luck catching up 800+ slides). Unlike level 2 statistical courses, this courses has huge amount of content (it pretty much covers the entire 2931 in the first week), which is really easy for students to lose their motivation. There is a large variability in terms of marks distribution: several high (even full) marks but the average is really low (probably a lot of slackers). Which is probably why there are mostly bad reviews across the internet.

To summaries, this course gives you a glance at what is statistics (unless you are satisfied with just linear models) and it is fairly easy to achieve high grades if you put slightly more effort than you use to.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: MLov on November 27, 2018, 08:37:44 pm
Subject Code/Name: MATH3901 Higher Probability and Stochastic Processes

Contact Hours: 3 Hours Lecture and 1 Hour tutorial

Assumed Knowledge: Theres a lot haha

Prerequisite: MATH2901 or MATH2801(DN) and MATH2501 or MATH2601 and MATH2011 or MATH2111 or MATH2510 or MATH2610.

Assessment:  3 * 5% class tests, 25% mid-semester exam and a final exam. (yep, no assignments)

Lecture Recordings?  Yes

Notes/Materials Available:  N/A

Textbook: Introduction to Probability Models by Ross

Lecturer(s): Dr Gery Geenens

Year & Semester/Trimester of completion: 2018/1 (i know, my memory sucks)

Difficulty: 2/5

Overall Rating:  5/5

Your Mark/Grade: HD

Comments:

Level 3 statistic courses usually have a lot of contents (700+ slides iirc), you will learn a lot of interesting stuff like Markov chains, Queueing theory, Branching process etc. It is fun and challenging, you would learn a lot of new ways to solve probability related questions. If you are doing ACTL/Adv Sci (Math), it is pretty much a revision of ACTL2102 without time series. But be sure to be familiar with brownian motions, stochastic differential equations (SDEs) and martingales, coz ACTL3182 pretty much assumes them and straight away jump into the derivation of Black Scholes models and other stochastic models.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: MLov on November 28, 2018, 09:06:03 pm
Subject Code/Name: ACTL 3182 - Asset-Liability and Derivative Models

Contact Hours: 3 Hours Lecture, 1 Hour Tutorial

Assumed Knowledge: ACTL2111 and ACTL2102

Assessment:  20% Assignment, 20% Mid-semester Exam, 60% Final

Lecture Recordings?  Yes

Notes/Materials Availablehttps://www.business.unsw.edu.au/degrees-courses/course-outlines/ACTL3182#course-resources

Textbook: https://www.business.unsw.edu.au/degrees-courses/course-outlines/ACTL3182#course-resources

Lecturer(s): Dr. Jonathan Ziveyi

Year & Semester/Trimester of completion: 2018/2

Difficulty: 4/5

Overall Rating:  4/5

Your Mark/Grade: BAD (idk... marks not released yet, but not confident) ;( (... okay I got a HD surprisingly, but I do reckon I did pretty bad in the finals)


Comments:

This course is mostly about valuation of assets and financial derivatives. You will go through the whole derivation process of CAPM and APT model (using Modern Portfolio Theory and factor models). Then you will be introduced to the Fundamental Theorem of Asset Pricing and go through the derivation process of the infamous Black Scholes model that you've always heard about, and close the course with interest rate models. The entire second half of the course is on stochastic process and solving SDE's, so be sure you are familiar with martingales and brownian motions (If your lecturer decided to skip those during ACTL2102, ...., good luck.)

The course is very enjoyable to do (except for the exams, Ziveyi expected HD average out of all of us, cough cough, but we 'slowly cooked' ourselves to a 50% average.), you get to build a portfolio of your own choosing for the assignment and see your CAPM fails miserably in predicting expected returns! But do expect lots of math in this course (Its Ziveyi, what else would you expect?).
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: RuiAce on December 07, 2018, 09:42:47 pm
Subject Code/Name: COMP1521 - Computer Systems Fundamentals

Contact Hours: 2 x 2hr lecture, (1hr tutorial followed by 2hr laboratory)

Assumed Knowledge: COMP1511 is the sole prerequisite and is sufficient.

Assessment:
- 10% spread across 6 quizzes
- 9% assignment on assembly code
- 11% assignment on C
- 10% spread across labs
- 60% final exam

Lecture Recordings? Yes

Notes/Materials Available: Lecture slides on webcms3 - seemed sufficient

Textbook: None prescribed. Recommended was "Computer Systems: A Programmer's Perspective , by Randal E. Bryant and David R. O'Hallaron, Prentice-Hall" but I never had to use it.

Lecturer(s): Dr John Shepherd

Year & Semester/Trimester of completion: 18s2

Difficulty: 3/5

Overall Rating: 4/5 

Your Mark/Grade: 94 HD

Comments:
This course is one of the follow-ups to COMP1511, generally taken in the next semester (but can be delayed a fair bit for students not studying CompEng or not considering OS later on).

There are two halves to this course in my opinion. The first half essentially focused on what was going on within/inside the computer when programs are being executed - hence the discussion on assembly. The assembly language used was based off the MIPS architecture (although we used the SPIM simulator when writing up MIPS code), Conceptually it wasn't really hard understanding MIPS - all we had to do was convert C code into it, but it can be quite tedious. The MIPS assignment was straightforward but certainly time consuming and not something that could easily be winged. (Most people understood MIPS well enough as required by the course towards the end of the semester. but it may have caused difficulty during the learning phase.)

But it wasn't just assembly, like MIPS only lasted 2.5 weeks or so. There's also a slightly more in depth discussion with memory management and also the introduction of bit fields/unions. All of that stuff though I think I just rote learnt and took for granted.

The second half presented all the systems - we looked at the Unix file systems and tools and techniques that software/hardware developers used (e.g. sockets, concurrency). Moral of the story with all of that - know how to use the man pages. The manual is a lifesaver for this course (in the labs, assignments and for the exam).

For me, I felt having done COMP2521 (which I'd say was harder) in advance and coming back down to here did help. That course was about things you can do with your code (thinking like a computer scientist) whereas this actually explains all the behind-the-scenes stuff about the computer itself. But most people either do this course first, or take it concurrently with COMP2521 which is fair enough in my opinion. The stuff was pretty cool and more often than not seemed to make sense. (Although, I got VERY lost towards the end with sockets.)
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: Opengangs on December 13, 2018, 08:34:27 pm
Subject Code/Name: MATH1231 - Mathematics 1B

Contact Hours: 2 x 2hr lectures (1hr Algebra, 1hr Calculus), 1hr tutorials from Weeks 2 to 13.

Assumed Knowledge/Pre-requisites: Completion of MATH1131/1141.

Assessment:
- 4 quizzes (best 3 marks count towards the final grade); contributes 20% of the final grade
- Online Maple tutorials (best 8/12 count); contributes 12% of the final grade
- Maple lab test; contributes 8% of the final grade
- Final exam; contributes 60% of the final grade

Lecture Recordings: Yes.

Notes/Materials Available: The Course Pack covers the entire Algebra and Calculus booklets with the problem sets and theory, as well as solutions to past exam papers.

Lecturer(s): Algebra - Dr. Daniel Mansfield; Calculus - Dr. John Roberts

Year & Semester/Trimester of completion: 18s2

Difficulty: 2/5

Overall rating: 3.5/5

Your Mark/Grade: 88 HD

Comments:
For the most part, I quite enjoyed it! It was a good continuation to MATH1131/1141, and most of the content itself was quite interesting. Algebra was basically a bit more on vectors (how we define vector spaces, subspaces, etc), before diving into the ideas of transformations and probability/statistics. It wasn't hard and required minimal studying to get by, and I recommend doing most of the problem sets (although quite tiresome and repetitive) if you're really aiming for a Distinction or High Distinction. Otherwise, minimal studying is required to pass.

For Calculus, we began discussing the idea of polynomials as a way to approximate a non-polynomial function. This was captured in a topic called "Taylor Series". Most of the Calculus-related aspects could technically be taught in Extension 1 or 2, as they aren't hard concepts to grasp. As mentioned above, minimal studying is required to pass so if you're looking for a pass/credit, you don't need to do much. But this should be a subject where you're getting Distinctions/High Distinctions.

From week 2 to week 13 (not sure what it is now due to trimesters; week 10 I think?), there is a Calculus/Algebra online tutorial that you must complete and the best 8/12 of them counted. It should be an easy 12% to achieve since you have unlimited amount of attempts so uh you should technically be getting close to 100%.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: blasonduo on December 15, 2018, 02:33:13 pm
Subject Code/Name: EDST1101 - Educational Psychology

Contact Hours: a 2-hour lecture and a 1-hour tutorial each week, 80% attendance is required to pass the course.

Assumed Knowledge: None (A mark of 80+ in HSC English recommended).

Assessment:  Multiple choice test (15%), Tutorial presentation (group work) (20%), 1500 word Research Paper (40%), Short answer and Multiple choice test (25%). All assessments must be passed to pass the course.

Lecture Recordings?  Yes (but weirdly still needed to attend :/ )

Notes/Materials Available: None - The education Society did hold sessions where they explained how to complete the assignments.

Textbook: Cognitive Psychology and instruction. This is NOT needed unless you are aiming for 85+ marks. Tutorials do base some content off the textbook, and the textbook does lay out the content very nicely, but all information is pretty easy.

Lecturer(s): Lecturer: Dr Slava Kalyuga, Tutor: Pavel Guba.

Year & Semester of completion: 2018 Semester 2

Difficulty: 0.7/5

Overall Rating:  3.4/5

Your Mark/Grade: 92 HD

Comments:

Out of the first year education courses, this is by far my favourite, the content in the course is really interesting.

The tutorials did seem like a cop out though, with each group presenting a topic as an assessment, which meant we are mainly reliant on other people in the tutorial to explain the concepts for us. Although our tutors would include anything that was not mentioned, my tutor seemed like they weren't 100% sure on what they are trying to explain. It mainly felt like a waste of time and a lazy way in making the students learn the content.

With only one of the assessments being an essay, I found the assessments much easier than normal, (since I find exams and presentations easier to get good marks in) which really helped in my ridiculously high mark. The exams were mainly multiple choice, which made it much easier to get marks, as the questions rarely ever try to trick you, but more to see if you have a basic understanding of a certain concept. Even with the essay, the essay didn't demand vague questions to be answered (like 1108) and was also not bad to complete.

The actual content of the course was actually very interesting and very basic, talking about Long term memory and Working memory for the majority of the course. It includes methods to increase capacity of both and then to sum up with educational implications of these. There were other things like the visual sketchpad, but those are the main concepts, which aren't that difficult. However in a 2 hour lecture, can become a bore. :P
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: MLov on December 16, 2018, 08:33:45 am
Subject Code/Name: ACTL3162 - General Insurance Techniques

Contact Hours:  3 hrs. Lecture + 1 hrs. Tutorial

Assumed Knowledge: Prerequisite: ACTL2102 and MATH2901 if you are in math stream

Assessment:  20% Assignment + 20% Mid-sem + 60% Final exam

Lecture Recordings?  Yes

Notes/Materials Available:  N/A

Textbook: N/A

Lecturer(s): AProf. Eric Cheung

Year & Semester/Trimester of completion: 2018/2

Difficulty: 3.5/5

Overall Rating:  3/5

Your Mark/Grade: HD

Comments:

This course is described as the most practical course amongst all level 3 ACTL courses. As the course title suggests, it will go through many general insurance techniques including application of generalised linear models, bayesian models and surplus process in the field of insurance. It will also go through run-off triangles, reserve calculation and some game theory at the end.

Comparing to ACTL3182, this course covers much broader material but less in depth. The notations used in this course is not so pleasant and elegant if you came from a mathematical background, especially if you have recent done Bayesian inference. As per usual for ACTL courses, lots of memorisation is needed, because even if the algorithms covered in the lecture are in the orange book, it will look completely different, which makes you wonder why are even they doing this.

Since this is probably my second last ACTL course that I will do, I will give you guys some thought about the program from  ACTL/MATH point of view. At the start of the degree, I was actually surprised to see there are quite a few ACTL/MATH students. The common trait is that we generally can handle the mathematical component pretty well, but stumble in essays and reports (coz they generally need a lot of bs haha). And the majority of us become less interested in ACTL around 2nd to 3rd year, and later on only doing it for the sake of completing the degree.

It maybe rumoured a rewarding degree, but it is much drier than what we initially expect. At first I would describe ACTL as the study of quantifying contingent events with financial / insurance applications, now I would just say it is the applications of contingent methods in the field of insurance. The field is getting narrower and narrower as you move up to higher years, which is not something that I enjoy. Lots of people are not doing their part II's, and I know many gods who excelled at the courses (Avg 90+ WAM) just switched to tradings and computer science (e.g. Master Rui) and other fields. Therefore when people talk about the high drop out rate in ACTL, it is actually not because the degree is how crazily hard, it is mainly because it is much less interesting that what we initially expected, and most people would move on to the field that they do enjoy. As such, I really admired those who continued on with the degree and they deserve the high payroll at the end. However, the first year ACTL content can generally be transferred to most business and science degrees, so there really is not that many harm doing ACTL for one year, get a taste of what it feel like, meet interesting people and then decide from second year onwards.

Finally, I will give some advice for future students that are planning to do the same degree.
- First, if you are planning to go on exchange, do it in your second year. Otherwise it is really hard to course match in your third year and onwards.
- Second, DON'T DO MGMT1001 in the first year, you can do it in exchange so that it won't affect your WAM that much.
- Third, join societies, meet motivated friends, go to peer mentoring programs etc, they have A LOT of resources that can help you through your future courses, also you can get an overview of the degree by talking to them.
- Fourth, carefully read through the orange book, it has a lot more information than you would expect. And, DONT FORGET to bring it with you to exams.
- Fifth, honestly, enjoy your time at uni. As many studies have shown, what universities bring the most is not knowledge, not skills, not ideas, but connections. And you will be surprised how far these connections can take you after university.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: katie,rinos on December 17, 2018, 12:20:09 pm
Subject Code/Name: EDST1101-Educational Psychology

Contact Hours: 2hr lecture, 1hr tute each week (was meant to have 80% attendance but lectures were never marked).

Assumed Knowledge: Nil

Assessment:  Multiple choice test (15%), Tute group presentation (20%), 1500 Essay (40%), Multiple choice/Short answer test (25%) All assessments must be passed to pass the course.

Lecture Recordings?  Yes

Notes/Materials Available:  None except a few readings. The education society held lectures before some of the assessments and shared slides with the people who attended.

Textbook: Cognitive Psychology and Instruction. I didn’t really need this except for the tutoral presentation and essay. I borrowed it from the library halfway through the sem.
 
Lecturer(s): Slava Kalyuga, Tutor: Sue-Ann Lim

Year & Semester/Trimester of completion: 2018, s2

Difficulty: 1.5/5

Overall Rating:  3/5

Your Mark/Grade: 75D

Comments:
I found the content of this unit a lot more interesting than my last education subject, social perspectives. We went over aspects such as working and long term memory, their capacities, and how this effects the education of students. However, the 2 hour lectures could still easily become really boring, especially as the lecturer mainly just read off his slides.

My tutorials normally only consisted of the group presentations. The group presentations had around 3-4 people, went for 25-30 minutes and had our classmates explaining the concepts for us (e.g I did working memory). After the presentations, my tutor would try to get us to discuss concepts in groups, but would normally fail and we almost always left early (once 30 minutes).

The assessments were pretty easy to get higher marks in, and nothing was set up to trick you. 40% of the course was only multiple choice/short answer about the basic concepts covered in lectures and didn’t need too much study to go well in.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: blasonduo on December 17, 2018, 08:23:18 pm
Subject Code/Name: BIOS1101 - Evolutionary and Functional Biology

Contact Hours: 2x 1-hour lecture and a 3-hour laboratory each week, 80% attendance to the labs is required to pass the course.

Assumed Knowledge: None

Assessment: Dissection worksheet (5%), Animal test (10%), Group video (10%), Leaf function and climate change report (10%), Final practical exam (15%), Final exam (50%).

Lecture Recordings?  Yes

Notes/Materials Available: There were practice multiple choice questions for the final exam and revision papers for the final practical exam.

Textbook: Campbell Biology: Australian and New Zealand Edition. NOT needed, more for interest.

Lecturer(s): Prof Mike Archer, Dr Stephen Bonser, Dr Hayley Bates, Dr R Bonduriansky.

Year & Semester of completion: 2018 Semester 2

Difficulty: 2.3/5

Overall Rating:  3.8/5

Your Mark/Grade: 78 DN

Comments:

Dr Hayley Bates has put a lot of effort into this, she would host weekly revision sessions for the practicals where at points would set up the lab to be a complete mock practical, she put a lot of effort in places she didn't have to, but this was greatly appreciated.

The course had a whole emphasis on "critical thinking" where they said the questions would be based off more the "why" and less the "what". This is not true at all. You do not score better by studying the explanations of things (eg why Tikaliks have webbed feet) you just needed to know that it had webbed feet. This makes the course a somewhat dry and just a "remember it all" type of course, which gave me a bit of an upset during the Animal test. This makes the course very boring when it comes to studying.

When it comes to the assessments, the Leaf function and climate change report was not a report at all, and at most 200 words. This was very easy marks as the graph they make you complete is very simplified (ie no uncertainties).
The hardest assessment is definitely the group video as, to say it lightly, a lot of the students in this course don't care nearly as much. So unless you pick your groups wisely and well, expect an all-nighter, and a submission 5 minutes before the due date. Some of the marks here are allocated to creativity, which again, with a lazy group, makes marks in this area difficult to achieve.

All other assessments (apart from the final) came from the content in the laboratories, which all came from the laboratory books. All questions asked were in the book, meaning that studying for these tests just meant memorising the content from them. However questions did arise from very obscure places, leading to very difficult questions, also leading to you know it, or you don't, which I'm not a fan of.

The final exam is only multiple choice and was only based on questions from the lectures, not the labs, so to help with this, the lecturers gave out practice multiple questions to help us study. However, these "practice" questions were in the final exam, and made up about 50% of the exam, making the final exam basically a joke (The exam also had many typos). Which makes my final mark lower than expected.
 
The content overall has some really interesting bits, but also some really dull and boring bits. Half the course is focused on animals and the other is focused on plants. Personally, I preferred the animal section more as I find the adaptations animals have based on their environment more interesting than plants, but it's still fun. The laboratories hence being 3 hours, does become mind-numbing, as most of it is just copying stuff into your lab book.

Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: blasonduo on December 18, 2018, 10:44:19 pm
Subject Code/Name: PHYS1241 - Higher Physics 1B (special)

Contact Hours: 2x 1-hour lecture, a 2-hour laboratory and a 1-hour tutorial each week.

Assumed Knowledge: PHYS 1121/1131

Assessment:
10x weekly pre-laboratory online quizzes (2%, 0.2% each)
3x Laboratory Reports (18%, 6% each)
4x Assignment worksheets (20%, 5% each)
Final exam (60%)

Lecture Recordings?  Yes (also personalised ones from Liz)

Notes/Materials Available: A Video series made by Liz, online quizzes from 1231 (not assessable for us, but assessable for 1231), past exams with answers from Liz's section.

Textbook: Halliday, D., Resnick, R., & Walker, J. (2014). Fundamentals of Physics, John Wiley & Sons. A really good textbook, but with the content this course provides, it isn't needed.

Lecturer(s): Prof Elizabeth Angstmann (First half) & Prof Michael Gal. (2nd half)

Year & Semester of completion: 2018 Semester 2

Difficulty: 3.9/5

Overall Rating:  4.3/5

Your Mark/Grade: 78 DN

Comments:

Compared to 1121/1131, the laboratories in 1241 are way more fun. They don't get assessed, and you get to do legit what you want to do at the end. Basically, for the first hour, you attempt an investigation related to the lectures. The next hour, you have to do extension investigations, investigating something similar. This allows for some really cool and imaginative investigations, also making labs a lot less stressful. However, Lab reports are required to be written up every 3 weeks, and to get perfect marks, a lot of effort is needed to be put into them (by the end of the semester, I had written 125 pages in my lab book, but the average was around 85). This spent me hours to do, as it required uncertainty graphs and long discussions and neat tables, probably spent the most time doing these at home, then anything else in semester 2.

The assignments were normally 6 questions ranging from pretty okay, to "wtf is this, how is this possible to solve". Luckily, about half of the questions could be googled, which allowed a sense of security. The others required you to discuss with other members of the course, and you need to do this to get good marks (unless you are very, very smart (like Rui)). I suggest making/joining a group chat for the course.

The final exam questions, for the most part, is extremely difficult (about half) and requires quite a lot from you for a 2-hour exam, making it quite difficult to do well. Also, the past exams only have the first part of the exam with answers, as Gal thinks it's silly to have answers. So it can be difficult to study the 2nd half of the course. Otherwise, as long as you attempt past papers, the final exam won't be too awful.

As for the lectures, Liz is fantastic at the actual content, with an explanation of the content, with an experiment, followed by solving questions. This way of lecturing was fantastic for reviewing and knowing if you really understand what was taught, and has a bit of fun with experiments. Also has extra ones on the internet to follow along with. An overall fantastic lecturer.
Gal is fantastic at being so engaging and making physics so fascinating. He would show physical applications and you'd sit there, like a child with a bedtime story, it was great. However, the relevance to the course was very minimal, and so the questions that were asked in practice exams or tutorials felt foreign, and thus meant that self-teaching was occasionally needed.

The tutorials require you to explain a question by writing and speaking, it does help with confidence and with future tasks that require public speaking and problem solving (like TA!)

Overall, this course is very fun but very, very time-consuming. (probably spent 45% of my study/homework time on this course) Even if you think you aren't the smartest (like myself) and are majoring in physics, I highly recommend doing this course, it allows you to meet other physics majors and you get a feel for 2nd-year courses (lab reports and LaTeX writing).
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: Jack89 on December 21, 2018, 12:41:32 pm
Subject Code/Name: ELEC2141 - Digital Circuit Design

Contact Hours: 3 hours of lectures, 2 hours of labs, 1 hour tutorial.

Assumed Knowledge: ELEC1111, especially the last part on Boolean algebra but they quickly go over this in week 1. COMP1511 is also helpful but not essential as there is a bit of verilog coding and having done a COMP course will make this part a bit easier to pick up.

Assessment: 15% labs, 5% lab exam, 5% fortnight online quizzes, 10% midsem, 15% assignments (2 assignments worth 7.5% each), 50% final.

Lecture Recordings? Yes

Notes/Materials Available: ELSOC has plenty of materials and past papers. The lecturer also posts up a couple of past papers on Moodle.

Textbook: I used "Digital Design" by M.Morris Mano but this is not completely essential.

Lecturer: Beena

Year & Semester/Trimester of completion: 2018/1

Difficulty: 3/5

Overall Rating: 4/5

Your Mark/Grade: 95 HD

Comments: Overall a good course that introduces Boolean logic, sequential circuits, verilog code, CMOS gates and the basics of computer hardware right at the end. Sequential circuits take a bit of getting used to but they aren't too difficult.

The assignments, especially assignment 2, are quite challenging but fun and rewarding and very very beneficial to understanding the course content.

The labs are quite long and the last couple are very challenging - make sure to prepare well before otherwise you'll lose marks for going over time. The program they use, Xilinx, was a bit of a headache since there were two versions on the computers and if you open your lab work with the wrong version then it screws it up. As part of marking, the lab demos sometimes ask you very specific questions about the lab, but they're quite lenient with the marking.

The midsem and final were nice and balanced.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: Jack89 on December 21, 2018, 01:23:12 pm
Subject Code/Name: MATH2069 - Mathematics 2A

Contact Hours:  4 hours of lectures, 2 hours of tutorials. Half are for complex analysis, half are for vector calculus.

Assumed Knowledge: MATH1231 or MATH1241.

Assessment:  4 quizzes worth 10% each and a final worth 60%. There are 2 quizzes each for complex analysis and vector calculus. The final has 2 questions on complex analysis and 2 questions on vector calculus.

Lecture Recordings?  Yes.

Notes/Materials Available:  Plenty of notes and past papers on ELSOC.

Textbook: For complex analysis no need for a textbook. For vector calculus, "Calculus One and Several Variables" was very useful to study from but it's not essential.

Lecturer(s): Alessandro Otazzi for complex analysis and Dmitriy Zanin for vector calculus.

Year & Semester/Trimester of completion: 2018/S1

Difficulty: 4/5

Overall Rating:  5/5

Your Mark/Grade: 96 HD

Comments:
Overall a really good course. Vector calculus especially is very very interesting as it relates well to physics (especially the electromagnetism section in PHYS1231 which is very important for some third year electrical engineering subjects). The first few topics are straightforward but the final few topics are a bit challenging (e.g. Gauss' divergence theorem, Stoke's theorem, surface integrals).

The lecturer for complex analysis was really good and explained concepts thoroughly. This half of the course essentially is about how functions work in the complex domain - how to differentiate, integrate, how trig functions and logarithms work in the complex domain (e.g. evaluating cos(1 + i)).
All the trig identities (e.g. cos(A + B)) are used and must be memorized so there's a fair bit of memory work involved. 

This course has a large number of topics both in vector calculus and complex analysis so it definitely requires dedication but if you put in the time you should do well. The in class quizzes are not too difficult and the final is quite similar in structure to past papers so you should be set by practicing a few before the final.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: HelpICantThinkOfAName on May 12, 2019, 10:16:05 pm
MATH 2241: Introduction to Atmospheric and Ocean Dynamics

Contact Hours: 4 hours of lectures, 1 hour tutorial

Assumed Knowledge: MATH 1231/1241/1251. I strongly recommend  having taken PHYS 1121/1131/1141 as some of the topics are assumed and are assessable, and drawing free body diagrams is necessary to succeed in this course

Assessment:  4 12.5% Assignments, due every other week. 50% final exam 

Lecture Recordings? No

Notes/Materials Available:  A set of comprehensive notes are available on Moodle. Some of the notes are messy, but context and the textbook make it easy to understand

Textbook: Not required, but the entire course is based on Atmosphere, Ocean, and Climate Dynamics by Marshall and Plumb. Assignment questions are sometimes taken from here. Single physical copy available in library, but I believe that ebook is available on the library website

Lecturer(s): Mark Holzer

Year & Semester/Trimester of completion: 2019/T1

Difficulty: 5/5. This is by far the hardest course I’ve taken so far. Marks are incredibly easy to lose, and having an incredibly strong grasp on first year physics is necessary to succeed.

Overall Rating:  2.5/5 Despite difficulty I still enjoyed this course. Mark’s lecturing was very hands on, and focused on building equations from the ground up. It also took a more chronological approach, and he would often go into detail about how and why these equations were developed, and give us a short history on the particular oceanographer who discovered the equations

Comments: This course takes a dive into the physical forces behind the weather, and is an extremely interesting course. The transition to trimesters has not helped the course though, and I feel that often content was rushed in order to finish on time.

Even if you don’t have to take it, I would still recommend it to any physics student interested in atmospheric physics, or a mathematics student looking for a hands on, applied math subject.

Also there’s a $600 prize to whoever achieves the highest grade in the course, so there’s your motivation!
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: DrDusk on May 13, 2019, 12:37:36 am
Subject Code/Name: PHYS1141 - Higher Physics 1A(Special) - Physics Majors only

Contact Hours: 4 x 1 hours of lecture, 2 hours of tutorial, 2 hours of laboratory

Assumed Knowledge: None

Assessment:
- 2 x 10% - Invigilated quizzes
- 10% Online quizzes
- 20% Laboratory experiments
- 50% Final Exam

Lecture Recordings? Yes - however blackboard is used frequently which isn't in the recordings

Notes/Materials Available: Lecture slides + Web-stream lecture and tutorial/lab exercises provided, past papers and that was it. Pretty sufficient if you ask me.

Textbook: No one I know really used a textbook, and neither did I

Lecturer(s): Mechanics: Professor Joe Wolfe.
                   Thermodynamics,Waves and Oscillations: Professor Chris Tinney

Year & Semester/Trimester of completion: 19 s1

Difficulty: 3.5/5

Overall Rating: 3/5 

Your Mark/Grade: HD, 92

Comments:
Being a course for Physics Majors, it still forces us to attend the same lectures as all the other students studying Engineering which was a disappointment. With there being so many people in the lecture asking the intriguing questions that I have is quite difficult, especially because the Professor can't really hear you if you sit away from the very front.

The following applies to all of Phys1121, Phys1131 and Phys1141:
Now the first half of the course i.e. Mechanics is taught really well with lots of demonstrations and intriguing examples by Professor Joe Wolfe, however the latter half of the course was taught terribly. Most people stopped attending lectures after Mechanics because we had the other Professor. Nothing was explained properly and everything felt rushed as though we were just trying to get through the remaining weeks.

Basically I would not recommend people to rely on the Professors to adequately teach you the content, they are rather there to 'present' it to you. The only reason I did so well is because I had already learnt all of it before the course began. So yes second half of the course was VERY disappointing.

Quizzes are also especially annoying as they are done on a computer. I physically cannot concentrate when I have to constantly look up and down from a computer screen, it disrupts my thoughts. Also the answer you give must also be in their exact format, i.e. you can lose marks for Sig- Figs etc.

Largely the course did not meet my expectations and felt like a let down. Attending such a highly regarded uni I would've expected much better to be honest. 
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: fantasticbeasts3 on May 13, 2019, 11:15:35 am
Subject Code/Name: INST2003 - Research Methods in International Studies

Contact Hours: 4 - 2 hour lecture, 2 hour tutorial

Assumed Knowledge: None, but you have to be enrolled in B International Studies and have completed either INST1005 or INST1006.

Assessment: 3 minute presentation (15%), Research Proposal (40%), Data Analysis Essay (45%)

Lecture Recordings?: Yes

Notes/Materials Available: Not really, everything is on Moodle

Textbook: None

Lecturer(s): Lecturer: Dr Marilu Melo Zurita, Tutor: Charishma Ratnam

Year & Trimester of completion: 2019, Term 1

Difficulty: 3/5

Overall Rating: 1/5

Comments:
This review comes from an extremely biased person, but I hated this course. Research Methods is a really important part of International Studies as a lot of work in this field is research and field-based so it makes sense that this course is compulsory for a BInSt degree. However, the course was so boring, the way it was run wasn't the best and assessments weren't practical enough for my, and other students' liking.

The course teaches students about research methods, but most students (myself included) struggled to find the methods relevant to International Studies as there weren't enough links to fieldwork or other practical examples. Further, there was a disconnect between the assignments and the content being taught, as the assignments were based on hypothetical situations. This meant we chose research topics, but didn't actually conduct primary research (surveys, interviews, etc.). We used the research methods we had learned in class and placed them into our research proposals, like we were going to conduct the research ourselves. Because of this, students didn't take the course seriously because everything was hypothetical. Also, there wasn't nearly enough guidance for the assessments and we were very confused as to what was expected because of subjectivity; particularly as we all had different research topics and how we would conduct research for our respective topics would be different.

Despite the subject being so incredibly boring, tutorials were run very well and the teaching staff were amazing. I believe there will be changes made to the course due to many complaints, and the lecturer has said there will be more clarification on assessments in the future.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: katie,rinos on May 13, 2019, 02:19:22 pm
Subject Code/Name: Materials and Structures of Music 3

Contact Hours: 1 1/2 hour lecture, 1 1/2 hour studio (aural choir), 1 1/2 hour tute each week.

Assumed Knowledge: M&S1 and 2 (MUSC1602 and MUSC1603)

Assessment: 
Harmony lecture: In-class test wk 4 (15%), In-class test wk 9 (15%), Composition Assessment (30%).

Aural Tute: Transcription Exercise (10%), In-class aural test (5%), auralia progress (5%).

Aural Choir: Singing group test (5%)

Music Literature: Listening test (15%)

Lecture Recordings?  No :(

Notes/Materials Available:  Some exercises, explanations and pieces on Moodle, not a huge amount.

Textbook: The musician’s guide to theory and analysis. It’s the same textbook as last years courses and can also be used for next term. It does explain things pretty well, however, I probably used the the internet and youtube for explanations more than the textbook this term.

Lecturer(s): Lecturer: John Peterson, Tutor: Harrisson Collins

Year & Trimester of completion: 2019,1

Difficulty: 4/5

Overall Rating:  3.5/5

Your Mark/Grade: 67 CR

Comments:
I was pretty concerned with this course going into trimesters and having less time, because I felt there was so much content in 13 weeks last term. To counteract this our lectures, studios and tutes were raised from 1hr to 1hr 30min. Due to this, the lectures especially seemed to drag on sometimes and I did get bored towards the end. However, I found this M&S course to be one of the more interesting ones. I felt like everybody was closer to the same pace (compared to previous M&S courses) and nobody was far behind or in front of the class. Most of our assessments were very similar to M&S1 & M&S2 so we already knew what was expected of us and what the format of the assessments would look like.

Lectures:
We only had 1/2 a lesson revision of the M&S1 and M&S2 content so if you had forgotten a lot of things it was easy to feel lost in the first couple of weeks. Peterson also picks on people to answer questions which I really hated most of the time (especially when I wasn’t sure of the answers). Throughout lectures, we focussed on Augmented 6th chords, Neapolitan chords, Modulating to unrelated keys, Dominant 9th and Non-Dominant chords. We also looked at analysing different types of music. I found that some lessons I would walk out completely confused because John would have shown us a new concept in music but not explained it enough to fully understand. I needed to do a lot of revision for this part by looking over Youtube, websites and doing extra exercises to make sure I understood the content. I found the two class tests to be difficult but (possibly because I had studied more) not as bad as the tests that I had done last year. The tests were both around an hour long and we had needed to write examples of chords as well as complete some analyses. The composition was 16-20 bars based on a Chopin Nocturne and we had a list of aspects we needed to include.

Tute:
I enjoyed the aural tute a lot more than last year. It mainly started with a melodic dictation (which I was terrible at), and then moved into looking at pieces on our listening list. We would listen to parts of the pieces while looking at the historical/significant aspects of the piece. I found that this prepared us really well for the listening test. The listening test went for around 40 minutes and we were given a 2min excerpt of a piece and needed to identify aspects such as the composer, title, movement, date, and significance.

Studio:
The aural studio was similar to M&S1. Each week we’d go over a new piece, which mainly consisted of Bach chorales, Rounds, as well as Uni Caritas and O Magnum Mysterium. Our assessment was in small groups of 6, to perform one of the Bach chorales we had gone through in class. I had a really good group so we practised after class for a few weeks and the assessment worked out really well.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: blasonduo on May 21, 2019, 09:16:14 pm
Subject Code/Name: EDST2003 - Learning and Teaching: Language, Literacy and Numeracy

Contact Hours: a 2-hour lecture and a 1-hour tutorial each week, 80% attendance is required to pass the course.

Assumed Knowledge: 24 units of credit at Level 1

Assessment:  Reflection on your language, literacy and numeracy experiences as a student (40%), Lesson Planning and Analytical Paper (60%). All assessments must be passed to pass the course.

Lecture Recordings?  Yes (but weirdly still needed to attend :/ )

Notes/Materials Available: Previous DN and HD assignments were provided to allow a benchmark on what we were expected.

Textbook: Gibbons, P. (2009). English learners, academic literacy and thinking: Learning in the challenge zone.
Portsmouth NH: Heineman. This is given to you as an online resource.

Lecturer(s): Lecturer: Dr Andy Gao, Tutor: Dr Andy Gao.

Year & Trimester of completion: 2019 Term 1

Difficulty: 0.6/5

Overall Rating:  3.1/5

Your Mark/Grade: 79 DN

Comments:

This is a pretty laidback course, pretty straight forward, but a vital course for the degree in my opinion. As with all the previous courses, the lectures and tutorials felt extremely bludge like, and it's compulsory nature led to me doing other courses during this time. The readings were vital, and in my opinion were the best part of the content, very challenging and informative!

The assignments were suitable for the course, and I really enjoyed the second one, where we've been introduced to aspects of lesson plans, and also made us identify the strengths in our plan with content learnt in the course. It's a fantastic introduction to the actual applications of teaching, something that was missing in first-year education courses.

Overall, a pretty easy course, but the face to face aspects were lacking, but the assignments and readings were great.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: katie,rinos on May 21, 2019, 10:13:57 pm
Subject Code/Name: EDST2003- Learning and Teaching: Language, Literacy and Numeracy 



Contact Hours: 2hr lecture, 1hr tute per week. 80% attendance required to pass the course (password required at each lecture).



Assumed Knowledge: Must have completed EDST1101 & EDST1104, & be enrolled in an education degree. 24 units of credit at Level 1. 



Assessment:  1500 word reflection paper (40%), 3000 word Lesson plan and critique (60%)

Lecture Recordings?  Yes

Notes/Materials Available:  Previous DN and HD assessment samples were provided.



Textbook:
Gibbons, P. (2009). English learners, academic literacy and thinking: Learning in the challenge zone.
Henderson, R. (Ed.) (2015). Teaching literacies in the middle years: Pedagogies and diversity
However, I didn’t use the textbooks, as we were given a lot of weekly readings that we could use for our assessments (33 readings in total). 



Lecturer(s): Lecturer: Andy Gao, Tutor: Lisa Gilanyi



Year & Semester/Trimester of completion: 2019,1



Difficulty: 1.5/5



Overall Rating:  3/5

Your Mark/Grade: 76 D

N

Comments:
This course felt a lot more relevant to actually teaching, than the first year courses that I did last year. While the lecturers and tutors tried to make it interesting (we often had kahoots and videos almost every week), it often felt like a bludge. There were times when I was doing work for another subject, or would just zone out halfway through the lecture.

I really enjoyed both of the assignments and didn’t find them too difficult to do. The 2nd one was about making a lesson plan and analysing the strengths in relation to the course-and was relevant to our future teaching practises. I also felt like I had a lot of time in tutorials to go over both assignments so I knew what was expected of us (we had 2 weeks just to work on our 2nd assignment and ask questions).
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: RuiAce on May 22, 2019, 10:36:12 am
Subject Code/Name: COMP1531 - Software Engineering Fundamentals

Contact Hours:
- 4 hours lecture
- 1 hour tute + 2 hours lab

Assumed Knowledge: Prerequisite is COMP1511 and of course you do a bit of programming, but I don't think it contributes too much.

Assessment: 
- 3 x 1% week-long quiz
- 12% labs (there were 7 of them this term)
- 10% mid-term take-home exam
- 25% group project
- 50% final exam

Lecture Recordings? Yes

Notes/Materials Available: Basically just whatever's put on webcms3, i.e. lecture slides, tutes/labs and some revision questions in preparation for the finals.

Textbook: N/A

Lecturer(s): Dr. Aarthi Natarajan

Year & Trimester of completion: 19 T1

Difficulty: 3.5/5 (mostly due to the project - everything else I'd say 2.5/5)

Overall Rating: 1.5/5

Your Mark/Grade: 89 HD

Comments:
This course is one of the first year core courses in UNSW CSE degrees. It's focus is essentially on what the course title says - software engineering.

The course was essentially written from the lecturer's brain (using her own experiences) in an attempt to make it as practical as possible. A software engineer more or less needs to go through the entire design process (search: software development life cycle) and actually build the software from scratch, as opposed to just coding away based off specs. The process was mostly achieved through the group project. (I say 'mostly' because the reduced time frame from the trimester model makes it hard to truly reflect the software development procedure.)

Fact is though I just found things dry and didn't enjoy a lot of what I learnt. I don't see myself going into a software engineer's world if I have to go through that design process. Design was never something I liked greatly. I also found myself rote learning and relying on getting carried by my peers way too much for my liking in this course. On the programming side of things, the python coverage is quite little (it is NOT a programming course!) and I didn't really understand much of the web dev stuff either.

Project can be a time drainer depending on how you approach it. If you have friends taking the course though, try to enrol into the same tute and do it with them.

In saying that, I can still see how the course was 'intended' to be useful at least. I've been told that quite a fair bit of the stuff you learn here does get used in the real world. (After all, who's gonna write Google/Microsoft/... their specifications? They have to it themselves surely.) Possibly one day I'll appreciate having to take this course.

My only praises about this course (and literally where all the 1.5/5 rating points came from) were that the lecturers and tutors were extremely nice with how they ran the course and evidently marked leniently. (Worthwhile mentions: Midterm was meant to be sat in class, then swapped with a 24hr take home test, then extended to a 48hr take home test. Also, web dev was not examined - thank goodness.) This was more or less a course where I just could not put up with the content (and only the content), but that alone affected things greatly.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: RuiAce on May 22, 2019, 05:03:36 pm
Subject Code/Name: MATH3911 - Higher Statistical Inference

Contact Hours: 2 x 2hr lectures, 1hr tutorial

Assumed Knowledge: For the higher version, MATH2931 or DN+ in MATH2831. However knowledge from linear models is only used a select few times - the course mostly builds and relies on MATH2801/MATH2901.

Assessment:
- 2 x 10% assignments
- 20% midterm exam (w/ 1 one-sided A4 page cheat sheet)
- 60% final

Lecture Recordings?  No, but he does upload handwritten notes on what he covers at every lecture (if it's not already in the course notes)

Notes/Materials Available: Lecture notes (+ slides) that basically cover everything and tutorial problems that do reflect the exams quite well. Lack of past papers however - 1 midsession and a very old finals paper. Also blackboard scribbles that Spiro does but converted into pen/paper form.

Textbook: Recommended: Garthwaite, P., Jolliffe, I., Jones, B. (GJJ), Statistical Inference. Second Edition. Oxford University Press (2002). I didn't use it though.

Lecturer(s): AProf Spiridon Penev

Year & Trimester of completion: 19 T1

Difficulty: 3/5

Overall Rating: 4.5/5

Your Mark/Grade: 99 HD

Comments:
This course is (the higher counterpart of) one of the core courses for a major in statistics. Inference is essentially concerned with the decision making in statistics. The aim is to be able to construct and then use the most optimal tests for a much greater variety of scenarios, as opposed to the one or two special cases covered in MATH2901.

This course completely surpassed my expectations. I went in not expecting much but despite the lack of past papers, Spiro clearly knows how to manage/teach a course. Assessments were definitely doable and I doubt I can achieve such a result again.

I had an interesting experience with this course. Assignment 1 was released, I'd learn up to everything needed for it, and then be too tired to continue. Midterm starts looming, I learn everything up to that point, and then be too tired to do more. Assignment 2 released, same thing happens. (And then of course finals come and I need to know the entire syllabus.) Moral of this story though is that it's perfectly possible to do well in this course provided you stay on track when you need to. There's quite a fair bit that gets asked and at times I got confused easily (much like in MATH3871), but so long as you know what you need when you actually need it, it's mostly fine.

Some remarks: I think bootstrapping/jacknifing/robustness doesn't really pop up in exams - only assignments. (Doesn't mean you should purposely ignore them obviously, but if you're running short on time, well you know what to prioritise.) The Bayesian inference part only goes for one week and definitely not anywhere in depth as with MATH3871 - having done that course first made that week easy for me. Also I think actuarial students do have an edge, having seen a lot of the tests already (Wilcoxon, Kolomogorov-Smirnov, chi-squared GoF etc.)

Also, definitely try to keep on track with the lectures and tutorials for this course. There were times when my brain switched out in the lectures, but for the most part properly understanding what was going on basically made life way easier. And then the tutes filled the gaps - he selects what problems to do carefully.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: kierisuizahn on May 24, 2019, 10:31:42 pm
Subject Code/Name: COMP1511 - Introduction to Programming.

Contact Hours: 2x 2hr Lecture, 1x 1hr Tutorial + 2hr Lab (combined).

Assumed Knowledge: Effectively none; knowing how to use a computer.

Assessment:
Lecture Recordings? Yes - screen and voice recorded.

Notes/Materials Available: Lecture slides and all tutorial materials were posted online (WebCMS). Only a sample past exam (with only a couple questions and a basic outline of the final exam) was posted prior to the final. As this was the first year COMP1511 was offered, there was no other preparatory material, but some COMP1917 exams were found with questions to attempt by the students (similar content). The tutors created a repository of questions to attempt as practice, as well.

Textbook:
Lecturer(s): Andrew Taylor

Year & Semester of completion: 2017 S1

Difficulty: 4/5

Overall Rating: 4/5

Your Mark/Grade: 89 HD

Comments: Most of the difficulty of the course was in the two assignments. Previous experience in programming will help significantly. Getting a decent mark in the course is not difficult, however, getting a good mark will require effort in the assignments. The labs are somewhat optional, however each lab exercise needs to be marked in person at a lab, and can only be marked the week it was due or the following week, so attendance is "mandatory" or about half the lab sessions. The hurdle system in this course required successful completion of a practical arrays and linked lists question. Completing specific questions in the two lab exams and the final counted towards this hurdle, and failing to meet this requirement would result in a UF grade (basically a fail) regardless of your mark.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: kierisuizahn on May 24, 2019, 11:03:12 pm
Subject Code/Name: MATH1141 - Higher Mathematics 1A.

Contact Hours: 2x 2hr Lecture, 2x 1hr Tutorial.

Assumed Knowledge: Combined mark of 175 in HSC Maths Ex1 and Ex2.

Assessment:
Lecture Recordings? Yes - screen and voice recorded.

Notes/Materials Available: Course pack sold by school, and a PDF copy of it posted on Moodle after semester started - cheaper to print and bind it at Officeworks or somewhere, but more convenient to just buy yourself, or free if you don't mind an only-digital copy. It contains course notes, past exams with solutions (though I don't think all of them have solutions), and Maple notes. The course notes cover everything in the course to good depth, and can basically replace the lectures (if you don't mind not having concepts explained). About ten past final exams available, and past class tests as well, so lots of practice materials.

Textbook:
Lecturer(s): A/Prof. Daniel Chan & Prof. Wolfgang Schief

Year & Semester of completion: 2017 S1

Difficulty: 2/5

Overall Rating: 4/5

Your Mark/Grade: 95 HD

Comments: Much of the content in the calculus half is revision or expansion on things taught in HSC Maths Ex1 and Ex2. The algebra content is mostly new, and generally brought the most conceptual difficulty to the course and final exam. The harder questions in the final exam make up the bulk of the interest in the course and difficulty overall, but they're so sparse that it's a pretty easy course overall. Past exams and the problems in the course notes are a must - the more of them you do, the better you will go.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: iregretdoingactl on May 24, 2019, 11:42:35 pm
Subject Code/Name: MATH6781 - Biomathematics

Contact Hours:  3 hours of Lectures, 1 hour of tutorial

Assumed Knowledge: "12 units of credit in Level 2 Mathematics courses including (MATH2120 or MATH2130 or MATH2121 or MATH2221), or both MATH2019 and MATH2089, or both MATH2069 and MATH2099". Realistically, knowledge of first year mathematics is sufficient.

Assessment:  3 class tests worth 10% each, 1 assignment worth 10%, 1 final worth 60%

Lecture Recordings? No

Notes/Materials Available:  Skeleton notes available on moodle.

Textbook: Lecture material seems to be directly plagiarised from the textbook: https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.cttq9530?fbclid=IwAR0bgtLkLtsQnABuQywzWSaagy0P9hiiJRN3cQQEN7fUnFzdKLEk5NMpTrw

Lecturer(s): John Murray

Year & Trimester of completion: 2018 S2

Difficulty: 2.5/5

Overall Rating:  4/5

Your Mark/Grade: 86

Comments:
Essentially, what this course aims to provide an introduction to mathematical modelling and data analysis for biological and biomedical systems, with heavy focus on the spread of diseases and its iteration with the human body amongst other things.

This course is quite a refreshing and enjoyable one, perhaps due to the fact that the mathematics that is being taught builds upon and models real world phenomenon unlike what those nerds do in pure maths/statistics. However, as with all applied mathematics, the bulk of this course is, you guessed it: ODEs, so a rigorous foundation is preferable.

2018 was John Murray's first year teaching the course, so whilst incredibly experienced in the field of biomathematics, he was understandably not the most solid or well prepared lecturer, having to pause for lengthy periods of time during his explanations almost every lesson. Furthermore, I personally found his teaching a bit handwavy, as in not enough focus were put into the important parts of the content and many parts were a bit rushed/unclear.

However, professor Murray is a very caring lecturer, and would not hesitate to explain/revisit any problem that was raised in detail during/after each lecture. He would also provide a lot of support before each class assessment/final and would often check that we were following along during class. Lastly, and perhaps his greatest strength, is that he has an incredibly sublime and manly voice, something that I could listen to forever.

In terms of marks, the class tests and final were all closely based on ALL content in the lecture slides. This proved a little difficult personally as I was negligent in mastering the course content during the semester. The assessment is also based on questions in the lecture slides, where we had to derive the answers ourselves instead, and were completely doable if enough time was spent on it (a bit of matlab was required to simulate the models, but sample code was given during a previous tutorial).

Overall I would say that the course is an "easy" one. It starts off very simply as a revision of ODEs and slowly builds in complexity and challenge. Now whilst some of the later content is a bit of a brain teaser to figure out, especially with how unrigorously it was taught, there is very little surprises within it, especially compared to the cancer that is ACTL3141 and ACTL3151, so if you hit your head against the textbook enough times, enough will leak in to your brain and you will surely do well.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: kierisuizahn on May 24, 2019, 11:58:37 pm
Subject Code/Name: PHYS1131 - Higher Physics 1A.

Contact Hours: 3x 1hr Lecture, 1x 2hr Lab, 1x 1hr "Other" (see comments).

Assumed Knowledge: HSC Physics or Maths Ex1.

Assessment:
Lecture Recordings? Yes - screen and voice recorded, but blackboard used often and not recorded.

Notes/Materials Available: Pack including lab manual, homework booklet, and past papers sold, but all available online in PDF format. The lab manual must be either bought, or printed and bound at home, as you will need to complete it at labs. It is combined with experiments completed in Physics 1B, so only one purchase is required. Past exams available, though I found the number somewhat lacking. Online exercises and videos in place of lecture notes, but are well made and very useful for learning and revision.

Textbook:
Lecturer(s): Prof. Joe Wolfe, A/Prof. Elizabeth Angstmann, S/Prof. Alex Hamilton

Year & Semester of completion: 2017 S1

Difficulty: 4/5

Overall Rating: 2/5

Your Mark/Grade: 90 HD

Comments: The "Other" part of the course was a problem solving workshop that ran 3 times throughout the semester. You were given an exam (basically), and about 30min to complete it before the supervisors went through the solutions. Attendance to these recommended. Difficult to cram for this course, so it is best to remain up to date, especially with the mechanics topic (towards the end).

Joe Wolfe was very enthusiastic, and explained concepts well, as did (to a lesser extent) the other lecturers. The content is skewed towards his topic (mechanics), and most of the difficulty lied in understanding mechanics. The other two topics (especially thermal physics) are generally easier to understand and apply.

An enjoyable course for those who enjoyed HSC physics, but since it was only a filler course (since MATH1081 was full for semester one), I did not enjoy it nearly as much as I'd hoped, mainly due to my very useful habit of cramming everything at the end.[/list]
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: kierisuizahn on May 25, 2019, 12:23:51 am
Subject Code/Name: SCIF1121 - Adv. Science: Professional Perspective and Practice.

Contact Hours: 1x 2hr Lecture, 1x 2hr Tutorial (both mandatory attendance).

Assumed Knowledge: None.

Assessment:
Graduate StreamDiscipline Stream (Mathematics)
Lecture Recordings? No.

Notes/Materials Available: None.

Textbook: None.

Lecturer(s): Dr. Pinhas Grossman, with guest lecturers every week.

Year & Semester of completion: 2017 S1

Difficulty: 2/5

Overall Rating: 1/5

Your Mark/Grade: 92 HD

Comments: Very very dry course. All of the difficulty is in the report writing aspect of the discipline stream, and other discipline streams had different assessments (which from what I've heard, were much easier). The tutorial content was boring, and I found no interest in it (basically soft skills), but the tutor I had was great (Ananthan Ambikairajah) and made the tutorials interesting.

The compulsory lectures were mildly interesting, but certainly not what I wanted to be attending on a Friday afternoon, and were mostly on applied mathematics. The report itself was an interesting task, but required a large amount of work, and ended up eating into my time for other courses quite severely. Pinhas himself was nice, and helped with the report, but the actual lectures were guest lecturers.

There is a reason it has been reworked completely to become SCIF1131.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: Jack89 on May 25, 2019, 08:34:10 am
Subject Code/Name: ELEC3115 - ELECTROMAGNETIC ENGINEERING

Contact Hours:  4 hours lectures (2x2 hours / week), 1 hour tutorial, 3 hours lab every 2 weeks.

Assumed Knowledge: MATH2069, PHYS1231 (the first half on electromagnetism).

Assessment:  2 midsession exams, each 12.5%, labs 15%, final 60%.

Lecture Recordings?  Yes.

Notes/Materials Available:  Rukmi provides past papers (with no solutions), and there are some good summaries on ELSOC.

Textbook: The 2 useful textbooks are Field and Wave Electromagnetics by David K Cheng, and  Engineering Electromagnetics by Nathan Ida; though these aren't completely essential.

Lecturer(s): Part A: Rukmi Dutta. Part B: King Yuk Chan.

Year & Trimester of completion: 2019/1

Difficulty: Part A: 4/5. Part B: 3/5

Overall Rating: 4.5/5

Your Mark/Grade: 98 HD

Comments:
The content in this course was fantastic - very interesting and a lot of real world applications.

The first half deals with low frequency electromagnetics. The topics include capacitance, transmission cables, electrostatic problems, magnetic circuits and transformers. It's essentially a continuation of the first half of PHYS1231. I strongly recommend going through MATH2069 before the start of the course too - especially line integrals, Stoke's theorem, Divergence theorem, grad, divergence, curl, and cylindrical coordinates. These are used extensively in part A so know them well. Solving electrostatic problems was the hardest part of the course; those 2D laplacians are a nightmare to solve. Thankfully they didn't crop up in the final. :D

The second half deals with high frequency electromagnetics. This is quite new content that doesn't continue from PHYS1231. The main topics are wave propagation through transmission lines, Smith Charts and waveguides. Smith Charts are fun to use once you get the hang of them.

Rukmi did lots of worked examples for us in lectures and her explanations are pretty good. King Yuk Chan was good as well - he used the document camera a lot which I liked, we could see him actually derive equations for us which I found useful for understanding.

This course is normally renowned for being quite tough, though I'd say that part A is definitely harder and larger than part B. Each part had a midsession test, both were okay as long you study a bit for them. The labs were long but doable - lab demos weren't great though. The final was also well balanced.


Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: Jack89 on May 25, 2019, 09:05:47 am
Subject Code/Name: ELEC2117 - ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS DESIGN

Contact Hours:  5 hour mixed lecture/lab. Usually the lecture lasts about 1 hour, then 4 hours of lab time.

Assumed Knowledge: ELEC2141. Also I'd recommend taking ELEC2117 in third year after ELEC2142. I did this and found it very helpful.

Assessment:  5% lab work, 20% midsem, 45% major project, 30% final.

Lecture Recordings?  No.

Notes/Materials Available:  This course has very little content, it's very practical so there aren't really any set notes besides the lecture slides.

Textbook: None.

Lecturer(s): Chamith Wijenayake.

Year & Trimester of completion: 2019/1

Difficulty: 2/5

Overall Rating:  4/5

Your Mark/Grade: 98 HD

Comments:
Overall, this is a very useful course where you learn to build practical circuits using a microcontroller.

This course is all about programming the PIC16F886 microcontroller, which is in assembly language. That's why I recommend taking ELEC2142 beforehand (you learn assembly in 2142), because this course just chucks you in the deep end, so having no knowledge of assembly beforehand means you have to learn it pretty quickly, which is not impossible but not desirable in my opinion. Chamith is very knowledgeable so he teaches the content pretty well.

The first 5 weeks are lab work; writing programs to make LED patterns, multiplex seven segment displays, program a keypad, and display characters on an LCD screen. These labs are very important to complete because they make up the subsystems for the final design project. Our final design project was building a tuneable FM radio, using an RF module, LCD for station display, and keypad to select preset/seek/mute. This was incredibly fun to work on - but because it was done in assembly, the code was close to 1000 lines.

We only had 4 weeks to complete the project because of trimesters - previous years had the midsem break PLUS 7 weeks to work on this project, so more time would have been good, especially with other subjects having midsems/projects at the same time. The midsem was okay, and the final exam was a bit challenging.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: Jack89 on May 25, 2019, 10:20:11 pm
Subject Code/Name: ELEC3104 - DIGITAL SIGNAL PROCESSING

Contact Hours:  4-5 hours lectures, 3 hour tutorial-lab.

Assumed Knowledge: MATLAB, ELEC2134 (the part on signals and Fourier transforms is very important)

Assessment:  20% online quizzes (total of 4 quizzes each at 5%), 30% project, 50% final.

Lecture Recordings?  Yes.

Notes/Materials Available:  A few summaries of the course on ELSOC.

Textbook: Digital Signal Processing by S. K. Mitra. I used this only a handful of times; the lecture notes provided by the lecturer are quite detailed.

Lecturer(s): Dr Sethu

Year & Trimester of completion: 2019/1
Difficulty: 4/5

Overall Rating:  4/5

Your Mark/Grade: 93 HD

Comments:
This course was very interesting and expanded a lot upon the Fourier Transform dealt with in ELEC2134, but deals with discrete-time Fourier transforms and discrete Fourier transforms for digital systems. The Z-transform is also taught, and you'll be surprised at just how extensive it is used in DSP, and also how it's related to the Fourier Transform. There are a lot of intense mathematical proofs but they are quite elegant when you see all the nice results come out in the end.

Digital filters are also a large part of this course. I liked this part as you can immediately see the real-world applications especially in audio and speech processing. The tutorial-lab sheets require extensive use of MATLAB to design all sorts of filters and digital systems, and give a good insight into what DSP engineers do. MATLAB is a very useful skill to have so I particularly enjoyed the labs.

The 5% online quizzes were extremely tough and answers had to be typed in; there were no partial marks so many marks could be lost here. The project was very long but quite enjoyable and honestly very useful in terms of real-world applications. Since there are no actual tutorials that go through problem sets, it was very hard to gauge what type of questions could be asked in the final; the final exam was exceptionally difficult and long but in an electrical engineering degree these sorts of exams are to be expected. :D
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: DrDusk on May 26, 2019, 05:24:24 pm
Subject Code/Name: MATH1131 - Math 1A

Contact Hours: 2 - 2 hour lectures, 1 - 1 hour lecture,  1 hour tutorial

Assumed Knowledge: Maths ext 1 with at least an E3 mark.

Assessment:
Final Exam: 50%
Weekly quizzes: 20%
Invigilated quizzes: 2 x 10%
Assignment: 10%

Lecture Recordings?: Yes - blackboard was never used in the classroom so everything was recorded

Notes/Materials Available: Lecture notes, past papers etc. Pretty standard and sufficient

Textbook: None

Lecturer(s):
Linear Algebra: Professor Daniel Mansfield.
Calculus: Professor Arnaud Brothier

Year & Trimester of completion: 2019, Term 1

Difficulty: 2.5/5

Overall Rating: 3.5/5

Your Mark/Grade: HD - 85

Comments:
Linear Algebra:
This part of the course was great and taught by Professor Daniel Mansfield. He is the best lecturer ever! Everyone loves him not just 
because he is nice but also he teaches very well. He makes the lecture actually enjoyable and is very clear with his explanations. Pray to
god you get him because he is truly amazing.
Calculus:
This part of the course was taught TERRIBLY by the other Professor. He goes through content faster than anyone you've ever seen. Nothing
was explained and we were expected to pick up everything immediately without any explanation. 60% of the lecture hall would be empty...

Now in general the course was pretty easy. If you've done 4u maths this course will be a breeze for you. The final exam was really easy as well, as you'll find most of the questions being in the format of 'find', 'calculate', 'solve' etc, with an occasional prove or show. Calculus is literally 4u all over again so that part will be very easy. Algebra there will be a lot of content you have not learnt but it isn't hard to pick up. However with the new syllabuses coming in even linear algebra will probably be covered in 4u.

In general I quite liked this course, it was a good course with some really interesting content that's not too hard.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: iregretdoingactl on May 27, 2019, 09:51:52 am
Subject Code/Name: MATH3201- Dynamical Systems and Chaos

Contact Hours: 4 hours of lectures, 1 hour of tutorial per week

Assumed Knowledge: ODEs, ODEs, and more ODEs

Assessment:  two class tests worth 20% each, one final worth 60%

Lecture Recordings?  No.

Notes/Materials Available:  Skeleton lecture notes available on Moodle.

Textbook: Nope.

Lecturer(s): Adelle Coster

Year & Trimester of completion: 2018 S2

Difficulty: 3.5/5

Overall Rating:  5/5

Your Mark/Grade: 83

Comments:

If you are like me - an idiot who knew nothing and chose this course purely because the name sounded hella cool, you're gonna be in for a bad time because you're gonna be choking from the sheer quantities of ODEs being shoved down your throat. Not only that, instead of the horror of having to derive analytical solutions to those dynamical systems like the typical layer of hell, you'll be subjected to the thick, ribbed schlong of having to work out numerical solutions in incredibly painful and excruciating detail. The only chaos in this class will be your hormones and mental state as each question takes you 5 pages of working out only for you to realise that you made a small mistake 3 pages in.

In saying that, this is a fantastic course that I would wholeheartedly recommend purely because of the amazing lecturer Adelle Coster, one of the best i've ever had. Having looked at the new course outline, I realise that Christopher Angstmann will be the one lecturing this year, but if you ever have a chance to take a class by Adelle, I promise you won't regret it.

Under Adelle, the two class test closely follows the content of the lecture, but due to the verbose nature of the required answers, a relatively strong grasp of content is perhaps necessary to finish within the allocated time. The final exam under our lord and saviour Adelle has always been a chose your own adventure type of thing, where you only have to pick and do 4 out of 6 of the available questions, which is great if your brain don't have enough cells available to understand every topic, or less great if you are big boy Rui Tong. Experiences may vary under the new lecturer.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: emilyygeorgexx on May 27, 2019, 10:25:43 am
Subject Code/Name: LAWS1052 - Introducing Law and Justice

Contact Hours:  4 hours of lectures per week, 1 hour tutorial (research component)

Assumed Knowledge: N/A

Assessment: 
Court and Tribunal Report - 10%
Extended Case Note - 30%
Class Participation - 20%
Research Exam - 10%
Final Exam - 30%

Lecture Recordings? No, attendance is compulsory as a roll is taken

Notes/Materials Available: Notes given by your lecturer, notes on Moodle, past papers, etc

Textbook: Laws and Justice in Australia: Foundations of the Legal System by Prue Vines - you really need the textbook as all weekly readings are derived from there

Lecturer(s): Lecturer: Justice Selwyn Selikowitz, Tutor: Mr Colin Fong

Year & Trimester of completion: T1 2019

Difficulty: 3/5

Overall Rating:  2/5

Your Mark/Grade: DN

Comments:

I think firstly, the biggest plus to law at UNSW is that the lectures are very small. You only really have about 30 people in your lecture, which is similar to a high school class, and makes it easier to engage and ask questions more. Being my first law course at university, it was very interesting to say the least. This purely stems from the fact that it wasn't really actual law but rather just legal history from like the 1600's and onwards. It covers topics such as Settlement, Glorious Revolution, England, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Rights, etc. I am not really a history fan at all so for me I found this course to be quite boring the entire term and struggled to get through it. However, it did get interesting in the very last week where we learnt about intentional torts and torts. This topic covered in the last week is a nice introduction to the following course in Term 2 called 'Torts'.

Law courses rarely have a tutorial but as this is the first law subject you take, you have a weekly tutorial which is focused on legal research skills and methods. It covers things like how to cite cases, use legal data bases, assisting in interpretating statutes, research methods/strategies, etc. I honestly thought this class was a semi waste of time as the whole class basically did nothing and we barely got through the content each week and ended up having to do it for 'homework', despite minimum assistance on how to actually complete the tasks. There is a workbook that you have to fill in each week and your tutor will check it 2-3 times in the term to see if you have completed the work. Although, I probably didn't use the time as effectively as possible, it's actually really important to pay attention as you need all these skills for the rest of your law degree.

The exam was okay although I personally thought it was a lot of work to do in 2 hours. The final exam includes a statutory interpretation question, which you have to prep for like 2 weeks in advance, an intentional torts problem and a choice of one essay. I tried to split all sections into 40 minutes each however, some sections took longer than others which left me with only 30 minutes to try and get a decent essay in. The research exam was also alright, although I felt underprepared. Questions were pretty straightforward if you had a look at past papers but it generally covers coming up with research strategies, case citation and looking at statutes (extrinsic/intrinsic material). However, there are some really odd questions in there as well. I think for this one question I had to just come up with a title relating to Aboriginal Rights for 1 mark, which imo is pointless. However, main plus side of the law exams is that they are open book! Yet, it can sometimes get overwhelming because you just have so much paper everywhere!
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: emilyygeorgexx on May 27, 2019, 10:12:34 pm
Subject Code/Name: ACCT1501 - Accounting and Financial Management 1A

Contact Hours: 2 hour lecture per week, 1.5 hour tutorial per week

Assumed Knowledge: N/A

Assessment:
Class Participation - 10%
Online Quizzes - 15%
Mid Term Exam - 25%
Final Exam - 50%

Lecture Recordings? Yes

Notes/Materials Available: Endless notes on the internet, past papers, stuff on Moodle

Textbook: Financial Accounting: An Integrated Approach 7th Edition 2019 by Ken Trotman, Elizabeth Carson, Kate Morgan + Management Accounting Supplement

Lecturer(s): Lecturers: Youngdeok Lim, Chuan Yu, Conor Clune; Tutor: Conor Clune

Year & Trimester of completion: T1 2019

Difficulty: 3.5/5

Overall Rating: 3/5

Your Mark/Grade: DN

Comments:
I found this course to be particularly challenging at times despite having some background knowledge from Business Studies. The first 3 or so weeks were fine but then as the weeks progressed it all builds on top of one another and becomes quite complex and a lot to deal with at once. It became really hard if you got stuck on concepts in like Week 4 and then you were also trying to learn the content in say Week 7. I think this was aided by the fact of yes, trimesters, as at one point they were trying to teach like 3 chapters of the textbook in one 2 hour lecture and this equated to approximately 100 or so pages of the textbook. The management accounting topics were just a bit odd compared to what we had learned in the previous 8 weeks. However, I think I enjoyed it more than the financial accounting content.

The exams were pretty alright if you had done the practice papers and knew your stuff. However, in saying that the final exam was definitely more than challenging, particularly the multiple choice. The mid term was also fine, had plenty of time to spare. The online quizzes are pretty easy as well, a definite easy 15 marks to get. However, there is one group presentation in the term and its important to get a good group otherwise you just don't get the work done (although this is just common with group work in general).

Lectures could get a bit boring and is definitely hard to stay focused for 2 hours straight. Some lecturers are better than others but otherwise they were pretty much the same. My tutor actually ended up being one of the lecturers so that was a bonus.

Although, this course was okay and I did alright, I will not be completing 1B.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: owidjaja on May 27, 2019, 10:50:01 pm
Subject Code/Name: ENGG1000 - Introduction to Engineering Design and Innovation

Contact Hours: 2 hour common lecture (for the first 4 weeks), 1 hour technical lecture (MECH Stream), 1 hour mentoring session per week

Assumed Knowledge: None

Assessment: Depends on the project chosen but this was the assessment outline for Project ARDET:
Impromptu Design Writing Task - 5%
Problem Statement Presentation - 5%
Design Challenge Calculations - 3%
Team Presentation - 5%
Individual Design Report - 5%
Hardware Lab Report - 5%
Design Challenge Testing - 7%
Design Proposal Report - 10%
Compliance Testing - 10%
Design Journal (checked twice) - 10%
Final Testing - 20%
Final Report - 10%

Lecture Recordings? For common lectures, there are lecture recordings but uploaded very late. For technical lectures, no.

Notes/Materials Available: Depends on what project you chose.

Textbook: Dym, C.L. and Little, P. (2014). Engineering Design: A Project-Based Introduction, 4th edition, John Wiley and Sons but we never used it so no need to purchase it.

Lecturer(s): Lecturers are mainly the student mentors and project coordinators and always changed each week.

Year & Trimester of completion: T1 2019

Difficulty: 3/5

Overall Rating: 3/5

Comments:
This is the type of course where you spend a whole term in a group project. They made changes to the way ENGG1000 works. It used to be you choose what kind of stream you wanted to go into (e.g. ELEC, MECH etc.) but this year we chose from a range of projects that were multidisciplinary. Project ARDET was mainly mechanical but there was also mechatronics, software and electrical engineering involved. Project ARDET required us to build an autonomous vehicle that can pick up balls and travel through an obstacle course. Because we haven't been taught things like vehicle performance modelling or programming, it was challenging to finish the project since we mainly taught ourself how to build the vehicle. Even the project coordinators and mentors weren't expecting much in the final testing. On the final testing day, most of the vehicles didn't work (i.e. motors were fried, servos broke, wheels fell off) and our final testing marks were moderated.

I didn't mind the course. The assessments weren't too bad. It was just a bit annoying that they threw in the Design Challenge in the middle of the term, so we were scrambling to finish our prototype for the compliance testing (which was the week after). I was also lucky to be put into a good group. When we chose the project, I had to complete a survey about my skills and how I worked in groups and they used that to create the groups. I personally found it beneficial because I was put in a group where we had different skills (some of the members were comfortable with writing the code, others were comfortable with construction, I was comfortable with the report component).

The common lecture was very boring. It was hard to stay awake during those lectures because they were going through standard soft skills like how to work in a group, how to write a problem statement (which does link to one of the assessments), how to do group presentations etc. A lot of us left halfway and by the last common lecture, no one really showed up because my group would prefer using that 2 hours working on the project.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: jazz519 on May 28, 2019, 11:23:29 am
Subject Code/Name: CHEM2041 - Analytical Chemistry - Essential Methods

Contact Hours:  3 x 1 hr lectures, 1 x 4 hr lab

Assumed Knowledge: First Year Chem courses (CHEM1031 and CHEM1041)

Assessment:  10% Stats moodle exam, 15% Lab core skills, 10% Laboratory report, 20% Lab results, 5% structural determination assignment, 40% final exam

Lecture Recordings?  Yes, but some lectures write on the whiteboard

Textbook: Fundamentals of Analytical Chemistry by A.Skoog (a good book but not entirely necessary I used ChemLibre Texts and it had the same content), Organic Structures From Spectra L.Field (a very good book for practice questions for the structural determination spectroscopy part of the course)

Lecturer(s): Alex Donald, Les Field, Chuan Zhao, Pali Thordarson

Year & Trimester of completion: 2019 Trimester 1

Difficulty: 3.5

Overall Rating:  5

Your Mark/Grade: 96 HD (for any future student that cares this was the mark for 1st ranking)

Comments:
I really enjoyed this course as it was very well designed and the assessments are designed to try to maximise your learning but while having fair marking and helpful feedback. The lectures were on the most part really good for this course, all were very knowledgable on the topics they taught. This course will favour people who did well in the structural determination aspect of CHEM1041 as it goes into more detail (I.e. C-13 NMR and other forms of spectroscopy) for Les Field's section. Other topics covered include chromatography and mass spectrometry (what the different types are and how the machines work), electrochemistry (how pH electrodes, ion selective electrodes work) and nano-particle characterisation (different techniques and machines you can use to measure the size of and structure of nano particles)

The final exam for some people was tough but myself I found it fairly easy and straight forward as I made sure I covered all aspects of the course in depth. One thing I would recommend to study for the spectroscopy section is to do the problems in Les Field's Organic Spectra textbook. The questions are hard and difficult to understand at first but after a while of maybe 30 problems I figured out the different tricks you can use to figure out the structure of the chemical. This is a really important section to be good at, as the final exam had 10/40 marks for this and the questions are very similar to his textbook (you might get lucky and he chooses one you have done already).

The 10% stats exam is really easy and a free 10% as they give you the questions prior, which are the same in the exam but with different numbers. You may struggle initially if you haven't used Excel for calculating things but if you have prior experience requires very minimal studying

The 5% structural determination assignment is a bit more difficult but consists of a Moodle quiz (that you can do at home at your own pace) where you have about 40-50 marks of questions. I found this section relatively easy as I spent the time going through the spectroscopy textbook as mentioned above and the rest of the answers you just have to use your application of content in the lectures

The laboratory component is a large amount of marks at 45%. However, many of those marks are not extremely difficult to get. You get 15% for core skills (just have to complete all the tasks involved in the first 4 pracs - very easy just have to turn up to class. do 2-3 min pre labs and write up a section of a practical report such as an introduction or results section - which you do in groups which makes it even easier), 10% lab report on one of the practicals you are assigned to in the remaining weeks. The marking is fair and transparent as they tell you how much each section is worth. If you follow the scaffold they give you, you should do well as they provide a decent amount of feedback in the earlier pracs. The last 20% a little more difficult to get as it relies on the accuracy of the results you get but 8% of that mark is for getting the pre lab questions right so 12% on results which you can get unlucky in if your practical doesn't work perfectly but seeing as the rest of the course up until then is easy to get marks shouldn't bring down your overall too much

In all I really enjoyed this course and learnt a lot from it and in my opinion of the courses I have done so far for chemistry it has been the most useful in terms of increasing my knowledge on the subject
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: jazz519 on May 28, 2019, 12:18:26 pm
Subject Code/Name: CHEM1041 - Higher Chemistry 1B: Elements, Compounds and Life

Contact Hours: 3 x 1 hr lectures, 1 x 2 hr lab, 1 x 1 hr tutorial

Assumed Knowledge: CHEM1031

Assessment:  20% laboratory (made up of 10% core skills and 10% non-core skills), 10% midterm exam, 10% weekly quizzes, 60% final exam

Lecture Recordings?  Yes

Notes/Materials Available: Moodle, lecture notes, past papers (released closer to the exams), tutorial questions

Textbook: Chemistry 3rd Edition (the book is fairly useful for the content but its more useful in terms of the practice questions because the tutorial questions apart from the ones with numerical calculations they don't give you any solutions apart from asking in the tutorial)

Lecturer(s): Prof Thordarson, Dr Nguyen, A/Prof Ball

Year & Trimester of completion: 2018 Semester 2

Difficulty: 4

Overall Rating:  3.5

Your Mark/Grade: 88

Comments:
This course is very different from CHEM1031 because there aren't as many calculations in this course compared to that one, but even for people who aren't as mathematically inclined I feel like this course is harder than 1031 because of the need to understand the content rather than follow steps that you can get away with in calculations.

Many will find this course challenging in the organic chemistry section which I would say is the hardest part of the course. This part of the course it's really important you don't leave it until the last minute to study because it is literally impossible to do this due to the shear amount of reactions and potential questions you could get. The questions here involve detailing the mechanism for a chemical reaction or test the synthesis of a complex molecule from a more simpler one. The first part of the course, the isomers, rate theory and structural determination section, is relatively easy it just takes a little bit of time to remember and understand how to do the problems. The inorganic section of the course is fairly easy to understand and is explained relatively well in lectures.

For this course the best way to study the content is to do the tutorial questions they provide on the week you have the tutorial because there are no answers that you can look at afterwards. The textbook is also helpful for this as it has similar questions and they have answers so that is good for testing your knowledge.

The midterm exam is out of 15 multiple choice questions on the first part of the course (isomers, rate theory and structural determination) and is relatively similar to the past paper provided however, I would say slightly more difficult

The laboratories are relatively easy to perform if you follow the instructions and you should be able to get a mark of 15/20 even with an average performance. The mastery in experiments is hard to get sometimes because you have to get within 2% of the actual value but if you can get this a few times throughout the term then you should end up with a lab mark around 18/20

The weekly quizzes you have 3 attempts and they are not too difficult as they just test concepts in the lectures that week

The final exam is very challenging especially for the organic section on reaction pathways but if you study consistently and do the tutorial questions you should be able to get most of the questions correct
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: jazz519 on May 28, 2019, 12:37:15 pm
Subject Code/Name: GENM0707 - Nutrition and Health

Contact Hours:  1 x 1 hr Lecture, 1 x 2 hr Tutorial

Assumed Knowledge: None

Assessment: 20% Weekly Online Quizzes (2% each), 20% Nutrition Self Reflection Project, 20% Group Presentation on a Nutrition Topic, 40% Capstone Paper

Lecture Recordings?  Yes

Notes/Materials Available: lecture materials are sufficient for most of the course

Textbook: No textbook

Lecturer(s): Dr Rebecca Reynolds

Year & Trimester of completion: 2018 Semester 2

Difficulty: 2

Overall Rating:  4.5

Your Mark/Grade: 90

Comments:
Quite an interesting general education course that will teach you about many aspects of nutrition. 20% weekly quizzes are pretty easy as the material is taken directly from the lecture, lecture attendance may be beneficial to make friends but you can easily complete the course watching the lecture at home. 20% nutrition self-reflection project involves writing a 1500 word report about your nutrition habits and evaluating them in terms of if you are getting the recommended nutritional value and justifying why you took certain food choices (good idea to try talk about all the different factors affecting your eating such as health reasons, cultural or religious reasons). The marking for this is relatively fair and if you follow the structure provided it is not too difficult of an assignment. The 20% group presentation is in tutorials where you are given about 2-3 weeks to make a presentation about a certain nutrition topic. Common ones I saw were on intermittent fasting, dairy alternatives and their effects, keto diet etc. This presentation is around 15 minutes long where each person has 3 minutes to speak in the group and there is a 3 minute interactive activity at the end you have to do most people did some type of quiz or gameshow for this. It depends whether you get a good group for this but even so most of the marks for the project are on your individual presentation skills and there is a small component for the overall group aspect. If you are someone who is good at presenting then this is a good option for you. The 40% capstone paper I won't lie is really long to write because it is around 2000-2500 words. In the assignment you have to choose a certain nutrition question specified in the assessment detail and write about it using scientific journals and other resources. However, a benefit of this is that you don't have to do a final exam so as soon as you finish the assignment you are finished with the course
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: jazz519 on May 28, 2019, 12:52:12 pm
Subject Code/Name: MATH1231 - Mathematics 1B

Contact Hours:  2 x 2 hr lectures, 1 x 1 hr tutorial

Assumed Knowledge: MATH1131

Assessment:  20% tutorial class tests, 20% Maple (lab test and online tutorials), 60% final exam

Lecture Recordings?  Yes

Notes/Materials Available:  Course pack and lecture notes have everything needed

Textbook: Don't need the textbook just use the course pack

Lecturer(s): Daniel Mansfield (Algebra) and Joshua Capel (Calculus)

Year & Trimester of completion: 2018 Semester 2

Difficulty: 3

Overall Rating:  4.5

Your Mark/Grade: 90

Comments:
The lectures first off were excellent. Daniel Mansfield is probably the most interesting and engaging lecture I have had while at UNSW. Joshua Capel although not as on the funny side of telling stories as Mansfield he still a really good lecture who throughly explains and works through the problems and is easy to understand and follow.

The 20% class quizzes are definitely harder than MATH1131, however, still same as before if you do the tutorial questions and the past class tests at the back of the tutorial books you will do relatively well as the questions are similar. Maple as usual is something that is boring to do but gives you free marks if you do it. The 60% final exam was difficult but similar to the past papers provided and the amount of resources on this section is more than ample to help with your preparations as they even have livestreams where they go through some past papers.

Overall the course was really good and well taught but as usual with a maths subject you have to put in consistent effort through the term to get a good mark as it is difficult to absorb a large number of concepts in a short time particularly if you are not mathematically inclined
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: FutureLawStudent on May 28, 2019, 01:40:24 pm
Subject Code/Name: LAWS1052 - Introducing Law and Justice

Contact Hours: 5

Assumed Knowledge: None

Assessment:10% Court Report, 20% Class Participation, 30% Case Note, 10% Research Exam, 30% Final Exam

Lecture Recordings? No

Notes/Materials Available: Various things floating around, some lecturers more generous than others in terms of notes provided.

Textbook: Law and Justice in Australia by Prue Vines (and the Torts textbook, although you can hold off until LAWS1061 to buy it, I don't see why you wouldn't purchase them at the same time, especially if you want to do the Introductory Moot).

Lecturer(s): Prue Vines and Dao Coorey (Research Tutorial)

Year & Trimester of completion: 2019 T1

Difficulty:3.5

Overall Rating:  4

Your Mark/Grade: 88

Comments: ILJ is a course that many students find difficult and frustrating, however it imparts some really important skills and I feel that it is is a good introduction to law and is well balanced in terms of legal history and content. It certainly is a lot of work in comparison to other first year courses (such as Micro 1) however, if you can keep on top of the readings and do the online activities, it's not too bad. Trimesters have definitely made things cramped and rushed, but you can still definitely learn the required information in the time given. All the material is posted online, so it is easy to work at your own pace. The research component is very useful and engaging, although many students seemed to ignore it. Overall the course was enjoyable, but there were certainly frustrations. However, I feel this is expected when you study something that you have never really studied before.

Dao and Prue were both great and engaging.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: jazz519 on May 28, 2019, 06:46:06 pm
Subject Code/Name: PHYS1221 - Physics 1B

Contact Hours:  3 x 1 hr lectures, 1 x 2 hr lab, 1 x 1 hr problem solving class

Assumed Knowledge: PHYS1121, year 12 physics also helpful

Assessment:  50% final exam, 20% laboratory mark (10% group project, 10% other labs), 10% fortnightly quizzes, 20% 2 in class exams using Moodle (basically questions selected from the 10% fortnightly quizzes)

Lecture Recordings? Yes, but both of the lectures write on the blackboard so its harder to follow without being there

Notes/Materials Available: Lecture notes, past papers on Moodle and MIT opencourseware (I found was helpful)

Textbook: There was a textbook but the lecture notes material is more than enough as there is also a problem solving booklet given

Lecturer(s): Adam Micolich and Richard Newbury

Year & Trimester of completion: 2018 Semester 2

Difficulty: 4

Overall Rating: 5

Your Mark/Grade: 95

Comments:
This course is quite difficult however it is quite an interesting course more so than PHYS1121 I would say. The lecturers for this course are really good and explain their content with adequate practice problems shown as well. The course is split into two main sections. Electromagnetism and Quantum Physics. I found both parts of the course really interesting and useful

The 20% lab mark has two aspects. One which is a 10% group project where you have around 3 weeks to run experiments on a certain area you use from the ones provided. You write a report on the experiments and do a 10 minute presentation as well. This is a great way to make friends in the course, however, as with all group work projects if you don't have members putting in equal effort then you may lose marks in this area. The marking in the presentations was quite tough but for the report marking was a little easier. The other 10% for the lab marks comes from doing pre lab quizzes and performing a few more practicals on which they mark your results and responses to questions in the lab manual. The experiments are probably harder than PHYS1121, however, these marks are still relatively easy to get if you work well with your lab partner.

The 10% fortnightly quizzes (about 6 of them) are quite difficult and it can take multiple attempts till you get a full mark on them. These questions I would say are the most important study resource you have at your disposal because even if you get the question wrong it comes with a full worked solution with explanation at each step. However, because there are around 30 questions in the quiz bank from which each attempt is selected, if like me you put in the dedication to doing them all you will get the 10% in this area. An added benefit of putting in the time into these quizzes, is that because both the in class tests are questions selected from the quiz bank used for the fortnightly quizzes. So if you have already studied or completed these questions prior you can get a good mark for another 20% of the course as well.

The 50% final exam was a quite difficult exam however the questions are relatively similar in type to the ones covered in lectures and because there are so many past papers they make available to students you have a lot of practice resources to have a go at prior to the exam. Professor Newbury also released additional questions for his section as well that were helpful.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: owidjaja on May 29, 2019, 08:42:55 pm
Subject Code/Name: MATH1131 - Math 1A

Contact Hours: 6

Assumed Knowledge: HSC Mathematics Extension 1 but if you got 85/100 in HSC Mathematics you should be fine.

Assessment: 
Weekly quizzes - 20%
Lab Test - 2 x 10%
Assignment - 10%
Final Exam - 50%

Lecture Recordings? Yes

Notes/Materials Available: Course notes, lecture slides and past papers.

Textbook: S.L. Salas, E. Hille and G.J. Etgen, Calculus – One and Several Variables, any recent edition, Wiley but not compulsory (I never really used it).

Lecturer(s):
Algebra: Daniel Mansfield
Calculus: Arnaud Brothier

Year & Trimester of completion: T1 2019

Difficulty: 4.5/5

Overall Rating: 3/5

Comments:
As someone who dropped from 3U to 2U, I struggled a lot. It also doesn't help when your tutor straight up tells you in the first tutorial that I'm gonna struggle because I only did 2U (totally great for my self esteem). This meant that I had to do a lot of preparation during the holidays and brush up my 3U stuff. And because I'm a slow learner, it did get very overwhelming to try and keep up. I personally liked algebra over calculus. Part of it was because Daniel Mansfield is a very engaging lecturer and explains concepts really well, but also because there isn't a lot of theorems to remember (although I did struggle with complex numbers). On top of that, I liked how Mansfield explained each step in his working out.  Calculus, although the content is very familiar, was difficult because most of the working out required you to refer to theorems and a lot of the familiar concepts were taught in a more formal way with new notations, which made it even more confusing. It didn't help that Brothier literally read from the slides and went through the topics really fast. He also tends to put the working out on the slides in big chunks and would kinda talk through it, but he doesn't go step-by-step, which made it even more confusing.

However, the course notes were very helpful. It was my go-to source for studying because they have the important theorems and definitions but then they'd go through 2 or 3 examples and do a step-by-step working out. What I found annoying is that they don't have solutions for the recent past papers, only solutions for the ones in the exam pack. As for the actual final exam, I struggled a lot. When I look back on the paper, there are some questions that are doable but I'd still find it difficult. One thing to note, if you final mark is between 45-49 (and I think if your tutorial attendance is minimum 80%) they'll let you take a supplementary exam. The supplementary exam is done on Maple TA and the questions are a lot nicer than the final exam.

In general, it was very challenging but the math department does give a lot of support (i.e. Mansfield's math livestreams, the math drop in centre, course notes etc.).
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: FutureLawStudent on May 30, 2019, 08:54:49 pm
Subject Code/Name: ECON1101 - MICROECONOMICS 1

Contact Hours: 2*1.5 hour lectures a week, 1 1.5 hour tutorial

Assessment:  20% Playconomics, 10% In-Tutorial Test (10 Short Answer Questions), 20% Mid-Semester Test (12 MC worth 6 marks and 14 marks of short answer), 50% Final (2 Hrs, 50 MC)

Lecture Recordings?  Yes

Notes/Materials Available:  Heaps. UQ past papers are very useful.

Lecturer(s): Alberto Motta <3

Year & Trimester of completion: 2019/1

Difficulty: 4/5

Overall Rating: 4/5

Your Mark/Grade: 85

Comments: I would not review Micro 1 if it weren't for trimesters. As the other reviews noted, this an enjoyable and interesting course that isn't too challenging. However, trimesters have made it more difficult than it used to be (at least, it seems to be the case). The mid-semester exam was particularly brutal, with the average being a fail. While the content isn't overly difficult, especially if you did well in HSC Economics, the fact that you have 6 weeks to learn and revise what is probably close to 75% of the course difficult makes it difficult. Previously 20% of the cohort would get an HD, however I highly doubt this is the same for this trimester. I know someone who received 95 in HSC economics yet only received a low distinction in the course. In saying that, I know someone who got 96 in the course (yet they received a perfect score in PHYS1131 and MATH1141). The fact they only used 8 weeks to teach the course means that it was crammed and there wasn't sufficient time to revise the concepts, meaning even if you understood them you wouldn't necessarily be rewarded for this.

TL;DR the course has not been adjusted for trimesters, at least effectively. Nonetheless the course is still relatively easy from a content perspective, so if you take it after your first term of uni you could still probably do very well.

Alberto Motta is the best and funniest lecturer alive and if you can get him as a lecturer I 100% recommend him (especially because he has a habit of "forgetting" to turn his microphone on ;).


Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: kierisuizahn on June 01, 2019, 02:16:40 pm
Subject Code/Name: COMP1521 - Computer Systems Fundamentals

Contact Hours: 2hr + 1hr Lecture, 1x 1hr Tutorial + 2hr Lab (Combined)

Assumed Knowledge:
Prerequisites:
Assessment:
Lecture Recordings? Yes - screen and voice recorded.

Notes/Materials Available: Lecture slides and course material all uploaded to WebCMS. Since it was the first year offering this course, there were no past exams available, but tutors made sample questions, and past COMP1927 exam questions were located by students, of which a few related to COMP1521.

Textbook: None, but the following resources cover some of the course content:
Lecturer(s): Dr. John Shepherd

Year & Semester of completion: 2017 S2

Difficulty: 1/5

Overall Rating: 2/5

Your Mark/Grade: 99 HD

Comments: A very easy course, with very little content. A few weeks were spent learning MIPS, which is easy to anyone with experience programming before, and is basically a few weeks of free marks. Lecture slides were sufficient for me, and I didn't go to lectures, so I can't comment on the lecturer. Overall a kind of boring course, but I enjoyed the MIPS programming somewhat. Those interested in embedded systems will probably like this course a lot more. Bit of a tip: don't change your perfectly fine code just before the submission deadline; it will break everything and you'll lose a mark because they have to roll your submission back (FeelsBadMan).
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: kierisuizahn on June 01, 2019, 02:35:46 pm
Subject Code/Name: COMP2521 - Data Structures and Algorithms
Postgraduate Equivalent: COMP9024 - Data Structures and Algorithms

Contact Hours: 2hr + 1hr Lecture, 1x 1hr Tutorial + 2hr Lab (Combined)

Assumed Knowledge:
Prerequisites:
Assessment:
Lecture Recordings? Yes - screen and voice recorded.

Notes/Materials Available: Lecture slides and course material uploaded to WebCMS.

Textbook: Note: I don't use textbooks and can't comment on their usefulness
Lecturer(s): Dr. Ashesh Mahidadia

Year & Semester of completion: 2017 S2

Difficulty: 2/5

Overall Rating: 3/5

Your Mark/Grade: 96 HD

Comments: An interesting course, with a few difficult parts, and very useful overall. One of my gripes with the course is the harmonic scaling applied to assignments and final exam results. If you get a lower mark in the final exam than your assignments, your assignment marks are scaled down using the harmonic mean. It's used to stop plagiarism, but serves to punish students regardless, since you're almost certainly going to go better in the assignments than the final exam. Didn't attend lectures so I can't comment on the lecturer, but the written materials were more than sufficient, and the tutorials went along with them well. In week 4 there was a "Sort Detective" lab where you were given two programs (compiled and with no read permissions so you couldn't decompile them) and had to run tests on them to figure out which sort they were, and write up a report about it (like a couple pages or something, not a proper report), which I found interesting.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: kierisuizahn on June 01, 2019, 02:54:42 pm
Subject Code/Name: MATH1081 - Discrete Mathematics

Contact Hours: 4x 1hr Lecture, 1x 1hr Tutorial

Assumed Knowledge:
Corequisites (prerequisite or to be completed alongside MATH1081):
Assessment:
Lecture Recordings? Yes - screen/document camera and voice recorded.

Notes/Materials Available: Lecture notes uploaded to Moodle, and past exams provided as well. A few with solutions were uploaded to Moodle, but there were many in the exam bank anyway. Past class tests were also uploaded on Moodle.

Textbook: Note: I don't use textbooks and can't comment on their usefulness
Lecturer(s): Prof. Jim Franklin, Dr. Tarig Abdelgadir

Year & Semester of completion: 2017 S2

Difficulty: 3.5/5

Overall Rating: 4/5

Your Mark/Grade: 95 HD

Comments: My favourite first year maths course. The content is often interesting and some of the harder questions are really interesting (they're also more common than the harder questions in MATH1141 and MATH1241). I didn't go to lectures, so I can't comment on the lecturers, but the course material is mostly sufficient anyway. The notes on combinatorics are kind of all over the place though. It would be nice if more problems were in the problem set, for more practice, but there are multiple questions in the lecture notes you can turn into exercises for extra practice. The course focuses on making you think like a mathematician, rather than solve problems simply, so the questions are more conceptually difficult, which I know many people struggle with, but is certainly more fun for a purist like me. The graph theory topic is also very applicable to CS (specifically COMP2521), and I definitely recommend this course.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: kierisuizahn on June 01, 2019, 03:12:24 pm
Subject Code/Name: MATH1241 - Higher Mathematics 1B

Contact Hours: 2x 2hr Lecture, 1x 1hr Tutorial

Assumed Knowledge:
Prerequisites:
Assessment:
Lecture Recordings? Yes - screen and voice recorded.

Notes/Materials Available: Course pack sold as with MATH1141, and again available online to print yourself. Many past exams provided for both final exams and class tests, which are good preparation material. Some extra final exams uploaded to Moodle with full solutions as well.

Textbook: Note: I don't use textbooks and can't comment on their usefulness
Lecturer(s): Prof. Catherine Greenhill, Dr. John Steele

Year & Semester of completion: 2017 S2

Difficulty: 3/5

Overall Rating: 3/5

Your Mark/Grade: 95 HD

Comments: Very similar to how MATH1141 is run, but some more interesting content (specifically integral and series convergence). I didn't attend lectures so I can't comment on lecturers, but the course notes covered the content to a good depth anyway, just as with the MATH1141 course notes. The number of questions in the course notes is sufficient. Most of the difficulty is from the sequence and series topic from calculus, and the algebra content is pretty easy overall. A good foundation for the second year courses, but sort of dry barring the few interesting questions in the final.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: kierisuizahn on June 01, 2019, 08:36:29 pm
Subject Code/Name: COMP3821 - Extended Algorithms and Programming Techniques

Contact Hours: 1x 2hr + 1hr Lecture, 1x 1hr Lecture (extended class)

Assumed Knowledge:
Prerequisites:
Assessment:
Lecture Recordings? Yes - screen and voice recorded, as well as some videos of the lecture on YouTube as the blackboard was used regularly (especially in the extended lecture)

Notes/Materials Available: All lecture slides posted online, and past final exams available. Example midterm was supplied, and a list of problem solving questions was posted in preparation for both the midterm and final.

Textbook: Note: I don't use textbooks and can't comment on their usefulness. One of
Lecturer(s): A/Prof. Aleks Ignjatovic

Year & Semester of completion: 2018 S1

Difficulty: 4/5

Overall Rating: 5/5

Your Mark/Grade: 99 HD

Comments: So far, my absolute favourite COMP course. The course focuses on problem solving, and a lot of it is trying to give you the tools to apply various algorithms to different problems, and adjusting them where needed. The extended content goes into randomised algorithms, which was my favourite topic of the course. It is certainly a difficult course, but is very very fun, and I would 100% recommend it. I only attended a few lectures, but Aleks explains the concepts well, and is very helpful if you attend the consultations. If you're on the fence about doing it, take a look at the questions in the final exams, and see if they're the kind of question you like.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: jazz519 on June 02, 2019, 08:06:01 pm
Subject Code/Name: CLIM1001 - Introduction to Climate Change

Contact Hours: Online course (there is a group report though so some groups like mine preferred to meet in person)

Assumed Knowledge: None

Assessment:  30% Online Quizzes (Three 10% online quizzes with 40 questions and unlimited time), 10% discussion board participation, 15% group peer review (3 tasks, 5% each - very easy because its just your members in your group saying if you did work or not so if you do your fair share you will get a free 15%), 45% individual component (15% writing a report on a topic and getting it marked by three other peers, 15% quality of feedback you gave to other people you marked, 15% final revised report graded by course staff)

Lecture Recordings?  No lectures all material is in videos and text on Moodle

Notes/Materials Available:  All required materials are on Moodle

Textbook: None

Lecturer(s): No lecturer

Year & Trimester of completion: 2018 Sem 1

Difficulty: 1.5

Overall Rating:  4

Your Mark/Grade: 91

Comments:
In terms of a Gen Ed the subject is fairly light in terms of the work load as the assignments are not too lengthy.

One assignment is 3 main quizzes of 10% each that are not too difficult as it tests material you have to read on Moodle and that you can also use while doing the quiz since its online, at home and has unlimited time.

The discussion board participation can be a bit boring at times as the questions people ask can be repetitive however if you make a post like once every week you should get the marks for this part. Also, the posts were largely informal so you didn't have to do in-text referencing each time which makes this part of the course fairly fast and easy to do

The group tasks aspect is an easy way to get marks because although you write a report as a group you never actually get graded on the quality of the report, but rather just your participation in writing the report, which is judged by your group members. So if you do your part then you should get the maximum 15% mark for this

The individual component was worth 45% and is similar to the group report. There are three components to this: 15% initial report that is marked by 3 of your peers at random, 15% mark that you receive for people rating the feedback you gave to others in the previous marking component, 15% final revised report marked by a staff member. In this assignment, you essentially are given a topic and news article that you need to critically analyse in terms of the scientific evidence and other biases that the person may have had when writing their article.  The report is around 1500 words in length.

I found the subject overall to be fairly interesting in terms of describing all the aspects associated with climate change and the psychology of climate change as well which is linked to things like laws and public opinion. The assignments are fairly straight forward, however, as there is a peer review marking section for the individual component there is a chance that your mark may not be perfect as some students might mark harder on you than others. If you are someone who is fairly good at writing critical reports or essays similar to English but where you analyse something then this will be a good course for you. An added bonus is it doesn't have a final exam so you save time with that

Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: jazz519 on June 02, 2019, 08:31:47 pm
Subject Code/Name: PHYS1160 - Introduction to Astronomy

Contact Hours: Online course

Assumed Knowledge: None (but some knowledge of basic physics is helpful)

Assessment: 26% discussion group participation (something like 16% on forum participation, 10% assesses quality of your actual posts, by assessing 2 posts that you made on the forum that you submit in a section called 'Best Discussion Posts'), 32% interactive tutorials (small quizzes that check your understanding of the content), 18% essay on a topic that you choose from a list, 24% final test (online and at home, but is timed)

Lecture Recordings? No lectures

Notes/Materials Available: All required material is on Moodle

Textbook: No textbook

Year & Trimester of completion: 2018 Sem 1

Difficulty: 2

Overall Rating:  4.5

Your Mark/Grade: 93

Comments:
Many people do this course as a good wam booster and it cane used as that as I think more than 50% of people ended up getting a HD. However, you do have to keep up to date and treat it as a normal course for this type of mark. The content is not very hard but because there are marks associated with fortnightly forum discussion participation you do have to a little bit of work each week. The discussion posts consist of two parts: asking questions on the content you just read in that section (but you should try to post questions that are a little more in depth than just repeat the content in the lesson) and answering the questions other people post. For the answering part however, its like doing a short answer post each time because you do have to provide references to the information you used. However, answering 2-3 posts per week in a decent detail and asking 2-3 questions should get you these participation marks. One extra thing to consider is that you get a bonus mark for posting or answering a question in the first week of the topic each time.

There is a best discussion posts assignment you have to submit, where you choose two of the posts you made in the semester and submit them as being your best posts. If you spend your time doing the posts throughout the semester with a decent enough detail you should do relatively well in this section

The 18% essay is probably the most annoying part of the course but because they provide you with a topic and potential things you could write about it isn't that bad, but will take a little bit of time to write.

The final test is 24% and consists of a multiple choice quiz that you do at home. One tip though for this is to search the question on google as I found some of the questions in the test where actually online already

Overall, this course is interesting if you like learning about science topics (but without the maths aspect of it, that can make science difficult for some people). It is a good course to increase wam but also one that you can easily take too easy and end up getting a poor mark if you don't put in consistent effort as explained above
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: Caleb Campion on August 05, 2019, 12:24:31 pm
Code: [Select]
Subject Code/Name:
LAWS1052 - Introducing Law and Justice

Contact Hours:
4 class hours per week (2 lots of 2 Hour classes) + a 1 Hour Research Class

Assumed Knowledge:
N/A

Assessment: 
10% Court Report  (essay on court observations)
30% Case Note (Analysis on the Case + outcomes, ratio decedendi  etc)
20% Class Participation
30% Final Exam
10% Research Component Exam

Lecture Recordings? 
Class attendance is compulsory (pretty sure around 80% otherwise you fail)

Notes/Materials Available
Teacher may give you sheets each lesson, completely depends on teacher, you definitely only need the textbook.

Textbook:
Law and Justice in Australia - Foundations of the Legal System (Prue Vines)

Lecturer(s):
I had Prue Vines

Year & Trimester of completion:
Term 1, 2019.

Difficulty:
3/5.

Overall Rating: 
2-2.5/5
Your Mark/Grade:
HD - 86

Comments:
What makes this first course in Law so difficult is that you know everyone in the course is intelligent and highly capable of doing well, but at the same time you don’t know what the standard is. This course really just is a way to steady yourself and will take a while to get use to how Class works, the thinking required, and how good is good enough to get the marks you’re after. The content itself is hefty, and bores most people, but that’s just the nature of the first course in Law, and you just have to get through it. I found it bearable knowing that the teachers aren’t looking for you to remember dates, but rather concepts and ideas and the general landscape of the history. It gets much better in the last two weeks when you do intentional torts (assault, battery, false imprisonment) and is your first taster to what real law courses are like.

The sucky thing about the course is the huuugge amount of assessments you have. And now that there are trimesters, they really don’t have anything to do with the content you’ll be studying at the time they’re assigned to you.

Number one tip - just focus on analysis.

The real kicker is that you’ll study all the history and concepts for almost the entire course but it is only for one third of the exam - the essay.

Exam is 3 sections each 20 marks: An essay, a statutory interpretation question, and an intentional torts problem questions. I gave 40 minutes to each question in the two hour exam (time management is key), but used 10 minutes of each 40 minutes to plan out my response.

Overall, the research component is annoying and feels like a waste of time but is probably helpful later on, and the content is a bit boring and you really are treading through unchartered waters with this course initially, but it’s just what you would expect of a foundations course for a course as big as Law, and the term 2 course ‘Torts’ is sooooooo much better! You can do it.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: katie,rinos on August 14, 2019, 06:08:11 pm
Subject Code/Name: Materials and Structures of Music 4



Contact Hours: 1 1/2 hr lecture, 1 1/2 jazz studio, 1 1/2 hr aural tute



Assumed Knowledge: M&S 1-3



Assessment:  Composition (20%), Aural Analysis (10%), Aural test (5%), Auralia progress (5%), Harmony/analysis test (20%), Jazz harmony test (20%), Sight-singing test (5%), Music lit test (15%)

The harmony component of the course (Harmony test/Jazz test and composition) must be passed to pass the course.



Lecture Recordings?  No :(



Notes/Materials Available:  Content and practise analyses were put on moodle. 



Textbook: The Musician's Guide to Theory and Analysis, same textbook as M&S1-3, however I hardly used it this year.



Lecturer(s): Lecturer: John Peterson, Tutor (aural tute): Harrisson Collins, Tutor (jazz studio): Paul Cutlan



Year & Trimester of completion: 2019,2



Difficulty: 3.5-4/5



Overall Rating:  4/5

Your Mark/Grade: 66 CR



Comments:
I really enjoyed both last terms M&S and this one, especially compared to their 1st year courses. However, I’m still really happy that this was the last theory unit. I also thought there was a lot of assessments for the trimester, especially towards the end of the term.

Lectures:
During the first half of the term, we went through fugue writing and workshopped ideas for our 16-18 bar fugue composition due at the end of wk 5. Our lecturer was able to see what we were doing and help us during some of this time (and also by email). After, this was due we mainly spent time analysing both classical and pop pieces (and learning how to analyse 9th,11th and 13th chords). Our test at the end of the term, included 3 different analyses, 1 classical and 2 pop. We went through and we were given 3 possible classical pieces and class and 1 was chosen for the test. We were also given the first 8 bars of two pop songs and had to analyses 16 bars of both in the test. I mainly enjoyed these lectures, however sometimes they seemed to drag on or Peterson would ask people to answer questions about chords.

Tutes:
Our aural tute mainly started by going through both melodic dictation and sight singing, and then moved to looking at pieces on our listening list. We would listen to parts of the pieces while looking at the historical/significant aspects of the piece which prepared us really well for the listening test. In our listening test we were given a 2min excerpt of a piece and needed to identify aspects such as the composer, title, movement, date, and significance.
For our aural analysis, we had to analyse a 6-minute jazz piece using a table format. Our aural test was similar to the auralia exercises we were expected to do at home.

Studio:
Our studio went over beginner jazz theory and was really interesting because I went into it not knowing much about jazz. Cutlan was good at trying to explain the concepts clearly and gave lots of exercises to do in class. He also tried to include student participation by having us come to the front and write our answers on the board. We had homework exercises each week but nobody ever did them, so we used to go over it at the start of each lesson. Our test was based on what we had covered in the studio classes.   
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: katie,rinos on August 15, 2019, 12:14:40 pm
Subject Code/Name: EDST1108-Indigenous Perspectives in Education



Contact Hours: 2hr lecture, 1hr tute per week, compulsory walk on country excursion in wk 7



Assumed Knowledge: None

Assessment:  500 word Teacher ‘standpoint’ statement (45%), 5-minute video + 1500 word film justification on support teaching and learning (55%) All assessments must be passed to pass the course.



Lecture Recordings?  Yes, but had 80% attendance at lectures.



Notes/Materials Available: Not much-the education society hold assessment sessions and posted slides and reading list on moodle.



Textbook: Phillips, J. & Lampert, J. (2012). Introductory Indigenous studies in education (2nd Ed.). However, this is available through the library, you don’t need to buy this. It was only really helpful for the 1st assessment.

Lecturer(s): Lecturer & tutor: Dr Kevin Lowe



Year & Trimester of completion: 2019,2



Difficulty: 3.5/5



Overall Rating:  1.5/5

Your Mark/Grade: 85 HD



Comments:
I was already told by some of my friends that this was a bad course, so I came with low expectations. But this has definitely been my least favourite course so far. It didn’t help that our lectures were 6-8pm on a Monday night. Once our lecturer saw that some people would leave after marking their name off the roll, he would hand it out towards 7:30, which meant that we’d have to stay back even later to mark our attendance.

Most weeks we’d have guest lecturers come in to talk about different issues. However, most of the lectures seemed repetitive and tried to drive through the same main points which got really boring after a while. I think the content was important but it wasn’t taught in a way that was engaging and made me receptive of it. The tutes were mainly just group work going through the readings or questions that were asked of us. They were mostly based of the readings, but most people hadn’t done them so if you had, you spent half the time trying to explain it to the rest of the group. The best part of the course was the compulsory walk-on country excursion at La Perouse. I originally thought it would be terrible but I did this with some of my friends and it was really interesting walking around and hearing what the Aboriginal guides had to say about the area.

The assignments themselves were really frustrating. It’s a high fail rate course and because I had heard that, I was really anxious starting the first assignment. Even though they tried to explain it to us, we were still not too sure what we were meant to do. They needed to be worded in a particular way so not to offend anyone. The bibliography was included in the word count for both assessments, so it took me ages to cut down on the word count for my essays (and still sound coherent). The 2nd assignment was in 2 different parts and the 5-minute video was very annoying.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: Jack89 on August 20, 2019, 04:48:49 pm
Subject Code/Name: ELEC3105 - Electrical Energy

Contact Hours:  4 hours lectures (2x2 hour blocks), 3 hours lab (5 labs in the term), 1-2 hour tutorial

Assumed Knowledge: ELEC2134 (the part on power analysis), ELEC3115

Assessment:  5% weekly quizzes, 10% assignment, 15% midsem, 20% labs, 50% final.

Lecture Recordings?  Yes

Notes/Materials Available: There is a course summary and past paper on the ELSOC website. The lecturer provides a few past papers.

Textbook: I used 2 textbooks for reference to clarify any difficult concepts. "Electrical Machinery Fundamentals" and "Principles of Electric Machines and Power Electronics"

Lecturer(s): Rukmi Dutta

Year & Trimester of completion: 2019/2

Difficulty: 4/5

Overall Rating:  4/5

Comments:
This course is all about electrical power, with an emphasis on non-ideal motors, generators and transformers. There is a lot of circuit analysis (know your AC circuit analysis well!) but it's interesting to see how power engineers actually design and use these circuit analysis techniques to determine currents/voltages, etc. in a power system.

The first part of the course is about solar, wind and hydroelectric power, and the calculations of power and efficiency of these systems. Then it shifts into 3-phase power and transformers. Unlike in ELEC2134, the transformers are non-ideal, and an equivalent circuit has to be used instead. Then it shifts into motors and generators, with a focus on DC machines, induction machines and synchronous machines. There are different equivalent circuits for each type of machine and special procedures that must be memorized to find different quantities like the circuit parameters, power, losses, torque, etc. This is where the difficulty of the course mainly lies. There is quite a lot to remember, with a fair few large formulas too.

The labs are really good and quite enjoyable and interesting. The consolidate a lot of concepts. The quizzes and midsem are fine. The assignment is quite challenging with 2 difficult questions to solve. The final exam was fair, although there were a couple of derivation questions. Overall, it was an interesting course but sometimes it got just a bit tedious.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: Jack89 on August 28, 2019, 08:18:02 am
Subject Code/Name: ELEC3114 - Control Systems

Contact Hours:  4 hours lectures (2x2 hours), 2 hour tutorials, 2 hour labs

Assumed Knowledge: ELEC2134 (the Laplace transforms section), MATH2099 (The linear algebra section), other techniques from 1st and 2nd year math courses.

Assessment:  10% weekly online quizzes, 20% labs, 30% midsem, 40% final, 5% optional bonus project.

Lecture Recordings?  Yes

Notes/Materials Available:  There is a course summary on ELSOC. Past papers are provided by the lecturer.

Textbook: I used "Control Systems Engineering", Author Norman S. Nise. This came in handy for the more difficult concepts.

Lecturer(s): Arash Khatamianfar

Year & Trimester of completion: 2/2019

Difficulty: 5/5

Overall Rating:  5/5 (more like infinty/5)

Comments:
So far this has been one of the best and most interesting courses I've taken, tied with ELEC2133 and PHYS1131/PHYS1231. The lecturer was amazing and taught the content very well. He changed the course slightly and shifted the focus a little bit from previous years. The major topics were mathematical modelling in both time and frequency domains, state space design, PID controllers, steady state error, root locus methods, state variable feedback design (with LQR design) and frequency response techniques.

What I loved about this course was how well Arash taught it, he always went into depth to explain everything and backed up his teaching with plenty of worked examples. He always linked what we were learning to real life industry and also to his own PhD which involved robotic control systems. That's what makes him one the best lecturers.

Arash also completely redesigned the labs and made them link to the course much better than the old labs from previous years, as mentioned in another post for control systems. The labs consolidated a lot of the material in a practical way. They take time though, make sure to complete the prelabs and work quickly during the lab because they are quite long. However there are catch up labs in case you don't finish everything.

The weekly quizzes are fine, but the exams can be challenging. Arash writes very long exams. Almost no one finished the midsem and the final was also very time consuming. But for this difficult course, that's to be expected.

Overall, a fantastic course - I'll definitely be taking some control electives in 4th year.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: Jack89 on August 28, 2019, 08:44:10 am
Subject Code/Name: ELEC3145 - Real Time Instrumentation

Contact Hours:  2/3 hour lectures, 3 hour labs, 1 hour tutorials

Assumed Knowledge: , ELEC2134 (the Laplace transform section), and to a small extent ELEC3104 and ELEC2142 and MATH2099 (the linear algebra part)

Assessment:  10% lab checkpoints, 15% midsem, 15% lab exam, 60% final.

Lecture Recordings?  Yes

Notes/Materials Available:  Not much, possibly a real-time engineering textbook would come in handy

Textbook: None

Lecturer(s): Branislav Hredzak

Year & Trimester of completion: 2/2019

Difficulty: 2/5

Overall Rating:  4/5

Comments:
I actually took this elective after reading a previous review of it by Jamon, and it's well worth it. I would describe this course as being a sort of bridge between control systems and DSP, with a big focus on implementing controllers in the discrete-time domain. Mostly the content overlaps with control systems (state space methods, PID controllers, Laplace transforms) and DSP (z-transforms, discrete-time equations and filters).

There is a small, separate (3 weeks) part of the course which involves actually learning how to program in real-time and learning about how to implement a real-time system.

The content is not difficult, however one somewhat challenging part would be solving differential equations using the Runge-Kutta methods. The labs are quite enjoyable and not difficult (just a bit of basic C-programming is required). The midsem was fine but the final exam was quite difficult (e.g. in one question we actually had to solve a 4th order Runge Kutta using 2 iterations ). It probably didn't help that the final was held from 5:45 - 8:00pm.

Overall this is actually a very useful and interesting elective and I'd recommend taking it.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: blasonduo on September 05, 2019, 08:27:48 pm
Subject Code/Name: EDST2044 - Motivation in Learning and Teaching

Contact Hours: 2x 1-hour lecture and a 1-hour tutorial each week.

Assumed Knowledge: 2 first year EDST courses are required.

Assessment:
Personal Reflection (40%) - 1500 words
Annotated Lesson Plans (60%) - 2500 words (NOT including lesson plans, resources and
references)
4x online tasks (300-500 words each) (HURDLE)
All assessments must be passed to pass the course.

Lecture Recordings?  Yes (but weirdly still needed to attend :/ )

Notes/Materials Available: Previous DN and HD assignments were provided to allow a benchmark on what we were expected. Additional readings were also provided.

Textbook: None, but plenty of readings available (some required, some optional)

Lecturer(s): Dr Marianne Mansour and Dr Tracy Durksen

Year & Semester of completion: 2019 Term 2

Difficulty: 2.7/5

Overall Rating:  3.3/5

Your Mark/Grade: 78 DN

Comments:

I'm honestly surprised this course is an elective because there were many times where the content presented would've been extremely valuable for highschool classrooms. Motivation is one of the underlying aspects of learning, and the course had many different activities students could undertake to improve motivation, including the underlying theories behind them. The content is pretty interesting!

The first assessment was really straight forward and pretty easy, mainly reflecting on how your past experiences utilised motivational theories discussed in the course, and how to use them in the future, easy marks and the workload here wasn't too big.

However, there was a huge contrast when the second assessment came around. It was extremely useful for the future, but it took forever to complete. The assessment overall took me 3500 words, with 2 lesson plans, explanations on those lesson plans, and analysis of them. The number of other articles you had to read before tackling the assignment took forever. This assessment, although extremely long, is extremely useful for when we enter the classroom environment.

The lectures, so far in my education journey have been my favourite (luckily). It as if they were practising their teachings! The lectures were engaging and relevant. The only downside is the fact that as with all EDST courses, the lectures didn't need to be 2 hours (however for this course, it was the closest to actually achieving this)
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: RuiAce on September 06, 2019, 06:48:57 pm
Subject Code/Name: MATH3821 - Statistical Modelling and Computing

Contact Hours: 3 hours lecture in total, 1 hour lab, 1 hour tutorial

Assumed Knowledge: MATH2831/MATH2931. It then gets crammed very quickly in the very first lecture as a refresher.

Assessment:
- 2 x 10% assignments
- 20% mid-term (laboratory test)
- 60% final exam

Lecture Recordings?  Yes

Notes/Materials Available:
Slides are comprehensive but arguably dense...
Tutorial and laboratory questions uploaded, but solutions were only uploaded to the ones not covered in class. No real other resource.

Textbook: None, but this one was recommended as a side resource.

Lecturer(s): Tom Stindl

Year & Trimester of completion: 19t2

Difficulty: 4/5

Overall Rating:  3/5 3.5/5 - Experience made better following paper inspection

Your Mark/Grade: 94 96 HD

Comments:
This course is compulsory for all students pursuing a statistics major. (There is no higher counterpart.) It's essentially the course aimed at developing and training real-world application of statistics. The R software is used.

I think everyone felt this way. The lectures were far too packed. A bit too much content was present in this course and getting lost following the lecture was an unusually more common thing here. This change was implemented last year, but apparently there was more advice on how to deal with it. It's a huge trek trying to study for it otherwise.

Perhaps, a bit too much breadth given the time? I think he did try to put depth in, but it was a bit foreshadowed. Regardless, I wouldn't imagine a thing called keeping up with this course is possible unless somehow you've seen it all before.

Biggest drain was in the second assignment honestly. I appreciated the lecturer's genuine marking a lot, but mixing in both a report and the presentation was a bit torturous. Still though, there definitely were improvements - I was very thankful to find that Q&A panel and peer review was taken out. (I really shouldn't say this as a statistics student, but I wasn't interested in hearing about various investigations - I just wanted to do the task!)

Also unlike the first assignment, groups are randomly selected by the lecturer for the second. Some of my mates got put with bad teammates, which made things hard. I got lucky here.

Strong emphasis as in a prior review though - this course is NOT 100% computing. Although both assignments and the midterm revolved heavily around computing, the finals is still a 60% weighted exam, of which only roughly 10% was computing based. It's a math course, so expect some level of theory involved. Computing is just a means to an end when it comes to modelling.

Final exam questions are niche. Doing the tutorials helps a lot, because about half of our questions were based around them. But also you need to understand the content physically to be able to do a large portion of the rest of the exam.

It's just that proofs weren't really assessed much until the finals. The only proof question in assignment 1 was straightforward.

Also: Although MATH3871 is definitely not assumed knowledge, I found that doing it beforehand made the Bayesian half of this course FAR more dealable. Whilst some of my peers were forced to learn Bayesian altogether, I was like "oh yeah this is just 3871 gone nuts". Could be advice for you? Keep in mind though Bayesian is now offered in T3, whilst this is a T2 course.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: RuiAce on September 06, 2019, 07:14:31 pm
Subject Code/Name: COMP3821 - Extended Algorithms and Programming Techniques

Contact Hours: 2 x 2hr lectures. (No tutes)

Assumed Knowledge: Only COMP2521. (For the extended version, at least 65 in COMP2521 is required.)

Assessment: For our year:
- 2 assignments, individual weighting unknown but combined to 20% total.
- 40% midterm w/ 1 page cheat sheet
- 40% finals w/ 1 page cheat sheet
Supposedly there were bonus marks for active contributions on piazza, but I have no idea how that worked out.

Lecture Recordings?  Yes

Notes/Materials Available
Same lecture slides as has always been used for this course. The support staff that marked some of our solutions shared a reasonably large bank of past papers for the midterms/finals and also a piazza forum.

Textbook:
- Cormen, Leiserson, Rivest and Stein - Introduction to algorithms
- Kleinberg and Tardos - Algorithms design
Used the latter to help me learn NPC - that was useful at least.

Lecturer(s): Dr. Abdallah Saffidine

Year & Trimester of completion: 19t2

Difficulty: 4/5

Overall Rating: 1.5/5

Your Mark/Grade: 94 HD

Comments:
This course is the extended version of COMP3121, which is now core to computer science majors. (Basically the higher version.)

To be honest, despite somehow coming out alright, I was very disappointed by this course. I can never complain about 20% raw scaling, but after the bomb that was the mid-term (completely changed format, somewhat unrealistically spiked difficulty, pseudocode in the exam and also harsher marking criteria) this course became a huge trauma for a while. It was a huge struggle convincing myself to not drop this course in favour of the ordinary version later on.

Pseudocode is new to this course it seems. Not my cup of coffee, but not impossible to bear with for an assignment.

I do suspect that the course being hyped by not just like one person but several of my peers had an impact on this. I came into this course expecting a lot of things to be different.

Amazingly I found myself a bit rubbish at dynamic programming. Two tips about it: 1. don't expect good complexity all the time and 2. avoid greedy! I kept sidetracking into trying to find a greedy solution at time and had to remind myself "no that's not the way to do it".

NP-Completeness was new to the exam. It can occasionally get a bit challenging - make sure to think about those problems!

Wasn't the worst course I've done at the university though. At the very least the course is properly split into two halves. The midterm only examined the first half of the course, whilst the finals examined only the second half.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: jazz519 on September 06, 2019, 07:52:02 pm
Subject Code/Name: CHEM2021 - Organic Chemistry: Mechanisms and Biomolecules

Contact Hours:  4 hr of lectures a week (4 x 1 hour lectures), 4 hr lab

Assumed Knowledge: First Year Chem Courses (CHEM1031 and CHEM1041) and CHEM2041

Assessment:  TOO MANY assignments
- 5 lab practicals (worth 30% in total, so 6% each in which you have a mark out of 30 - 6 marks for lab book, 9 marks for core skills, 15 marks for lab report)
- Mid semester exam (17%)
- Assignment on Topic 2 (Carbonyl Chemistry) (3%)
- Assignment on Topic 3 (Aromatic Chemistry) (3%)
- In class quiz / exam on Topic 4 (Biologically important organic compounds) (3%)
- Final Exam (120 marks and 44%)

Lecture Recordings?  Yes, but some lecturers write stuff on the board. I didn't go to lectures (as I self learnt a lot from the textbook) but if you are someone who is going to probably struggle in the course a very good idea to attend them

Notes/Materials Available: Moodle slides are fairly good for overall content and but the issue is sometimes mechanisms are not in the lecture slides for the harder reactions, which is very annoying as the harder reactions can be very difficult to understand the first time and you don't know what to search up, so you end up having to use like youtube videos and wasting time figuring out which one links to your concept.

A good YouTube channel I found really helpful was Leah4sci

Textbook: Organic Chemistry 7th Edition by Paula Bruice (VERY VERY VERY useful. This textbook is amazing and very well written and has lots more examples to understand things than you would directly from the lecture slides)

Lecturer(s): Professor Martina Stenzel, Dr Vinh Nyugen, Dr Albert Fahrenbach

Year & Trimester of completion: 2019 trimester 2

Difficulty: 5

Overall Rating:  4

Your Mark/Grade: 95 HD (for any future student that cares this was the mark for 1st ranking)

Comments:
This course is very difficult if you are not someone who enjoys or is good at organic chemistry. If you struggled in the organic chemistry section in chemistry 1B, then you are going to struggle in this course most likely. The road map they provide you in Chemistry 1B in first year is no longer present in 2nd year organic chemistry. You have to memorise that whole table and every mechanism off by heart x 4, because there are 4 topics in 2nd year organic. This course does have a lot of memorising (roughly 100-200 reactions and around 50-80 mechanisms), so it is something you can't just do last minute. The best way I found to study was I made notes from the textbook early on (finished by like week 8 in the term), and then I spent the remainder weeks just memorising the reactions and doing the practice problems provided by the lecturers and additional questions I did from the textbook. A lot of people at the end of the course thought they failed the final exam so make sure you study hard for it.

The lab component is also very different from first year courses. In this course you have 5 practicals, which usually last for 2 weeks long. There is also 5 lab reports you have to write for each experiment which end up meaning you have to write something like 1.5-2k words every fortnight. This is not fun at the beginning because the way you write the lab reports in this course will be in a scientific format you probably haven't learnt at school or in first year, so don't worry too much if you don't do well in the first practical. I myself got like 25/30 in the first practical but learnt from the comments given and all labs after that I was scoring 28-29/30.

The mid semester exam was nice in that a lot of the questions they used were similar to the practice questions given with a few different ones, so make sure you know how to do all the questions in that set provided and you should do fairly well. There are also three other assignments. Two of them are take home where you answer around 30 marks of exam like questions and then submit them for marking and the last one is a short quiz in class. Most people did okay in the carbonyl one, but marks in the aromatic section were almost a fail as the average was around 16/30 (one tip here make sure you write the full mechanisms for the ortho, para and meta, even if it only subs on one of those positions as this is where a lot of marks were lost by people).

Overall the course was quite difficult, but I enjoyed it because I found the course interesting. I wouldn't recommend this course to someone as an elective type of thing that did first year chem, because it may kill your wam, but it is compulsory for chemistry majors and chemical engineering people so make sure you come prepared for this class, as it is probably the most difficult of the 2nd year chemistry courses in my opinion
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: jazz519 on September 06, 2019, 10:15:06 pm
Subject Code/Name: MATH2018 - Engineering Mathematics 2D

Contact Hours: No in person contact, but there is 3-5 hours of online videos / lectures to watch each week

Assumed Knowledge: MATH1A and MATH1B

Assessment: 
- Class Quiz 1 (15%)
- Class Quiz 2 (15%)
- Online MAPLE weekly quizzes (10%)
- Final Exam (60%)

Lecture Recordings? There isn't any in person lectures, but yes there is lecture videos on youtube

Notes/Materials Available: Moodle materials are very thorough and what they expect you to know

Textbook: No textbook I am aware of

Lecturer(s): Dr Anna Cai was course coordinator but there was a different person in the videos (can't remember his name) but nevertheless very good lecturer

Year & Trimester of completion: 2019 trimester 2

Difficulty: 2

Overall Rating:  4.5

Your Mark/Grade: 96 HD

Comments:
The course is actually pretty easy in my opinion, which is one of the reasons I chose it for one of my level 2 courses in my math minor. A lot of the content is similar to MATH 1B in some sections so if you did good in first year maths this course should be a breeze.

There's no in person lecturers as well so that is nice and all the videos for the whole term are available from day 1, so you can go at your own pace and go ahead if you need to. I found this really helpful because when I knew I would have more exams or assignments in a certain week, I could watch the lecture videos in advance before the week begun so it reduced my workload for that week.

There is 1 maple quiz you do every week which has about 5-6 questions. The questions are very similar to the problems in the lecturers and it is very similar to how the first year math courses are structured where you can have unlimited attempts, so these marks are very easy to obtain

The first class test was an in class 35 mark quiz for about 40-50 minutes that covered topics 1-3. The questions were quite similar to the tutorial problems and also similar to the sample class tests given, so it shouldn't be too difficult to get above 30 if you do the work before. One down side of these class tests is there is no calculator rule so you might make silly mistakes and lose marks on that

The second class test was different to the first class test because it was on MAPLE. But this isn't a maple test like first year. It's more like you do questions similar in setting to the first class test, but you just enter your final answer into MAPLE. The good thing about this test was that the actual test was very similar to the sample test given so if you just do that like 5-6 times you will do well. However, a bad thing is if you get unlucky with MAPLE syntax errors or accidentally do one small mistake in your calculation you lose all the marks for the question, which is a lot considering most questions were 2 marks and the test was out of 16 but worth 15%.

The subject is really transparent as I said before and this is also evident in the final exam. They provided us with like 15 exam papers from the past 8 or so years to practice that had worked solutions. This was really helpful in preparation for the exam, as the question styles were quite similar, so if you spend the time doing the past papers the final exam shouldn't really be too much of a shock

Overall quite a good course and one I would recommend to people who enjoy math and want to do it is an elective or part of a math minor if it is not compulsory in your program





Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: jazz519 on September 06, 2019, 10:46:26 pm
Subject Code/Name: MATH2089 - Numerical Methods & Statistics

Contact Hours: 5 hr of lecture, 2 hr of tutorials

Assumed Knowledge: MATH1A and MATH1B

Assessment: 
The marks in this course are treated like if the statistics and numerical methods are separate subjects. So if you get 80% in the stats component and 90% in the numerical methods component, you get 80 + 90 divided by 2 as your final mark so 85%.

- MATLAB Intro quizzes (5%)
- Stats 3 x online quizzes (20% released every 3 weeks or so)
- Stats Mid Sem (20%)
- Numerical Methods 3 x online quizzes (20% released every 3 weeks or so)
- Numerical methods Mid sem (20%)
- Final Exam (60% for each component)

Lecture Recordings? Yes but statistics lecturer always writes on board so you can't see it. The numerical methods lecturer uses the document camera so you can watch those lectures from home.

Notes/Materials Available: Moodle materials should be good enough

Textbook: There is one in the course outline but I didn't use it so can't comment on its usefulness

Lecturer(s): Dr Quoc and Dr Gery Geenens

Year & Trimester of completion: 2019 trimester 2 (quite important because trimester 1 is run by a different school in the university so they test different stuff)

Difficulty: 4

Overall Rating:  2

Your Mark/Grade: 88 HD

Comments:
This course honestly speaking I didn't really like it. The content I found fairly boring and the support from the staff running the subject wasn't that good. Many times students would post comments on the forum asking for help and the message would either be ignored or they get replied to a week after. I chose this course for one of my math minor units and I would rather have not chosen it and did some other course. So I would recommend not doing this course if you don't have to.

The assessments are not insanely hard as the in term tests it is not too difficult to get above 36+/40, but for the final they did provide us with exam papers, but there was no solutions to some of them and no solutions at all for the statistics component which made studying for the final difficult. The final was sort of similar to practice tests but there was some different stuff

Overall, the course is not overly hard, but I feel like it could have been run better with more help from the staff when students ask questions on the forum
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: owidjaja on September 07, 2019, 02:44:09 pm
Subject Code/Name: PHYS1121 - Physics 1A

Contact Hours: 8

Assumed Knowledge: HSC Physics and Mathematics Extension 1. MATH1131 is also a co-requisite.

Assessment: 
Labs (including prelab quizzes) - 20%
Online quizzes - 10%
Invigilated quizzes - 10% x 2
Final exam - 50%

Lecture Recordings? 
Yes but they only record when the lecturers use the document camera (some lecturers do working out on the blackboard, which isn't recorded)

Notes/Materials Available
They have webstream lectures on Moodle in case if you miss a lecture (or if you skip a lecture lol).

Textbook:
Halliday, D., Resnick, R., & Walker, J. (2014). Fundamentals of Physics, John Wiley & Sons
Not compulsory to purchase it but you can always access it by going to Room 201A. They have a few copies there.

Lecturer(s):
T1: Prof Joe Wolfe/Prof Chris Tinney
T2: Prof Rajib Rahman/Prof Sue Coppersmith

Year & Trimester of completion: 2019 T1 & T2 (failed in T1)

Difficulty: 4.5/5

Overall Rating: 2/5

Comments:
I found this course really hard and as a result it drained my interest in physics. The weekly/invigilated quizzes were really annoying as well because it's ridiculously easy to lose marks. The labs are kinda dull but it's easy marks, and you can get a lab exemption if your lab mark is over 75% if repeat the course. The resources they provided are really good and I spent majority of the time watching them rather than going to lectures because they're not rushing or skipping the working out. I guess what I learnt from doing the course twice is that you should aim to get as many pre-exam marks as possible because the exams are rough.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: owidjaja on September 07, 2019, 03:33:13 pm
Subject Code/Name: MATH1231 - Mathematics 1B

Contact Hours: 6

Assumed Knowledge: MATH1131

Assessment: 
Weekly quizzes - 10%
Lab tests - 15% x 2
Assignment - 10%
Exam - 50%

Lecture Recordings? 
Yes but only the document recorder.

Notes/Materials Available
Yes, there are course notes available on Moodle.

Textbook:
S.L. Salas, E. Hille and G.J. Etgen, Calculus – One and Several Variables, any recent edition, Wiley
but not compulsory to purchase. Honestly, I only used the course notes.

Lecturer(s):
Milan Pahor/Jeya Jeyakumar

Year & Trimester of completion: 2019 T2

Difficulty: 3/5

Overall Rating:  3/5

Comments:
I found the course alright, but maybe it's because I had a great algebra lecturer (my calculus lecturer wasn't that good lol), or maybe it's because I had a better math tutor. The exam was pretty rough, especially since they changed the exam structure so they could increase the difficulty of the exam. The weekly tests, lab tests and assignment wasn't too bad, but at the same time, I don't do well in exams so make sure you can get as many pre-exam marks as possible.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: HelpICantThinkOfAName on September 13, 2019, 07:07:48 pm
MATH 2901: Higher Theory of Statistics

Contact Hours:  5 hours of lectures, 1 hour tutorial

Assumed Knowledge: Credit in MATH1231, Or pass in MATH1241/51.

Assessment:  1 repeatable online test, 10%. 1 Group Assignment, 10%. 1 in tutorial exam, 20%. 60% final exam 

Lecture Recordings? Yes. Document camera used for just about everything.

Notes/Materials Available:  Full set of notes provided, covered more than what was given in lectures.

Lecturer(s): Libo Li. 5/5 What a guy. He gave us a revision sheet which appeared in its entirety in the final exam. If that doesn’t tell you enough about him I don’t know what will

Year & Semester/Trimester of completion: 2019/T2

Difficulty: 4.5/5. I’d say that part of the difficulty came from not having done any stats since 1231 finished 6 months before the start of the course (thanks trimesters). I was often struggling with the course and always felt that I was a week or two behind where I should be.

Overall Rating:  5/5 This was the most fun that I’ve ever had in a math course so far. Each of the topics had examples of real-world applications, and problems were legitimately satisfying and fun to solve. If you think that you might have the mathematical skills to take this course over 2801, absolutely take it.

Also if you think that you’ve done enough study for the in tutorial test, you haven’t done enough study for it. The average was 11.3/20, and I suspect that some scaling was given for that test. The online test and assignment had averages in the 90s, so it is unlikely that any other scaling was given in this course.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: fantasticbeasts3 on September 15, 2019, 09:35:56 pm
Subject Code/Name: MGMT1101 - Global Business Environment

Contact Hours: 3.5 - 2 hour lecture, 1.5 hour tutorial

Assumed Knowledge: None

Assessment: 
- Memos (35%): the first was 8%, second was 12%, third was 15%
- Group presentation (15%)
- Group facilitation (10%)
- Class participation (10%)
- Final exam (30%): all multiple choice

Lecture Recordings? No

Notes/Materials Available: Not really but if you went to the lectures there were a few useful links related to each week's topic.

Textbook: Global Business Today, 4th ed by Hill et al.

Lecturer(s): Lecturer: Steven Lui, Tutor: Minh Vu

Year & Trimester of completion: T2 2019

Difficulty: 2/5

Overall Rating:  3.5/5

Comments:
This is a really good starter for the international business major/minor! The course content is quite interesting and the course gives a good overview of international business. Although lectures aren't recorded, you're not really missing out on anything as the lectures mostly regurgitate textbook readings each week. However, the lecturer I had tended to give out questions to the final exams in lectures and didn't put them in the lecture slides on Moodle.

If there's one thing I didn't like about the course, it's that assessments weren't explained very well and there was no consistency across tutors whether it be about marking or even what to include in the memos/presentations/facilitations. In my tutorial class, no one got higher than a 75 for all the memos while in other classes people were doing better in others. Make sure to ask your tutor all the questions about assignments, not the lecturer as there was always a bit of confusion in regard to expectations.

Another thing to keep in mind is that tutorials are pretty much just presentations and facilitations. I recommend getting to know others in your class because the more you interact with others, the better your participation mark will be. Although it's only 10%, doing well in that section does make a difference in your final grade!
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: fantasticbeasts3 on September 15, 2019, 09:45:31 pm
Subject Code/Name: MGMT2102 - Managing Across Cultures

Contact Hours: 3.5 - 2 hour lecture, 1.5 hour tutorial

Assumed Knowledge: None

Assessment: 
- Multiple choice quiz (10%)
- Journal article review (10%)
- Group presentation (20%) - group mark is worth 15% and individual is 5%
- Class participation (10%)
- Comparative report (30%)
- Capstone (20%)

Lecture Recordings? Yes

Notes/Materials Available: Extra readings on Moodle

Textbook: Management Across Cultures, Steers et al.

Lecturer(s): Lecturer: Phillip Warburton, Tutor: Charlotta Oberg

Year & Trimester of completion: T2 2019

Difficulty: 2/5

Overall Rating: 4/5

Comments:
MGMT2102 is definitely one of my favourite courses since starting uni. While the content can be a bit dry sometimes, learning about how different cultures communicate and operate in the workforce is so fascinating and tutorials complement the content-heavy lectures really well. The content isn't hard to understand and provided you at least listen to the lectures you should be fine.

If there's one downside to this course, it would be the comparative report. There wasn't much (if any) explanation on what to do for that task and most students had no idea what they were doing, even though it was the assignment that impacted our final grade the most.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: blasonduo on September 16, 2019, 04:11:03 pm
Subject Code/Name: BIOS2061-Vertebrate Zoology

Contact Hours: 3x 1-hour lecture and 2x 2-hour laboratory each week.

Assumed Knowledge: None.

Assessment:
3x laboratory dissection drawings 15% (5% each)
3x lab reports 10% (3.33% each)
Bird Survey of Centennial Park 5%
Mid term lab quiz 10%
Practical exam 20%
Final exam 40%

Lecture Recordings?  Yes

Notes/Materials Available: Lab manual and one past paper.

Textbook: None required

Lecturer(s): Mike Archer, Sue Hand, Peter Yates, Ian Suthers, Jodi Rowley, Richard Kingsford.
Year & Semester of completion: 2019 Term 2

Difficulty: 2.0/5

Overall Rating:  4.2/5

Your Mark/Grade: 80 DN

Comments:

I picked this course as an elective, and boy is this course run extremely well. The lectures are run by a lot of lecturers, which does mean that each lecture style changes every 2 weeks for so, however, this wasn't a problem because every single lecturer was so passionate with their topics. They were all engaging, and energetic.

The course covers the classification of all vertebrates and the key features of their anatomy, including teeth, bones and their evolutionary traits. There was also a closer investigation into Australian vertebrates. A lot of the content is pretty straight forward and intuitive for the most part, but the main difficulty came from the new terminology. Sharks aren't sharks, they're Elasmobranchii with subgroups of squalomorphs and galeomorphs. Once you get over this initial hump and learn what the terminology mean makes the rest of the course pretty easy.

The laboratories started out fantastically, starting with a dissection of a dogfish shark and microscopes of some animal tissue or small animal. It, however, did become pretty mundane as the weeks went on because it then only consisted of bones/specimen jars, which isn't bad in itself, but 4 hours a week of it made it stale, because there wasn't too much information that co-existed with the exhibits.

The assessments of the course are really quite easy and stress-free. 30% of the final mark was essentially impossible to get less than 90% of it. The "lab reports" were just answering questions in the lab manual and handing them in at the end of the lab. The real kicker is that we were given the answers to every question before submitting. The dissections, were also marked extremely leniently (I can't draw for the life of me, but I still got 100%). The bird survey was also a nice excursion that made the assessment enjoyable. The only difficult assessment I found was the midterm, although multiple choice, some questions required you to know some specific things, and made it pretty difficult. This made me think that the final prac exam would be of similar difficulty, but I was really wrong, most of the questions were really simple, and if they weren't, the (again multiple choice) answers were pretty easy to guess. Finally, the final exam was in the same sense of the practice exam, and it wasn't multiple choice. ~80% of the final exam had the exact same questions in the practise exam, so studying made it really easy.

Overall, I really liked the laid back aspect of the course that more focussed on interest and motivation rather than assessments, and I think that was the reason why I enjoyed it so much. In hindsight, my mark should've been higher for what I did get, nothing was difficult, but my mark is still good. Expect high marks if completing this course :) This course has been designed it a fantastic way.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: kierisuizahn on September 16, 2019, 10:38:28 pm
Subject Code/Name: MATH2111 - Higher Several Variable Calculus

Contact Hours: 4x 1hr Lecture, 1x 1hr Tutorial

Assumed Knowledge:
Prerequisites:
Assessment:
Lecture Recordings? Yes - screen and voice recorded, plus document camera when used.

Notes/Materials Available: All lecture slides posted online, and past final exams available. Past class tests and tutorial problems with (usually) brief solutions supplied.

Textbook: Note: I don't use textbooks and can't comment on their usefulness.
Lecturer(s): Dr. Denis Potapov and Dr. Jan Zika

Year & Semester of completion: 2018 S1

Difficulty: 3/5

Overall Rating: 3.5/5

Your Mark/Grade: 95 HD

Comments: A generally quite interesting course. Some parts (like the topology introduction at the start) shined, but others (like the more applied bits of vector calculus) were somewhat dull. The second half with Dr. Zika was much more applied mathematics than I liked, but the theory behind it was quite interesting. Concepts from this course are expended upon in further courses, so it is a very good foundational course. A good course for those interested in applied mathematics, with the vector calculus part of the course, but a decently good grasp of the theoretical aspects of calculus is required (though you're meant to develop that throughout the course).
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: kierisuizahn on September 16, 2019, 10:39:54 pm
Subject Code/Name: MATH2601 - Higher Linear Algebra

Contact Hours: 2x 2hr Lecture, 1x 1hr Tutorial

Assumed Knowledge:
Prerequisites:
Assessment:
Lecture Recordings? Kind of - "Recordings" only include voice because blackboard was used exclusively

Notes/Materials Available: Lecture notes posted online, and past final exams available. Past class tests and problem sets with (some) solutions. Tutorial problems (not problem sets) with no solutions supplied online.

Textbook: Note: I don't use textbooks and can't comment on their usefulness. None prescribed, but useful references:
Lecturer(s): Dr. David Angell

Year & Semester of completion: 2018 S1

Difficulty: 3.5/5

Overall Rating: 4/5

Your Mark/Grade: 96 HD

Comments: A very proof-based course, which was a nice change of pace, though there were a few computation-heavy parts (Jordan forms and SVD namely). Dr. Angell was a great lecturer, and really got you engaged in the content. The tutorials were flipped-classroom style, and provided valuable feedback on proof style and coherency. Even with the computationally-heavy parts of the course, it was very interesting, and some parts were a nice challenge. Although not a prerequisite, a fair portion of MATH1081 proofs topic is used. Would recommend this course to anyone who enjoyed the conceptual proofs in MATH1241, or someone looking to develop their mathematical problem solving skills.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: kierisuizahn on September 16, 2019, 10:40:51 pm

Subject Code/Name: MATH2901 - Higher Theory of Statistics

Contact Hours: 2x 2hr Lecture, 1x 1hr Tutorial

Assumed Knowledge:
Prerequisites:
Assessment:
Lecture Recordings? Yes - screen and voice recorded, plus document camera when used.

Notes/Materials Available: Lecture notes and course notes (pretty similar) posted online, and some (read: few) past final exams available. A few past midterms supplied, and solutions to the problems in the course notes.

Textbook: Note: I don't use textbooks and can't comment on their usefulness. None prescribed, but useful references:
Lecturer(s): Dr. Libo Li

Year & Semester of completion: 2018 S1

Difficulty: 2.5/5

Overall Rating: 2.5/5

Your Mark/Grade: 92 HD

Comments: I personally don't like statistics, so I'm quite biased, but the second half of the course (applied statistics) was quite boring and dry. There were some parts that interested me, but they weren't examinable (more exotic forms of convergence), and we didn't go into much detail. Some of the marking schemes used for the final and midterm were sort of unfair, and the marking for the assignments was really harsh to make up for the simple questions asked. I wouldn't recommend the course unless you have a natural interest in statistics, but MATH2901 is certainly more interesting than MATH2801 if you like pure mathematics. The course is pretty integration-heavy for the first half, and a lot of the second half is calculus and computation-heavy. Not a course I'd do a second time personally, but a useful course nonetheless.

Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: kierisuizahn on September 16, 2019, 10:41:20 pm

Subject Code/Name: MATH2221 - Higher Theory and Applications of Differential Equations

Contact Hours: 3x 1hr Lecture, 1x 1hr Tutorial

Assumed Knowledge:
Prerequisites:
Assessment:
Lecture Recordings? Yes - screen and voice recorded, plus document camera when used.

Notes/Materials Available: Lecture slides all posted online, and past final exams available with solutions. Tutorial problems with brief solutions for most questions.

Textbook: Note: I don't use textbooks and can't comment on their usefulness. None prescribed, but useful references:
Lecturer(s): Dr. Jan Zika

Year & Semester of completion: 2018 S2

Difficulty: 2/5

Overall Rating: 3/5

Your Mark/Grade: 97 HD

Comments: For a course I thought I'd hate, it was actually quite interesting. The course was quite computational, but Dr. Zika went into quite a bit of depth behind all the concept we learnt, and was very helpful during tutorials. The more conceptual questions were very nice (just like the theoretical vector calculus questions he wrote in the MATH2111 final), and a lot of "advanced" questions in the tutorial problems showed the applications of what we learnt, while also posing more challenging problems. As a lecturer, I found Dr. Zika to be good, especially if you like explanations through examples. Some of the conditions required in the statements of theorems were annoying to remember, but otherwise it was a pretty easy course, and a lot more fun than I had thought it would be.

Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: kierisuizahn on September 16, 2019, 10:41:59 pm

Subject Code/Name: MATH2621 - Higher Complex Analysis

Contact Hours: 1x 2hr, 1x 1hr Lecture, 1x 1hr Tutorial

Assumed Knowledge:
Prerequisites:
Assessment:
Lecture Recordings? Yes - screen and voice recorded, however the blackboard was used often.

Notes/Materials Available: Lecture slides and notes all posted online, and past final exams available. Tutorial problems with very very few answers (no working either).

Textbook: Note: I don't use textbooks and can't comment on their usefulness.
Lecturer(s): Dr. Alessandro Ottazzi and Prof. Michael Cowling

Year & Semester of completion: 2018 S2

Difficulty: 3.5/5

Overall Rating: 3.5/5

Your Mark/Grade: 91 HD

Comments: Overall a pretty interesting course, but a lot of theorems to remember with very specific conditions. This course mostly involved conceptual questions, but not too much difficult proof writing. Remembering the specifics in complex analysis was the most difficult part of this course, and they tested that you knew them well. Both lecturers explained things well, but I found Prof. Cowling more engaging in some respects. The course was a lot more theory-focused, so I wouldn't recommend taking this course unless you enjoy going through and understanding why theorems work and how they can be used to simplify problems. Some of the integration techniques taught are really cool, but difficult to see without being prompted, and require a lot of working to show (one specific question in the final on a single integral took up a couple of pages, though it was broken into parts). A lot of the stuff taught in the course can be linked to the several variable calculus taught in MATH2111, which made understanding the content a lot easier.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: kierisuizahn on September 16, 2019, 10:42:42 pm

Subject Code/Name: MATH2701 - Abstract Algebra and Fundamental Analysis

Contact Hours: 1x 2hr, 1x 1hr Lecture, 1x 1hr Tutorial

Assumed Knowledge:
Prerequisites:
Assessment:
Lecture Recordings? No.

Notes/Materials Available: Lecture notes available, but the algebra notes were written by a past student and aren't properly edited. Past final exams and tutorial problems supplied.

Textbook: Note: I don't use textbooks and can't comment on their usefulness. None prescribed, but useful references:
Lecturer(s): Dr. Lee Zhao and Dr. Jie Du

Year & Semester of completion: 2018 S2

Difficulty: 5/5

Overall Rating: 4.5/5

Your Mark/Grade: 89 HD

Comments: A very very fun and very difficult course. The proofs in this course range a lot, but many of those covered in lectures are very difficult to reproduce. The course really helps you think abstractly, but a lot of people found it brutal, and went poorly. The assignments require a lot of thinking, so should not be left until the last minute. Dr. Zhao was a really good lecturer, and really helped develop my abstract thinking with how he explained the process of thought in developing the solutions to questions. Unfortunately, I feel as though Dr. Du was tasked with some of the more boring parts of this course, and the notes were difficult to follow at times. I am, however, an analysist before an algebraist, so I feel that might be some of my own bias coming into play. A good geometric intuition will help a lot with the algebra component of the course. I wouldn't recommend this course unless you really liked abstract thinking and a challenge.

Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: kierisuizahn on September 16, 2019, 10:43:35 pm


Subject Code/Name: MATH3411 - Information, Codes and Ciphers

Contact Hours: 1x 2hr, 1x 1hr Lecture, 1x 1hr Tutorial

Assumed Knowledge:
Prerequisites:
Assessment:
Lecture Recordings? Yes - screen and voice recorded, and sometimes the document camera.

Notes/Materials Available: Lecture notes and slides online, and past finals and class tests with some solutions provided. Tutorial problems, with completely worked solutions for (almost) all of them provided.

Textbook: None prescribed, but a lot of references. See the course outline for a list.

Lecturer(s): Dr. Thomas Britz

Year & Semester of completion: 2018 S2

Difficulty: 2.5/5

Overall Rating: 4/5

Your Mark/Grade: 96 HD

Comments: A very interesting course for anyone interested in information theory or computer science. The course was pretty easy, and there weren't many challenging problems, but the challenging problems that were there, were fun to do. Dr. Britz is an absolute gem, and an amazing lecturer. His teaching style is really good, and keeps you engaged to the content, even though the somewhat boring stuff. He's a very supportive lecturer, and made the course as great as it was. Even if information theory isn't your cup of tea, I'd recommend doing the course just for the lecturer.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: kierisuizahn on September 17, 2019, 11:35:40 am

Subject Code/Name: COMP1531 - Software Engineering Fundamentals

Contact Hours: 2x 2hr Lecture, 1x 1hr Tutorial + 2hr Lab (Combined)

Assumed Knowledge:
Prerequisites:
Assessment:
Lecture Recordings? Yes - screen and voice recorded.

Notes/Materials Available: Lecture slides online. Tutorials and labs supplied with solutions online. Sample final and midterm exam provided.

Textbook: Note: I don't use textbooks and can't comment on their usefulness. None prescribed, but useful references:
Lecturer(s): Aarthi Natarajan

Year & Term of completion: 2019 T1

Difficulty: 1/5

Overall Rating: 2/5

Your Mark/Grade: 94 HD

Comments: A dry course I didn't find much fun in, but with some useful techniques. The marking was very subjective, but a lot of the tutors were relaxed in marking because of it, which made it alright. The main language for this course was Python, but you were expected to mostly self-teach it, and there were some other languages that were required in the web dev part of the course (HTML, Flask, Jinja, CSS + JS if you wanted). The project I found particularly boring, and without good group members, would have been unbearable; The course staff were good, but the content they had to teach was way too boring for them to be able to make it an interesting course regardless. A lot of the content was rote learnt, which I really didn't like, and made summaries somewhat of a necessity for the revision; a lot of the content was simple, but there was so much of it that you needed to spend more time than I initially planned studying for it. No web dev was tested in the final, as it was a major part of the project, and was difficult to test in an exam environment. I wouldn't recommend this course to anyone unless you need to do it for your degree, or it's required for a course you really want to do. If you do do it though, be prepared for rote.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: kierisuizahn on September 17, 2019, 11:36:49 am
Subject Code/Name: COMP3411 - Artificial Intelligence
Postgraduate Equivalent: COMP9414 - Artificial Intelligence

Contact Hours: 1x 3hr Lecture, 1x 1hr Tutorial

Assumed Knowledge:
Prerequisites:
Assessment:
Lecture Recordings? Yes - screen and voice recorded.

Notes/Materials Available: Notes on OpenLearning broken up into modules covering all the content. Lecture slides uploaded. Tutorial problems and solutions online. Sample final exam provided, but not in multiple choice format (from a previous session).

Textbook: Note: I don't use textbooks and can't comment on their usefulness. None prescribed, but useful references:
Lecturer(s): Dr. Alan Blair

Year & Term of completion: 2019 T1

Difficulty: 3/5

Overall Rating: 3/5

Your Mark/Grade: 93 HD

Comments: This course was a pretty interesting course overall, but didn't go into enough depth. Instead, we covered a lot of topics very briefly, which ended up leaving me somewhat starved for depth. A good introduction to different parts of the broad topic that is AI, but not very interesting if you're looking to go into certain topics a lot, and requiring a fair bit of calculation. The multiple choice format for the final was for quicker marking (now that trimesters force it), and was pretty well executed, but the previous written exams seemed to suit the course a lot more, and allowed them to test your understanding of the content better, beyond just being able to calculate the required quantities. Dr. Blair was a somewhat dry lecturer, which made the lecture slides easier to go through, but the content on OpenLearning was sufficient anyway.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: kierisuizahn on September 17, 2019, 11:37:49 am
Subject Code/Name: MATH3711 - Higher Algebra
Postgraduate Equivalent: MATH5706 - Modern Algebra

Contact Hours: 2x 2hr, 1x 1hr Lecture (1hr lecture was basically a tutorial)

Assumed Knowledge:
Prerequisites:
Assessment:
Lecture Recordings? No.

Notes/Materials Available: Lecture notes available online. Past final exams provided, some with solutions. Sample midterm provided with solutions. Problem sets with no solutions uploaded online.

Textbook: Note: I don't use textbooks and can't comment on their usefulness. None prescribed, but many references. See course outline for a list.

Lecturer(s): Dr. Mircea Voineagu

Year & Term of completion: 2019 T1

Difficulty: 4.5/5

Overall Rating: 4/5

Your Mark/Grade: 95 HD

Comments: I generally prefer analysis over algebra, but this course was actually really interesting. I probably would have enjoyed it more if it weren't examinable, as the timed assessments kind of sapped the joy out of doing the harder questions, but the course content itself was fun. It's easy to fall behind, since the pace of the course is quite fast, so I'd recommend keeping on top of things if you don't want to be cramming before the exam, and a few of the concepts are conceptually challenging, so having the lecturer explain them helped solidify my understanding. The lecture notes are mostly sufficient, but going to the lectures is recommended regardless.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: kierisuizahn on September 17, 2019, 12:36:36 pm
Subject Code/Name: COMP2511 - Object-Oriented Design and Programming

Contact Hours: 2x 2hr Lecture, 1x 1hr Tutorial + 2hr Lab (Combined)

Assumed Knowledge:
Prerequisites:
Assessment:
Lecture Recordings? Yes - screen and voice recorded.

Notes/Materials Available: Lecture slides all uploaded. Tutorials and labs with solutions posted. Sample final exam provided, with solutions.

Textbook: Note: I don't use textbooks and can't comment on their usefulness. None prescribed, but useful references:
Lecturer(s): Dr. Ashesh Mahidadia

Year & Term of completion: 2019 T1

Difficulty: 2/5

Overall Rating: 3.5/5

Your Mark/Grade: 99 HD

Comments: I was expecting a re-run of COMP1531, but was pleasantly surprised when there was actually very little rote. Most of the course teaches design patterns, which are easy to remember if you implement them, and some of the refactoring techniques require rote, but overall the course was mostly about identifying the benefits of the design patterns, and gaining experience in applying them so you could identify what pattern would be suitable for certain problems. The project was really fun, though that might be because we went over the top, but was the best part of the course in my opinion. The lecture slides were somewhat disconnected, which made revision difficult having not attended lectures, but after writing out a summary of everything and organising it, the course was very easy to study for; the concepts taught in the course are really useful, and I would recommend this to anyone considering working in industry. A little bit dry at times, but overall, pretty good.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: kierisuizahn on September 17, 2019, 12:37:16 pm
Subject Code/Name: COMP9417 - Machine Learning and Data Mining

Contact Hours: 2x 2hr Lecture, 1x 1hr Tutorial

Assumed Knowledge:
Prerequisites:
Assessment:
Lecture Recordings? Yes - screen and voice recorded.

Notes/Materials Available: Lecture slides all uploaded. Tutorials and solutions uploaded. Sample final exam which didn't represent the final exam format at all also supplied.

Textbook: Note: I don't use textbooks and can't comment on their usefulness. None prescribed, and many references. See course outline for a list

Lecturer(s): Dr. Michael Bain

Year & Term of completion: 2019 T1

Difficulty: 3/5

Overall Rating: 3/5

Your Mark/Grade: 90 HD

Comments: The course content itself was pretty interesting, though the first half of the course was pretty dry if you'd already done a course on statistics. The last part of the course on learning theory is really interesting if you're looking into theoretical CS. The homework problems were really easy, and didn't represent the kinds of questions in the final at all, which made it difficult to gauge the difficulty of the final exam. The sample final was somewhat useful in that regard, but it would have been nice if it was in the same format as the final. The labs and tutes got kind of repetitive after a while, where I was spending more time interpreting the supplied Python code than I was actually doing the lab, but they did a good job of making me learn the ML packages we used for the project. Dr. Bain was a dry lecturer, but he explained concepts well in an intuitive and easy-to-understand manner.

Rant time. The final exam was trash. It really ruined the course for me. That 3/5 rating doesn't take the final exam int account else it'd be -5/5. The first part of the exam was fine, but when we got to the second part all hell broke loose. There were multiple corrections mid-exam. About 50% of the second part was literally impossible to answer (the multiple choice "answers" were incorrect; a few of my friends even resorted to rigorous proofs to make sure they weren't just being stupid to prove there was no correct answer), and there were questions worth up to 12 marks. In a 120 mark exam with 60% of the final mark for the course, that's 6% of your overall grade. I can't say whether there were partial marks or not, but I hope to god there was or that was the worst excuse for a multiple choice exam I've seen. I'd say there weren't but the course admin and lecturer were being incredibly cryptic after the course forum started going crazy as people complained. The amount of calculations required for some if the questions was ridiculous for a multiple choice exam, taking an entire page or more (note we had no working paper so we had to use the space between questions) to get one answer to one question, which didn't even have a correct answer. Even better, after all these issues were brought up to the course admin, they told us it would be marked fairly, and then never told us what they were going to do or how it was marked anyway. I still don't know how it was marked and I sent an email explicitly asking how (to which I got a non-response). The management of the final exam was horrendous. I hope it's never like this again.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: kierisuizahn on September 17, 2019, 12:39:41 pm
Subject Code/Name: MATH3611 - Higher Analysis
Postgraduate Equivalent: MATH5705 - Modern Analysis

Contact Hours: 2x 2hr, 1x 1hr Lecture (2nd hour of the last lecture of the week was basically a tutorial)

Assumed Knowledge:
Prerequisites:
Assessment:
Lecture Recordings? No.

Notes/Materials Available: Lecture notes uploaded, as well as solutions to the minor assignments. Problem sets with no solutions.

Textbook: Note: I don't use textbooks and can't comment on their usefulness.
Lecturer(s): Dr. Pinhas Grossman

Year & Term of completion: 2019 T1

Difficulty: 4/5

Overall Rating: 5/5

Your Mark/Grade: 97 HD

Comments: My favourite maths course so far. I really love analysis, so that's sort of to be expected, but the proof were really fun, and the content was right up my alley. Dr. Grossman was a great lecturer, although we went an a few long tangents which dropped us a little bit behind schedule (they were interesting tangents though, to be fair). I would highly recommend this course to anyone interested in pure mathematics. Our class collectively wrote up some solutions to a few of the problem sets, though as the term progressed that kind of died; definitely helped when studying for the final though. A lot of the interesting exercises are in the lecture notes, rather than the problem sets. Not really much to say, just a good course all-round.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: HelpICantThinkOfAName on November 23, 2019, 04:47:55 pm
Subject Code/Name: PHYS1160 - Introduction to Astronomy

Contact Hours:  Online Course. No timetabled hours.

Assumed Knowledge: No assumed knowledge.

Assessment:  30% Online activities. Each activity was equivalent to a mini-lecture and tutorial. A few pages of reading, followed by a short multiple-choice quiz. 20 activities in total.

15% Discussion Group participation. Each fortnight a discussion group opens. Students have to ask and answer questions related to the content that was covered.
10% Best Discussion Contribution. You choose your best two responses and submit them to be marked.

20% Essay.
25% Final exam. Multiple choices, online, open-book exam.

Lecture Recordings?  No Lectures.

Notes/Materials Available:  Everything is on moodle. Lots of questions are reused though, and course material can be easily found by a quick search

Year & Trimester of completion: 2019/T3

Difficulty: 1/5

Overall Rating:  5/5

Comments:
Free marks don't come easier than this course. Although the marking has become more strict in recent years, this still is the wamboosting course that it is known for.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: katie,rinos on November 27, 2019, 02:51:17 pm
Subject Code/Name: MUSC2802-Music Studio Teaching 



Contact Hours: 2hr lecture, 2hr tute per week



Assumed Knowledge: Must be enrolled in the music pedagogy stream of a music degree.



Assessment:  2000 word essay (35%), 3 1000 word blog posts (worth 20% each), participation mark (5%)



Lecture Recordings?  Yes

Notes/Materials Available: Readings and some videos.



Textbook: Burwell, K. (2012) Studio-based instrumental learning. Available online through the library.



Lecturer(s): Kim Burwell



Year & Trimester of completion: 2019, 3



Difficulty: 3.5/5



Overall Rating:  4.75/5



Comments:
This has been my favourite subject so far! It is a really practical subject and most of the time the lectures went for around an 1hr and the tutes closer to 3hr (with breaks during). Our class was pretty small (18) and became really close during the term which was nice. Our lectures were on topics such as nonverbal behaviour, verbal lesson behaviour, group tuition and making lesson observations.

Throughout the term, we got to give 2 mini instrumental lessons (15 minutes) and get feedback on how we were teaching. I also got to have 2 piano lessons and a flute lesson (I got so excited when I made a note!!). For the last two weeks of the term, we’ve been doing group lessons (teaching any practical skill because we don’t have 5 clarinets) and looking at the differences in planning between private and group lessons. Our blog posts were based on the lessons that we ran and also looked at academic research (which was pretty hard to find sometimes).

For our essay, we needed to observe 3 of our private teacher’s lessons and write about issues we thought were significant. Kim gave a lot of feedback on these essays which was slightly overwhelming at first but great to know where to improve.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: RuiAce on December 20, 2019, 06:15:12 pm
Subject Code/Name: COMP2511 - Object-Oriented Design & Programming

Contact Hours: 2 x 2hr lectures, 2hr laboratory (somehow timetabling forgot to give us a tutorial this term)

Assumed Knowledge: COMP1531 and COMP2521

Assessment:
- 10% assignment
- 10% labs (some labs went for two weeks and were weighted more)
- 25% project (split into milestones of 5%, 8% and 12%)
- 55% final exam

Lecture Recordings? Yes

Notes/Materials Available: Lecture slides were mostly a summarised version of this extremely helpful website. Lecture slides also taught some basic java. A sample paper was released, but it had more stuff about Java itself and refactoring than design patterns, at least compared to the exam.

Textbook: N/A

Lecturer(s): Dr. Ashesh Mahidadia

Year & Trimester of completion: 19t3

Difficulty: 4/5 (although I feel it'd be 2.5/5 without the project)

Overall Rating: 3.5/5

Your Mark/Grade: 92 HD

Comments:

This is one of many Level 2 core courses to all computer science degrees.

Compared to its precursor course COMP1531, I personally found this course significantly more enjoyable. There were some digressions here and there, but for the most part this course it actually taught the concepts of OOP and OO design. Despite still hating design (and preferring more pure programming concepts), the design patterns just felt something aesthetic to use. They're really versatile and applying them appropriately is a challenge in itself. When used properly, they can make the code look much nicer. (MUCH fewer if/switch statements.)

Albeit, Java can be a pain to deal with because you have so many files to work with. But that's just made me come to appreciate IDEs more. (Still, I don't blame people who would rather avoid Java altogether.)

Design patterns made up probably 75%-80% of the final exam. You have to know ALL of the design patterns they teach you well. Code smells/Refactoring and Java made up the remaining 20-25%. (Javadoc, and the code smells lecture slides were given in the exam. And both Eclipse and Visual Studio Code. I was very appreciative of this.)

The exam does make you implement some of the design patterns. But to be honest, I found myself struggling more on understanding the Java skeleton code than actually doing the patterns.

All 1.5 points lost in the rating really came out of the project. It was so tedious. It was the only thing I kept complaining about having to do whilst taking this course. I was lucky that my partner was just better at me in it.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: kierisuizahn on December 20, 2019, 06:25:08 pm
Subject Code/Name: COMP4121 - Advanced and Parallel Algorithms

Contact Hours: 2x 2hr Lecture

Assumed Knowledge:
Prerequisites:
Assessment:
Lecture Recordings? Yes - screen and voice recorded.

Notes/Materials Available: Lecture slides online. Sample final not provided but you can find it on Google. Extra lecture notes that go into more detail on some of the topics also online.

Textbook: Note: I don't use textbooks and can't comment on their usefulness. None prescribed, but useful references:
Lecturer(s): A/Prof. Aleks Ignjatovic

Year & Term of completion: 2019 T3

Difficulty: 2.5/5

Overall Rating: 4.5/5

Your Mark/Grade: 100 HD

Comments: A really interesting course that covers some of the more current algorithms. We didn't really go over parallel algorithms (even though it's in the course name). The course content changes every year, but for us we did some basic review of COMP3821 stuff that was cut from the course since Aleks stopped teaching it (skip lists, Karger's min-cut algorithm, etc.), Google PageRank, some voting aggregation and recommender systems, and some applications of discrete Fourier transforms and similar. If you've done generalised Fourier series in MATH2221 then most of the DFT stuff should be familiar. Some of the proofs are quite maths-heavy, though Aleks is really good at explaining the concepts regardless. Be warned though, you'll be expected to understand how the proof and concepts work, so if you don't have a good relationship with maths you might want to reconsider. The project is probably the main part of this course, and the lack of marking criteria is kind of annoying, but Aleks told us that he'd basically accept anything as long as it related to algorithms. Always best to check with him before you start though. The content isn't very difficult if you put in the time to understand it, but since the exams were open book, you're tested on your understanding more than your ability to regurgitate the content. I much preferred this personally, but it meant that a few trickier questions could be snuck into the exam testing how you'd extend some of the stuff we learnt to new or harder scenarios. Regardless, it was a very fun course, and I'd recommend it to anyone thinking of going into data science or theoretical CS. It goes over a lot of different algorithms and their uses, without sacrificing depth of study. Also, Aleks is great, love him.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: kierisuizahn on December 20, 2019, 06:26:03 pm
Subject Code/Name: COMP4418 - Knowledge Representation and Reasoning

Contact Hours: 2x 2hr Lecture

Assumed Knowledge:
Prerequisites:
Assessment:
Lecture Recordings? Yes - screen and voice recorded.

Notes/Materials Available: Lecture slides online, with some small exercises for the first two parts of the course. Sample final provided.

Textbook: Note: I don't use textbooks and can't comment on their usefulness. None prescribed, but a load of references:
Lecturer(s): Prof. Maurice Pagnucco, Dr. Abdallah Saffidine, Dr. Haris Aziz

Year & Term of completion: 2019 T3

Difficulty: 3.5/5

Overall Rating: 4/5

Your Mark/Grade: 88 HD

Comments: Overall, a mix of interesting and somewhat dry topics. The course is broken into three parts, each 3 weeks long (we had a break in week 4) and taught by three lecturers. The first topic is logic and how to reason, going over propositional and first order logic, then a few extensions like non-monotonic reasoning and SLD resolution. I found the content pretty easy, but also quite dry. A lot of symbolic manipulation. The second topic is answer set programming and planning, which is where you learn ASP as implemented by Clingo, and STRIPS (to some extent). There is very little content in this section once you get your head around how to solve problems using ASP. The last topic is social choice theory, going into cooperative and non-cooperative games, as voting/resource allocation algorithms. This was the fun part of the course for me, but is probably the hardest part of the course. There are a load of theorems and concepts to learn (though the theorems weren't really tested in the exam, not sure if that's going to stay that way though), and is where I spent most of my study time. All three of the lecturers were good. I've heard bad things about Abdallah from COMP3121, but he taught ASP well. Only the first two parts of the course had exercises, but the examples in the lecture slides for the third part seemed sufficient to get the concepts down. Probably one of the more interesting AI major discipline electives, if you're into theoretical CS. The maths isn't very heavy, but you're expected to be competent for some of the more difficult proofs.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: kierisuizahn on December 20, 2019, 06:27:29 pm
Subject Code/Name: MATH3701 - Higher Topology and Differential Geometry
Postgraduate Equivalent: MATH5700 - Modern Differential Geometry and Topology

Contact Hours: 2x 2hr Lecture, 1x 1hr lecture (second hour of the second lecture was a tutorial hour)

Assumed Knowledge:
Prerequisites:
Assessment:
Lecture Recordings? No.

Notes/Materials Available: Lecture notes (handwritten) and problem sets (typed) online.

Textbook: Note: I don't use textbooks and can't comment on their usefulness. None prescribed, but useful references:
Lecturer(s): Dr. Daniel Chan

Year & Term of completion: 2019 T3

Difficulty: 4.5/5

Overall Rating: 4.5/5

Your Mark/Grade: 99 HD

Comments: I ended up adoring this course afterwards. The start of the course is somewhat slow, but by the end you're doing some really cool things linking geometry and topology together, and I found it really interesting. This course is considered the hardest of the three main pure maths courses, and it certainly lives up to that (Dr. Chan ended up cutting some content and dumbing bits of the course down for us). Some parts of the course, before hitting manifolds, are quite computational, and the cross product makes its ugly return, but after introducing manifolds most of that disappears. The content relies heavily on your geometric intuitions, and I felt that a fair bit of the first third of the course was trying to build up our intuition before we hit the nitty gritty. Although the course name is "topology and differential geometry", Dr. Chan has taken the course and focused on the differential geometry aspect, with the topology more as a means to achieve things. Towards the end of the course, topology starts to become more important, but is still heavily related to the differential geometry aspect of the course, which I personally preferred. Neither MATH3611 nor MATH3711 are prerequisites, but the topology knowledge from MATH3611, and the properties of quotient groups from MATH3711 are very useful. I would highly recommend this course to anyone with a pure maths bent (not that you have a choice, it's mandatory). Dr. Chan is a great and engaging lecturer, and motivates all of his examples well. If it weren't for the computational aspect of some of the course, it's be an easy 5/5 rating.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: RuiAce on December 20, 2019, 06:34:57 pm
Subject Code/Name: MATH3171 - Linear and Discrete Optimization Modelling
Equivalent postgraduate variant: MATH5171

Contact Hours: 2 x 2hr lectures, 1hr tutorial

Assumed Knowledge: Either one of the following:
- MATH2011/2111 and MATH2501/2601
- MATH2069 (CR) and MATH2099
- MATH2018/2019 (DN) and MATH2089

Assessment:
- 0% quiz (Guoyin wanted to provide initial feedback in Week 3. He did this for us in case some of us felt like dropping, which was really nice.)
- 2 x 15% tests
- 10% assignment
- 60% final exam

Lecture Recordings? Yes

Notes/Materials Available: Lecture notes and tutorial problems were enough. (He also provides optional additional reading.)

Textbook: N/A

Lecturer(s): A/Prof Guoyin Li

Year & Trimester of completion: 19t3

Difficulty: 2.5/5

Overall Rating: 4/5

Your Mark/Grade: 95 HD

Comments:
This is one of many Level 3 elective courses under applied mathematics. Note that this year was the first time ever this course was run, i.e. it was a brand new course.

When I asked A/Prof Guoyin to compare this course to MATH3161, he felt that the main differences were in that:
- The content in this course is mostly quite new. And indeed so; the field of conic programming is something that's only been around for a few decades.
- Interestingly, this course does have more of a focus on global extrema, whilst MATH3161 builds on local extrema techniques.

The courses are complementary; they have similar focuses but different executions. I would advise any student interested in optimisation to try taking both of them at some point.

This course was generally speaking quite relaxing. I found most of the concepts quite straightforward to learn, and although I was quick to forget it all, it also came back quickly whilst studying for an upcoming assessment task. But what I really liked was how so many concepts took me by surprise. They're not things I would've ever thought of in solving any optimisation problem. The course felt really fresh in that regard.

Assessment tasks were generally speaking quite straightforward, apart from the first 15% test that I ran out of time in. I don't believe the course was inherently easy, but it definitely was on the more relaxing end of the spectrum.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: jazz519 on December 20, 2019, 07:37:24 pm
Subject Code/Name: CHEM2031 - Inorganic Chemistry: The Elements

Contact Hours: 8 hours consisting of:
- 4 hr lab
- 4 x 1 hr lectures

Assumed Knowledge:
CHEM1031, CHEM1041 and CHEM2041 (CHEM2021 can also be helpful in this course for the lab component)

Assessment: 
Section A Assignment (3%)
Mid Semester Exam (on section A only) (21%)
Section B Assignment (3%)
Section C Assignment (3%)
Lab Component (30%) consisting of:
- Pre-Lab Quizzes (3%)
- Lab Core Skills (6%)
- Lab Notebook (6%)
- Lab Reports (15%)
Final Exam (only on section B and C) (40%)

Lecture Recordings? 
Yes but some of the lectures write on the boards in parts so might be hard to follow if you aren't understanding the content well by yourself

Notes/Materials Available
Lecture Notes should be fine

Textbook:
There was one but didn't really use it (Moodle slides, online websites and youtube videos are enough)

Lecturer(s):
A/Prof. John Stride, Dr Jon Beves, Dr Scott Sulway

Year & Trimester of completion:
2019 T3

Difficulty:
4.5/5

Overall Rating: 
4/5

Your Mark/Grade: 93 HD (for any future student that cares this was the mark for 1st ranking)

Comments:
Overall a decent course. You learn a few more new skills in the laboratory compared to organic chem (CHEM2021), but not too much is different just the reactions change but the same principles you learn in previous chem subjects in the labs will be applied. However, the marking in the labs is kind of all over the place. Sometimes one lab demo would say something and then the next week you get marked and a different lab demo says something else (so very confusing and annoying because you are losing marks on stupid things rather than the quality of what you wrote).

Section A was taught by John Stride, this section is largely a revision of concepts in first year with the last few lectures new content. Topics covered included like the different types of orbitals, frequencies of vibration, valence band theory and molecular orbital theory. The assignment A was fairly difficult. The mid semester exam was on this section it was not too difficult if you studied the content properly as the questions were quite straight forward and mainly calculations or drawing orbital diagrams. Overall John Stride was a good lecturer but one thing we needed more of was practice questions for the exam as we only got like 4 questions released to us (so it was not very clear on what kinds of questions would be asked beforehand)

Section B was taught by Jon Beeves, this section was all new content and the hardest section of the course. Topics covered here included coordination chemistry, properties of transition metals like colour, magnesium and stability, as well as some info on the biological importance of transition metals. Jon gives out a lot of worksheets and also gave us practice exam questions for his section so most of the questions we would expect in the final were similar in style. The assignment B was also good practice for that as the questions asked were also similar to the section B final exam component

Section C was taught by Scott Sulway, this section was easy in my opinion because the question style in the assignment and the final was exactly the same so you just had to know how to do the questions. However, some of the later bio based uses of the transition metals in enzymes meant you have to memorise those parts so that was quite boring at times. But also like Jon, Scott gave worksheets out which helped with what types of questions were asked in the final exam

Overall a good course apart from the lab marking aspect
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: Bruh Moment on December 21, 2019, 12:34:14 am
Subject Code/Name: COMP2511 - Object-Oriented Design & Programming

Contact Hours: 2 x 2hr Lectures, 1 x 2hr Lab
The labs had a ~30 min tutorial at the start, usually there would be a dedicated 1hr tutorial but there was an issue with the timetabling this term apparently.

Assumed Knowledge: COMP1531, COMP2521 (or COMP1927)
Uses much more of COMP1531 than COMP2521, and even then only parts of COMP1531 are used. Revise your ADTs, your OO principles and domain modelling (mostly UML and user stories), and how to use Git. It's worth learning a little bit of Java ahead of time too, but not strictly necessary, they do a good job of introducing it.

Assessment:
Assignment (10%, due week 4) - This was basically a very extended lab exercise on all the OO principles we had learned so far, design is a large factor in the marking, so you should check with your tutors that your design is up to scratch. Use the lab exercises relevant to the assignment to get a good idea of how it should be designed.

Project (25%, with milestones in weeks 5, 7 and 9) - Very fun, we got to make a 2D game using JavaFX. The project should also be done following all the appropriate design principles, and is specified in a way that suggests you to use lots of different design patterns. Try to use as many as possible to get a feel for how they should be implemented. The marks are split evenly across the planning, design and implementation, so there's nothing in particular to focus on.

Labs (10%) - Can be a bit dry at times, but always worth doing. Some labs are extended so run for two weeks, usually not because they're particularly big labs but because they coincide with some other deadline. The labs need to be hand-marked, which does mean you have to attend your labs, but it lets you ask your tutors about the content and lets you get more in-depth feedback.

Final (55%) - The final is perhaps worth a bit much, given how much work the project is and that the final is also double-pass (need >27.5/55). The theory / short answer parts will have you answering some quick questions about Java / OO Design and writing a small amount of Java, the prac part involves implementing several design patterns as well as other concepts + some design tasks. The labs don't provide enough coverage for the final exam, so I strongly encourage looking over the tutorial exercises and lecture examples, and having a go at implementing any design patterns you haven't implemented before.

Lecture Recordings? Yes
Definitely worth attending / watching if you're struggling with the lecture slides alone, Ashesh explains a lot of the justification behind the slides / examples and IMO is a great lecturer.

Notes/Materials Available: Lecture slides, lecture examples, lab exercises + solutions, tutorial problems + solutions, sample final exam + solutions

Textbook: Don't really use textbooks, and there were none prescribed. In terms of online resources I recommend https://refactoring.guru/ and https://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/java/index.html

Lecturer(s): Dr. Ashesh Mahidadia

Year & Term of completion: 19T3

Difficulty: 2.5/5

Overall Rating: 4/5

Your Mark/Grade: 95 HD

Comments: An absolute essential if you're planning to sell your soul to the industry like me. Object-oriented programming is used in various forms everywhere, and is very powerful when equipped with things like the design patterns and generics you will learn in this course. The content is of a similar theme to COMP1531, but is much more focused and clear, and presented in a way where you can immediately see how meaningful it is. If you're more theory-oriented then you can try amusing yourself with things like the Java type system and lambda expressions but you might find the course a bit boring.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: Bruh Moment on December 21, 2019, 01:29:02 am
Subject Code/Name: COMP3311 - Database Systems

Contact Hours: 2 x 2hr Lectures
Apparently the course normally has a 1hr tutorial as well, but in this term there was no tutorial class.

Assumed Knowledge: COMP2521 (or COMP1927)
It's useful to have done COMP1531 as well, since it introduces domain modelling, ER modelling, database design, and Python (COMP3311 this time used Python for the programming topic). However these topics are all covered again and in greater depth so if you haven't done COMP1531 you're not SoL.

Assessment:
Quizzes (10%, due on all even-numbered weeks) - In the usual JAS style the quizzes are fairly easy when you just try the question yourself on a database / look at the lecture slides. They're mostly there to force you to keep up-to-date with the content, and are very effective at doing that.

Assignment 1 (5%, due week 3) - This was a relatively small ER modelling task, which was assigned to randomised groups of 8 people. The ER model itself could be finished in about half an hour, but in several different ways, so the idea was that you would discuss your various ideas with your group and come up with a shared design. Most of the marks came from how much you contributed to the discussion and to editing the Group Wiki (where the design was done), there were no marks for the ER model itself. This worked surprisingly well and JAS was really generous with the marking.

Assignment 2 (12%, due week 6) - In this assignment you have to write some SQL queries which give particular results, much in the same way as the prac exercises (which are not worth marks, but I strongly recommend doing), there are several questions which get progressively harder.

Assignment 3 (13%, due week 9) - This was similar to assignment 2, but involved writing some Python scripts to run the queries. The Python was also to make it easier to do more complex tasks. This assignment also had several questions which got progressively harder, but the last few marks on the last few questions were much harder than in assignment 2. I spent about as much time on these "bonus" tasks as I did for the rest of the assignment.

Final (60%) - The final includes some prac questions, in a similar style to the prac exercises and the assignment, and some theory questions, in a similar style to the theory exercises (which are also not worth marks, but I strongly recommend doing). The final should be fairly straightforward if you did all the assignment questions and some theory exercises, for us the course notes were included in the final making it essentially open book which was very nice.

Lecture Recordings? Yes
JAS records them himself and uploads them to YouTube so you don't have to deal with Echo360, fortunately.

Notes/Materials Available: Lecture slides, course notes, prac exercises + solutions, theory exercises + solutions, sample final exam + solutions

Textbook: Don't really use textbooks, there are several listed and you are recommended to choose one:
* Fundamentals of Database Systems, Elmasri and Navathe, 7th edition, 2016, Addison-Wesley
* Database System Concepts , Silberschatz, Korth, Sudarshan, 6th edition, 2010, McGraw-Hill
* Database Management Systems , Ramakrishnan and Gehrke, 3rd edition, 2003, McGraw-Hill
* Database Systems: The Complete Book , Garcia-Molina, Ullman, Widom, 2nd edition, 2008, Prentice-Hall
* Database Systems: An Application-Oriented Approach Kifer, Berstein, Lewis, 2nd edition (Complete Version), 2006, Addison-Wesley
Personally, I found the course materials to be sufficient.

Lecturer(s): Dr. John Shepherd
One of CSE's best lecturers IMO.

Year & Term of completion: 19T3

Difficulty: 1.5/5

Overall Rating: 4.5/5

Your Mark/Grade: 96 HD

Comments: Honestly I was originally just doing this course because it was core for SEng, but it turned out to be some of the most fun I've had in uni so far. The mixture of practical exercises and database theory is perfect and makes the course interesting for just about anyone. The content is deep, but also not very difficult to learn, and the assessment is straightforward and especially rewarding in the case of the assignments. If you're pressed for electives, then I would only recommend taking the course if you're particularly interested in databases / web dev / thicc data, since the content can probably be self-learned. But if you have to do the course, or you have lots of electives you're trying to fill, then this course is a great way to spend 6 UoC.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: Bruh Moment on December 21, 2019, 02:25:19 am
Subject Code/Name: SENG2011 - Software Engineering Workshop 2A

Contact Hours: 2 x 2hr Lectures, 1 x 30min Team Meeting
Once you have a team for the project, you'll pick a 30 min time slot each week to meet with your mentor, which has attendance recorded and where you'll discuss your progress in your project.

Assumed Knowledge: COMP2111
According to the 2020 handbook, this will be changing to MATH1081 since COMP2111 is kill now. I'm not sure how this will effect the course content, since the course heavily relies on Hoare logic and its application to software verification. It's reasonable to assume that Hoare logic will be covered within the course if the prerequisite is changed to MATH1081. I would also recommend having taken COMP2521 for the verification part, to help with writing algorithms to verify, and COMP1531/COMP2041/SENG2021 for the project, to help with developing a full-stack software project. Despite the confusing names, it is not officially required to do SENG2021 before this course (I didn't), and having any kind of project experience will be enough.

Assessment:
Assignments 1 & 2 (10% and 20%, due midway through the term and at the very end of the term) - The assignments were both fairly similar in style, and involved writing some Dafny based on the topics covered in the lecture slides. The exercises adhere very closely to the lecture slides, but with significant enough modifications to make them challenging. Your solutions are expected not just to "work" as programs, but also to have verified correctness. The quality of your verification is also tested, so if your specification is weak or not very clear you will lose marks, and this presents the biggest challenges in the assignments. The actual programming itself is not too challenging and doesn't stray outside COMP2521-level algorithms.

Project (30%, split into two reports which are due midway through the term and at the very end of the term) - The project involves writing a medium-sized application and writing Dafny code to verify it. The project also has a significant report component which exercises the project management section of the course, including all the relevant requirements analysis, domain modelling, details of the implementation, and details of the project management. The project is done in teams of 5 and teamwork is a significant component, so you should think about your team from the very start of the course and try to have a good team lined up.

Final (40%) - This term the final was conducted as a lab exam for the first time, and involved some theory questions on project management and software engineering trivia, and some practical exercises involving writing Dafny in a similar style to the assignments. The practical part of the final felt fairly gentle having done the assignments, and the theory part is easy enough if you have a good understanding of the motivation behind all the software engineering / project management topics.

Lecture Recordings? Yes
Albert is a very engaging lecturer and I recommend attending in person whenever possible.

Notes/Materials Available: Lecture slides (very comprehensive)

Textbook: Don't really use textbooks, and there are none prescribed. In terms of resources the lecture slides are sufficient for most of the course, anything else about Dafny is covered either by Microsoft RISE's Dafny tutorials/guide, or the "Dafny Reference Manual": https://ece.uwaterloo.ca/~agurfink/stqam/2019/03/03/dafny-ref. Dafny is uncommon and very difficult to find resources for, including unfortunately StackOverflow answers.

Lecturer(s): Dr. Albert Nymeyer

Year & Term of completion: 19T3

Difficulty: 3.5/5

Overall Rating: 4.5/5

Your Mark/Grade: 87 HD

Comments: This course presents a very rare perspective on software engineering, and includes very useful insights into software verification, project management in a more traditional and concrete sense (very different to say COMP1531), and the essence of software engineering. As a software engineer, this is what will make you more than just a computer scientist who was forced against their will to do ENGG1000. Possibly the only weird thing to mention about the course is the marking, since Albert handles all the marking himself to ensure consistency, the marking is very slow. At the time of the final exam only assignment 1 had been marked. Personally I prefer having work which is properly marked and with a lot of feedback to work which is marked quickly, but if you're looking for faster feedback this could be an issue.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: blasonduo on December 21, 2019, 09:25:54 pm
Subject Code/Name: EDST2002 - Professional Engagement

Contact Hours: 4-hour orientation at the beginning of the trimester. 2x full day weekly practical engagement at a given school (8:30-4) (15 total)

Assumed Knowledge: None, prerequisites were all 1st-year courses and EDST2003

Assessment: 7x Forum posts on 7 key standards (~300 each) and 7x forum responses to other posts (~150 each) (HURDLE)

Lecture Recordings? No

Notes/Materials Available: None from the University, varied with schools and your engagement with the school.

Textbook: None

Lecturer(s): N/A

Year & Trimester of completion: 2019 T3

Difficulty: 0.5 /5

Overall Rating: 4.3 /5

Your Mark/Grade: Satisfactory (SY) (No marks given)

Comments:

The experience for each student is almost entirely up to the school you're given, so I can only give my experiences on the course.

For the university side of things, it was pretty horrendous, the release date for our schools was unbelievably delayed (Didn't get them until week 3) and the communication regarding when we would get them was also non-existent. Additionally, with the orientation lecture, 4 hours was probably a bit too much, but it did have pretty valuable information such as what we should be doing, and the completion of the anaphylaxis certificate. However, my problem stemmed from the fact that after this orientation, they did not provide us with the lecture recording OR the lecture slides even after asking through email. It was quite disappointing.

On the school side, I was quite fortunate to meet some extremely passionate and helpful teachers to the point where I was blown away with how willing they were to help me. For the most part, you will be sitting in the corner of the classroom, watching how the class behaves and how the teachers teach. At times, I was able to be a teacher's assistant (especially with science practicals) which gave me more hands-on experience and I was also able to help with reader/writer for exams. I was quite fortunate to also see the more paperwork based aspects of teaching which included the government system Sentral, and NESA's guidelines to accreditation, and especially shown the importance of being organised as a teacher. I was also given the opportunity to mark papers, and to put them into the school system (Turns out you have to put them into 3 different places!) and how report writing works. I was also allowed to participate in the school's social events, such as PE lessons and being a welcomer for a rewards ceremony.

Looking back on this, I'm quite pleased with what I was able to learn in 15 days, and my notes have some interesting tactics and resources that I'm keen to try out myself. Also, this was my first time witnessing what happens in a public school, and although it does seem like some classes are completely chaotic and at times scary, it does allow me to have a more realistic outlook on what teaching will be in the future, and it does allow me to have more appropriate plans when I do inevitably start teaching.

Overall, I was quite pleased with how much I had learnt through this, but maybe it was a bit lucky given I was given a school where the teachers were very helpful. Although I'm still outright nervous about the next practical, this has allowed me to prepare myself better for it.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: anomalous on December 21, 2019, 11:45:59 pm
Subject Code/Name: COMP2521 - Data Structures and Algorithms

Contact Hours:
- 2x 2 hour lectures
- 1x 1 hour tutorial
- 1x 2 hour lab class (follows the tutorial for a combined 3 hour block)

Assumed Knowledge: COMP1511 is the only formal prerequisite, but I would recommend specifically that you know linked lists well as this course heavily builds upon the concept.

Assessment:
- Lab exercises, worth 8%
- 2x programming assignments, worth 22% combined
- Midterm programming exam, worth 10%
- Final exam with theory and practical sections, worth 60%

Lecture Recordings? Yes, screen and voice.

Notes/Materials Available: Lecture slides with some extra programming exercises - this obviously depends on the offering since earlier terms reported no such exercises, but Ashesh should release these in subsequent offerings from now on.

Textbook: None prescribed, however the recommended book is “Algorithms in C” by Robert Sedgewick, published by Addison-Wesley.

Lecturer(s): Dr. Ashesh Mahidadia

Year & Trimester of completion: 19T3

Difficulty: 2/5

Overall Rating: 4.5/5

Your Mark/Grade: 99 HD

Comments: A very important course for anyone doing computer science or software engineering, since the content is quite relevant for the nature of and types of questions you may see in programming interviews when applying for internships and jobs. This course will also enable you to write better code, since you will now have enough knowledge of algorithms to select the appropriate one and analyse how efficient the programs you do write are.

Lab work is quite straightforward and less in the character of COMP1511 with many short tasks, instead preferring to have one or two more substantial, related tasks on the main programming topics. The assignments can be time consuming in figuring out what you need to do and implementing it, so definitely don’t sleep when it comes to starting on them. The midterm exam is quite reasonable - if you’re confident in your programming, it can take as little as a few minutes to complete. The final exam is a straightforward test of your theory knowledge of all the topics in the course with a programming section that will usually focus on the main programming topics - linked lists, trees and graphs. When it comes to preparing for the practical section, I definitely recommend trying some of the problems on LeetCode et al.

In the event that your exam mark was lower than your assignment marks, your assignment marks were adjusted by taking their harmonic mean. This scaling is always regressive, meaning that your mark would never be adjusted up, only down. There are reasons to use this - a big one is to punish plagiarism - however it only really sought to punish people even if they didn’t cheat. However in 19T3, this was changed to only affect students for which there was a 45% difference or more in their assignment and exam marks. I can almost guarantee that because of this change, course marks were higher on average this term than they have ever been. I bring this up since in future offerings this may be tweaked yet again, so your mileage may vary.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: anomalous on December 22, 2019, 07:36:58 pm
Subject Code/Name: MATH3411 - Information, Codes and Ciphers

Contact Hours:
- 2x 2 hour lectures
- 1x 1 hour tutorial

Assumed Knowledge: At least one of:
- MATH1081
- MATH1231/41/51 with at least a CR
- MATH2099
- DPST1014 with at least a CR

The critical things you should know from the above courses though are modular arithmetic from MATH1081 and linear algebra from MATH1231/41/51.

Assessment:
- 3x computer-delivered lab tests, worth 40% combined
- Final exam, worth 60%

Lecture Recordings? Yes, screen, voice and video recording of the theatre, however the video quality is not very good so don’t count on it. Thomas uploaded any relevant blackboard work to Moodle anyways for added clarity.

Notes/Materials Available: Course notes, lecture slides and past exam papers.

Textbook: None prescribed, however some recommended resources are
- N. Abrahamson, “Information Theory and Coding”, McGraw-Hill (1963)
- R. Ash, “Information Theory”,  John Wiley (1965),  recently reprinted by Dover
- R. Bose, “Information Theory, Coding and Cryptography”, Tata McGraw-Hill (2002)
- G. Brassard, “Modern Cryptography”, Springer (1988)
- R. W. Hamming, “Coding and Information Theory”, Prentice-Hall (1986)
- R. Hill, “A First Course in Coding Theory”, Clarendon (1986)
- V. Pless, “Introduction to the Theory of Error-Correcting Codes”, Wiley (1982/89)
- O. Pretzel, “Error-Correcting Codes and Finite Fields”, Clarendon (1992)
- S. Roman, “Coding and Information Theory”, Springer (1992)
- A.  Salomaa, “Public-key Cryptography”,  Springer  (1990/96)
- B. Schneier, “Applied Cryptography”, Wiley (1996)
- H. C. A. van Tilborg, “An Introduction to Cryptology”, Kluwer (1988)

Lecturer(s): Dr. Thomas Britz

Year & Trimester of completion: 19T3

Difficulty: 1.5/5, but you might rate it higher if you’re doing it in your first year (which I did, but personally didn’t find the course hard even still)

Overall Rating: 5/5, but I could easily have given it more than that

Your Mark/Grade: 98 HD

Comments: I absolutely loved this course. Thomas Britz is easily my favourite lecturer thus far, and I really can’t say enough nice things about him - a fantastic lecturer who makes the course a total blast.

For a Level 3 course, it surely must be one of the easiest - though, disclaimer, I haven’t done any of those other courses. It isn’t boring however, far from it - while a lot of the content is inherently computational, it is a very unique application of some of the staple topics in first year mathematics, discrete and linear algebra. Computer science and software engineering students will find this content particularly interesting I think.

The online tests are going to be a similar deal to the ones found in the first year maths courses - you have plenty of time to spam practice tests which contain questions exactly the same as what you will see on the day, just with different numbers. The final exams for this course are pretty normal with one or two challenging questions - our final exam this term was probably the easiest ever given compared to the past papers. If you did well in those first year maths courses, I honestly think this course is barely harder than those, so you will likely find it quite reasonable.

I 100% recommend this course if you’re looking for something interesting to do in term 3 and aren’t too scared of things like first year modular arithmetic and linear algebra.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: blasonduo on December 24, 2019, 07:01:25 pm
Subject Code/Name: MATH2069 - Mathematics 2A

Contact Hours: 2x 2 hour lectures, 1x 1 hour lecture, 2x 1 hour tutorials (all weekly, split equally between Vector Calculus and Complex analysis).

Assumed Knowledge: Mathematics 1A and Mathematics 1B

Assessment: 2x in-class tests (5% each, each test on either VC or CA), 2x in-class tests, (15% each, each test on either VC or CA), Final exam (60%) 40%+ in both VC and CA and an average of 50%+ is required to pass the course.

Lecture Recordings? Yes

Notes/Materials Available: Lecture slides/notes, past papers for each test and exam, a booklet with key questions (almost identical to 1A/1B)

Textbook: The Vector Calculus strand uses the text: Salas, Hille and Etgen: Calculus 9th Edition. The Complex Analysis strand uses the textbook: J.W. Brown and R.V. Churchill Complex Variables and Applications. McGraw Hill, 9th edition, 2013. (I did not use them)

Lecturer(s): Dr. Milan Pahor (Vector Calculus), Dr. Alessandro Ottazzi (Complex Analysis)

Year & Trimester of completion: 2019 T3

Difficulty: 3.3 /5

Overall Rating: 3.8/ 5

Your Mark/Grade: 75 DN (-1)

Comments:

Although this is nowhere near the marks than the rest of this thread, I will say I am extremely happy with this mark. Maybe it's because I'm now into the swing of things, but I did feel like I was able to understand the content far better than I did in either 1A or 1B.

That said, the format is very similar to 1A and 1B, where the only big difference is there is no coding side of 2A, and no weekly maple TA, and because of this, I feel like students get a better grasp of the course as a whole. The difficulty from 1A/1B to 2A seemed to be about the same in my experience, but the main factor that I found were the quality of the lecturers.

Milan Pahor is absolutely phenomenal, and it made the vector calculus part of the course an absolute blast! Content like triple integrals was made trivially easy with his lectures and his notes. Although he writes on the blackboard, so you have to attend, and he does not like computers open during lectures, none of this matters because of how well he teaches. He was by far the best lecturer I have had so far.

Alessandro Ottazzi was pretty mock standard. His lectures were taken directly from his slides, and he would verbally recap it. This meant that it was basically as sufficient to just read the slides in your own time and to skip the lecture. I wish he did more examples where he worked them out on paper, instead of skipping to the next slide because he was really good at those when he did do that.

For the content itself, complex analysis was definitely the harder half of the course, because it was difficult to understand what the hell you were doing and why. For example, computing the series expansions of analytic functions, memorising the basic case studies and properly manipulating them and calculating real improper and trigonometric integrals using complex analytic methods were all concepts that I found difficult to wrap my head around.
This was also the reason why I Vector Calculus much easier to do; a few of the concepts learnt included calculating basic line and surface integrals and applying the theorems of Green, Stokes and Gauss. Calculating basic double and triple integrals in Cartesian, polar and spherical coordinates, which all had a logical and clear explanation to why we'd want to use these.

Overall, this course was actually quite alright, and I'm super happy with the outcome. I can also definitely see some of these theories translating well into future mathematics and physics courses.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: katie,rinos on December 28, 2019, 09:48:15 pm
Subject Code/Name: EDST2002 - Professional Engagement

Contact Hours: 4-hour orientation at the beginning of the trimester. 15 days of 8:30-4 placement (normally 2 days per week).

Assumed Knowledge: None, prerequisites were all 1st-year courses and EDST2003

Assessment: 7x Forum posts on 7 key standards and 7 responses to other students posts. Hurdle task.

Lecture Recordings? No

Notes/Materials Available: None.

Textbook: None

Lecturer(s): N/A

Year & Trimester of completion: 2019 T3

Difficulty: 0.5 /5

Overall Rating: 3.5 /5

Your Mark/Grade: Satisfactory (SY) (No marks given)

Comments:

I was really excited and keen for this course and come out of it disappointed. It is 15 days of observation and in my case, I didn’t really end up doing a lot (especially at the start of the placement). This ended up getting really boring towards the end when I wanted to be able to take a small class. As this is only observation, you are able to be placed away from your method area: I was in TAS for the first two weeks mainly observing woodwork classes. I found it depended on which school you had been given on what you did as each of my friends had a different experience (and therefore things observed/able to do) during the course.

The communication and organisation of this course was minimal, delayed and sometimes confusing. We expected to know our schools during the holidays, except were only told in week 3. Apart from the 4 hour orientation lecture, we had hardly any communication with the uni.

This is a pass/fail course ad the assessments (blog posts) are based on the AITSL teaching standards. Most of the time, these were easy to write, however some of them were annoying specific (in one, we had to write down specific questions the teachers had asked).

Most of my experiences in the creative arts faculty were interesting. I was able to observe music, art, dance, and sport and see the different teaching styles. I also observed lunchtime music groups such as string ensemble, choir and rock bands, how the hall was set up for music/art events and how they organised excursions and assessments. I was able to see how the school was different to my own and that influenced the way subjects were taught. Most teachers were really helpful in explaining why they did certain things and how they organised the classroom. At times, I was asked to help such as getting the class to pack up but the year 8’s didn’t really listen to me, which was frustrating as I didn't have the skill or knowledge yet to effectively manage a class.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: katie,rinos on December 29, 2019, 09:37:26 pm
Subject Code/Name: Performance Lab B

Contact Hours: 1 1/2 hr studio per week, 2 hr ensemble wk, at least 1 out of 3 2hr masterclasses per term.

Assumed Knowledge: Performance Lab A, and enrolment in a music degree.

Assessment:  Ensemble contribution/part checking (occurred each term, 20% overall), Masterclass critiques (4, 1 must be done each term, 15%), Performance presentations (term 1 & 2, 35%), Performance exam (30%).

Lecture Recordings?  No

Notes/Materials Available:  No

Textbook: N/A

Lecturer(s): Laura Chislett Jones

Year & Trimester of completion: 2019, T 1-3. This has become a year long course (12 doc).

Difficulty: 3/5

Overall Rating:  2.5/5

Your Mark/Grade: 66 CR

Comments:
This course is run very similar to the first year performance lab courses: assessments are almost exactly the same, except expected to be at a slightly higher level. 

However, our year was the trial year of how this course would run with trimesters and there were some differences in how the course was structured: the main ones being studios every week, only having 1 exam per year and having a year long course. Due to this, some aspects weren’t organised well. At times, my lecturer didn’t know specific information about certain assessments/the exam which was a bit frustrating or info came out fairly late (we were reminded to bring scores to our exam the day beforehand).   

Studios at times felt random, unplanned and some didn’t really interest us (we spent a few weeks on the physics of our instruments which was just really confusing for me). Most weeks weren’t as engaging as I was hoping and I was bored halfway through studios. There wasn’t a set plan for the term so one term I felt like I was asked to play almost every week (while some people never played) and the next term I performed once.

I really enjoyed being a part of wind sympth but found it really difficult to get a high mark in part checking.

You are still given a subsidy for instrumental lessons: $60 per week for 8 weeks each term ($480). It doesn’t cover everything but is still really helpful.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: HelpICantThinkOfAName on December 30, 2019, 12:42:22 am
Subject Code/Name: MATH2521 - Complex Analysis

Contact Hours:  4 hours of lectures each week. 1 Hour tutorial each week

Assumed Knowledge: MATH1231/1241/1251

Assessment:  10% Online Revision Quiz. This was essentially a free 10% quiz that could be repeated as many times as you wanted. No reason to not grind it for the full marks

2 x 20% Midterm Exams.

50% Final Exam, covering all material.

Lecture Recordings?  Yes. Some early recordings had no video, and the blackboard was often used.

Lecturer(s): David Angell, 4/5

Year & Trimester of completion: 2019/T3

Difficulty: 3.5/5

Overall Rating:  4/5

Your Mark/Grade: 76 DN

Comments: I found this to be the easiest second-year core mathematics subject, which I'm sure many of my fellow math majors will disagree with. I never felt like I was getting far behind in it, and much of the courses revolves around simplifying calculations and processes that were introduced in first-year mathematics. Overall an enjoyable and not super intense course.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: HelpICantThinkOfAName on December 30, 2019, 12:57:12 am
Subject Code/Name: MATH3511 - Transformations, Groups, and Geometry

Contact Hours:  4 hours of lectures each week. 1-hour tutorial each week

Assumed Knowledge: 12 units in a second-year mathematics course. I would strongly recommend one of those be Linear Algebra (MATH2501/2601), and take Complex Analysis (MATH2521/2621) before or at the same time. There is a lot of overlap between this course and Complex Analysis towards the end. Brush up on 3U circle geometry before beginning this course.

Assessment: 20% Midterm Exam

2 x 15% Assignments

50% Final Exam

Lecture Recordings?  Yes.

Notes/Materials Available:  Full set of notes are available on moodle

Lecturer(s): John Steele, 4/5. I enjoyed John lecturing this course much more than I enjoyed him lecturing several variable calculus earlier this year.

Year & Trimester of completion: 2019/T3

Difficulty: 2/5 Towards the start of the course. 4.5/5 By the end

Overall Rating:  5/5

Your Mark/Grade: 79 DN.

Comments:
This is a fascinating mixture of subjects, which all compliment each other well. The course begins with Triangle and Circle geometry, which introduces mostly new stuff than what was covered during high school, and goes much more in-depth with proofs, although these are (for the most part) not assessed. Menelaus' and Desargues' theorems formed a large component of this early work.
The transformations component is why I reccomend taking Linear Algebra and Complex Analysis before this course. Part of this topic revolved around matrix manipulation and understanding how a matrix can be used in a geometrical sense. Another part used linear fractional transformation, a topic covered in Complex Analysis. I found that understanding how compositions of transformations could result in another transformation was the key to success during this topic
I was never able to truly grasp the idea of a group in this course. I struggled with the notation, the calculations, and how groups functioned. This certainly dragged down my mark in the final exam and is why I gave it a high difficulty rating at the end of the course.

Overall this is still a great subject and was a lot of fun to take.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: HelpICantThinkOfAName on April 16, 2020, 09:05:33 pm
Let's kick this off for 2020

Subject Code/Name: ECON3202 - Mathematical Economics

Contact Hours:  2 x 1.5 hour lectures per week. 1 x 1.5 hour tutorial per week.

Assumed Knowledge: ECON1202. I recommend taking this after taking ECON1203, or if you have taken at least MATH1231.

Assessment:  10% Class Participation. Mostly a video submission of you doing one of the optional homework problems. The lecturer also gave out marks for answering and asking questions, or for correcting typos in the lecture slides.

7 x 5% Homework Assignments. There weren't any problems that took more than 5-10 minutes of thinking. Most of them were 3-4 pages. Easiest 35% I've ever gotten.

55% Final Exam. This was much harder than any material that we were given, but since it was a 24-hour take-home exam, it likely was not indicative of what the final exam in future years will be. Very few people that I've spoken to were able to completely finish it and feel confident in their answers.

Lecture Recordings?  Yes.

Notes/Materials Available:  Full slides given out. Slides were mostly complete but lacked examples that were done in lectures.

Textbook: Mathematical appendix from Jehle and Reny's Advanced Microeconomic Theory. This is a solid resource, but I only used it a few times.

I'd recommend using Rudin's Principles of Mathematical Analysis instead. Many of the proofs in this course can be found in detail in this textbook. If you're studying mathematics this should be a standard real analysis textbook as well.

Lecturer: Juan Carlos (JC) Carbajal, 5/5. JC is a love/hate lecturer for some. But everyone I knew who took this course loved him, including me. Not quite Alberto levels of chill, but certainly up there for this course.

Tutor: Jonathan Nathan, 4/5. Jonathan is a great tutor and is great at explaining how to approach the proofs found in the course.

Year & Trimester of completion: 2020/T1

Difficulty: 0/5. As a math major, I'd already covered most of the material found in this course in first and second-year math. The homework assignment averages were around a 4-4.5/5, and I suspect that the average mark for this course will end up being a distinction

Overall Rating:  5/5. If you've already done MATH1231 then it won't be hard at all to ace this course.

Your Mark/Grade: HD

Comments:
This should be a math major's gen-ed of choice.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: RuiAce on April 24, 2020, 11:49:41 am
Subject Code/Name: MATH3901 - Higher Probability and Stochastic Processes
Equivalent postgraduate variant: MATH5901. Note that this was introduced the year after I took this course.

Contact Hours: 2 x 2hr lectures, 1hr tutorial

Assumed Knowledge: For the higher version,
- MATH2901 or DN in MATH2801
- MATH2501 or MATH2601
- MATH2011 or MATH2111
(Essentially all the core level 2's. No linear models is required. You should definitely know your MATH2901 before coming here - it is retaught but crash coursed and pretty much assumed all the way. I think calculus is more useful than linear algebra for this course though.)

Assessment:
- 2 x 7.5% class tests (question bank given, randomly question selected to complete in TEN minutes)
- 25% midsession test (one-sided A4 cheat sheet allowed)
- 60% final exam (two-sided A4 cheat sheet allowed)

Lecture Recordings? Yes, however prior to COVID-19 he also used the whiteboard, which is obviously not recorded.

Notes/Materials Available: Full lecture slides given at the start of the lecture. Pretty much all you need to learn the course. An abundance of midsession and final past papers are provided but with NO ANSWERS.

Textbook: "An Introduction to Probability Models" by Sheldon Ross (8ED, 9ED and 10ED all work). The course was written off this textbook so it should be useful, but I haven't had need for it.

Lecturer(s): Dr. Gery Geenens.

Year & Trimester of completion: 20T1

Difficulty: 4.5/5

Overall Rating: 4.5/5

Your Mark/Grade: SY (will never find out what I truly got :( )

Comments:
This is one of the Level 3 core courses to students pursuing a statistics major.

Among the three cores, I personally believe this is the hardest of the lot. MATH3821 gets its difficulty from having too much content. This course is about probability theory, and that's not something you can simply overcome with memorisation.

This course is pretty popular among mathematics students as a whole due to the fact that MATH2931 is not a prerequisite and that it's really just a probability course, not statistics. Part of this is influenced by the fact that many people genuinely enjoy the first half of MATH2901, and drop off in the second. Mastery of this course can be extremely useful in the short term, because the strengthened intuition in probability can help useful in trading interviews, where probability based questions resurface more than you might expect.

Stochastic processes are just useful in general for people who want to work with the market. A simple summary: a stochastic process is just a sequence of random variables measured over time (can be both discrete time and continuous time).

Assessment tasks are definitely more challenging in this course, compared to its sister course MATH3911. Although most questions are doable, every past paper I've seen seems to introduce a completely unrelated question to that of the previous paper. They all use the same techniques, but the question style appears foreign.

For the class tests, the questions are the same. The difference is that he changes the letters in the actual test. (Or for MATH3801, he might change a number instead.) Figure out a way to write it as quickly as you can, but not too quickly that you'd struggle with different letters/numbers. Some explanation skipping is okay, just not too much.

Also, after studying for the finals, I would advise being careful with Brownian motion. It's also a really interesting concept to learn about, but it can take a while to understand because it's so far to the end and is fairly different to the stochastic processes you see before it.

(The difficulty would've been 4/5, but it jumped to 4.5/5 after I saw the challenge of this year's midsession. It was a pretty spiked paper to offset that we had all the lecture notes available, and not just the cheat sheet.) Edit: I'm convinced 4.5/5 was the right choice now after studying for finals.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: RuiAce on April 24, 2020, 12:23:06 pm
Subject Code/Name: COMP3231 - Operating Systems
Equivalent postgraduate variant: COMP9201

Contact Hours: 2 x 2hr lectures, 1hr tutorial. (Note that for COMP3891, the extended lecture completely replaces the tutorial.)

Assumed Knowledge: (COMP1521 or COMP2121) and COMP2521. (The former pair can be subbed for DPST1092 or ELEC2142, and the latter can as always be subbed out for COMP1927.)

Assessment:
Course mark is calculated as a weighted geometric mean here. Let \(C\) be your class mark and \(E\) be your exam mark.
The class mark is comprised of:
- Assignment 0 - contributes 10 marks to \(C\), by yourself
- Assignment 1 - contributes 30 marks to \(C\), by yourself
- Assignment 2 - contributes 30 marks to \(C\), in pairs
- Assignment 3 - contributes 30 marks to \(C\), in pairs
There are also bonus marks available for early submissions, and for doing the advanced components.
The exam mark is just your final mark in the exam. Note that there is NEGATIVE MARKING for multiple choice type questions. (This includes true/false.)
The final mark is calculated by the formula \( M = e^{\frac{40\ln C + 60 \ln E}{100}} \). (So the weightings are roughly 40 to 60 between \(C\) and \(E\).) It only hits you hard if your class/exam marks are disproportionate from one another.

Lecture Recordings? Yes

Notes/Materials Available: Slides, tutorial problems, and recordings are all uploaded onto the course website. There is also a wiki page for students taking this course, which has some miscellaneous tips on setup and the assignments. A piazza forum is also maintained for this course.

Textbook: A. Tannenbaum and H. Bos, Modern Operating Systems, 4ED. Never used it so cannot comment.

Lecturer(s): A/Prof. Kevin Elphinstone

Year & Trimester of completion: 20T1

Difficulty: 4/5 (for me, but tbh provided you put more effort in it should be a 2.5/5. Can't say the same for extended OS though.)

Overall Rating: 4/5

Your Mark/Grade: SY (apparently would've been 97 HD)

Comments:
This is one of the many level 3+ electives for UNSW CSE degrees. For the embedded systems major in computer science, it's one of the prescribed electives.

This course is genuinely popular. Although I believe this course is a little overhyped, it deserves hype without a doubt. This is the course that REALLY starts teaching you about how the computer works, and really helps develop an appreciation for all the things you take for granted on your device. You can pretty much see the course coverage on the Lectures tab in the website (but note that you have to be enrolled to get access to recordings). It's precursor course COMP1521 might not be needed, but is extremely valuable. In fact, these words from the assignment should literally be ringing COMP1521 bells: locks and semaphores, file systems, virtual memory. I would recommended to do this course as quickly as possible after COMP1521, but it's not mandatory to.

You use OS161 in this course, which is a relatively small-scale OS (compared to Linux, Windows, ...). But it's still a couple tens of thousands of lines of code, and you won't have the time to work with all of it. The assignments are tailored to implementing additional features on top of what is already featured in the codebase.

The rule of "planning things out before you code" is perhaps more important than ever to code. It's very easy to get entangled in your code and lose track of what direction you're heading.

It's also stupidly easy to make fatal bugs in this course. For example, back in COMP2521, if you had a memory leak the computer would probably fix it for you. (Reason being that Linux and Windows already know how to.) But if you forget something like a kfree() to a kmalloc() in OS, you pretty much lose the memory forever and break your system for good. (Well, it's fixable, but it's an excruciating pain to fix OS's damaged like this.)

The extended version COMP3891 should appeal to everyone that has a strong, genuine interest in this course. But it's follow-up course COMP9242 is... ahahahahahaha. (But if you loved COMP3231/COMP3891 a lot, you should probably give it a shot.)
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: Opengangs on April 26, 2020, 09:24:33 pm
Subject Code/Name: COMP3411/COMP9814 - Aritificial Intelligence

Contact Hours: 5 hours.
- 2x 2 hour lectures.
- 1x 1 hour tutorial.

Assumed Knowledge:
COMP3411:
Prerequisite is COMP2521 or COMP9024.

COMP9814:
Prerequisite is COMP9024.

Assessment:
The assessment structure before COVID-19 hit was:
- 2 assignments followed by a final exam.

During the 20T1 session, COMP3411 had 3 assignments, each of which was weighted 33% of the final grade.

Lecture Recordings?
Yep.

Notes/Materials Available:
Mainly lecture notes and other readings on the textbooks located below; otherwise, lecture recordings were sufficient. Tutorial problems were theoretical by nature with very few problems being coding-related. The coding-related problems were mainly Prolog.

Textbook:
None prescribed, but recommended reading for the course is:
- David L. Poole and Alan K. Mackworth Artificial Intelligence: Foundations of Computational Agents , 2nd Edition. [print] [digital]

Other textbooks that may prove useful:
- Stuart Russell and Peter Norvig, Artificial Intelligence: a Modern Approach, 3th Ed., Prentice Hall, 2010.
- Nils J. Nilsson, Artificial Intelligence: a New Synthesis, Morgan Kaufmann, 1998, ISBN 1-55860-467-7.
- Ivan Bratko, Prolog Programming for Artificial Intelligence, 4th Edition, Pearson, 2013.

Lecturer(s): Claude Sammut.

Year & Trimester of completion: 20T1

Difficulty: 2/5.
Wasn't difficult; there weren't many theoretical problems throughout the term. The most difficult aspect of the course was getting used to coding in Prolog, which has very different syntax to what a student coming out of COMP2521 may feel.

Overall Rating: 3/5.

Your Mark/Grade: SY (cut that it's only SY/FL ;-;)

Comments:
For what it was worth, COMP3411 was a very enjoyable with very little commitment throughout the term. It is required by all computer science students specialising in Artificial Intelligence and I felt as though Claude did the best he could out of this situation with transitioning into online teaching.

He was very considerate and often asked the students what they wanted out of the course; the course itself, though, felt a bit dry as it felt like a brief overview of the main concepts found within Artificial Intelligence.

One of the big components within the course is the use of Prolog (logic in programming) which felt very different to any other languages such as C, Python and Java. This was one of the more difficult aspects of the course as 2 big assignments hinged on the programming of Prolog. Claude taught it well enough to understand how one may approach the first assignment (as of writing).

Overall, I liked the course and wanted it to be graded but alas, that could not be done as per the Faculty of Engineering's decision to make every course SY/FL for the term. It's a shame, because this was a decent course.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: HelpICantThinkOfAName on April 27, 2020, 04:39:06 pm
Subject Code/Name: ECON2112 - Game Theory and Business Strategy

Contact Hours:  2 x 1.5 hour lectures per week. 1 x 1.5 hour tutorial per week.

Assumed Knowledge: ECON1101 AND (ECON1202, MATH1031, MATH1131, MATH1141 or MATH1151)

Assessment:  3 x 5% and 3 x 8.33% homework assignments. Questions were relatively easy to solve, but some were very poorly worded.

60% Final Exam. Same issue as before, with questions being poorly worded at times. The final exam required more abstract application of earlier topics than was covered in the homework assignments.

Lecture Recordings?  Yes.

Notes/Materials Available:  Full slides given out.

Textbook: Gibbons' Game Theory for Applied Economists

Lecturer: DJ Thornton, 5/5.
Aleksandra (Sasha) Balyanova 3/5. If she had slowed down just a tad and went through more complete examples during lectures she would've gotten a 4 or 5/5.

Tutor: Chris Teh, 5/5. Great at encouraging participation and clearly explained all the problems that we had.

Year & Trimester of completion: 2020/T1

Difficulty: 1/5 at the start, 3/5 at the end. The second half of the course covers Bayesian Nash Equilibrium, which I felt was rushed and poorly explained. This is also an issue that most students experienced in previous years.

Overall Rating:  4/5.

Your Mark/Grade: 88 HD

Comments:
This course only really relies on a few tools techniques that get used and refined over and over again. As long as you understand the content in the first 3 weeks, you should be well prepared to deal with the second half of the course.

I suspect that some scaling with the final exam took place, as I don't feel like I earned my final grade after having taken that final.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: owidjaja on April 29, 2020, 05:33:34 pm
Subject Code/Name: MMAN2130 - Design and Manufacturing

Contact Hours: 1 x 2 hour lectures per week, 1 x 1.5 hour labs per week, 1 x 4 hour TAFE class per week

Assumed Knowledge: N/A

Assessment:
25% - Engineering Drawing & Manufacturability Review
10% - 3 CAD Tests
35% - Final Report
10% - Prototype pump completion & operation
20% - TAFE assessments (basically each week you need to finish making whatever piece you need to make and give you a mark out of 100 each week and you get an average mark)

Lecture Recordings? No.

Notes/Materials Available: Lecture slides and CAD guides are on Moodle. Machinery guides are supplied by TAFE instructors via hard copy.

Textbook: Material Selection in Mechanical Design, Ashby, M., Elsevier
I actually used this for the final report because the final report requires you to explain your reasoning for selecting the ideal material/manufacturing process and Ashby basically covers the steps for this (and it's good to throw in the diagram into the report). But you don't have to purchase the book because the e-book is available for free at UNSW library.

Lecturer(s): Corey Martin

Year & Trimester of completion: 2019 T3

Difficulty: 2/5

Overall Rating: 3/5

Comments:
This course is for anyone who's doing a degree from the School of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering. I would describe this course to be ENGG1000 but with more effort and they actually teach you real engineering skills. You get to learn how to use CAD (specifically SolidWorks), you get to operate heavy machinery and you learn about different manufacturing processes and materials.

It's a unique course because you go to TAFE to learn how to operate machinery such as mills, lathes and drill presses. This is probably one of the only times you actually get hands-on experience. I will say, it's very exhausting. Pro tip: it would be highly beneficial if you put your TAFE class in the afternoon because if you put your TAFE class in the evening (like me) you finish at 9pm and by that point, you're completely exhausted, you're walking around the city late at night (which is scary for me) and you're hungry (you're given 30 minutes during the 4 hours to have a bit of a break). It definitely sucks more if you live far away from uni. In fact, I arrived home at 11pm every Monday because of those night classes. Even though it's really tiring, it's still cool to be able to develop hands-on experience with machinery, which really helps you understand different manufacturing processes.

This course also teaches you how to use CAD. To any engineering students who bought Macbooks instead of a laptop that uses a Windows system, you're screwed lol. SolidWorks is only compatible on Windows, so your options are either download Windows onto Macbook (which you can do through bootcamp - it's free!) or spend countless hours in Ainsworth 203/204. I did both. Regardless which laptop you use, SolidWorks uses up so much power because it's such an intense software so whenever you run it, it ALWAYS lags. Lag also happens when you're using a computer in Ainsworth, which is why your lab demos always tell you to save!

Speaking of lab demos, your CAD tests are probably initially stressful but by the time you're doing your last CAD test, it's not too bad. The first one always sucks because you're given 40 minutes to make an engineering part, which is difficult because you've only spent around 3 weeks using the software so you're still inexperienced. On top of that, 40 minutes is not enough time to complete the test. However, the next two tests (which is on Engineering Drawings and Parts and Assemblies) aren't too bad. Pro tip: it's better to over-dimension than under-dimension. If you over-dimension, you lose 1 or 2 marks, but if you under-dimension, you can lose up to 10 marks (in the assignment, you can lose up to 25 marks for under-dimensioning). While I found these tests stressful, they are worth 10% overall so it's not too bad in the end.

Finally, this is a group assignment, which means that you should make sure that all your group members are doing the tasks. If they're not, report to a lab demo because they can give you due date extensions (within reason of course). And because these assignments really emphasise on group work, you can't just completely reject your teammates. The final report is kinda long, everyone needs to contribute in terms of manufacturing the part and designing the pump parts so make sure you communicate!
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: owidjaja on April 29, 2020, 10:24:13 pm
Subject Code/Name: ENGG1300 - Engineering Mechanics

Contact Hours: 2 x 2 hour lectures per week, 1 x 2 hour tutorials per week

Assumed Knowledge: MATH1131, PHYS1121

Assessment:
27% - 3 x Block Tests
18% - Weekly Quiz + Weekly Tutorials
10% - 2 x Lab Reports
45% - Final Exam

Lecture Recordings? Yes

Notes/Materials Available: They give you a spiral bounded tutorial booklet and video solutions for all homework problems. Towards the end of the term, they give you a customised study pack based on your weekly quiz and block test marks to help you study for areas you struggle with the most.

Textbook: Meriam J.L., Kraige L.G. Engineering Mechanics
No need to buy it because you can easily find the whole textbook online.

Lecturer(s): David Kellermann

Year & Trimester of completion: T3 2019

Difficulty: 4/5

Overall Rating: 3/5

Comments:
There are two streams available for ENGG1300: civil or mechanical stream. I did the mechanical stream and boy it was hard. The mech stream tends to be harder because we cover dynamics, which is probably the most difficult part of the course. The whole course is a mix of the mechanics section of PHYS1121 and the vector component of MATH1131, especially when looking at statics. However, I would highly recommend anyone doing mechanical engineering to take the mech stream because ENGG2400 will build on top of the mech stream of ENGG1300.

Another good thing about doing the mech stream, specifically with Kellermann, is that you get free marks by doing tutorial problems. It doesn't matter if you get them wrong but if you attempt all the problems, you get 1 mark (that's where the tutorial problems in the 18% comes from). I don't think you do this if you take the civil stream, so this is a good system to take advantage of. Another thing to take advantage of is the lab reports. These are easy marks! They basically give you a template and you write the parts you need to complete. It's not worth much but it's still good to take advantage of.

The block test is a good indication on what the final exam looks like. The good thing about these exams and tests is that it's one question per topic, meaning that there will be 9 questions altogether in the final exam (there will be 3 questions in each block test). They are difficult though. You're given 45 minutes to do 3 questions, and these questions take a while to do.

Also, unlike other courses, ENGG1300 uses Microsoft Teams instead of Moodle. We still use Moodle but all the resources are on Microsoft Teams. This is mainly because Kellermann works very closely with Microsoft but he's also made a bot where if you use the tag "question" the bot will automatically tag your tutors.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: fun_jirachi on May 14, 2020, 12:25:59 am
Subject Code/Name: MATH1141 - Higher Mathematics 1A

Contact Hours: 
Lectures: 2 x 2hr, 1 x 1hr
Tutorials: 1 x 1hr

Assumed Knowledge:
Assumed knowledge: Students will be expected to have achieved a combined HSC mark in Mathematics Extension 1 and 2 over 175.
- from link above

Assessment: 
Week 4 lab test was conducted as normal, but after moving online the lab test and assignment were conducted as usual - however, the usual 2 hour exam became an online 2 hour exam with a 3 hour time limit conducted on MapleTA.

Weightings:
Weekly Tests cumulatively 10%, Lab Tests 2 x 15%, Assignment 10%, Final 50%

Lecture Recordings? 
Yes

Notes/Materials Available
Course pack was available for $50 from the bookshop, but the same pack is made available through Moodle online.

Textbook:
Used the course pack and lecture slides. For the first few weeks, these will be quite redundant as the course does skim over a lot of high-school content in the early parts of the course, or fills in gaps that we took for granted in high school. Good for revising for finals however - definitely would recommend using the online version :)

Lecturer(s):
Prof NJ Wildberger, Prof WK Schief

Year & Trimester of completion:
T1 2020

Difficulty:
1/5

Overall Rating: 
3/5

Your Mark/Grade: Haven't got marks yet, but will add depending on if I remember or not

Comments:
A lot of the course is spent on filling gaps and relearning stuff from high school, as well as introducing a lot of concepts which were taken for granted but were intuitively true anyway. This course will probably begin to get easier for incoming students with the introduction of vectors to X2 in high school - perhaps causing a few to switch off, which is not something that is recommended. The new content came with the varying applications of such 'gap-filling' theorems and content post-week 6-8 - which was a bit disappointing because I really wanted to learn new stuff after going into uni. However, it was well-taught and interesting, thus warranting its 3/5 rating :)
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: anomalous on May 14, 2020, 01:45:02 pm
Subject Code/Name: COMP3821 - Extended Algorithms and Programming Techniques

Contact Hours: 2x 2 hour lectures

Assumed Knowledge: Formally, there is one simple requirement:
- COMP2521 with at least a CR grade (65+)

If you ask me though, this particular course is probably best suited to students with a top-end DN and HD grade. This course is also rather math heavy; be very prepared to wrangle with some ugly summations and complex number theory in some topics.

Assessment: Obviously because of COVID-19, assessment changed for this course. In 20T1, our assessment was entirely composed of written homeworks/assignments:
- Assignment 1, worth 10%
- Assignment 2, worth 30%
- Assignment 3, worth 30%
- Assignment 4, worth 30%

The original plan for the course however was to have both an in-person midterm and final exam worth 40% each with 2 assignments each worth 10%.

Lecture Recordings? Yes, but towards the end of the term owing to some personal problems by the lecturer, we were instructed to watch the 2019 lecture recordings or those of earlier runs of the course conducted by Aleks (some of which are on YouTube).

Notes/Materials Available: Lecture slides are the primary resource in this course. A bank of past assignments, midterms and final exams should also be gradually released to you as appropriate, filling the noticeable void of any regular exercises like a problem set or lab exercises you may be perhaps otherwise used to.

Textbook: Both of these textbooks are recommended, but my personal preference is the first one:
- T. Cormen, C. Leiserson, R. Rivest, C. Stein, “Introduction to Algorithms: Third Edition”, The MIT Press (2009)
- J. Kleinberg, E. Tardos, “Algorithm Design”, P&C ECS (2005)

Neither book is mandatory for the course but I think it is absolutely essential due to how self-driven the course is in reality.

Lecturer(s): Dr. Abdallah Saffidine

Year & Trimester of completion: 20T1

Difficulty: 3.5/5, though some interesting questions came up in the assignments which would probably be a 4/5 or higher.

Overall Rating: Content is a 4/5, course itself is maybe a 1.5/5 for reasons I will soon explain.

Your Mark/Grade: SY (unofficially I would've gotten 100 using my raw assignment marks)

Comments: I suppose I should start with the good points. I found the content in this course quite interesting, and I think you will too if you’re an algorithms kind of person. My favourite part of this course was probably the intractability and introduction to computational complexity theory at the very end. Around midway through we had a talk by Dolby engineers at the end of the FFT topic to relate it to the real world was also interesting, even if it really was just listening to someone shill a company for 2 hours. I will say that this course definitely has some career value despite it being a bit theoretical, since you learn a few of the more advanced programming techniques to help you with some of those harder technical interview questions you might face when looking for work.

So, the million-dollar question you’re all wondering: should I do this course over COMP3121? My answer for the time being, despite all of my glowing comments above, is no. Aleks still takes 3121, and 3821 under his control was well-regarded, so I would say that is the safe option for now. 3821, unfortunately, has some issues. With that said, allow me to rant a little.

I find it hard to reason what is “Extended” about this course over its normal counterpart, COMP3121. If you look at the course materials right up until 2018, the distinction is pretty clear; for example, there used to be an extra question or two for the 3821 students in the midterms which were either harder applications of the base content, or some various questions with probabilistic twists and such. Nowadays though, I struggle to notice such a difference. I asked for clarification from Song, the person who ran our Piazza forum during the term (massive props to him, by the way), and he had this to say:

“Sore topic unfortunately. Before trimesters, the extended course included Randomised Algorithms (hashing, skip lists, etc.), Order Statistics, Resource Allocation, a bit of Complexity Theory, and also approximation algorithms for NP-C problems, while the regular course covered everything up to DP and then also LP, Max Flow, Intractability, and String Matching. After trimesters, the extended course no longer received its additional lecture hour and so all of that had to be cut. Currently, you've got the allocation (LP, intractability) pretty spot on. The regular version last year was not able to cover LP, Intractability, or String Matching but they did cover Max Flow. This was not entirely intentional, so I'm not too sure what Aleks' plan will be this year. Prior to COVID-19, we did also plan to cover Max Flow in extended, but alas."

It seems then that there is some difference, and that nowadays 3821 has been reduced to what 3121 used to be pre-trimesters sans a couple of topics. Moreover, it seems like a lot of the extra content that has disappeared instead appears in COMP4121 now. I think one big step towards making the course worthy of the “Extended” title would be to have an extra tutorial/lecture hour every now and then to build upon some special interest topics or the base theory common to both 3121 and 3821.

I’d be remiss if I didn’t talk about the organisational issues this course has had since 2019. At the same time, I’ll cut the course staff some slack here. I was actually satisfied with the organisation of this course for the most part until the university shut down and we all transitioned to online learning. But after that, this course became a bit of a nightmare. It was mostly a lack of communication; the alternative plan for our midterm was quite drawn out (as in, it took a couple of weeks for them to decide what to do), and the future of lectures going forward was significantly drawn out (although we learned in week 10 that there was a good reason for this). I don’t know if Aleks had the same problems when he ran this course as well, and I do genuinely think Abdallah is a good lecturer, but at the same time I think based on my own experience and the things I heard about the 2019 run of this course that the administration side of the course has declined from Aleks’ days. I know the pandemic did absolutely no favours for any course, but I think my observations are more general about the way this course is now run. My only hope is that there’s enough constructive feedback left during MyExperience for them to make the changes which need to be made.

It’s a real pity. Put simply as possible, I think the course has just lost itself after the trimesters move. I don’t know what the future will hold for this course, but I hope it’s good. One other idea I heard while talking to some other students was that maybe what’s best for the course is if it split into two separate courses, one focusing on the more practical aspects of the course (essentially the first half), and one on more theoretical, less practically-minded content (linear programming, intractability). That way, each course has its own more significant window of time to build upon content. Maybe that would be the best path for this course going forward.

/rant
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: fun_jirachi on May 14, 2020, 06:44:52 pm
Subject Code/Name: COMP1511 - Programming Fundamentals

Contact Hours:
Lectures: 2 x 2hr
Labs/Tutorials: 1 x 3hr

Assumed Knowledge:
No Assumed Knowledge

Assessment:
2 Assignments + Final Exam

Weightings:
Lab Exercises + Work 10%, Weekly Tests cumulatively 5%, Assignment 1 15%, Assignment 2 20% (upped to 25% after moving online), Final Exam 50% (down to 45% after moving online).

Lecture Recordings?
Yes through Echo/YouTube before and after moving online respectively

Notes/Materials Available:
Marc Chee's live streams on YouTube are often sufficient as notes, but otherwise other material is available through the course website through tute questions, lab exercises amongst other things. Lecture slides are also available as are revision videos.

Textbook:
None - used mostly lecture slides and lab exercises + tute questions

Lecturer(s):
Dr Andrew Taylor, Marc Chee

Year & Trimester of completion:
T1 2020

Difficulty:
2/5

Overall Rating:
4.5/5

Your Mark/Grade: Haven't got marks yet but will add depending on if I remember or not

Comments:
Really well-taught course and adapted best to being moved online (out of all three of my courses this term). The transition between topics was smooth despite the quick jumps in difficulty at some points and if at some point you get lost, it's easy to get back on track with more accessible avenues for help. If you learn things and adapt quickly, even with no prior knowledge of C it is a nice course with minimal pressure to start uni with, otherwise it gauges really well how you might fare with the learning curve in other courses in comp. Lecturers were great and it's actually really hard to fail - tutors guide you really well and help you out a lot. By far the best course I did this term, and it's not even close - even though it's a prereq for many courses and people are probably going to do it anyway, highly recommend :)

Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: katie,rinos on May 16, 2020, 04:43:48 pm
Subject Code/Name: EDST4084-Managing the Classroom Environment

Contact Hours:  2hr lecture, 1hr tute per week. 



Assumed Knowledge: Must have completed EDST 2002, and enrolled in a bachelor of education.

Assessment:  1250 word student wellbeing module (20%), 2000 word problem solving exercise (40%), 2500 word classroom management plan (40%)



Lecture Recordings?  Yes



Notes/Materials Available: Reading list and videos (however strongly encouraged to include external readings as well in our assignments).

Textbook: Classroom management for middle and high school teachers (10th ed.). Emmer, E. T., & Evertson, C. M. (2017).
Was available through the library as an ebook, was needed for some of the readings and useful for the assessment tasks (particularly the last one).



Lecturer(s): Sue O’Neil



Year & Trimester of completion: 2020/1

Difficulty: 4 out of 5



Overall Rating:  4.5 out of 5



Your Mark/Grade: 74 CR



Comments: 
This has been by far my favourite education course! It had content that seemed to useful, practical and able to transfer to when we will actually teach. Sue was really engaging as a lecturer and even though we had a 9am class, I was disappointed when the course moved online.

Our lectures normally occurred though zeetings so we able to participate using polls, and Q&A’s. Sue was a lecturer who practised what she taught, so everything she taught us she’d do during class. The content of our lectures was interesting and we were given examples that were relevant and showed how they could be applied. We looked at kounin’s variables, positive behaviour interventions, rules/routines, positive classroom climate, encouraging positive behaviour, and least intrusive strategies. Our tutorials usually included group work (in breakout groups once we went online) about the lecture content. We had mini microteaching activities such as introducing ourselves to a class, cue to start, and giving behavioural expectations for tasks.

The last two assessments were a lot more effort than we initially thought.  While they were interesting, I found it was sometimes difficult to find external articles to back up everything I was saying (the last assessment needed citations for every question). There were question forums on moodle for each assessment and Sue tried to get back to every question quickly with helpful answers. She included a lot of info on the assessments & even did a separate question and answer on zoom for the last assessment (which was later uploaded for those who missed it).

As this course went online, most of the lectures were uploaded for us to watch during the week and we had questions to answer for attendance. Our tutorials were on blackboard collaborate and Sue seemed to work out how to use it quickly: we had breakout groups for group activities and class participation. This class was so bittersweet when it ended because I enjoyed it so much!!
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: fantasticbeasts3 on May 17, 2020, 04:16:53 pm
Subject Code/Name: MDIA2006 - Communication Strategies

Contact Hours: 3 - 1.5 hour lecture, 1.5 hour tutorial

Assumed Knowledge: Prerequisite of 24 UoC at Level 1, including MDIA1002 or MDIA1003

Assessment:
- 30% Environmental Scan
- 40% Strategic Framework
- 30% Strategic Communications Plan (Group)

Lecture Recordings? Yes, including after the course moved online.

Notes/Materials Available: Readings are all on Moodle, as well as other suggested readings.

Textbook: None

Lecturer(s): Lecturer - Dr Paul Ryder, Tutor - Dr Jonathan Foye

Year & Trimester of completion: T1 2020

Difficulty: 2/5

Overall Rating: 4/5

Comments:
This is definitely the best course I have completed for the Media portion of my studies so far. Theory is combined really well with more practical components, and assessments are actually relevant to tasks that are completed in the PR industry.

Due to COVID-19, assessments that were originally based on real-life client scenarios switched to hypothetical clients to account for students who couldn't attend face-to-face classes, however, this obviously changed as the term progressed. I think this change impacted learning in this course as students couldn't directly consult real clients, and this led to gaps in knowledge when it came to assessments because students didn't have all information required for assessments, so we ended up making a lot of assumptions to fit strategies proposed for assessments. Assessment marks and feedback are also returned promptly to allow for improvements prior to completing the next assessment, which is really helpful. For the final assessment, I strongly suggest that you get to know members of your class because with any group project, there is the chance that you can get a bad group so knowing who you can work with is important!

Other than that, the teaching staff are no less than amazing - all questions are guaranteed to be answered and clarified to the smallest detail, and Paul is great at delivering content in a way that helps you to understand what strategy is, which was definitely a knowledge gap from Level 1 Media courses. Content is very interesting and I found that it was the most relevant to the communications industry and somewhat assisted in my understanding of certain practices at my internship this term. I couldn't recommend this course more - whether or not you're a PR student, if there's a possibility even for Comms/Journalism students to complete this course, do it!
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: fantasticbeasts3 on May 17, 2020, 04:47:19 pm
Subject Code/Name: MGMT2101 - International Business and Multinational Operations

Contact Hours: 3.5 - 2 hour lecture, 1.5 hour tutorial

Assumed Knowledge: Prerequisite/corequisite - MGMT1101

Assessment:
- 10% Group presentation
- 15% Midterm
- 15% Class participation
- 30% Individual learning journal
- 30% Final

Lecture Recordings? Yes

Notes/Materials Available: All readings and case studies are on Moodle

Textbook: This is only recommended, but International Business (12e), Charles Hill.

Lecturer(s): Lecturer - Dr Pradeep Ray, Tutor - Amir Chitizadeh

Year & Trimester of completion: T1 2020

Difficulty: 2/5

Overall Rating: 2/5

Comments:
My comments are mostly about the transition to online learning, as this course lacked the smooth transition that other courses I completed had. I'm certain that course quality would've been much better if we didn't have a global pandemic.

In comparison to the other courses in the IBUS major that I've completed (MGMT1101 and MGMT2102), it's quite heavy on theory and content, and this impacted content delivery as lectures were packed with information and sometimes it was difficult to keep up. Assessment criteria is very inconsistent from what is explained in class and on the course outline, where for the group presentation, my group didn't address criteria specified in the tutorial and lost marks because we forgot about that as the course outline specified points that differed slightly to what was required.

Further, the transition to online learning was not organised very well, and a lot of the learning afforded particularly by the tutorials - which are great in person - was lost.
First, tutorials are structured first with an overview of that week's case study, where case studies are supposed to supplement learning of theory, which is then followed by class discussion of the case with question prompts, then discussion of the short article. In the online transition, the tutorials were replaced with discussion on Moodle forums. Groups were required to post their presentation on the forum, and then the tutor posted the questions that we would usually discuss in class. This discounted a lot of the learning that would've occurred in the classroom, as students could actively build on each other's answers, whereas on Moodle, students had 24 hours to post their answers and couldn't really respond to each other as if it were a classroom setting. Asking questions was also made difficult because you couldn't directly approach tutors during class.
Next, lectures were just PowerPoint presentations with voice recordings, and this change wasn't announced at all. While other courses had moved to Blackboard Collaborate or Zoom for lectures, this course didn't allow for interactivity in lectures and that also built on the poor transition to online for tutorials.

Assessments are also fine, but changes were made very last minute, and there was a definite lack of clarity on them as students didn't really get what was required of them. For example, the midterm was supposed to be on March 16, but was cancelled the night before due to student concerns about COVID-19, where at the time, there had been multiple cases on campus. While it was definitely understandable that the exam was postponed, the way it was reinstated was less than ideal as it was announced 4 days before the new date, leaving a small window to actually prepare for it, even if it was open book. However, explanation of assessments improved as the due date of the individual learning journal and the final approached due to student complaints.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: fun_jirachi on May 19, 2020, 09:26:55 pm
Subject Code/Name: SCIF1131 - Introductory Skills for Science

Contact Hours:
1 x 2hr tutorial (first 4 weeks, plus one in the last week)
1 x 2hr seminar (first 3 weeks only)
Depending on your team's contact methods for group work, other contact hours are really flexible

Assumed Knowledge:
None, but you must be enrolled 'in BSc (Adv. Science), BAdvSci(Hons), BSc (Adv. Maths), BSc(AdvMath)(Hons), (incl. associated dual degrees), or BMedSci' - from the above link

Assessment:
E-portfolio 25% - includes progress checks for individual and group tasks amongst other things
Individual presentation 40%
Team project 35%

Lecture Recordings?
No lectures :)

Notes/Materials Available:
No notes

Textbook:
No textbook available

Lecturer(s):
No lectures

Year & Trimester of completion: 2020 T1

Difficulty: 1/5

Overall Rating: 2.5/5

Your Mark/Grade: Coming out in 3 days, will add if I remember

Comments:
Honestly not the best course out there, though it is required for certain degrees. A lot of the content while a little eye-opening was a bit like doing a practice paper, looking at the answers and going 'yeah I knew that', then skipping the question entirely. The projects also felt a little overdone and like junior high school term assignments, but we did get to learn quite a few handy team building and teamwork skills, which was technically the whole point of the course. Due to the flexibility of the course's content and much of it depending on your ability to work with your team as well as holding yourself accountable to doing work, it was a good course for self-learning in many respects and was a course that wasn't as rigid as I expected it to be, which was great :)
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: blasonduo on May 26, 2020, 03:50:45 pm
Subject Code/Name: EDST4084 Managing the Classroom Environment

Contact Hours:  2hr lecture, 1hr tute per week.

Assumed Knowledge: Must have completed EDST2002 (Professional Experience)

Assessment:  1250 word student wellbeing module (20%), 2000 word problem-solving exercise (40%), 2500 word classroom management plan (40%)

Lecture Recordings?  Yes

Notes/Materials Available: Reading list and videos (however strongly encouraged to include external readings as well in our assignments).

Textbook: Classroom management for middle and high school teachers (10th ed.). Emmer, E. T., & Evertson, C. M. (2017).
Was available through the library as an ebook, was needed for some of the readings and almost essential for some assessments

Lecturer(s): Sue O’Neil

Year & Trimester of completion: T1 2020

Difficulty: 3.1/5

Overall Rating:  4.5/5

Your Mark/Grade: 78 DN

Comments:

Out of all my EDST courses, this has been by far the best both theoretically and practically.

Sue created a friendly and engaging learning environment which really encouraged participation, which included live polls and questions throughout the lectures. She also practised what she taught, and it impacted the importance of her teachings greatly. It seemed like she loved lecturing and brought a positive atmosphere to each lecture and tutorial. If you have her as your lecturer, get excited!

The content was super useful, especially since behaviour management is a huge aspect of teaching. It included aspects to minimise potential misbehaviour and actions to take if misbehaviour occurs, both minor or major. Practices that I'll definitely be using in my career (something that can't as easily be said with my other courses). This is also why I like the final assessment task (Classroom management plan) since it forces us to review the course content and apply it to a variety of given examples.

The assessments, although at times were not fun to write out (especially the problem-solving exercise) each assessment was scaffolded and explained in great detail. Given that a major problem in a lot of EDST courses forms due to the lack of explaining the tasks, I appreciated how well laid out it all was, albeit how time-consuming it was.

It's a shame we had to shift to an online environment since the quality in the lectures and tutorials decreased due to the fact it was harder for students to actively participate, but even with that said, she handled the transition very well, and her ability to teach online was very surprising.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: Partyking1234 on May 26, 2020, 05:26:15 pm
Subject Code/Name: Materials and Structures of Music 3

Contact Hours: 4.5hrs

Assumed Knowledge: Technically, you need to have done the prior two units of the same name (Materials and Structures of Music 1 & 2). There is also a degree of AMEB knowledge that I later discovered.

Assessment: There isn't really a marking criteria for class participation. But there is a requirement to make a serious attempt at all assessment tasks to gain a PASS mark. You also need to achieve a PASS mark in the harmony section alone, being weighted at 60% in order to receive an overall PASS mark. Failure to do this may lead to a fail grade at the end.

Lecture Recordings? No

Notes/Materials Available: John Peterson, who normally takes the classes, provides ample amounts of resources, notes, revision exercises and time to mark said revision exercises. 

Textbook: None set for this particular course

Lecturer(s): John Peterson (Harmony lecturer) and Georgia Luikens (Aural tutor)

Year & Trimester of completion: I'm starting to lose track, but this is my overall 4th year (Although this is a 3rd-year course) and only completed in the 1st trimester

Difficulty: 4/5

Overall Rating: 5/5

Your Mark/Grade: 52

Comments: This is my first post of these kinds of things, so just for a bit of background, I did my HSC back in 2016 where I did Music as my own major with no AMEB knowledge up until the completion of this course. This is currently my 4th year at university and i can say without a doubt that this course was the most difficult I had to face.

Being a university student who is doing an Arts/Education degree (major Music, minor History) is hard enough with the extra loads of work that comes from the Education side of the degree, but this single course does give a substantial amount of assessment tasks throughout. This includes 2 in-class tests for harmony, a composition you have to write in a Nocturne style (the same Chopin often wrote in), 2 more in-class tests for the aural workshop, a music literature exam that requires you to study numerous pieces to be tested on a fraction of those, as well as a sight-singing test, where you're taught prior in the style of Solfa. This makes a total of 7 assessments in the space of 10 weeks, plus assessments from other courses.

Personally, I'm not a fan of such an exuberant amount of assessments fit into such a small time period to even learn the content. Regaining the content from the prior unit is hard enough as you need to review content that you did a year prior (the prior unit is only available in term 2). I was never a fan of the fact that the course did require some AMEB knowledge as well, as my friends who did do AMEB made me aware of the content being very reminiscent of the same tests that are done in the AMEB program. I am mostly self-taught in my instrument and musical ability and I get around a lot of music theory fairly well with the content I've learnt over the years. The harmonic techniques you learn theoretically here are useful, but are also very difficult to grasp a proper understanding of. Especially because of the small amount of time in the term, everything feels super rushed.

I don't want this review of mine to deter anyone, however. This is a great unit that does greatly improve your musicianship, both in voice (as you do a lot of singing, which I found has helped my ability to hear notes a lot better), hearing and writing. Be prepared to do a lot of work for the subject as there is a lot of necessary practising required to grasp technical knowledge, but it's a course that is possible to complete to a good standard :)
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: katie,rinos on May 28, 2020, 07:55:21 pm
Subject Code/Name: EDST2091- Digital Literacies in Learning and Teaching



Contact Hours: 2hr lecture, 1hr tute per week



Assumed Knowledge: Must have 18 units of level 1 credit.



Assessment:  Digital portfolio planning/set up (10%), group Webquest (30%), Completed digital portfolio (60%).



Lecture Recordings? Not at the start of term, yes as we went online.  



Notes/Materials Available:  Articles/reading list about tech in areas of education.



Textbook: N/A

Lecturer(s): Sandy Phillips



Year & Trimester of completion: 2020,1



Difficulty: 2/5



Overall Rating:  4/5



Your Mark/Grade: 73 CR



Comments:

I did this course as my education elective and it was a really small class (less than 20). Because of this, our lectures were a lot more interactive then a normal education class and included group work. Although our lectures sometimes dragged on, our lecturer seemed to really know and understand the content (she works with technology in the department of education so was able to make connections between tools and how we could use them well!). Throughout the term, we learnt a lot of new skills and tools that we could incorporate into our own classes.

As expected, most of this class transitioned online really well. Sandy taught us how to use blackboard collaborate and there weren’t too many issues. However, we had 2 group assignments that were difficult to do as the course went online. One was a group presentation based on a reading (which needed interactive elements), the other a group Webquest. I found it really difficult to keep group members accountable (because we weren’t seeing them in person), and my internet was hardly working before the presentation (which was really stressful).

The assessments for this course were fairly chill. It all culminated in a final education/teacher website with 8 different sections. None of it was hugely academic so although I needed to work out how to use google sites, they didn’t take up as long as some of my other assignments.  As part of this, we needed to get an education based twitter and Pinterest account and make 5 posts. For reference this was my website.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: owidjaja on May 29, 2020, 10:24:48 am
Subject Code/Name: Electrical and Telecommunications Engineering - ELEC1111

Contact Hours: 2 x 1hr lectures, 1 x 2 hr lectures, 1 x 2hr tutorial, 1 x 2hr lab

Assumed Knowledge: N/A

Assessment:
Pre-Quarantine:
5% - weekly quizzes
25% - mid-term exam
20% - labs + lab exam (you need to pass the lab exam to pass the course)
50% - final exam (you need to get a mark of 40 to pass the course)

During quarantine:
5% - weekly quizzes
20% - mid-term exam
20% - labs + lab exam (you need to pass the lab exam to pass the course)
55% - final exam (you need to get a mark of 50 to pass the course)

Lecture Recordings? Yes

Notes/Materials Available: Yes, they give you extra practice questions and supplementary material.

Textbook: C. K. Alexander and M. N. O. Sadiku, Fundamentals of Electric Circuits, 6th ed., New York, NY, USA:McGraw-Hill, 2017.
But I didn't buy the textbook.

Lecturer(s): Dr. Inmaculada Tomeo-Reyes

Year & Trimester of completion: 2019 T3 and 2020 T1

Difficulty: 3.5/5

Overall Rating: 3/5

Comments:
This course is very content heavy, and it's quite easy to fall behind if you don't understand something. It also can snowball because once you learn mesh and nodal analysis in Week 2, every single problem you do for the rest of the term is based on these two methods, so make sure you understand them! I'd also say it's important to do the online tutorial questions and supplementary material questions so you do more practice. If you ever need help, Inma is always happy to sit down with you in her office and go through anything you need help with (she's also really nice and such a mum). The other thing with the lab exam is that it sounds really scary but the paper is made for you to pass. If you don't pass, a lot of students tend to make a deal with Inma that if they pass the finals, she's happy to give them a supplementary exam for the lab exam.

Something I find really cool is that they really did transition to online learning nicely. Our online labs were basically using TinkerCAD to get measurements via simulations and then we'd have to explain how we would do this in real life and take note of errors. I really admire the ELEC staff who managed to transition online smoothly.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: owidjaja on June 07, 2020, 07:21:49 pm
Subject Code/Name: Thermodynamics - MMAN2700

Contact Hours: 2 x 2 hr lectures, 1 x 2hr labs (during Weeks 5, 7 or 6, 8 depending on the timetable), 1 x 1hr consultation (aka tutorial but doesn't show up on your timetable because it's during your lab time)

Assumed Knowledge: MATH1131, PHYS1121

Assessment:
Lab - 2 x 10%
Mid-term exam - 30%
Final exam - 50%

Lecture Recordings? During face-to-face classes, yes. During online classes, no.

Notes/Materials Available: Hand-written notes from the lectures are uploaded onto Moodle

Textbook: Y.A. Cengel, M.A. Boles & M. Kanoglu, (2019) Thermodynamics, an engineering approach, 9th, S.I. Edition, McGraw Hill Education.

G.F.C. Rogers & Y.R. Mayhew, Thermodynamic and Transport Properties of Fluids, S.I. Units, Basil Blackwell.

I bought the first textbook but didn't use it much (though I believe my lecturer used example questions in that textbook in the lectures). I didn't buy the second textbook/steam tables because I could find a PDF online. Steam tables are super important! You'll need to use them in exams so you need to know how to read them.

Lecturer(s): Dr John Olsen

Year & Trimester of completion: T1 2020

Difficulty: 4/5

Overall Rating: 2/5

Comments:
This course is basically the thermodynamics component of PHYS1121 but on steroids. You do a lot of questions with real world applications so it's interesting to see how thermodynamics works in a refrigerator, or a nozzle. It's also a good segue into propulsion. I, however, do not want to go into propulsion. Regardless, it was still interesting but it can get a bit overwhelming with the different types of processes and cycles and the corresponding conditions and formulae. However, if you continue to follow along with the examples the lecturer goes through, you should be able to get the hang of it since these questions start to become similar.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: HelpICantThinkOfAName on July 14, 2020, 05:31:46 pm
This course is so poorly run that I can't help but post this now.

Subject Code/Name: ECON2101 - Microeconomics 2

Contact Hours:  2 x 1.5 hour lectures per week. 1 x 1.5 hour tutorial per week.

Assumed Knowledge: ECON1101 and ECON1202.

Assessment:  64% - Online Weekly Moodle Quizzes. This is an absolute joke. A course which dedicates so much to homework should not have such a large portion assigned to online quizzes.
8% - Fortnightly Handwritten Submissions. Ridiculous how little feedback we got on these. Only general comments in tutorials.
28% - Final Exam. Timed moodle quiz.


Lecture Recordings?  Yes.

Notes/Materials Available:  Full slides given out.

Textbook: Banerjee Intermediate Microeconomics. Good book, more helpful than the lectures at times.

Lecturer: Aleksandra (Sasha) Balyanova. 1/5. Last term I gave her a pass in ECON2112 since we went online midway through. This term there are no excuses. An hour of lecture recordings a week is absolutely unacceptable, especially since she was teaching this course last term and has already had experience with online teaching. Providing us with recordings from previous years would have been the minimum, but this hasn't happened. I can only hope that she's a significantly better teacher in a classroom than she is online.

Tutor: Jacqueline Liu 4.5/5. The only saving grace for this course. Went through all the tutorial problems well and succinctly, and encouraged decent virtual participation. Never was bored in her tutorials.

Year & Trimester of completion: 2020/T2

Difficulty: 2/5.

Overall Rating:  0/5.

Your Mark/Grade: 82 DN.

Comments:
This has got to be one of the poorest run undergraduate courses in the business school. Under what circumstances would you place a 72% weighting on homework, and only have 8% of that for handwritten submissions? 64% of our grades should not be subject to moodle marking, which doesn't allow for carry-on errors and doesn't give us feedback on our problem-solving. If you're allocating the vast majority of the final grade to homework, put in the effort to properly mark it. It was done fine in ECON2112 last term, so what's the problem?

The content of this course is not difficult, most of it just involves setting up functions and maximising them over some domain. The issues arise when crucial topics are only given one or two slides, and when the lecturer only goes through one or two examples every week.  Thank goodness I'm not an international student; I can only imagine what they're feeling when they have to pay $5,500 for the knowledge that's taught in three Khan Academy videos.

It's such a shame as well. This course has the potential to be really interesting, but just about all of it is wasted. I cannot recommend anyone take this course in its current state.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: HelpICantThinkOfAName on August 05, 2020, 11:04:35 pm
Subject Code/Name: ACCT1501 - Accounting and Financial Management 1A

Contact Hours:  1 x 1.5 hour lecture per week. 1 x 1.5 hour tutorial per week.

Assumed Knowledge: No assumed prerequisites. If you know how to use a calculator then you'll be fine.

Assessment:  40% - Moodle multiple-choice quizzes. Very easy, questions were similar to the textbook/questions from previous years.
10% - Homework and tutorial participation. Kinda annoying, but nothing too difficult.
50% - Final Exam. Timed moodle quiz.

Lecture Recordings?  Yes.

Notes/Materials Available:  Full slides given out. Lots of past materials available if you search hard enough.

Textbook: Trotman, Carson & Morgan. Financial Accounting: An Integrated Approach. Nelson Management Accounting Supplement. These were necessary to have a copy of as homework questions came out of these.

Lecturer: Leonard Li. 3.5/5. There's only so much that a lecturer can do to keep an accounting lecture interesting.

Tutor: Irene 4/5.

Year & Trimester of completion: 2020/T2

Difficulty: 1/5.

Overall Rating:  3.75/5.

Your Mark/Grade: 86 HD.

Comments:
As with previous reviews here, as long as you're not bored out of your mind and keep up with the coursework you won't have any trouble with this course. The first half of the course sets up basic accounting principles and practices, and the latter half expands on specific concepts within accounting, such as assets, costs, and a dash of management accounting at the end.

My only major gripe with the course is that it's necessary to own a copy of both the textbooks in order to complete your homework. I recommend this to every first-year business student and anyone who wants a practical gen-ed in the business school.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: HelpICantThinkOfAName on August 05, 2020, 11:18:22 pm
Subject Code/Name: ECON1102 - Macroeconomics 1

Contact Hours:  2 x 1.5 hour lectures per week. 1 x 1.5 hour tutorial per week.

Assumed Knowledge:ECON1101. I took micro 1 at the very start of 2018 and I didn't have any trouble with having forgotten anything.

Assessment:  30% -Playconomics multiple-choice quizzes. No fun games this time, unfortunately, but the questions were always
10% - Tutorial participation.
60% - Final Exam. Take-home exam.

Lecture Recordings?  Yes. Lecture recordings from 2019 were given, along with new slides with voiceovers. I stuck with past recordings.

Notes/Materials Available:  Full slides given out.

Textbook: Otto, Introduction to Macroeconomics.

Lecturer: Glenn Otto, 5/5. He's been teaching this course for 20+ years. He knows what he's doing.

Tutor: Shreya 4/5. Great tutor, but she'd be better in person.

Year & Trimester of completion: 2020/T2

Difficulty: 1.5/5.

Overall Rating:  4.5/5.

Your Mark/Grade: 73 CR. Disappointed, but blame this mark entirely on 2101.

Comments:
As someone who's main interest lies in macroeconomics, this was a great introductory course. Most of the time is spent building up to the AD-AS model, by starting in a two-sector economy, then slowly adding inflation, consumption and saving, government spending, international trade, and central bank policies to the model. As long as you can remember how the different sectors interact with each other and the economy as a whole, which is mostly intuitive, then you'll do great!

Again, the business school has this annoying habit of forcing students to buy textbooks written by the lecturers in order to pass the course. This textbook isn't quite as fun as micro 1's was, but it's still a good resource to have.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: katie,rinos on August 12, 2020, 11:34:38 am
Subject Code/Name: EDST4080-Special Education: Inclusive Strategies

Contact Hours:  2hr lecture, 1hr tute (sometimes 1hr of lecture or tute was replaced by online activities/questions)

Assumed Knowledge: Must have completed EDST2002, and enrolled in an education degree.

Assessment:  Evidence-based practise guide (45%), Information booklet for High School Teachers (55%).

Lecture Recordings?  Yes

Notes/Materials Available:  Some additional readings/videos.

Textbook: Diversity, Inclusion and Engagement-Marvyn Hyde, Lorelai Carpenter, and Shelley Dole. Is available as an ebook through the library.  It’s used for readings but I didn’t use the textbook a lot.

Lecturer(s): Iva Strnadová (and guest lecturers some weeks).

Year & Trimester of completion: 2020/2

Difficulty: 4/5

Overall Rating:  4/5

Your Mark/Grade: 77 D

Comments:
I found this course pretty interesting! Each week we’d look at type of disability (autism, intellectual disability, communication disorder, hearing/vision loss, etc.) and how we could effectively cater for it in our classrooms. We had several guest lecturers throughout the term such as speech pathologists and principals to give their perspectives and information on issues.

I found that this was one of my least personal classes. With the online format, almost nobody had their cameras on for the whole term and most breakout group I was in were really awkward.

I found the assignments a little frustrating. They weren’t based on the lecture content and were almost entirely different. The first was a 3000 word evidence-based practise guide where you needed to choose an area (such as social skills) to focus on. The 2nd assessment was an information booklet for high school teachers on either inclusive education or the universal design for learning. I chose the inclusive education option and a lot of it was on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students or family/community partnerships which we hardly addressed in class. The booklet had limited guidelines and we were told that it had to be minimum 3000 words but a good one would go over. Mine was 18 pages (including the title, contents page, definition of inclusive ed, strategies for inclusion/establishing partnerships, useful teacher resources and references) and took a huge amount of time, considering I had assessments for other subjects too!! However, Iva was helpful in answering questions both in class and during her consultation hours and showing examples of past student work.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: fun_jirachi on August 25, 2020, 02:09:47 pm
Subject Code/Name: MATH1081 - Discrete Mathematics

Contact Hours:
2 x 2 hour lectures, 1x 1 hour lectures, 2 x 1 hour tutorials

Assumed Knowledge:
The level of competence in Mathematics/Mathematics Extension 1 quoted from above link 'Students will be expected to have achieved a combined mark of at least 100 in Mathematics and Mathematics Extension 1'

Assessment:
2 x Lab Tests - 30% - (15% each)
10 x Weekly Online Tutorials - 10% - (1% each)
1 x Assignment - 10%
Final Exam - 50%

Lecture Recordings?
Available online post-lecture on medium of choice (this term blackboard collaborate)

Notes/Materials Available:
Course pack and notes + tutorial questions, available in store/online

Textbook:
Used course pack notes as well as lecture notes

Lecturer(s):
David Angell

Year & Trimester of completion:
2020 T2

Difficulty:
2/5

Overall Rating:
4.5/5

Your Mark/Grade:
90 HD

Comments:
Loved this course. Only a 4.5/5 because no course is perfect, especially online (also given that i don't really know what a perfect course is right now given my inexperience) - but it does its best by setting clear goals each week to complete and stepping through content clearly. Only dodgy part was probably the online testing media (maple and numbas go brrrr). Also, brilliant lecturer ;D, could listen all day and wasn't just a quality lecturer but also a quality person - it is quite literally impossible to get lost doing this course even if you're not too confident in your maths if you have David. The course content was interesting, and while doing enrichment courses in high school or outside of school may introduce you to some of these ideas, they're rather abstract and great to follow given there's no first-year course that tackles this content. As long as you don't have pretentious people who already know a lot of this stuff (ie. ideas from computing, pre-learning, learnt before in high school etc.) busting down tutors or technology blowing up in your face, 100% enjoyment guaranteed :)
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: fun_jirachi on August 26, 2020, 12:04:04 am
Subject Code/Name: COMP1521 - Computer Systems Fundamentals

Contact Hours:
2 x 2 hour lectures, 1 x 1 hour tutorial, 1 x 2 hour lab

Assumed Knowledge:
Prerequisites are either having done COMP1511 or COMP1911 or DPST1091 or COMP1917 - taken from link above
also below, stolen from course website for 20T2
- write simple programs in the C programming language
- define and invoke functions and return results in C
- define and manipulate structured data in C
- use pointers to access data objects
'These are assumed to have been acquired in COMP1511 or COMP1911.'

Assessment:
2 x Assignment - 30%
8 x Weekly Tests - 10% (taking best 6 of 8 marks, each worth 1.7)
9 x Lab Questions - 15% (can get more than 15% but total is capped at 15%)
Final Exam - 45%

Lecture Recordings:
Yes - streamed on teams/private youtube

Notes/Materials Available:
Cheatsheets + references, lecture slides and lecture code and more all available on course website for the term

Textbook:
No

Lecturer(s):
Andrew Taylor

Year & Trimester of completion:
2020 T2

Difficulty:
3/5

Overall Rating:
4.5/5

Your Mark/Grade:
91 HD

Comments:
Really interesting course! Well-structured as well; given the prerequisites to do this course, it's actually quite easy to follow along and a lot of the stuff earlier in the term has some relevance later in the term which is really cool to see (makes you see the applications of everything you learn, even if some other applications weren't explored in depth). Cool topics (bar probably assembly code - improves logic, and was very fun but clunky and annoying to write up) and provided small intros to other comp courses later in uni (comp1511 didn't really do this as it was more just an intro to coding in general). Lectures were great - getting shown sample code/programs and seeing stuff that we were learning about actually happening made it really easy to learn. Would definitely recommend as a course regardless of if you have a predetermined path that doesn't require this course or not :)
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: Opengangs on August 27, 2020, 05:24:17 pm
Subject Code/Name: COMP2511 - Object-Oriented Programming

Contact Hours: 7 hours (2 x 2 hour lectures, 1 x 1 hour tutorial, 1 x 2 hour lab).

Assumed Knowledge:
Pre-requisite: COMP1531 and either COMP2521 or COMP1927.

Assessment:
- 3 lab assessments (worth 20% - this was to replace the regular lab marking for the 20T2 offering and may not reflect any future offerings).
- 1 assignment (worth 15%).
- 1 project (split into three milestones worth 7 + 11 + 17 marks - worth 35%).
- 1 final exam (worth 30%)

Lecture Recordings? Yes.

Notes/Materials Available: No required text, lecture notes were sufficient.

Textbook: ^

Lecturer(s): Dr. Ashesh Mahidadia

Year & Trimester of completion: 20T2

Difficulty: 2/5

Overall Rating: 1.5/5 (the 1.5 really comes from the 4 tutorial sessions that we had this term lol).

Your Mark/Grade: 89 HD

Comments:
This is one of the few level 2 core courses, along with COMP2521, and it serves to enrich students in the field of software engineering. Students have to work in pairs to develop a project at the end of the term which is marked in Week 10. Like its level 1 counterpart COMP1531, students learn to collaborate with others and develop a habit of writing productive code. As I've worked in software engineering before, I was looking forward to the course. However, the management in this offering left me rather bitter about the course.

One of the major issues with the course this term was the lack of transparency between students and staff. With the staff's decision to completely change the grading system (from lab marking to lab assessments), it should have been clear what the expectations were with these new assessments. However, we received very little information about it until the day of the first rounds of assessments. I personally wanted a bit more clarity as to a) how the assessments would be handled, and b) what specifically are we meant to prepare because when it came to doing the lab assessments, it was not what I expected at all. When I think lab assessments, I think being marked on the contents of our labs rather than a timed pop quiz that required us to read 8pt font code from the tutor's screen.

Another huge issue was the untimely delivery of assignments and, more importantly, the project. The project was scheduled to be released at around Week 3/4 (as per the course outline) but the project specifications was released in late Week 5 which didn't give us a lot of time to work on the milestones (considering we had other assignments due around the same time). I remember having to pull a few all nighters to get the project done in time because of a lot of my other commitments that I had to meet during the term - it wasn't a pleasant experience. As a result, the project felt like a chore and no one wants that! In saying that though, I felt like the contents of the project was quite interesting and it taught me a lot of object-oriented principles which was helpful for the finals.

These two major issues alone was really what put me off COMP2511 because it felt like I had to do more work than was intended just to get through the term. The course dragged on for too long and I felt like I received very little return. I just hope they read the MyExperience and improve on this because they destroyed a perfectly good course this term. Shame.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: Opengangs on August 27, 2020, 05:50:44 pm
Subject Code/Name: COMP3121 - Algorithms and Programming TechniquesCOMP9101 - Design and Analysis of Algorithms

Contact Hours:
Depends each week. We had lecture recordings this term instead of an actual lecture so contact hours differed each week.

Assumed Knowledge:
COMP3121: Pre-requisite for the course is either COMP1927 or COMP2521.
COMP9101: Pre-requisite for the course is COMP9021.

Assessment:
- 5 assignments (each worth 10%).
- 1 final exam (worth 50%).

Lecture Recordings? Yes.

Notes/Materials Available: Lecture notes were sufficient.

Textbook: Two textbooks that are recommended for the course are Algorithm Design by Kleinberg and Tardos, and Introduction to Algorithms by Cormen, Leierson, Rivest, and Stein. The former is a bit more friendly to those students who may not have a mathematical background, while the latter is the standard textbook for anyone who's keen on doing more algorithmic study beyond this course. Both textbooks are sufficient reading for the course and their pdf's can be found online.

Lecturer(s): Dr. Aleksander Ignjatovic.

Year & Trimester of completion: 20T2

Difficulty: 3.5/5

Overall Rating: 4/5.

Your Mark/Grade: 100 HD

Comments:
This course is another core course for anyone doing a computer science degree and it is the lower one to COMP3821. The course was brilliant and it really shined in comparison to COMP2511 in terms of quality of assessments. The assessments were well spaced out and Aleks' decision to give us hints a week into the assignment was a step up as it allowed students who struggled with the course to appreciate the complexities (no pun intended) of designing an algorithm. The tutorial sets were really useful, not just for understanding the logic under the hood, but it also demonstrates a way for us to write our responses. Would recommend for those who don't need to take the course, to take the course.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: Opengangs on August 27, 2020, 06:04:59 pm
Subject Code/Name: MATH2901 - Higher Theory of Statistics

Contact Hours: 6 hours (2 x 2 hour lectures, 1 x 1 hour lecture, 1 x 1 hour tutorial).

Assumed Knowledge: MATH1231 or MATH1241 or MATH1251 or DPST1014.

Assessment:
- 1 quiz (worth 5%).
- 1 midsem (worth 20%).
- 1 assignment (worth 15%).
- 1 final exam (worth 60%).

Lecture Recordings? Yes.

Notes/Materials Available: Lecture notes were sufficient.

Textbook: No required textbook.

Lecturer(s): Dr. Libo Li.

Year & Trimester of completion: 20T2

Difficulty: 3/5

Overall Rating: 4/5.

Your Mark/Grade: 80 DN

Comments:
This is one of the core level 2 courses for any student undertaking a maths degree and it introduces students to the theory behind some statistical concepts. The course is split into two components: the first half covers the basics of probability theory, while the second half dives into the heart of statistical analysis. By the end of the course, you'll feel more confident with all things statistics.

I actually enjoyed the course for what it is, an introductory statistics course. I found some results really interesting and non-trivial, and it's made me appreciate the stats a lot more than when I began the term. I found the first half of the course a lot more interesting but that's probably because I found the first half more intuitive than the second half. The lecturer is chill af (legit a dude swore on the first day of lectures and the lecturer replied with "yeah same" lmao).

The assessments weren't too difficult either, it was really just testing to see if you actually paid attention in lectures. So in all, I really enjoyed the course. Would recommend.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: RuiAce on September 02, 2020, 05:03:36 pm
Subject Code/Name: COMP9444 - Neural Networks and Deep Learning
Equivalent postgraduate variant: COMP9444 (Identical course code)

Contact Hours: During COVID:
- 2 x 2 hours live sessions (didn't usually take up the full 2 hours).
- However much time required to watch recordings from previous years. (2-4 hours per week.)

Assumed Knowledge: COMP2521 or COMP1927 or MTRN3500

Assessment:
- 30% assignment x2
- 40% final exam

Lecture Recordings? Yes (live sessions were recorded)

Notes/Materials Available: Textbook attached below. Otherwise, there were lecture slides, quizzes, and exercises.

Textbook: Deep Learning By Ian Goodfellow, Yoshua Bengio and Aaron Courville (Online link available: http://www.deeplearningbook.org/). Didn't consider using it so can't comment on it.

Lecturer(s): Dr. Alan Blair

Year & Trimester of completion: 20T2

Difficulty: 3/5

Overall Rating: 1/5

Your Mark/Grade: 95 HD

Comments:
This is one of the level 3+ courses offered by the CSE faculty for the Artificial Intelligence specialisation. Loosely speaking, neural networks learn to accomplish various machine learning tasks but in ways that somehow mimics the human brain (hence their name).

The course isn't actually 3/5 in terms of content difficulty (in fact, some might argue the content difficulty was as low as 1.5/5). The final exam appeared to be quite lenient (especially in contrast to its sister course COMP9417). The assignments weren't exactly hard to code. The difficulty lies in fine tuning the parameters in each network you had to code for said assignments. Accuracy was one of the important aspects we were examined on this term. Unless we achieved sufficiently high accuracy, it was not guaranteed that we'd receive the marks.

Note also that training a neural network takes time (at least, once they become complicated). In the grand scheme of things, there's only so little time you have available to get to the high results. COMP9444 also uses PyTorch as of last year. (Prior to then, TensorFlow was used.)

The quizzes and exercises were good preparation for the finals. It was highly recommended to do them.

The problem I had with the course was that it felt like a bore. I felt like I was learning a lot about neural networks, instead of how to actually do them. The course definitely covered the basic stuff (e.g. backpropagation), but I felt that I just got given a bunch of equations and had to accept them. I couldn't really understand anything about why the equations worked the way they did.

There was also an emphasis on the applications, which genuinely were cool, but like they didn't tell me much. I didn't see the point on being examined on all of these seemingly context-focused questions either. Also, PyTorch felt like something we had to self-learn. Fortunately, it was not hard. But the single lecture on it felt quite vague.

That wasn't with every bit of the course though. To be fair, some stuff like reinforcement learning was made clear. It just felt boring for the most part.

And lastly, despite the final exam being quite an easy one, the negative marking was also a bit stressful to deal with leading up to it. The negative marking felt significantly more punishing for this course than back in COMP3231 (Operating Systems).
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: anomalous on September 02, 2020, 05:24:14 pm
Subject Code/Name: COMP2511 - Object-Oriented Design and Programming

Contact Hours:
- 2x 2 hour lectures
- 1x 1 hour tutorial, followed by 1x 2 hour lab

Assumed Knowledge: The formal prerequisites are
- COMP1531
- COMP2521 or COMP1927 (is there really anyone left who’s senior enough to have done 1927 but hasn’t done this course or the former 2911 yet, though?)

I might add that if you only recently completed 1531 (as in, within the last year), then the course may assume you’ve covered some domain modelling tools (most notably, UML diagrams) that you perhaps haven’t, so it is worth looking into this before term.

Assessment: Due to the continuation of online delivery in 20T2, assessment priorities shifted to take weight off the final exam and to place it on practical work (i.e. the project and labs). The precise breakdown was
- 3x lab assessments, worth 20% of your course mark (well, kind of - read my comments)
- 1x individual programming assignment, worth 15% of your course mark
- 1x pair project, worth 35% of your course mark (try to organise a partner beforehand)
- final exam, worth 30% of your course mark

Lecture Recordings? Yes, screen and voice recorded.

Notes/Materials Available: The course provides notes and lecture code, however there’s a number of online resources which prove to be invaluable for the more theory-oriented parts of the course - notably, Refactoring Guru as a single point of reference for the design patterns you learn in the course. Some slides in the course take resources directly from Refactoring Guru, so if you don’t feel like listening to lectures, why not cut out the middleman?

Textbook: No prescribed textbook, however Head First Design Patterns by Freeman and Sierra was recommended.

I can't comment on the usefulness of this book since I didn't use it, but some of the lecture examples were lifted straight from this book, so if you're struggling to grasp some of the patterns in lectures, you may be in luck.

Lecturer(s): Dr. Ashesh Mahidadia

Year & Trimester of completion: 20T2

Difficulty: 5/5 just because of how much of a time drain and organisational nightmare it was this particular term

Overall Rating: 0/5 1/5 this term - once again, take this with a grain of salt
(a 0 is pretty harsh on second thought, so I've been generous)

Your Mark/Grade: 96 HD

Comments:
I did not have high hopes for this course going into it, expecting it to be similar in feel to 1531: a bit drab but it’s stuff you ultimately have to know as a CS/SEng student. I'm slightly skeptical of OOP, but the course content was more insightful than what was taught in 1531. The tutors and lab assistants were also great given what they had to put up with. These few points are about all I can say that was good, though.

If I had to sum up what was bad about this course this term, they just completely botched handling assessments, which was mostly the fault of poor planning and even poorer communication from the higher-up course staff. While I know quite a lot of vitriol was directed at the course staff during the term (some of it unsubstantiated and needlessly mean), I really do hope that they take the time to reflect on the genuine feedback they received, because there are many lessons to learn. If you’re the type who wants all of the precise details though, here’s a play-by-play account of the tragedy that was COMP2511 in 20T2 - if not, pick back up at the final paragraph for my final thoughts.

Our labs were made worth 20% of your overall mark, and these marks were distributed across 3 lab assessments scattered across 3 weeks during the term. The first of these assessments was a total disaster, on account of it being a ridiculous 6 minute interrogation format with your tutor/lab assistant in a Teams call asking questions scarcely related to the labs they were supposedly assessing. A lot of the grief this caused could’ve been avoided if there was clear communication telling students what exactly would happen, but they were oddly secretive and waited until a few hours before to even mention more details. Inconsistent messaging regarding whether you actually had to do labs to get marks plagued the other lab assessments too, with the third and final one being cancelled altogether and replaced by an automarked lab. That being said, the other lab assessments weren’t nearly as ridiculous as the first, and they were at least gracious enough to scale the result of that first lab assessment with respect to the others, considering that a lot of students performed very poorly in it.

The major project was also a huge nuisance and my least favourite part of the course by far. It started with not getting pair repositories until over 1 week after the release of the project. The first two milestones were also put too close together, due 1 week apart in week 7 and week 8 respectively. All of this culminated in the second milestone also being a bit of a hassle - we’re meant to have started working on it at the start of week 6, but we didn’t have repositories to allow us to do that properly until a bit into that week, and we were also meant to use the feedback we received from milestone 1, but you wouldn’t receive that until you demonstrated it to your tutor during your lab in week 7! The final milestone also involved a bit too much GUI work in my opinion, and felt much more like a graphic design exercise than OOP. Making extensions mandatory parts in order to get full marks in the milestone is a bit lame too. Perhaps it’s time to come up with a new project, since this one has been used for quite a while now (at least a year if I’m not mistaken).

The exam was a predictable mess. As absolutely no-one saw coming (/s), the load from students trying to submit caused WebCMS to wet itself at crunch time 10 minutes before the exam finished, leaving a lot of people in limbo and unable to submit their work. This isn’t the fault of the course staff as they aren’t responsible for the integrity of CSE’s infrastructure, but I think that going with a harder, lengthier exam with a 24 hour completion window would’ve been better in order to avoid concentrated load. It’s not as if this hasn’t happened before either - I heard one of the security courses last term caused some trouble with CSE’s infrastructure, and that was an even smaller course in terms of students enrolled.

The course is in major need of a return to form, or they need to try another way of dealing with online delivery for 20T3, because their plan this term didn’t work. I’m sure this was just an extreme reaction to having to deliver the course online, because there’d be no reason to do the things they did during physical delivery. Online courses are the meta right now though, and this course was a nightmare this term. It’s a shame that CSE students don’t have any choice but to do this course, especially while it’s in the state it is at the moment, but if you’re able to I would avoid doing it until 2021.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: RuiAce on September 02, 2020, 05:25:50 pm
Subject Code/Name: MATH2221 - Higher Theory and Applications of Differential Equations

Contact Hours:
- 2 hr live session (usually aimed to keep within 1 hr though, and was also optional)
- 1 hr tutorial
- However much time required to watch recordings from previous years, mixed with some new re-recorded ones. (Roughly 4 hours per week)

Assumed Knowledge: A mark of 70 in MATH1231 or MATH1241 or MATH1251 (or DPST1014)

Assessment:
- 2 x 10% workshops
- 20% midterm test
- 60% final exam

Lecture Recordings?  Yes (live sessions and tutorials were recorded)

Notes/Materials Available: Full lecture slides given with document camera scribbles from 2019. Some tutorial exercises had full solutions, whilst others just had answers. Live session docs were all released. Past papers for midterm and final prep were released back to 2015.

Textbook: None were prescribed. A variety was stated as recommended reading, but I used none of them.

Lecturer(s): Dr. Jan Zika

Year & Trimester of completion: 20T2

Difficulty: 2.5/5

Overall Rating: 4.5/5

Your Mark/Grade: 97 HD

Comments:
This is one of the level 2 core courses required as part of a mathematics major. For statistics majors, students have the choice of picking between this, and MATH2521/2621 (complex analysis). Differential equations are something students are very accustomed to from first year; they're essentially just trying to find a function that satisfies an equation, which somehow relates the function to its own derivatives. (Can of course, be higher than the first derivative.) This course does introduce significantly more techniques than in first year.

This course is introduced as a toolbox course (which, I note throws off many pure-math wired students). As with every math course, some element of proof is required. But the main focus of this course is in applying various techniques taught to finding/constructing solutions (or solution representations) to differential equations. For the most part, this course is therefore computational. They try to minimise it in this course, but every once in a while the ability to handle demanding algebraic computations becomes important.

But of course, in terms of computations, what they emphasise on is how well you know the techniques. I saw pretty much every technique get examined (power series, reduction of order, variation of parameters in the assignment, Sturm-Liouville theory, formally self adjoint operators, dynamical systems, Steklov eigenpairs, ...).

The course is absolutely crucial to applied mathematics majors. Anyone considering applied mathematics is strongly advised to take this course in second year, as it is a prerequisite for several level 3 applied courses.

The workshops were basically the assignments as far as I was aware. I think they were renamed just to emphasise the peer review component of it. Which wasn't too bad, in the grand scheme of things.

I was originally going to give this course a 4/5 for the content, but then Jan actually boiled the egg in class this year. That was a 0.5 rating in itself. (Students that will take/have taken the course will know what I mean here.)
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: RuiAce on September 02, 2020, 05:52:57 pm
Subject Code/Name: COMP3900 - Computer Science Project
Equivalent postgraduate variant: COMP9900

Contact Hours:
- 2 hr tutorial every week, but you only had to stay for your portion which was often at most 30mins
- 2 hr lecture in weeks 1, 2, 3, and 10, but they often did not take up the entire 2 hours.
- Not really "contact" time, but an undefinable amount of hours working with your team members on the project itself.

Assumed Knowledge: COMP2521 + COMP1531, as well as 102 UoC completed in the computer science degree. (Note that software engineering students do not need to take this course.)

Assessment:
- 10% Project Proposal
- 2 x 2.5% Progressive Demos
- 2 x 2.5% Retrospectives
- 20% Software Quality (this was the actual code)
- 20% Project Report
- 20% Final Demo/Presentation
- 20% Peer Assessment
- A work diary that was not marked but checked to see what progress you did. (Probably would've been deducted marks from your final result if your diary was blank, suggesting you did nothing.)

Lecture Recordings? Yes

Notes/Materials Available: Some slides on project management (and of course the assessment guidelines). That was roughly it.

Textbook: N/A

Lecturer(s): Matthew Sladescu

Year & Trimester of completion: 20T2

Difficulty: 4.5/5 (this varies from group to group though)

Overall Rating: 0.1/5

Your Mark/Grade: Not revealing this one because I'm not proud of it.

Comments:
This is one of the later core courses to computer science students. It's not required in software engineering degrees mostly due to the fact that the software engineering degree already mandates many projects of a similar calibre as well.

Honestly, this course was the biggest waste of my time at university thus far. It's really taught me nothing but that at this point in time, I hope I will never be a software engineer in the future. I already hated having to design software from COMP1531, and this is just that on steroids. And no matter how much the software development life cycle makes sense (user stories, gradual coding and testing etc.) makes sense, I don't want to do it.

The default projects lacked too much variety. They literally felt like the same project but just in different applications. Difficulty may have been skewed for us though because the optional project we picked was probably taking things a bit too far. The software worked (at least, it satisfied our user stories), but it cost countless hours of sleep.

And honestly that's why I'm not proud of my "mark". It really felt like my team members' marks, because very often I couldn't even tell what was going on. I was just super blessed to have a ridiculously strong team that didn't hate me for my ineptness in the project. It was also quite stressful seeing the times when they'd have to lose sleep over the tasks at hand.

Proposal also took forever for 10%. It felt like the amount of work required for a 30% weighted task.

So pretty much I could salvage nothing fun out of this course. The 0.1 rating is entirely to credit that our tutor was so extremely nice to us.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: MisterNeo on September 02, 2020, 05:56:38 pm
Subject Code/Name: COMP3121 - Algorithms and Programming Techniques

Contact Hours:

Assumed Knowledge: COMP2521

Assessment:

Lecture Recordings?  Yes

Notes/Materials Available: Lecture slides, but I mainly used the MIT OpenCourseware resources on Youtube for self-study. The textbook was pretty good for getting a rough idea of what the topic was. The Piazza forum was also very active and you could ask questions anytime about topics you didn't understand.

Textbook: Jon Kleinberg, Eva Tardos - Algorithm Design

Lecturer(s): Aleks Ignjatovic

Year & Trimester of completion: 20T2

Difficulty: 3/5 for the first 2 topics, 2/5 for the rest of the course.

Overall Rating: 4.5/5

Your Mark/Grade: 98 HD

Comments:

I thought this course was going to be very hard because it looked like a math course (it basically was). Don't worry if you forgot everything you did in COMP2521 because there's a bit of revision of asymptotic analysis.

The topics were also very interesting as it covered different classes of algorithms and it allows you to appreciate why some algorithms behave the way they do. This was also my first time learning how Merge Sort works (I didn't pay attention in 2521 :P) and it makes a lot more sense when viewing it from a mathematical point of view. The first topic looked a lot like your typical Leetcode exercises because they were looking at ways to solve X in a certain time complexity, which I found to be somewhat challenging but also very fun. There were also 2 extra topics on Linear Programming and Intractability which were not assessable in the final exam.

Overall, it's a very fun course. (It's also core for CS/SEng so you have to do it anyway)
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: fun_jirachi on September 03, 2020, 04:21:50 pm
Subject Code/Name: MATH1241 - Higher Mathematics 1B

Contact Hours:
2x 2 hour lectures
1x 1 hour lecture
1x 1 hour tutorial

Assumed Knowledge:
MATH1141 is a prereq - thus assumed knowledge

Assessment:
2x Lab Test - 30%
10x Online Tutorial - 10%
1x Assignment - 10%
Final Exam - 50%

Lecture Recordings?
Yes

Notes/Materials Available:
Course pack notes + problems, online tutorials

Textbook:
Used the above

Lecturer(s):
Dr Alessandro Ottazzi, Dr David Angell

Year & Trimester of completion:
2020 T2

Difficulty:
2.5/5

Overall Rating:
4/5

Your Mark/Grade:
90 HD

Comments:
An honestly more enjoyable follow up to MATH1141. While the small stats intro felt a little incomplete and rushed, and while the online stuff felt really dodgy, the course content was cool and it was taught really well. Having David for yet another subject was <3 wow absolutely amazing and Alessandro's pre-lecture playlist was absolute fire (really made online learning that bit better). The course wasn't difficult in itself - it was probably made a lot harder given motivational issues. Relatively standard course otherwise (especially being a mandatory course) - not much else to say.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: owidjaja on September 09, 2020, 11:37:37 pm
Subject Code/Name: ENGG1811 - Computing for Engineers

Contact Hours: 2x 2hr lectures, 1x 2 hr lab

Assumed Knowledge: N/A

Assessment:
18% - 7 labs (labs are marked out of 2, 1 mark for completing the lab, 1 mark for a weekly multiple choice question) + 2 virtual labs (1 on Excel, the other on MATLAB)
12% - Week 5 Oral Assessment
10% - Assignment 1
10% - Assignment 2
20% - Week 10 Oral Assessment
30% - Final Exam

Lecture Recordings? Yes

Notes/Materials Available:

Textbook: N/A

Lecturer(s): Dr Ashesh Mahidadia

Year & Trimester of completion: 2020 T2

Difficulty: 2/5

Overall Rating: 3/5

Comments:
A lot of my friends described this course as a WAM booster. This course isn't too bad but the lectures are kinda dry. The only annoying thing about this subject is the oral assessment, which is basically the lab demonstrator giving you two questions and you have 6 minutes to write the code and explain your working out (without running the code) - maybe I'm just bad at articulating myself but I didn't do so well in these assessments. They also mark you a bit harshly but they do give you partial marks.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: owidjaja on September 10, 2020, 06:25:18 pm
Subject Code/Name: ENGG2400 - Mechanics of Solids 1

Contact Hours: 2x 2hr lectures, 1x 2hr tutorials

Assumed Knowledge: ENGG1300

Assessment:
27% - 3 x Block Tests
19% - 9 x Weekly PSS (tutorial problem attempt) + weekly quizzes + 1 extra mark (apparently comes from you introducing yourself on Teams)
18% - 2 x Lab Report
36% - Final Exam (pre-COVID requirement is that you need 50% in the exam as well to pass but due to COVID, it's changed to 40%)

Lecture Recordings? Yes

Notes/Materials Available: PSS (Problem Solving Session) tutorial problems are given as a hard copy for free (no soft copy because of copyright) and customised study pack is provided at the end of the term (based on your performance on each topics)

Textbook: Hibbeler, Mechanics of Materials SI 10th edition
Didn't use it that much but some of the tutorial problems are taken from the textbook

Lecturer(s): Dr David C. Kellermann

Year & Trimester of completion: 2020 T2

Difficulty: 5/5

Overall Rating: 3/5

Comments:
This is a direct continuation of ENGG1300 (engineering mechanics). I personally found this course quite difficult mainly because ENGG1300 was a struggle for me. However you can still survive the course as long as you make sure you cover your basics and complete the tutorial problems (both hand in problems and study problems). The block test, however, is kinda yikes. You get 45 minutes to complete 3 (very long) questions - though you get an extra 15 minutes for upload time. I also want to add that there's also the civil engineering stream but they say that the civil stream is a bit easier than the mechanical engineering stream. I just chose the mechanical engineering stream because Kellermann is a good lecturer and he provides a lot of good material.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: owidjaja on September 10, 2020, 08:46:39 pm
Subject Code/Name: PSYC1001 - Psychology 1A

Contact Hours: 4x 1hr lectures (but only in lecture recordings, not live lectures), 1x 1hr tutorial

Assumed Knowledge: N/A

Assessment:
3% - Information Literacy Skills (comprehension online quiz where you need to score 100% but have multiple attempts)
3% - 'Writing Skills' and 'Psychology in the Media' online modules (just need to complete them)
4% - SONA Research participation (but can get an extra credit if you assist in more research)
45% - Building a Rationale assignment (essay)
45% - Final exam

Lecture Recordings? Yes

Notes/Materials Available: Lecture slides, tutorial slides and exemplar essay sample to help with the BAR assignment

Textbook: Psychology: Australia & New Zealand (2nd Edition), by Bernstein et al. 2017 (Cengage Australia)
They offer a student discount to get the online textbook. They say it's not compulsory to buy the textbook but the lecturer can also specify if a specific part in the textbook can appear in the final exam.

Lecturer(s): Varies (it changes each week since they're exposing you to different fields of psychology)

Year & Trimester of completion: 2020 T2

Difficulty: 1/5

Overall Rating: 4.5/5

Comments:
This was a really fun course to take. The content you learn is very interesting and it's a great introduction to psychology. It's a great Gen Ed course to do. I will say it's quite content heavy and you also need to be cool with writing essays, reading/analysing journal articles and doing some experimental design. My only slight criticism is that they don't do live lectures and only give you lecture recordings or videos so there isn't much interaction with the lecturers.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: fantasticbeasts3 on September 11, 2020, 02:07:35 pm
Subject Code/Name: MDIA3000 - Discourse and Promotion

Contact Hours: 3 - 2 hour lecture, 1 hour tutorial

Assumed Knowledge:66 units of credit overall including MDIA2005 or MDIA2006 or MDIA2012

Assessment:
- 50% quizzes: 6 quizzes in weeks 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 9 worth 8% each + 2 assessment reflections worth 1% each
- 20% evaluation report summary
- 30% evaluation report presentation

Lecture Recordings? Yes because of online learning, although I think lectures for the course are in the same format outside of the pandemic.

Notes/Materials Available: Everything you need is on Moodle.

Textbook: N/A

Lecturer(s): Lecturer - Luk Swiatek, Tutor - Katya Quigley

Year & Trimester of completion: 2020, T2

Difficulty: 2/5

Overall Rating: 1/5

Comments:
This is going to sound like such a Karen comment, but if I could give this course a rating of 0/5, I would. The only reason it gets 1/5 is because my tutor was amazing and really tried to help us out even though we asked so many silly questions that were probably really stupid and a waste of time.

Overall, although I thought the course was awful, I have to acknowledge the care and consideration that was put into structuring the course this term. Lectures were structured into smaller topics on this Moodle function (I have no idea what it's called), so you would watch a short clip going through the lecture content, followed by real promotional examples, which was then followed by a question that somewhat emulated the quiz questions we got every week. I thought this was really well thought out because it's hard to pay attention for long periods of time and it's always good to see real-life examples of what you're learning about; however, the lectures were never uploaded on time. Tutorials were held on Mondays and Thursdays and we had quizzes after our tutorials, and the lectures were never uploaded before Monday. Quizzes were based on the content of the same week (so week 3 content = week 3 quiz) rather than the content of the previous week so it was really frustrating when you got to Wednesday night (my tutorial was on Thursday morning) and the lectures had just been uploaded. I don't even know how the Monday tutorials coped because everyone on Thursday was complaining about the delay in lectures being uploaded.

As for tutorials, they were supposed to run for 2.5 hours, but they were shortened to 50 minutes of content followed by 20 minutes for the quiz. I thought this rendered tutorials practically useless as we had to go through things so quickly and there wasn't enough time to fully explain concepts taught in lectures if we were confused. I think that if the tutorials ran for the full 2.5 hours, the learning experience would've been so much better. Not to mention there wasn't enough time to explain assessments as all tutorial time was used to prepare for the quiz.

Now for assessments. While I understand that the quizzes were worth almost 50% of our grade, there was more explanation of that which was something we did every week than the assignments. We weren't given actual examples of what an evaluation report is in PR which made things really confusing because obviously no student has written a text like that before. We were given a basic structure of how we could write the report, but there was no explanation or clarification in tutorials as to what an evaluation report is and when we asked the tutor, she seemed a bit lost. A lot of the time there was a clear lack of communication between teaching staff because a lot of the time everyone felt like they were left on their own. Assessment result turnover was also really awful as we required the results from A2 to do the final assignment and we didn't get that back until a week before the final assignment was due, and even then, feedback was not helpful whatsoever. Even though we got these a week back before the final assignment was due, this was after the final due date was pushed back a week after lobbying from students.

To cap it all off, the course content didn't feel very relevant to the PR or advertising industries, and we struggled to make it relevant to what we would want in the future. I really hope that the course convenor will take our feedback on MyExperience into account because this course was a mess.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: fantasticbeasts3 on September 11, 2020, 05:55:51 pm
Subject Code/Name: MDIA3008 - Issues and Crisis Communication

Contact Hours:4 - 2 hour lecture, 2 hour tutorial

Assumed Knowledge:66 units of credit overall including MDIA2005 or MDIA2006 or MDIA2012

Assessment:
- 25% group presentation
- 25% short essay
- 50% critical analysis or crisis communications plan

Lecture Recordings? Yes because of online learning, but the convenor/lecturer did tell us that there were recordings if lectures were live.

Notes/Materials Available: Everything you need is on Moodle.

Textbook: N/A

Lecturer(s): Lecturer and tutor - Peter Roberts

Year & Trimester of completion: 2020, T2

Difficulty: 2/5

Overall Rating: 3/5

Comments:
This course transitioned really well to online learning. I didn't find it particularly enjoyable because the content was a little dry and repetitive at times, but there was clear foresight into how skills and concepts learnt in class could be applicable to a career in the communications industry.

Lectures were posted in the PPT format with voice recordings which I thought wasn't ideal, but it was definitely convenient if you wanted to go through content again or if you missed something. I didn't like this format because I couldn't speed up the lecture and conversion to an MP4 file to fast track it didn't work because audio became out of sync. As for tutorials, the majority of tutorials were taken up by the group presentations which were based on that week's content, and the presentations analysed a case study chosen by students with theory. The remainder of tutorials mostly repeated main points from the lecture which could be boring.

As for assessments, I thought they were alright, and relevant to course material and for building on skills required in the PR industry except maybe the essay, but that helps indirectly as it builds on critical thinking skills. I thought that the presentation was really good in getting people to work together, but that could probably be because I was really lucky to get a good group and we worked well together. The only concern I have with the final assessment was that we had the option to choose between a critical analysis or crisis communications plan. The critical analysis is an individual task, but it is essentially the same thing as the group presentation but more concise and can cover a larger range of topics, as you can pick from every topic in the term compared to the week you were assigned to for the presentation. The crisis communications plan was a group task (2 people) and I think that doing the plan would've been better as it actually puts concepts learnt throughout the course into practice rather than writing what was essentially a semi-structured essay.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: fantasticbeasts3 on September 11, 2020, 06:09:33 pm
Subject Code/Name: ARTS1210 - Concepts of Asia

Contact Hours: 3 - 2 hour lecture, 1 hour tutorial

Assumed Knowledge: None

Assessment:
- 20%: 2x response to readings
- 40%: essay
- 20% historical site exercise
- 20%: test

Lecture Recordings? Yes, and we were told that lecture recordings are always provided for live lectures too.

Notes/Materials Available: Everything you need is on Moodle.

Textbook: N/A

Lecturer(s): Lecturer - Mina Roces, Tutor - Louise Edwards

Year & Trimester of completion: 2020, T2

Difficulty: 2/5

Overall Rating: 4.5/5

Comments:
If I didn't do German, this would be the best course I have completed since commencing my studies at UNSW. It is really well structured, really interesting and you can tell that there has been so much care and consideration put into this course. As a first year and/or foundational course, Mina has structured it in a way that helps students build on their writing skills and it is essentially a course that encourages students on a path of academia. Louise is also a gem and is so incredibly helpful and I have nothing but praise for these two. The only reason I didn't give the extra 0.5 in the rating is because no course is perfect, and I'll provide some reasons as to why that's the case for Concepts.

For the lectures, the lecture recordings from last year were used. While this was disappointing because you do want new content, Mina is a really engaging lecturer so you can almost overlook this. As for the tutorials, I thought they were too short and students could definitely benefit if they were 1.5 hours, as an extra half an hour would provide so much more scope for discussion and really enrich critical thinking skills which are integral to the course.

The only complaint I have about this course is the assessments. There is one assessment every two weeks - so you'll have one in weeks 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10 - so it's somewhat stressful as you don't really have a lot of room to breathe given that most students are completing 2 other courses during the term. Other than that, I thought the assessments were great and build on academic skills, particularly writing and really set you up for research if that's something you would like to do after studying. Other than that, I highly recommend this course if you have an interest in Asia or history in general as it's taught really well and while the assessment schedule is a little packed, the content makes up for it.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: blasonduo on September 13, 2020, 12:05:46 pm
Subject Code/Name: EDST4080-Special Education: Inclusive Strategies

Contact Hours:  2hr lecture, 1hr tute (sometimes 1hr of lecture or tute was replaced by online activities/questions)

Assumed Knowledge: Must have completed EDST2002, and enrolled in an education degree.

Assessment:  Evidence-based practise guide (45%), Information booklet for High School Teachers (55%). Both assessments must be passed to pass the course.

Lecture Recordings?  A given yes due to covid.

Notes/Materials Available:  There were some additional resources we could've looked into, but not something too big

Textbook: Diversity, Inclusion and Engagement-Marvyn Hyde, Lorelai Carpenter, and Shelley Dole. Not needed.

Lecturer(s): Iva Strnadová (and guest lecturers some weeks).

Year & Trimester of completion: 2020 T2

Difficulty: 2.1/5

Overall Rating:  2.5/5

Your Mark/Grade: 82 DN

Comments:
This course was pretty standard run-of-the-mill type of education course. It wasn't really lacking in anything like the majority of the first year education, but it also had nothing in it that made it shine.

As sad as it is to say this, every time we had a guest lecturer for our lectures, those were the ones that were by far the best in terms of content and how it was being presented. Like all EDST lectures, it is simply a 2 hour block of the lecturer where we listen. The content presented in these lectures though has been one of the more valuable ones so far. The content discusses a variety of disabilities that we are likely to encounter in the teaching world and the harsh realities this poses on the student and the learning environment. It gets you thinking about how your plans as a teacher might change to accommodate for these students.

The tutorials were pretty garbage though. I do mainly blame the online aspect to it, but every tutorial went like this:
short recap of lecture -> breakout groups of 4-5 people to do a task -> everyone presents to the class. SUPER repetitive, and it's just a roll of the dice to see if you have good breakout partners or not. It was very awkward and I hated doing these.

I found the assessments alright at best, for the first one, you are given a really good resource, and following that same format as that is bound to give you good marks. A pretty simple assessment

Assessment 2 was a doozy though. It had requirements to be user friendly, neat and creative. I do not do well with these, and as a result, my mark took a hit to this. My booklet ended up being 27 PAGES long, so if you're doing this course, get onto that assignment early, it's a big one.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: katie,rinos on September 21, 2020, 02:25:35 pm
Subject Code/Name: Becoming a Performer

Contact Hours: 2hr lecture, 2hr tute (straight after each other).

Assumed Knowledge: MUSC2802 and enrolled in a Music Pedagogy stream

Assessment:  2 Critiques (30%), essay (40%)

Lecture Recordings?  Yes

Notes/Materials Available:  Readings available through moodle

Textbook: Burwell, K. (2012) Studio-based instrumental learning. Available online through the library.

Lecturer(s): Kim Burwell

Year & Trimester of completion: 2020, 2

Difficulty: 3/5

Overall Rating:  4.5/5

Your Mark/Grade: 77 D

Comments:

I really enjoyed my pedagogy course last year so I was disappointed to see it online but it still worked really well! This course wasn’t as practical as last year and was more academic. We needed to do two presentations on articles about music pedagogy and then write critiques on their claims, theoretical/empirical support and persuasiveness. The first article had to be picked from a list and we chose the second.

Afterwards we wrote an essay based on the topic of the articles we were researching/presenting. I looked at verbal ways to teach musical expression. We had personal mini tutorials about our essays, how to structure them and what we could include.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: MisterNeo on November 17, 2020, 11:47:03 pm
Subject Code/Name: COMP3231 - Operating Systems

Contact Hours:  Two 2hr lectures + 1hr tutorial

Assumed Knowledge: COMP1521 and COMP2521

Assessment: 

Lecture Recordings?  Yes.

Notes/Materials Available: You get access to all lecture recordings, slides and tutorial resources for previous terms/semesters.

Textbook: "Modern Operating Systems - 4th Edition", by Andrew Tanenbaum. (Optional, but good textbook IMO)

Lecturer(s): Dr. Kevin Elphinstone

Year & Trimester of completion: 20T1

Difficulty: 3/5

Overall Rating:  4.5/5

Your Mark/Grade: 97 HD but it didn't count because of COVID-19  :(

Comments:
Very good course if you want to learn about the history of operating systems and how they make your computer work. You also learn about the various decisions OS programmers sometimes make about the designs, e.g. what type of file system data structure to use. Other topics include synchronisation, threads and deadlock, which I thoroughly enjoyed. The first 2 assignments were straightforward and easy, however Assignment 2-3 involved the OS-161 project where you implemented parts of a working operating system, such as the TLB and page table, plus you had to work in pairs. The final exam was a timed Moodle quiz because of online learning and it involved understanding certain features of OS's and why they are designed that way.

Kinda bummed that the course was forced to move online halfway through the term because of COVID-19. I really enjoyed the lectures/tutorials and highly recommend the course to anyone doing computer science or similar.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: HelpICantThinkOfAName on November 30, 2020, 09:43:48 pm
Subject Code/Name: ECON2102 - Macroeconomics 2

Contact Hours:  1 x 1.5 hour lecture per week. 1 x 1.5 hour tutorial per week.

Assumed Knowledge: ECON1102 and (ECON1203, MATH1041, MATH1231, MATH1241 or MATH1251). Not entirely sure why MATH 1B was assumed knowledge, we really didn't use intense math in this course. The most we ever did was a couple of Lagrangians.

Assessment:

Macro project presentation - 25%. Get yourself a good group for this. I had an amazing group, and we got nearly full marks for this.

Tutorial Participation - 5%. This was based on the weekly readings. The tutor would ask you to present what you learned from the reading/answer some questions related to the reading. Straightforward.

Assignments - 25%. This is the strangest part of the course, and where many people's grievances this term lie. Three assignments were due, but two of the three assignments were "selected at random", and only one or two questions per assignment will be "randomly selected" for marking. We found out that after submitting the first assignment that it would not be marked because "people submitted it too close to the due time". I spent 6-7 hours working on it, and being told the very next day that it would not be marked was infuriating. Furthermore, the questions that were selected "at random" for the second assignment were those that were auto-checked by moodle and not those that had significant mathematical derivations. Felt very lazy.

Final Exam - 45%. 55 Multiple Choice, 11 True/False/Uncertain with explanations. 4 mathematical exercises. This is the first time that I've nearly run out of time in a final exam. Does a good job on testing you on the whole course.

Quizzes - 5% Bonus Marks. Short weekly quizzes that took place in lectures. Bonus marks were given on a linear scale, if you achieved 50% overall you would get 1% extra, while the highest mark in the class (~95%) was given the full 5%.

Lecture Recordings?  Yes.

Notes/Materials Available:  Full slides given out. We weren't given access to any study material other than the limited tutorial problems. This includes the weekly quizzes, which we were unable to view again after submitting.

Textbook: Jones Macroeconomics. This is by far the best textbook for intermediate macroeconomics. Essential to have a copy as several questions from the tutorial problems, readings, and assignments came from this book. Also was great to have as a reference throughout the term.

Lecturer: Gonzalo Castex. 2.5/5. Doesn't seem fair rate him this low, especially after being spoiled by having Otto last term. I only rate him this low because of his dismissiveness towards students. Questions in Edstem were often met with "should've gone to office hours". Decent lecturing though.

Tutor: Felipe. 5/5 - sold out to go work for a bank halfway through the term.

David. 5/5 - the OG. Fast speaking (as usual), but always a pleasure to have him

Year & Trimester of completion: 2020/T3

Difficulty: 2/5.

Overall Rating:  3/5.

Your Mark/Grade: 81 DN

Comments:

I don't really felt like I learned anything new in this course, which is a sentiment that a few of my friends in the course have also echoed. Most of it boiled down to "Macro 1 but now we use a bit of calculus instead". After suffering through Micro 2 last term I expected this course to be much more difficult than it was, especially with the lack of a Macro 3 course. A bit underwhelming, but still an essential core economics course to master.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: HelpICantThinkOfAName on November 30, 2020, 09:55:52 pm
Subject Code/Name: ECON2206 - Introductory Econometrics

Contact Hours:  1 x 1.5 hour lecture per week. 1 x 1.5 hour tutorial per week.

Assumed Knowledge: ECON1203 or MATH1041 or MATH1231 or MATH1241 or MATH1251.

Assessment:

Assignments - 15%. Two assignments which required some heavy use of Stata. The Stata use was (often) beyond what was used in lecture slides or tutorials, and required more googling than programming. Not super difficult though. Made some very stupid mistakes in my second assignment, similar to my midterm.

Midterm - 25%. This should be easy marks, with the average hovering around 70%. I did very poorly in it, due to misreading one number at the very start of the second section and not being given any carry-forward errors for the remainder. Still extremely salty about that, and it severely capped my potential marks.

Quizzes - 5%. Online quiz due every other week, which could be repeated indefinitely. Questions were all multiple choice. No reason to not pick this 5% up.

Final - 50%. Similar to the midterm exam, just longer.

Lecture Recordings?  Yes.

Notes/Materials Available:  Full slides given out. Minimal Stata resources were given, which is sorely missed in this course.

Textbook: Wooldridge, Introductory Econometrics. Another standard text. This textbook is one of the few that I own a physical copy of. An amazing resource to have.

Lecturer: Federico Masera, 3/5. The given recordings were poor quality, I wish that he had given us access to past recordings. Other than that a pretty decent lecturer overall.

Tutor:  Hang, 4/5.

Year & Trimester of completion: 2020/T3

Difficulty: 1.5/5. Not a difficult course if you don't do what I did and misread so many questions.

Overall Rating:  2.5/5.

Your Mark/Grade: 50 PS. (yikes). This is entirely due to the no carry-forward error in the midterm. Should've been an easy 70+. Cost me Business School Deans List :(

Comments:

Another essential course for all economics students to master. My only wish is for more Stata materials.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: fun_jirachi on December 01, 2020, 10:34:06 pm
Subject Code/Name: COMP1531 - Software Engineering Fundamentals

Contact Hours:
2x 2hr lectures
1x 3hr Tute/Lab

Assumed Knowledge:
Prerequisite: COMP1511 or DPST1091 or COMP1917 or COMP1921 (stolen from above link)

Assessment:
For this term:
30% Final Exam
50% Project
20% Class Mark (incl. attendance, lab work)

Lecture Recordings?
Yes

Notes/Materials Available:
Lecture slides + provided links

Textbook:
None

Lecturer(s):
Hayden Smith

Year & Trimester of completion:
2020 T3

Difficulty:
3/5

Overall Rating:
4/5

Your Mark/Grade:
86 HD

Comments:
The course was really well organised and well run by the faculty. The only criticism I really have is that a lot of the content was crammed into the term, teaching both Python and software development. While software development was a priority, teaching Python was also a mandatory part of the term. Teaching Python was probably easier than it would've been otherwise considering COMP1511 was a prereq but at the same time, taking time to teach it takes away from teaching software development. However, I don't think this is any fault of the teaching staff as they did what they could given the circumstances and did it very well. They gave more than enough information for everyone to pass comfortably, marked leniently enough and were really friendly. Nice course - I'd recommend it even if it wasn't a prereq for many other courses.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: fun_jirachi on December 01, 2020, 10:51:12 pm
Subject Code/Name: COMP2521 - Data Structures and Algorithms

Contact Hours:
2x 2hr lectures
1x 3hr Tute/Lab

Assumed Knowledge:
Prerequisite: COMP1511 or DPST1091 or COMP1917 or COMP1921 (stolen from above link)

Assessment:
Quizzes 14%
Assignments 35%
Labs 11%
Final Exam 40%

Lecture Recordings?
Yes

Notes/Materials Available:
Yes

Textbook:
Suggested texts are available:
Algorithms in C, Parts 1-4: Fundamentals, Data Structures, Sorting, Searching (3rd Edition)
by Robert Sedgewick, published by Addison-Wesley
Algorithms in C, Part 5: Graph Algorithms (3rd Edition)
by Robert Sedgewick, published by Addison Wesley

Lecturer(s):
Ashesh Mahidadia

Year & Trimester of completion:
2020 T3

Difficulty:
3/5

Overall Rating:
2/5

Your Mark/Grade:
86 HD

Comments:
Perhaps because of the organisation of COMP1531 which I did at the same time, COMP2521 felt particularly poorly run. The course content was appealing because it was basically logic with extra steps, but I couldn't really shake the fact the course didn't have that feel good factor. It didn't really help that extra recordings and tutorials were often better resources to learn from than lectures, though there was markedly less work than last term (gauging by the reports of one friend complaining about the workload). The tutors were great :) - but there's really not much to add apart from the fact that unless you enjoy the content, I would not recommend taking the course as it exists right now.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: HelpICantThinkOfAName on December 02, 2020, 04:04:41 pm
Subject Code/Name: MATH3411 - Information, Codes and Ciphers

Contact Hours:  2 x 2 hour lecture per week. 1 x 1 hour tutorial per week.

Assumed Knowledge: MATH1081 or MATH1231(CR) or DPST1014 (CR) or MATH1241(CR) or MATH1251(CR) or MATH2099. In practice, as long as you are comfortable with first-year linear-algebra you'll be fine.

Assessment:

3 x Online tests - 40%. Test 1 worth 10%, while tests 2 and 3 are worth 15% each. All the questions came from a question bank that we had access to weeks before the test. The questions really made you focus on the links between different aspects of the material though.

Final exam - 60%.

Lecture Recordings?  Yes.

Notes/Materials Available:  Full slides and notes given out.

Lecturer: Thomas Britz, 10/5. What can I say about Britz that hasn't already been said. He makes going to lectures and tutorials fun and exciting, and really makes you interact and engage with the material. My favourite moment was when he brought up a webcam and drilled a hole into a DVD copy of The Emoji Movie to demonstrate error-correction. He is easily a contender for the best lecturer at UNSW.

Year & Trimester of completion: 2020/T3

Difficulty: 2.5/5. I didn't find this course to be the easy wam-booster that it's made out to be, as I was a bit rusty on my linear algebra when going into the course. But as long as you engage with the material it will all fall into place by the end.

Overall Rating:  5/5.

Your Mark/Grade: 79 DN

Comments:

Wow.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: Opengangs on December 05, 2020, 05:00:16 pm
Subject Code/Name: MATH2931 - Higher Linear Models

Contact Hours: 2 x 2 hour lectures, 2 x 1 hour tutorials.

Assumed Knowledge: Even though the pre-requisite is MATH2801 (DN) / MATH2901, I strongly advise you to have taken a Linear Algebra course or have experience with Linear Algebra past first year before advancing into the course. The lecturer assumed a lot of things from MATH2501/2601 that play a central role in the nature of linear models.

Assessment: 2 x assignments (15%, 20%), 1 final exam (60%), 5% class participation.

Lecture Recordings? Yes

Notes/Materials Available: Live scribbles are available after each lecture.

Textbook: None prescribed, but recommended:
- (Less advanced) Dirk P. Kroese and Joshua CC Chan. Statistical modeling and computation.
- (More advanced) Dirk P. Kroese et al. Data Science and Machine Learning: Mathematical and Statistical Methods.

Lecturer(s): Dr. Zdravko Botev.

Year & Trimester of completion: 20T3.

Difficulty: 4/5.

Overall Rating: 2.5/5.

Your Mark/Grade: 72 (CR).

Comments:
I think the structure of this course really says a lot about the course. Even with previous lecturers, the course has not fared well so it says more about the content taught in the course than the lecturer. The course ties statistical modeling with the theory of linear models so a lot of what you need to know (particularly with the higher course) really comes down to coding it up on a language such as MATLAB, Python, and R. I, on the other hand, enjoy the theory so it didn't really sit well with me.

The course, as a whole, was unstructured and I didn't feel like I gained too much from doing this course. It was confusing to follow the lecture content because course content was organised by timestamps more than specific topics so it was really in your best interest to continuously keep up with the course itself. Zdravko typesetted his lecture material on Overleaf live so hearing the the keyboard clacks while listening to him speak was a bit distracting at times.

One of the biggest downfalls with this course is that Zdravko never really emphasised the coding in the course. It's a core component of the course with one question specifically dedicated to coding in the final exam, so him not really emphasising the coding component in lectures disheartened me from wanting to even attempt the question (thankfully, it's optional).

Preparing for the final exam was a bit of a headache, purely because we aren't given too many resources to work off of besides going over the tutorial problems repeatedly. It's not a terrible course but it's not a memorable one either.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: anomalous on December 17, 2020, 01:18:18 pm
Subject Code/Name: MATH2621 - Higher Complex Analysis

Contact Hours: 2x 2 hour lectures, 1x 1 hour tutorial

Assumed Knowledge: Formally, one of
- MATH1231
- MATH1241
- MATH1251
- DPST1014
with at least a mark of 70.

Having MATH2111/multivariable calculus in your toolbox before this course also helps in some parts - specifically, the preliminaries of continuity, limits and differentiability of complex functions as well as contour integration will be familiar material if you’ve done 2111 before. This is optional though, and there’s a nice duality as well because doing 2621 before 2111 will make some parts of 2111 easier in turn.

Assessment:
- 2x class tests done during a lecture time, worth 20% of your mark
- 1x final exam, worth 60% of your course mark

Lecture Recordings? Yes, and I imagine in-person offerings would be the same.

Notes/Materials Available: A decent problem set was provided as well as a typed lecture notes document, on which the lecture slides seem to be based on. You get an okay selection of past tests and papers for assessment preparation, though most of the class tests in particular don’t have any solutions, so you’re on your own there.

Textbook: None formally prescribed or used, but some recommended ones are
- Wunsch’s “Complex Variables with Applications”
- Needham’s “Visual Complex Analysis” for a visually/geometrically-motivated text
- Rudin’s “Real and Complex Analysis”, a classic text in analysis, but be warned that this book is quite high level

Lecturer(s): Dr. Arnaud Brothier

Year & Trimester of completion: 20T3

Difficulty: 4/5 just because of that exam, but the content itself is non-trivial too

Overall Rating: 4/5

Your Mark/Grade: 91 HD

Comments:
An interesting course, but also a bit hard this term all things considered. I’ll reiterate what other reviews have already mentioned to say that the theorems and results in this course are as technical as they are surprising, so they take some time to sink in. If you’re an integration junkie, then you’ll probably love the end of this course where you learn some neat tools to tackle hard real integrals using complex methods. The difficulty of this course during the term was pretty tame but spiked significantly at exam time, with our final being a bit of a killer.

Why this course loses 1 point in rating is because it could be improved content-wise. In terms of how engaging it is, the parts of the course preceding contour integration are fairly stock-standard and, in my opinion, not too interesting as a whole. This is in large part because integration is vital to the derivations of many results in complex analysis, so you really have to know some theory of it before being able to fully appreciate them - without that, you’re just left hanging at times. With that in mind, it’s a bit of a shame then that with how fundamental integration is, it comes into the picture quite late in week 7. I definitely think time spent covering more integration at the expense of some topics in the first bit of the course (looking at you, fractional linear transformations) would be a worthwhile trade, since time during trimesters is quite precious. So much additional content that the course used to cover in semesters is now forgotten, which is a real shame - this has probably been the most affected by trimesters in that respect out of all of the courses I’ve done so far.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: anomalous on December 17, 2020, 04:32:32 pm
Subject Code/Name: COMP3161 - Concepts of Programming Languages

Contact Hours: 2x 2 hour lectures, 1x 1 hour tutorial

Assumed Knowledge: Formally, either COMP2521 or COMP1927.

In addition to this, I would recommend that you have a good relationship with discrete maths, particularly proofs and logic as you’ll be doing a fair bit of that in this course. You should ideally also have Haskell/functional programming experience from self-study or a course that covers Haskell (e.g. COMP3141), or be ready to learn on your own during the course. I didn’t have Haskell experience and managed to do well in spite of that so it’s possible, just harder.

Assessment: Due to COVID, we had a (harder) assignment instead of a midterm, and obviously the exam was online, but the rest of the assessment was normal. Nevertheless, the breakdown is
- 1x written assignment on proofs, worth 15% of your course mark
- 2x programming assignments, worth 17.5% of your course mark each for a total of 35%; bonus marks towards your final course mark on offer for completing extension tasks
- 1x final exam, worth 50% of your course mark

While we’re on the topic of bonus marks, 1 bonus mark was given to everyone in the course if the MyExperience feedback response rate was over 50%. This isn't the first time such an incentive has been given by the lecturer, so it might happen for future offerings too.

Lecture Recordings? Yes, lectures were recorded.

Notes/Materials Available: For some of the major topics, a set of (non-compulsory, but good practice) exercises with solutions are given. Notes written by a previous lecturer for the course are also available for most topics as a supplement to the lecture material (but mostly just a rehash of that lecture material). Sample exams and midterms are available if you look around the course pages from previous offerings.

Textbook: N/A, though Liam posted an extensive list of resources which you could look into that relate to the larger subject matter if you’re interested.

Lecturer(s): Dr. Liam O’Connor (RIP) and Dr. Christine Rizkallah

Year & Trimester of completion: 20T3

Difficulty: 4/5 without Haskell or functional programming experience, maybe 3/5 without

Overall Rating: 5/5

Your Mark/Grade: 94 HD

Comments:
This course is great, and probably my favourite that I’ve done so far. It positions itself as a “programming language appreciation course”, and you spend a lot of time modelling the semantics of programming languages and learning what some common programming buzzwords (polymorphism, type safety, etc.) actually mean in a formal manner. It is initially quite mathematical as the preliminary tools for doing the aforementioned have to be introduced, but if you can make it through that then the reward is well worth it. The overarching theme of the course is definitely on the functional side, however given that the paradigm has been responsible for so many features enjoyed by mainstream languages, it’s an understandable bias. That being said it’s not all functional - you of course look at some imperative programming, crack plenty of jokes at OOP/Java’s expense, and at the very end even do a bit of concurrency appreciation (which gives you a bit of a taste of COMP3151).

The programming assignments provide you the opportunity to implement parts of a simple functional programming language in Haskell. Although they claim you don’t need to know FP/Haskell already, not knowing it makes your life harder - for someone with only imperative language experience under your belt, writing Haskell code will probably feel weird and takes some time to get used to.

This is an essential course if you’re interested in programming language theory, and especially if you’re planning to do a thesis in most areas within formal methods. Even if not, it’s made me consider doing some courses in the future that I originally hadn’t planned to, so I’d still recommend it highly if you're looking for something to do.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: RuiAce on December 17, 2020, 05:02:22 pm
Subject Code/Name: MATH5945 - Categorical Data Analysis

Contact Hours: 1 x 3hr lecture, 1 x 1hr lab

Assumed Knowledge: No formal prerequisites stated (quite common for postgraduate courses). Assumed knowledge is pretty much any general level of statistics (for UNSW undergraduates, definitely MATH2801/2901). I recommend having some in-depth knowledge of statistical inference (for example, equivalent of MATH3811/3911) and/or statistical modelling techniques (for example, equivalent of MATH3821, especially GLMs) before coming to this course. Some overlaps are shared with MATH3851, but it is not a prerequisite.

Assessment:
- 3 x 15% assignment
- 60% final exam

Lecture Recordings? Yes during COVID period. Presumably yes otherwise, since Jake uses lecture slides.

Notes/Materials Available: A comprehensive 700+ lecture slides. Takes a long while to absorb everything. No tutorials (quite common for postgrad maths courses). One SAS lab every week. Not too many resources otherwise (I only ever used Google for SAS in this course.) No past papers.

Textbook: None prescribed. Two reference textbooks are: Agresti A. (2012) An introduction to categorical data analysis, 3rd Edition. Wiley, and Dobson AJ, Barnett AG. (2008) An introduction to generalized linear models, 3rd edition. CRC Press. A SAS textbook was also referenced.

Lecturer(s): Prof. Jake Olivier

Year & Trimester of completion: 20T3

Difficulty: 4/5 (although surprisingly the final exam was a 2.5/5)

Overall Rating: 4/5

Your Mark/Grade: 97 HD

Comments:
This is one of many postgraduate statistics courses. From what I can see, it used to be on a 2-year offering, but has recently been moved up to every year offering.

The course is as its title says; the focus is on analysis of categorical data. Categorical data rises in tons of ways; some examples being whether you wore a helmet and/or involved in a crash, what kind of drug were you given as treatment for a sickness, breaking of ages into age groups (as opposed to the exact age itself) etc.. The course teaches a huge amount of techniques that statisticians use to incorporate categorical data into their studies.

This course definitely leans more on the applied statistics side, but some theory was also examinable. Don't expect a level 5 maths course to have absolutely zero algebra. But to those that want to focus on useful statistics skills, there is a ton of value. Applications were definitely the focus in my opinion.

SAS was used because Jake believes SAS is the superior option for categorical data. Having now done this course, I'm honestly not surprised. SAS gives a ton of output for categorical data, and it feels REALLY automated (no fidgeting around with the code). Of course, battling SAS can be a bit annoying. Jake assumes that you come into this course with statistical programming background of some sort (e.g. R), but doesn't assume you know SAS. There's a bit of guidance along the way.

Assignments weren't actually that hard (but I will give a piece of advice - when it says "estimate", give confidence interval estimates as well...). It was partly because guidance was subtly given through the lectures and labs. Occasionally it was possible to just copy code Jake provided, and appropriately adapt it to the problem at hand. The 5 page limits for the assignments should NOT be an issue.

Studying for the exam felt a lot like studying for MATH3821 again (only this time, there's no tutorials to worry about). It's pretty scary, because there's so much content out there, and we basically had no clue how it was gonna be examined. I spent a lot of days being really concerned for this paper, and it wasn't until I saw the actual paper I was like "oh wait this is friendly". Bless Jake for that; it's rare having stress pay off.

The final exam was open-notes (you're only using the course material; you shouldn't even need the internet). Carefully studying the notes helped a lot. It was very easy to look things up in the exam, because I knew where to look! If the exam is open-book again, that's a very valuable piece of advice I'd want to give.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: RuiAce on December 17, 2020, 05:36:13 pm
Subject Code/Name: MATH5855 - Multivariate Analysis

Contact Hours: During COVID - 1 x 2hr lecture, 2 x 1hr lecture (total: 4hrs). (Outside of COVID, I believe one of the lecture hours is switched for a lab/tute instead.)

Assumed Knowledge: No formal prerequisites stated (quite common for postgraduate courses). Assumed knowledge is pretty much any general level of statistics (for UNSW undergraduates, definitely MATH2801/2901). Highly advised is some knowledge of linear algebra (MATH2501/MATH2601 is great to have, but also some knowledge of matrix calculus could be useful). To make life easier, I recommend also knowing linear models (for example, equivalent of MATH2831/2931) for the sake of multivariate linear models. I also recommend some in depth statistical inference (for example, equivalent of MATH3811/MATH3911), since the likelihood ratio test features a lot.

Assessment: During COVID -
- 3 x 25% assignments
- 1 x 25% exam

Lecture Recordings? Yes during COVID period. Likely yes otherwise, since Pavel uses lecture slides.

Notes/Materials Available: Simple lecture slides and more prosaic lecture notes provided. (Exact same content; one is just easier to read because it has more full sentences.) Lecture scribbles usually weren't uploaded, but could be reviewed in the recording. A select few exercises appeared along the way. Support for R and SAS coding both given in this course. Lecture examples provided, and some challenge exercises available to try yourself.

Textbook: Johnson RA and Wichern DW, Applied Multivariate Analysis, 6ED. Roughly 80% of the course is taken from here, and the textbook was liked by many students. I was too lazy to use it, as usual.

Lecturer(s): Dr. Pavel Krivitsky

Year & Trimester of completion: 20T3

Difficulty: 3/5

Overall Rating: 3.5/5

Your Mark/Grade: 93 HD

Comments:
This is one of many postgraduate statistics courses. Recently, it has remained on a yearly offering.

Multivariate analysis is basically the answer to the undergraduate problem: why have we never been working with multivariate distributions? This course literally deals with them, but one should note that the multivariate normal distribution takes up about 60% of the work (it is the most important multivariate distribution). Much of the remainder is just on multivariate data in general (with a special topic in network analysis). Examples of multivariate data could be performances in all 10 sports of a decathlon, and say [height, weight, age]. The variables look univariate, but they come multivariate when you consider them together, and that is the main point.

The assessments were somewhat stranger this term. Moodle quizzes were used to input your final answer, and working was uploaded in a separate submission box (to possibly earn partial marks for mistakes). The assignments also had CodeRunner available eventually, which let you copy past R code (or just numeric answers) directly into a console instead. You had a choice on whether you wanted to use R or SAS for the coding components; there was no need to learn both. They honestly weren't hard, and most of my lost marks were (agonisingly) due to carelessness. I feel the weird assessment format was mostly because Pavel never had to deal with a cohort of like 180 students (more than DOUBLE that of last year), and Moodle's automated marking helped alleviate some of the work. It was awkward, but the system was still alright.

A fair bit of code in the lectures could be adapted to the assignments. This was very handy.

Course assessment could be argued to be a 2/5 difficulty by many people. However, Pavel also presented many theoretical derivations in the lectures. The harder ones weren't examinable, but they could've easily skyrocketed the difficulty to 4.5/5, hence the above rating I gave.

Originally, the final exam was going to be substituted by a fourth assignment, but then it was disallowed (I don't know why; he wasn't allowed to disclose). Hence its unusually low weighting. The weighting also resulted in a final exam that really wasn't too difficult, in my opinion. However, it was a bit annoying that we didn't find out about the negative marking until the day before the exam. (The scheme was very similar to that of COMP3231's.)

There's one thing I absolutely have to comment. All the theory in this course made me EXTREMELY thankful that I paid attention in linear algebra. That level of linear algebra can be overwhelming for so many students (understandably, not surprisingly). Very little of it was needed for the assessments, but arguably a lot was for understanding lecture theory.

Pavel tried to appeal to both theoretical minded audiences, as well as those that just wanted to know how to do the job (i.e. mostly applied statistics only). I think it worked; it just was hard.

Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: Opengangs on December 17, 2020, 10:21:51 pm
Subject Code/Name: MATH2701 - Abstract Algebra and Fundamental Analysis

Contact Hours: 2 x 2 hour lectures, 1 x 1 hour tutorial.

Assumed Knowledge:
- Pre-requisite: MATH1231 or DPST1014 or MATH1241 or MATH1251 with at least a CR, enrolment in an advanced maths or advanced science program

Assessment:
- 4 take home assignments (2 for Algebra and 2 for Analysis, 15% for each half),
- 2 take home exams (1 for Algebra and 1 for Analysis, 10% for each half),
- 1 final exam (50%).

Lecture Recordings? Yes.

Notes/Materials Available: Lecture notes are available before lectures.

Textbook: None prescribed.

Lecturer(s): Dr. Catherine Greenhill (Algebra), Dr. Lee Zhao (Analysis)

Year & Trimester of completion: 20T3.

Difficulty: 4.5/5.

Overall Rating: 5/5.

Your Mark/Grade: 79 (DN).

Comments:
The course lived up to its difficulty and it makes sense considering this is the taster for everything that you do in pure maths. It's split into two halves: the first half being analysis (taught by Lee Zhao) in the first five weeks and the second half being algebra (taught by Catherine Greenhill) in the last five weeks, so considerable effort needs to be shared among both parts.

The content was really interesting and it definitely serves as a great bridging course between first year courses and third year pure math courses. In algebra, you are introduced to group theory, transformations (reflections, rotations, translations, etc), and end with projective geometry (which treats lines and points as the same element). On the other hand, in analysis, you learn the underlying concepts of limits and sequences (Cauchy sequences), construction of the reals (Dedekind cuts, Stevin's construction), which leads nicely into p-adic valuation (and subsequently p-adic numbers), as well as inequalities (Holder's inequality and Jensen's inequality) and norms/convex bodies.

The assignments were quite fun and interesting, the analysis assignments ended up being a grind while the algebra assignments were fairly breezy. I enjoyed thinking about the assignments and they definitely helped with preparation for the finals.

Overall, there really isn't anything I can fault about the course. As difficult as the course was, it was the most enjoyable I have had in a math course thus far. Definitely recommend doing the course if you're willing to put in the work for it.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: kierisuizahn on December 18, 2020, 03:12:51 am
Subject Code/Name: COMP3891 - Extended Operating Systems
Postgraduate Equivalent: COMP9283 - Extended Operating Systems

Contact Hours: 2x 2hr Lectures, no tutorials for the extended stream

Assumed Knowledge:
Prerequisites:
Assessment:
Lecture Recordings? Yes; pre-recorded lectures after transitioning online.

Notes/Materials Available: Lecture slides provided online, as well as tutorial problems with their solutions.

Lecturer(s): Dr. Kevin Elphinstone

Year & Term of completion: 2020 T1

Difficulty: 2/5

Overall Rating: 4/5

Your Mark/Grade: SY

Comments: If you have any interest in low-level programming, this is a good course, and leads on to COMP9242. The exam was really easy overall, but this may have been because it transitioned online. The last two assignments really need you to have read a substantial amount of the OS161 codebase to do well, but having done so it's relatively easy. I advise you to set up a good IDE on your local system to do the assignments, as doing it through VLab or SSH is painful, and it's very difficult to navigate such a large codebase without an IDE with decent features (I recommend VSCode - once it's set up you can very easily find what you need). Much of the documentation is in the code as comments, rather than in a separate document.

The content itself goes through an introduction to concurrent programming, and how OS's are made, along with the surrounding environment (so things like how I/O happens, interrupts, multiprocessing). Most of the content is relatively straightforward, and is pretty easy to understand as long as you pay attention to the basics. If you follow the lecture content, or can cram well, then most likely this will be a WAM booster. Do we warned though, the final mark is a weighted geometric mean of your assignment and your final exam mark, so if you screw up one of the components, it may affect your overall mark substantially.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: kierisuizahn on December 18, 2020, 03:13:50 am
Subject Code/Name: COMP4141 - Theory of Computation

Contact Hours: 1x 2hr, 1x 1hr Lectures, 1x 1hr Tutorial

Assumed Knowledge:
Prerequisites:
Assessment:
Lecture Recordings? Yes; recorded, and transitioned to live online lectures.

Notes/Materials Available: Lecture slides and tutorial problem provided online. A few solutions, but only the first few tutorials.

Lecturer(s): Paul Hunter

Year & Term of completion: 2020 T1

Difficulty: 3.5/5

Overall Rating: 5/5

Your Mark/Grade: SY

Comments: A really fun course, especially if you're mathematically-inclined, or you're interested in theoretical computer science. All of the assignments and exams are proof-heavy, so you'll need to be pretty well-versed in formal proofs and proof techniques. If you've done COMP3821, you may have been introduced to the P/NP complexity classes already, which is the starting point for the course. There's a lot of hardness reductions (if you know what they are) throughout the course, and quite a bit of construction, requiring a different kind of problem solving than many of the courses that you've done beforehand. I really enjoyed this course though, probably more so than any previous COMP course.

Content-wise, you start off going over some very basic proof stuff, revising some of the techniques from MATH1081, but the pace picks up pretty quickly. The whole course revolves around the foundations (not the basics) of theoretical computer science, from defining basic complexity classes like P and NP, leading to more involved classes like PSPACE, L, etc. Towards the end of the course you'll start looking at the polynomial hierarchy, and some of the more unknown areas of computer science with some (less-known) open problems.

Once again, I highly recommend this course to anyone interested in theoretical computer science.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: kierisuizahn on December 18, 2020, 03:15:52 am
Subject Code/Name: MATH3161 - Optimization

Contact Hours: 2x 2hr Lectures, 1x 1hr Tutorial

Assumed Knowledge:
Prerequisites:
Assessment:
Lecture Recordings? Yes; recorded, and transitioned to live online lectures.

Notes/Materials Available: Lecture slides, as well as tutorial problem and solution videos available online.

Lecturer(s): Prof. Jeya Jeyakumar

Year & Term of completion: 2020 T1

Difficulty: 2.5/5

Overall Rating: 3.5/5

Your Mark/Grade: SY

Comments: Honestly not that bad of a course, but be warned: Jeya marks very harshly. The course content is easy, so you lose marks elsewhere instead. All of the assessments were quite standard, and followed previous year's assessments pretty closely, but the final was made longer because we had more time; I'm convinced of that. A lot of the problems will have long solutions with a lot of writing and calculation, but many of them can be solved using method learnt in the course step by step, and don't require much thought.

Content-wise, you learn a lot of results surrounding optimisation (as one might expect), and more specifically a lot of necessary and sufficient conditions for extreme to be local/global maxima/minima of a function, especially in the context of convex functions. You also learn some algorithmic techniques for finding local extrema, as well as their good/bad points and their various properties.

I've ended up using some of the techniques I learnt in this course in other extracurriculars, so it's certainly applicable, even if somewhat boring.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: kierisuizahn on December 18, 2020, 03:17:14 am
Subject Code/Name: COMP3151 - Foundations of Concurrency

Contact Hours: 2x 2hr Lectures, 1x 1hr Tutorial

Assumed Knowledge:
Prerequisites:
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: kierisuizahn on December 18, 2020, 03:18:05 am
Subject Code/Name: COMP3900 - Computer Science Project

Contact Hours: 1x 2hr Lecture (sort of, see comments), 1x 2hr Tutorial/Lab

Assumed Knowledge:
Prerequisites:
Assessment:
Lecture Recordings? Yes, all recorded.

Notes/Materials Available: Lecture slides (not very useful) uploaded.

Lecturer(s): Matthew Sladescu

Year & Term of completion: 2020 T2

Difficulty: 3/5 (varies a lot depending on your team and project)

Overall Rating: 1/5 (also varies a lot depending on your team and project)

Your Mark/Grade: 94 HD

Comments: I hate project courses, especially when you need to group with people you don't know. Luckily, my group members were good, and made the whole experience palatable. Definitely coordinate tutorial times with your friends to get a good group you get along with, or the whole experience might just be hell. Although there's "lectures" they basically aren't anything useful, and there's only about 3 or 4 of them throughout the term. The majority of the marks are in the final demo, but if you leave it until the week before the final demo, you probably won't have enough time. If you plan on doing a custom project, make sure you have enough features to satisfy your tutor, but not too many. Our tutor wasn't convinced so we added more features to get approval and suffered for it. You can use any language you want as long as your tutor will be able to follow your instructions to set up and run your project on their own computer. From what I can tell, the requirement that your project be "novel" is just so they can give no one 100% in those criteria. Overall a pretty bad course, I really hate project courses, and we left our milestones until the days before the deadline so didn't sleep for days at a time to get it done. Our tutor was relatively nice marking though.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: kierisuizahn on December 18, 2020, 03:19:03 am
Subject Code/Name: COMP9444 - Neural Networks and Deep Learning

Contact Hours: 2x 2hr Lectures

Assumed Knowledge:
Prerequisites:
Assessment:
Lecture Recordings? Yes, all recorded.

Notes/Materials Available: Lecture slides, quiz and exercise solutions, all available online.

Lecturer(s): Dr. Alan Blair

Year & Term of completion: 2020 T2

Difficulty: 1.5/5

Overall Rating: 2.5/5

Your Mark/Grade: 97 HD

Comments: A pretty boring course personally. Teaches you about different architectures of neural networks and how deep network work, along with the theory behind them, but only a little content beyond COMP9417 of interest. You'll need to have some way of using a good GPU, either by having one or by using an online service, or training the neural networks required for the assignments will be hell and take forever. If you're interested in AI, then you might as well take this course; it's not as bad as some of the other AI courses I've done. Otherwise, a little bland, and doesn't teach you much beyond what you can find online, as long as you're motivated enough.

Content-wise, the course goes through several architectures of neural networks, taking a look at specialised architectures for language processing and image processing. Later in the course, you look at generative adversarial networks, and autoencoders, ending with a more theoretical look at deep learning and reinforcement learning. Overall a pretty decent overview.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: kierisuizahn on December 18, 2020, 03:19:52 am
Subject Code/Name: COMP4161 - Advanced Topics in Software Verification

Contact Hours: 2x 2hr Lectures

Assumed Knowledge:
Prerequisites: Informally, knowledge in functional programming and first-order logic.

Assessment:
Lecture Recordings? Yes, all recorded.

Notes/Materials Available: Lecture slides, assignment solutions, and lecture demos all available online.

Lecturer(s): Prof. Gerwin Klein, Dr. Johannes Pohjola, Dr. Christine Rizkallah, and Dr. Miki Tanaka

Year & Term of completion: 2020 T3

Difficulty: 3.5/5

Overall Rating: 4/5

Your Mark/Grade: 95 HD

Comments: The course covers a lot of theory regarding automated theorem provers and the foundations such as lambda calculus, but the assessments are generally quite practical, and it has a large focus on learning how to use Isabelle itself. A pretty interesting course overall, especially towards the end where the focus shifts to verifying C code using Isabelle. A lot of the theory involves some familiarity with mathematical proofs and notation. The proofs in Isabelle are generally made easier if you can reason logically to guide the proof as well, though you can sometimes just bruteforce it.

Content-wise, the course covers untyped and typed lambda calculus and higher-order logic before diving into the concepts the internals of Isabelle are built upon; rule induction, inductive datatypes, confluence, and how Isabelle handles these internally. The course ends teaching how AutoCorres translates C code to a meta language that can be reasoned about using Isabelle to prove properties of programs with Hoare logic.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: kierisuizahn on December 18, 2020, 03:22:29 am
I wholeheartedly despise this course

Subject Code/Name: COMP4920 - Management and Ethics

Contact Hours: 1x 2hr Lecture, 1x 2hr Tutorial

Assumed Knowledge:
Prerequisites:
Assessment:
Lecture Recordings? Yes; live but all recorded, but possibly only because COVID forced us online

Notes/Materials Available: Lecture slides available online.

Lecturer(s): Wayne Wobcke

Year & Term of completion: 2020 T3

Difficulty: 4/5 (varies wildly depending on your tutor, and also whether you can lie your way through an ethical discussion well)

Overall Rating: -/5 (varies wildly between -500 and -5 depending on your tutor, and whether Wayne had a red or green apple today)

Your Mark/Grade: 75 DN

Comments: The content involves professional conduct, developing ethical arguments, and ethical perspectives, with lectures provided entirely by guest lecturers actually qualified in the area, excluding the first lecture introducing the course and its (lack of) structure. The guest lectures were actually interesting.

I'll keep it brief, but in short I despise this course. The following is probably very biased, but I encourage you to talk to past students and their experiences with the course. The course chat turned into a rant room against Wayne by the end of term, and almost no one I know was happy with their mark. I have heard that you can get this course replaced with an equivalent ethics course from another school or faculty. If you can, I highly suggest you do so.

Wayne Wocke (also referred to as Wayno, Wobkek, or Wobcuk amongst previous cohorts) is by far the most incompetent course administrator I have ever seen, and his actions (or inaction) come off as deliberately malicious. Many many complaints have been made against him, but UNSW refuses to replace him since "there's no one else qualified to take over the course." This term, it got to the point that the student representatives for CSE compiled a two-page document listing improvements for the course, after collecting 14 or so pages of complaints from students (there was a google doc we could fill with complaints, and it reached 14 pages before it was made private and they moved to an online form instead). A large amount of questions on the forum remain unanswered, and Wayne refused to acknowledge many questions asking to clarify assessment criteria. After being told that the quality of our contributions in class mattered, we found out that tutors were told not to give more than 2 marks of 9 or 10 out of 10 for participation, and some tutors used number of contributions to directly rank students. Within 2 hour, there is not enough time for 25 or so students to contribute to discussion sufficiently. There were several accounts of tutors acting unprofessionally, from ripping into a group for their seminar ("providing feedback") in front of the entire class, to asking what nationality a student was because their name didn't sound like a name typical of their accent. My tutor, Ali, was very chill, though our marking was still incredibly harsh. There was mention of 17/20 being the highest mark of seminar 1 amongst the cohort. 16 was the highest in our class. Tutors reported being told to reduce marks because their class average was too high. Considering 17 was the max mark, this sounds insane. There were a lot of questions on the forums regarding the length of the case study. Wayne refused to give an expected length, insisting that you should write an essay with "appropriate length", though mention of 2000 words was made at some point, so many took this to be satisfactory. By the end of the course, most were over the course, and putting in very little effort. The definition of what an "IT-related issue" was was not only vague, but misleading. Many of the companies provided as examples in the case study specification were not sufficiently IT-related for Wayne, and what was or was not considered IT-related differed between tutors, with many tutors providing contradictory opinions on which topics were IT-related. Wayne's actions throughout this course border on unethical. We discussed professional conduct in seminars, and Wayne is a perfect example to show that you can still get a job without caring for professionalism and competency.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: kierisuizahn on December 18, 2020, 03:24:25 am
Subject Code/Name: COMP6741 - Parameterized and Exact Computation

Contact Hours: 2x 2hr Lectures

Assumed Knowledge:
Prerequisites:
Assessment:
Lecture Recordings? Yes, lectures recorded, and lecture timeslots converted into recorded consultations.

Notes/Materials Available: Lecture slides, exercises with solutions, and some more condensed lecture notes all available online.

Lecturer(s): A/Prof. Serge Gaspers

Year & Term of completion: 2020 T3

Difficulty: 4/5

Overall Rating: 5/5

Your Mark/Grade: 100 HD

Comments: God I love this course. I found the course content really interesting, and the content was taught well. It follows on heavily from COMP4141, starting off with NP-reductions before moving more into parameterised algorithms. Being familiar with reductions will help (since the course has so many), and having some experience with formal proof methods will help as well. A really nice course if you're interested in theoretical computer science, and more so if you're interested in complexity theory and parameterised algorithms. The lectures are pre-recorded, and the lecture timeslots are instead consultations, where Serge went over the exercises and assignment solutions, which really helped with understanding the course.

Content-wise, the course begins talking about complexity in general, and NP-hardness reductions, before moving onto parameterised complexity classes. The remainder of the course mostly focuses on techniques to find FPT algorithms, and other parameterised classes, as well as establishing several examples to base reductions from, and a lot of theory behind the techniques. It also discusses different parameters, and how they can affect tractability. The course ends discussing heuristics, and using local searches as a method to solve NP-complete problems efficiently.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: anomalous on December 20, 2020, 07:39:17 pm
Subject Code/Name: COMP3331 - Computer Networks and Applications

Contact Hours:
- 2x 2 hour lectures
- 1x 2 hour lab, which runs instead as a tutorial before both your midterm and in the last week of term

Assumed Knowledge: One of the following:
- COMP1927
- COMP2521
- MTRN3500

You should at least come into this course being comfortable with C, Python or Java. In practice, you will likely want to know one of at least Python or Java specifically, since doing labs and the assignment in C can be a bit of a pain (but an interesting challenge).

Assessment:
- 6x labs, worth 20% of your course mark all up; only your best 5 labs count
- 1x programming assignment, worth 20% of your course mark
- 1x midterm quiz, worth 20% of your course mark
- 1x final exam, worth 40% of your course mark

The only notable change to the above compared to normal exams was that the midterm and final were both conducted on Moodle. Each was also split into two parts, and you had a 15 minute window to start either after they went live on Moodle.

Lecture Recordings? Yes, screen and voice recorded.

Notes/Materials Available: Lecture slides are the primary resource you’re given. A collection of non-compulsory “homework” questions are also progressively released during the term, which will be of particular interest since there are no past midterm or exam papers given for preparation.

Textbook: This course makes heavy reference to “Computer Networking: A Top Down Approach” by Kurose and Ross (preferably the 7th edition). While it’s not compulsory to do so, it’s a very good idea to read this textbook as the lectures are often lacking all of the details that may pop up in your midterm or exam.

Lecturer(s): Assoc. Prof. Wen Hu

Year & Trimester of completion: 20T2

Difficulty: 3.5/5, which might come as a surprise to some who have done this course; read below

Overall Rating: 2/5

Your Mark/Grade: 80 DN

Comments:
I personally found this course a bit underwhelming, and I wish I picked something else instead. This is partly due to it just not being my thing, but also some not so great things about the course when I took it. Wen is pretty meh as a lecturer, and the way he did things during the term I just found strange for some reason (I can think of no other words to describe it than those). Since the course runs all year though, you effectively have 3 lecturers to choose from depending on when you do it, so the choice is yours. I’ve heard different (better) things from people who did the course at other times, so take all of what I've said here and below with a grain of salt.

Although this course has a historical reputation for being easy, I wouldn’t be so hasty. There's a lot of content to deal with, and many places where you can lose marks very quickly. The midterm especially can be dangerous because although it’s all multiple choice, you lose 0.25 marks for each wrong answer on top of not getting any of the marks the question was worth. I also don’t know if it was just me, but the final exam was a combination of strange and hard; though I must confess, I didn’t study well for this one and ended up paying for it. On the other hand, the practical work is pretty easy marks. The labs are tedious but straightforward, and if you stick around for your lab classes, the tutor often goes through the lab giving some of the answers to get you started. The assignment is also fair; the main difficulty for me was interpreting the spec, and reconciling it with the clarifications given on the forum. It’s also released quite early to let people get a head start if they want.

While I found the content useful and definitely stuff worth knowing as a CSE student, one of the big things which always rubbed me the wrong way about it was how closely this course follows the textbook. I know people who say some courses are just “paying to be read a textbook for 10 weeks” are cliche at this point, but in this case I tend to agree. It’s always been my experience that lectures added something to the content which made a course worth taking over reading a textbook in your own time, and perhaps it was just the lecturer when I did it, but I didn’t really get any of that with this course. I feel like it would’ve been more worthwhile taking something else and just self-studying the material in my own time using the book.

To me then, it seems that it, like many other courses in CSE, is a gateway course; a course that allows you to do further courses in the area of networking, and other interesting courses like COMP9243 that have it as a prerequisite. If you have no current aspirations to do those though and you’re tossing up between it and something you think might be more interesting, what I’d suggest is take that other course and skim read the networks textbook a bit to get a feel for it. If you find what you’ve read interesting and you have the room to do the course or you change your mind about those future courses, then you’ve got some room to breathe still. If you're someone who's been told by others that you should do this course because having knowledge about how the internet works is useful (and they're right), I'm not entirely sure that doing this course is the best way to go about that. I don't want to discourage people from doing something they might enjoy, though, so regardless of your situation, I'd recommend reading the book and getting a feel for the course first.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: Bruh Moment on December 20, 2020, 07:42:49 pm
Subject Code/Name: SENG2021 - Requirements and Design Workshop

Contact Hours: 2x 2hr lectures in week 1, 1x 20min mentoring session each week

Assumed Knowledge: COMP1531
This requirement is no joke, since the course is essentially just a drawn-out COMP1531 project. It’s also not enough, the course requires you to teach yourself a lot of things to have a really successful project. In my case, it was helpful that I already knew a handful of JS and React.

Assessment:
Deliverable 1 (15%) - First, your group will need to come up with an idea for a project, with the only restrictions being that it needs to solve a real problem using a publicly available API. Most people opt for something based on one of Google's developer APIs (e.g. the Maps API) or one of the weather APIs. Then you'll need to create a set of user stories COMP1531 style, a "low-fidelity" mockup of the user interface (basically drawings), and a "high-fidelity" mockup (I strongly recommend using Figma for this). This deliverable may be worth only 15% but a lot of your group's performance will basically ride on the idea you choose, including aspects they seem to not disclose at the start of the course like how "profitable" the idea is and how "unique" the idea is. Although they say it's fine to make a clone of an existing app, it will actually hurt you in later deliverables.

Deliverable 2 (20%) - This deliverable is a design report which outlines how you actually intend to build the project. At this point you should be settled on a stack and the API you'll be using. In this course, this is basically as close to the code as the assessment gets. While your code for the project should actually work, they never directly assess it and only either watch live demos or read this design document.

Deliverable 3 (15%) - In this deliverable you'll pitch your idea along with your mockups and architecture to a bunch of other groups and the lecturer and course admin. This is a good chance to get an idea of the strengths and weaknesses of your idea, as well as what features you could probably consider for later deliverables. The course staff are fairly good with feedback and will most likely give your group something good to act on, and you can watch and use the feedback other groups in the same session get.

Deliverable 3 (15%) - In this deliverable you'll pitch your idea along with your mockups and architecture to a bunch of other groups and the lecturer and course admin. This is a good chance to get an idea of the strengths and weaknesses of your idea, as well as what features you could probably consider for later deliverables. The course staff are fairly good with feedback and will most likely give your group something good to act on, and you can watch and use the feedback other groups in the same session get.

Deliverable 5 (30%) - Finally, you'll present a live demonstration of your project, as well as a miniature pitch and an overview of your features. At this point they can't actually ask you to do anything specific (e.g. "what happens if you click the Cancel button?") so technically speaking your project doesn’t have to work. I've heard rumours that a lot of decently scoring projects basically barely worked outside what was in their demo, although obviously the more features you can actually demo the better. Once again, more emphasis is put on the problem you're solving and your pitch than what you actually managed to achieve technically speaking.

Lecture Recordings? Yes - Although there aren't many lectures to begin with

Notes/Materials Available: Lecture slides, lecture notes, deliverable documentation

Textbook: None

Lecturer(s): Fethi Rabhi, Mortada Al-Banna

Year & Term of completion: 20T1

Difficulty: 2.5/5

Overall Rating: 2.5/5

Your Mark/Grade: ~80 DN - Anonymised, since the course is apparently graded on a pretty strict curve.

Comments: I was blessed with a very good team who all committed a good amount of their time to the project, I'm not sure what the experience would've been like if my team wasn't as good. Also, our group had a very nice and knowledgeable mentor, although I believe basically all the mentors are good since I've never heard a negative experience and know who quite a few of the other mentors are. Overall the course is basically just a drawn out, expensive hackathon. You teach yourself a lot of the concepts needed to build and pitch some basic prototype, and your pitch is the most important part of it all. I still think it's a good idea, it forces students to learn how to teach themselves and gain some industry-relevant skills, and gives them a project to talk about in their search for internships that isn't just an assignment that 15 other applicants also did. However, I can't help but think that the entire course could basically be replaced with a hackathon. I'm still not really sure what value I got out of the course, especially when I already had my own projects. We need to talk about the marking as well. The course is graded on a curve centred around 75, and it's very hard to score over 90. This kind of marking is technically against UNSW's own grading policy (UNSW, or at least CSE, requires standards-based marking) and is very unusual. Although, given the nature of the course, I'm not sure they have much of a choice.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: MLov on December 21, 2020, 06:35:15 pm
Subject Code/Name: MATH5975 Introduction to Stochastic Analysis

Contact Hours:  2 x 2hr lectures (i think? Because its 2020 everything was moved online so I just watch lecture recordings lol. They posted all lecture recordings for the previous year.)

Assumed Knowledge: No prerequisite.

Assessment:  2 assignments, mid term test and a final, because COVID its pass/fail 

Lecture Recordings?  Yes, 2020 everything is online so you would expect everything to be recorded

Notes/Materials Available:  N/A

Textbook: N/A

Lecturer(s): Dr. Libo Li

Year & Trimester of completion: 2020/T1

Difficulty: 4/5 (if pass/fail didn't happen)

Overall Rating:  5 Out of 5

Your Mark/Grade: Since it is a pass/fail so I only know i didn't fail

Comments:
A mesh of measure theory, stochastic differential equation and stochastic process but at very introductory level. In my opinion a superior introduction course if you are serious about researching and learning stochastic process. The lecture is very organised (comparing to some other postgrad math courses) and Libo is very friendly and chill.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: owidjaja on December 21, 2020, 11:11:45 pm
Subject Code/Name: MATH2018 - Engineering Mathematics 2D

Contact Hours:
This is the online version of MATH2019, so technically 0 but there is a playlist of Youtube videos where you learn the content.

Assumed Knowledge: MATH1231

Assessment:
10%: Weekly quizzes x9
20%: Class Test 1
10%: Class Test 2
60%: Final Exam

Lecture Recordings?
They give you links to the Youtube playlist where you watch the content.

Notes/Materials Available:
Links to Youtube playlist, step-by-step SmartSparrow tutorials

Textbook: N/A

Lecturer(s): Dr Shane Keating

Year & Trimester of completion: 2020 T3

Difficulty: 3.5/5

Overall Rating: 3/5

Comments:
A surprisingly decent course, especially for someone who's not good at math. As long as you know how to differentiate and integrate, then it's all good. The problem is that you need to really be on top of the content since there will be no lecturers and tutors making sure you're on top of your content, except for the Moodle forums and the Math Drop In center for guidance. It also kind of sucks that the final exam is weighed 60% but it's still doable.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: owidjaja on December 21, 2020, 11:26:42 pm
Subject Code/Name: DESN2000 - Engineering Design and Professional Practice

Contact Hours:
Lectures: 1x 2 hours, 1x 1 hour
Tutorial: 2x 2 hours

Assumed Knowledge:

Assessment:
Design Journal: 25% (two check-ins during the term)
Interim Presentation: 15%
Preliminary Report: 15%
Pitch Presentation: 10%
Final Report: 30%
Peer Review: 5%

Lecture Recordings? Yes

Notes/Materials Available: Sample reports, video guides for reports

Textbook: Engineering Design: A Systematic Approach (Third Edition) by G. Pahl, W. Beitz, J. Feldhusen, K. H. Grote - no need to purchase it because you can easily access it online but it's useful for a section of the final report

Lecturer(s): Dr Ang Liu

Year & Trimester of completion: 2020 T3

Difficulty: 1/5

Overall Rating: 3.5/5

Comments:
DESN2000 is the new version of MMAN2100. The only difference is that DESN2000 takes on students from different schools of engineering and your classes are based on which engineering you're doing (e.g. MECH, CIVIL, SPREE, ELEC etc.) - I did the MECH stream. Ang is a great lecturer, but he goes through a lot of content and examples that are sometimes not necessary. The content itself isn't too hard because a lot of the time you're just following the steps outlined in the lecture slide. My main issue with the course is how ambiguous the instructions are. This is the first time DESN2000 is run, which is understandable, but sometimes it gets a bit yikes when you're trying to ask for help and the response you get is "well it's your choice." The other annoying thing is that in the final report, there's a section where they ask you to discuss stuff you learnt from other courses. The examples they listed were FEA, FMEA and electronic schematics. This would've been fine if DESN2000 wasn't a 2nd year engineering course - these examples are professional electives so it's not guaranteed that everyone knows FEA. The other annoying thing is that they asked us to our product onto CAD. It's understandable for them to ask us to draw on CAD, if MMAN2130 was a prerequisite or at least a corequisite with the course. Because we're generating a complex product on CAD (since we designed a chair), not everyone in the team was either confident to do so since they're taking MMAN2130 during the term or can't do it because they haven't done MMAN2130 or don't have access to CAD.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: blasonduo on December 22, 2020, 01:17:51 pm
Subject Code/Name: CHEM1011 - Chemistry 1A: Atoms, Molecules and Energy

Contact Hours:  1x 1hr lecture, 1x 2hr lecture, 1x 1hr lab 'prep, 1x 3hr laboratory, 1x 1hr tutorial a week.

Assumed Knowledge: HSC Chemistry

Assessment:  8x laboratory weekly quizzes (10%), Online laboratory core skills (10%), had to get 100% on each test, maximum 4 attempts. A fail would result in a fail for the course. 3x validation tests (40%) 90% or higher was needed on each test to obtain the full amount, failure to do so would result in a fail for the course. Final exam (40%)

Lecture Recordings?  A given yes due to covid.

Notes/Materials Available: Online learning moodle modules were also provided in conjunction to the lectures. Extra materials for further reading was also provided.

Textbook: Allan Blackman, Siegbert Schmid, Mauro Mocerino, Uta Wille, Steve Bottle (2018) Chemistry, 4th edition, Wiley & Sons.

Lecturer(s): Prof. Scott Kable (1st half), Prof. Alex Donald (2nd half)

Year & Trimester of completion: 2020 T3

Difficulty: 3.4/5

Overall Rating:  4.3/5

Your Mark/Grade: 80 DN

Comments:
UNSW does a really good job with first year science courses, and this one was no exception.

Although very overwhelming when initially looking at the course, once you understand it all, you can clearly see that this course has been very carefully structured to reduce workload, stress and difficulty of the course. One of the best things about the course is that everyone that sat the final exam had already passed the course, something I think all courses should be following.

The course was split into two main categories; threshold and mastery content. To put it simply, threshold content was the simple part of the course, and was the minimum requirements to pass the course. The mastery content extends from the threshold, and is what gives us higher marks (CR,DN,HD). Each week, there was initially a threshold lecture, and then a mastery lecture, it all flowed really well.

 Scott Kable is a really good lecturer, even with the harder online times. Very interactive, supportive and taught at a very good pace. The only critique is the fact that if we ran out of time, it got too fast to comprehend almost anything.
Alex Donald tried to follow the same, and it didn't work as well, but I'll throw this onto being inexperienced. He was very monotone, and the "read off the slides" type of guy.

The assessments were also really good. I'm an avid fan of assessments being under 50% weighting and actually rewards hard work, and this course followed this mentality. Although the validation tests were stressful, they were an easy 40% if you consistently kept up with the content. The final exam was all an online moodle test, and it worked flawlessly.

The biggest downside to the whole course was simply the online laboratory sessions, it was very boring, and I didn't learn as much as I should've. However, I don't blame the course here, but rather the situation.

To sum this up, look forward to this course, if it were this good online, it'll be even better face-to-face. Just stay on-top of the work!
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: blasonduo on December 23, 2020, 12:50:00 am
Subject Code/Name: PHYS3116 - Astrophysics

Contact Hours:  1x 2 hr lecture, 2x 1 hr lecture, 1x 1 hr tutorial a week

Assumed Knowledge: None, really.

Assessment:  2x Assignment (questions) 20% (10% each). 1x mid-term (20%), Final exam (60%)

Lecture Recordings?  A given yes due to covid.

Notes/Materials Available: None. (lecture slides are given)

Textbook: “An  Introduction  to  Modern  Astrophysics” by Carroll and Ostlie, 2nd Edition

Lecturer(s): A/Prof Kim-Vy Tran (1st half), Prof. Prof Sarah Brough (2nd half)

Year & Trimester of completion: 2020 T3

Difficulty: 3.0/5

Overall Rating:  2.3/5

Your Mark/Grade: 76 DN

Comments:

As a physics elective, if you want a really easy, but interesting course, this is the course for you. This is by far the easiest elective out there.

That being said, the whole course is really underwhelming. The lectures themselves were alright (albeit the bland nature of the lecturers), but the slides made it almost impossible to study on for exams, and with no supporting material, it made the whole studying really difficult. This is really a textbook focused course. The whole of the first assignment was just questions picked out of the textbook.

This course could be way harder, with integrals, however (luckily for us) the majority of the questions are simply 'plug and chug', a real positive. There really isn't much more to say apart from don't expect much effort from the course coordinators, just stick to the textbook and it'll be pretty easy
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: Opengangs on January 26, 2021, 08:51:13 pm
Subject Code/Name: ECON2101 - Microeconomics 2

Contact Hours:
- Lectures are pre-recorded (3 lectures per week).
- 1 x 1 hr Workshop tutorial.
- 1 x 1 hr Q&A session.

Assumed Knowledge:
- ECON1101 is a pre-requisite; a basic understanding of differentiation is recommended (if you've taken ECON1202 or MATH1131/1141/1151, you'll be fine with the maths).

Assessment:
- 5 x Weekly quizzes (60%).
- 2 x Extra Questions (10%).
- Final exam (30%).

Lecture Recordings? Lectures are pre-recorded.

Notes/Materials Available: Lecture slides are sufficient.

Textbook: Intermediate Microeconomics: A tool-building approach by Samiran Bannerjee is the prescribed textbook and I highly suggest you get it.

Lecturer(s):
- Lecturer: Aleksandra Balyanova.
- Tutor: Ping Richard Gong.

Year & Trimester of completion: 2021 Summer Term

Difficulty: 2/5.

Overall Rating:  2.5/5.

Your Mark/Grade: 74 (CR).

Comments: I mainly did this course purely out of economic interest and seeing how this is a fairly math-sy course, I thought it'd be an interesting experience. The course states that you need to put in at least 25 hours per week during the summer but in all honesty, 5 hours is sufficient. The course material is fairly easy to follow and not much from ECON1101 is really required for the course.

The course begins with a light introduction to the concept of preferences and builds a mathematical framework into how consumers rank certain choices using the idea of a utility. We then take a detour into the supply side of the market and build similar frameworks to that of the consumers. The last few chapters of the course concerns itself with the relationships between consumers and suppliers (monopoly, game theory and oligopoly).

One of my biggest issues with the course is the fact that quiz concepts aren't really taught (whether it's explicitly or implicitly) in the lectures. As a result, we had to make a few wild assumptions (turned out to be the right assumptions) in order to answer the problems. This was quite a frequent experience for a lot of the quiz problems, coupled with the fact that it's primarily graded based on the first attempt and is weighted pretty highly, is a bit concerning. I do like the fact that if we don't get full marks in the first attempt, we can earn 2 marks if we reattempt the quiz and get 100% - I found that to be a really nice added incentive to understand the concepts taught in the quizzes.

The extra questions were a bit vague as well -- I struggled to understand what they were trying to ask in the first place. Conceptually wasn't challenging but having to read through a lot of meaningless words was not really my vibe.

With the lectures being pre-recorded, I do like the added Q&A sessions and workshop session. Those sessions were really helpful. I also liked the incentive of giving away bonus marks for contributions on Piazza. Teaching others is the best way to learn so having a chance to earn an extra 1% in the course AND learning something new is a win-win in my book.

Overall, I wasn't really expecting much with the course. I did it mainly because I wanted to do a bit of economics. There were a few issues here and there, but I think this course has significantly improved since its last offering - at least I think so. Would I recommend it as an elective? Probably not. Do I regret taking it? Ehhh not really. It was certainly an experience. They definitely overestimated the amount of time needed to do well in the course.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: Opengangs on April 20, 2021, 03:02:41 pm
Subject Code/Name: COMP3311 - Database Systems / COMP9311 - Database Systems (postgraduate equivalent)

Contact Hours:
- Lecture hours vary each week depending on the length of the pre-recorded video (approx. 2 hours of lecture material were taught).
- 1 x 2 hour live QnA session
- 1 x 2 hour lab (weeks 1 - 5)
- 1 x 1 hour tutorial (weeks 7 - 10)

Assumed Knowledge:
COMP2521 or COMP1927 are the pre-requisites. It is worth noting that many students who have done INFS1603 would have seen a lot of the first half of the course before and students who have done COMP1531 would have been exposed to the ER models that were taught in the first two weeks. In saying that, COMP3311 / 9311 covers these topics again and in greater depth.

Assessment:
- Weekly quizzes (from Weeks 2 to 10 - 8 quizzes): 10%
- 2 x assignments (20% each)
- Final exam (50%; hurdle is that students must score at least 45% in the final exam to pass).

Lecture Recordings? Lectures are pre-recorded and available 2 weeks before.

Notes/Materials Available: Lecture slides are sufficient.

Textbook:
None prescribed.
Recommended:

I used the first textbook and found it really useful. It was a bit verbose at times but they offer complementary slides for revision.

Lecturer(s):
- Lecturer: Raymond Wong.
- Lab instructor: Nanway Chen.
- Tutor: Yi Zhuang.

Year & Trimester of completion: 2021 Term 1

Difficulty: 2/5.

Overall Rating: 3/51.5/5.

Your Mark/Grade: 71 (CR).

Comments:
I have quite mixed opinions about this course. While the course serves as a good introductory course to database system management, I felt like I didn't really learn much from the course and it left a great deal to be desired. Coming into the course, I was expecting to build a database from scratch (or at least build off of a pre-existing database). Rather the assessments were just reading off a database (which isn't a bad idea for an assessment) but the focus shifted more to using Python / Postgres / PlpgSQL to read queries. As a result, I'm still unsure of how to construct a database schema and how you would properly manage the database. This is important because COMP3311 / 9311 might be the only database course a Computer Science student would take and leaving them without the skills of developing a database can be a detriment.

The first assessment was really fun and I thoroughly enjoyed building SQL queries. The second assessment felt a bit unnecessary. To this day, I don't see what the point of building an assessment around "degrees of separation", particularly in a database course. It seemed to be more fitting to a course akin to COMP2521 where algorithms and data structures are the focus of the course. The first two tasks were fine, but the last task was lengthy, dry, and somewhat irrelevant.

The lectures were basically taught by jas and I enjoyed his antics. The lectures were interesting, although a bit slow at times, and the QnA sessions were really interesting to attend. The quizzes were fairly easy and, with enough revision, you can blitz through them in about 10 minutes.

An overall okay course; if the assessments aligned with the core of the course, then it would be a lot more interesting to do them and the reward of completing them would far exceed the painstakingly long hours of debugging SQL queries.

An update: the final exam experienced soured my taste for the course. It is deserving of a 1.5/5. The theory side of the exam was actually alright and was quite fun, so the rest of the rant is solely based on the practical part of the exam. But holy fuck. The exam was so poorly written. The exam was cluttered with ambiguous specifications and when we asked for further clarifications, we were asked to refer to the specifications. To put it bluntly, no one who I talked to understood what was asked. And when we did, we didn't know whether what we were writing was evenly vaguely correct. This was caused by the lack of autotests or sample outputs - each question only had one partial output that doesn't address any of the ambiguity that the questions provided. It was possibly the worst exam I've taken to date and if it's completely automarked, there's going to be a barrage of complaints from the students.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: fun_jirachi on April 20, 2021, 10:01:43 pm
-snip-

Saw this and having done the same course in the same offering, thought I might as well drop my thoughts *now*.

Difficulty: 2/5.

Overall Rating: 3.5/5.

Your Mark/Grade:
84 DN

Comments:
Lectures were a bit dry - but I honestly expected that given that Jas had already taught basically everything in prerecorded lectures. After a poor lecturing term in COMP2521 last year, I really can't put it better than Opengangs; it was a breath of fresh air, really.

It should be noted that I had different Lab Instructors and Tutors to Opengangs - but I honestly don't think my experience would be too different. Jas's prerecorded material was honestly enough and any extra content covered felt a bit redundant unless you were struggling with a particular concept.

I also share a lot of the same annoyances - while I perhaps do understand how to build a database to some extent, it was not to the extent that I'd like to believe we were promised. In the first week of term where something along the lines of 'first half building databases and database queries, second half making sure database framework is logical and lacks redundancy' was mentioned. While this was fulfilled for the most part, it's probably more something you can slap on a resume (I can do sqlite3 and PostgreSQL!) rather than confidently profess any sort of proficiency for (like you may do for a programming language like Python, as an example).

The first assessment was very dry - while I found it built some proficiency it was really hard to work with and was often convoluted at times (which I have heard led to a low-ish average mark, though this is just chatter given I'm not one to make too many friends at uni). The second assessment was much more interesting, but I agree with Opengangs - if the point was to teach us a method of linking databases to a 'conventional' programming language, it could've been done with laboratory tasks or tutorials rather than an extensive assessment that in all honesty had less to do with databases than you'd think.

While this review does seem disparaging, the content was probably the saving grace, especially the first half (the second half is rather boring imo). Handling databases remains somewhat interesting and the fact that they're so extensively used everywhere while persistently maintaining some relative standard is even more amazing. Why they work the way they do is curious and as such, I've rated this course in much the same way as COMP2521 in 20T3 - mild annoyance tempered with interesting core content.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: HelpICantThinkOfAName on April 22, 2021, 06:25:08 pm
Subject Code/Name: ECON1401 - Economic Perspectives

Contact Hours:  2 x 1.5 hour lecture per week. 1 x 1.5 hour tutorial per week.

Assumed Knowledge: ECON1101

Assessment:

Oral Presentation - 15%. A nice short 3-minute long video of you talking about an economic issue to people who don't understand economics.

Lecture and Tutorial Participation - 20%. 6% from feedback given to students on their oral presentation, 6% from completing short quizzes in lectures, 4% for participation in tutorials (showing up and doing fun activities that were surprisingly educational), 2% for submitting your course journal throughout the term, 2% for participation in the two tutorial debates. Honestly fairly easy stuff to get, as long as you just show up and keep up with the work it's an easy 18/20.

Written Essay - 45%. You have to analyse one of four given economic issues facing Australia from the perspective of two economic thinkers, and then suggest ways to combat this. 4,000 words total. Interesting topics, but would've been much better as two separate essays, instead of one large one.

Course Journal (Reflections) - 20%. This is where the course fails the most. Each week you're given a set of readings, and to ensure that you've actually read them you're required to write about your reactions to them in a course journal. 500 words for every ~30 pages you read, along with 500 words on each week's lecture and tutorial content. 10,000 words total. Seems ok right? Only 1,000 words a week? No. Not at all. There are two weeks where there were no classes, three weeks with no readings, so in reality, it's closer to 1,500 words a week. That's before you realise that there are weeks where you just don't learn anything at all. I spent hours just trying to make up my reactions to course content. It needs to be changed to only require reflections on readings.

Lecture Recordings?  Yes.

Notes/Materials Available:  Full slides given out, only really useful to reference when writing your reflections though.

Lecturers:
Gigi Foster, 3.5/5. Ok lecturing, but she dedicated a half-hour of every class to just discussing economic issues which was good fun, especially when there were a few people all debating over a topic.

Nalini Prasad, 3/5. Decent lecturer, but very limited by the course content. Similar to ACCT1501, there's only so much you can do to make this interesting.

Year & Trimester of completion: 2021/T1

Difficulty: 1/5 Content. 4.5/5 Assessments. The content is very simple, you don't really need to "learn" any of it, just be awake enough in class to get a broad understanding of the topics. The assessments are nuts. 10k+ words for reflections is way overkill, could have easily been 7,500 and we would've gotten the same out of it. 10k+ is just begging for students to make up their own reactions, needlessly extend their response, and was an unnecessary amount of stress. The essay was alright, but really was just two essays submitted at the same time. I would've much preferred how the essay portion was handled in previous years as two different submissions, instead of one final one. It's not difficult, it's just a lot of things to balance all at once, and I easily spent twice as much time on this subject as my other two combined.

Overall Rating:  1/5. Soley for the assessments.

Your Mark/Grade: 88 HD.
Comments:

Way too much to handle at times, especially for a first-year course. I spent so much time just trying to extend my reflection to reach the word count, which felt like a waste of time when it only made up 20% of my final grade. The assessments need to be urgently rebalanced, a sentiment felt by many others doing this course this term.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: HelpICantThinkOfAName on April 23, 2021, 10:08:08 pm
Subject Code/Name: ECON3104 - International Macroeconomics

Contact Hours:  2 x 1.5 hour lecture per week. 1 x 1.5 hour tutorial per week.

Assumed Knowledge: ECON2102

Assessment:

10% - 4 sets of tutorial problems, 2 of which randomly chosen to be marked. Not as bad as macro 2, where 25% of your grades came from this structure, and the tutorial problems were genuinely fun to complete.

20% - Midterm (sorry, in-session quiz). Really rough grade distribution for this one, 20% of students failed, and another 40% got between 50 and 64. Very telling of the difficulty in the first half of the course. Just grind out your textbook questions and you'll be set for this though.

10% - Oral Presentation. A really interesting 3-minute presentation where we had to link economic growth to currency pegs.

10% - Essay. A short 1,000-word essay where we had to analyse the impact of a (very theoretical) global pandemic on Australia's account balances.

50% - Final Exam. 35 multiple-choice, 5 written/long response. Same as the midterm, just grind out the textbook questions and you'll be set. Focused on the second half of the course.

Lecture Recordings?  Yes.

Notes/Materials Available:  Full slides given out.

Lecturer: Stanley Cho, 4.5/5. Sometimes he went a bit too fast through topics, but attending lectures live made it possible to just ask him to slow down and go over things again. 100% go to his lectures/watch them live.

Year & Trimester of completion: 2021/T1

Difficulty: 4/5 at the start, 1.5/5 at the end. Another front-heavy econ course, but this time it came from the difficulty of having 4 or 5 topics that seemed completely distinct from one another. By the end, you'll learn the mechanisms by which they all interact and it'll all slot into place.

Overall Rating:  5/5.

Your Mark/Grade: 81 D.
Comments: I never really felt like I was a better mathematician after taking any of my mathematics courses, just better at doing a new calculation/proof. This made me feel like I was a better economist at the end of it. You gain a much greater appreciation for all the ways that international economies interact, how domestic issues affect foreign countries, and so much more. Really interested in doing my econ honours in this area now. If you've got any interest in macro and are competent in algebra, take this course (no calculus involved at all).
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: fun_jirachi on April 24, 2021, 09:39:57 pm
Subject Code/Name:
COMP3331/COMP9331 - Computer Networks and Applications

Contact Hours:
2x 2 hour lectures
1x 2 hour tutorial/lab

Assumed Knowledge:
Prerequisite: COMP1927 or COMP2521 or MTRN3500

Assessment:
20% Lab Exercises
20% Mid-Term
20% Assignment
40% Final

Lecture Recordings?
Yes

Notes/Materials Available:
On course website

Textbook:
From Course Outline 21T1

Course Textbook:
Computer Networking - A Top-Down Approach Featuring the Internet, J. Kurose and K. Ross, Pearson, 7th Edition, 2017 (Sixth edition will suffice for most parts).

Reference Texts:
Unix Network 1 - Networking APIs: Sockets and XTI, W. Richard Stevens, Prentice Hall, Second Edition, 1998.
Java Network Programming, E. R. Harold, O'Reilly, Third Edition, 2004.
Learning Python, Mark Lutz, O'Reilly, Fifth Edition, 2013.
Computer Networks: A Systems Approach, Larry Peterson and Bruce Davie, Morgan Kaufmann, Fifth Edition, 2011.
Introduction to Computer Networks and Cybersecurity, John Wu and J. David Irwin, CRC Press, 2013.
Computer Networks, Andrew Tanenbaum and David Wetherall, Fifth Edition, Pearson, 2010.

Lecturer(s):
Wen Hu

Year & Trimester of completion:
21T1

Difficulty:
3/5

Overall Rating:
3/5

Your Mark/Grade:
88 HD

Comments:
Assessments: The midterm was okay, as were the labs (the tutorial/lab sessions were basically 1 hour shorter than prescribed most of the time, and you got all the answers to the lab questions in them, all in detail, with a Q&A at the end) but the assignment was super frustrating to work through. Now it wasn't particularly hard if you broke past the few roadblocks, but the roadblocks were absolute killers. For those not well acquainted with key concepts not taught either in this course or in any prerequisites (multithreading in particular), it was a real struggle to get started. After this, though it was okay to work through. The assignment also had only minimal overlap with core content; while I get it was supposed to teach how TCP and UDP worked on low-level applications, this was only a small portion of core content. It felt more like a software development assignment than a networks one, and was eerily reminiscent of a COMP1531 assignment.

The course was otherwise above the minimum standard from what I'd expect from university - it wasn't absolutely brilliant or absolute garbage by any measure (it's really hard to describe!). Personally, the core content was slightly boring but I think it was taught well. If I can describe this any better I'll come back to this :)
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: Justin_L on April 24, 2021, 10:36:18 pm
Subject Code/Name: MATH1131 - Mathematics 1A

Contact Hours: 6

Assumed Knowledge: HSC Mathematics Extension 1

Author's Note: In my opinion a Band 5 in Mathematics Advanced will be enough for you to pass this course, but knowledge of Extension 1 and especially Extension 2 will make your life much much easier

Assessment:
10% Online Tutorials (Maple TA)
10% Assignment
30% Lab Tests (x2)
50% Final Exam

Lecture Recordings? Yes - Lectures delivered entirely online through Blackboard Collaborate

Notes/Materials Available: Course notes, lecture slides and past papers.

Textbook: S.L. Salas, E. Hille and G.J. Etgen, Calculus – One and Several Variables, any recent edition, Wiley (Not required)

Lecturer(s):
There were 2 lecture streams, I was in stream 2:
Course Authority: A/Prof Jonathan Kress
Algebra: Prof Frances Kuo
Calculus: Dr Lee Zhao

Year & Trimester of completion: 21T1

Difficulty: 3.5/5

Overall Rating: 4/5

Comments:
I thought that this was a difficult but fair course. The staff were very understanding of the fact that this was one of the first university courses that many of us were taking and the delivery of the course and assessments online was well refined after a year of online learning. I think that they've removed supplementary for the final due to UNSW's new "Fit to Sit" policy, although the staff were generous with extensions for online quizzes and offered a supplementary for the first lab test because Maple kept crashing due to the influx of users.

As someone who dropped from Extension 1 to Advanced, the content was manageable although I felt I had to put in a lot more hours than my peers who did Extension 1 or 2 just to get through the weekly exercises. Although there is still a fair bit of support for the course through the Maths Drop in Centre and Consultation Hours, it felt a lot less accessible for me online and so I mainly sought help outside of the course through group chats.

In terms of lectures, France's algebra lectures were absolutely amazing - they introduced difficult content in an understandable manner and she obviously put in a lot of effort to make things fun and interactive despite lectures being in a virtual format. Unfortunately, I had a lot of difficulty following Lee's calculus lectures and I often opted to read directly from the course notes or the Maple TA quizzes.

For anyone taking this course in the future, I would recommend you try to hit the ground running and try to work a week ahead in the Maple TA quizzes - lectures cover content a week ahead and so it'll allow you to start assessments and quizzes the week they're released and allow you a breathing room in case something comes up. Content is quite crammed and goes from 0 to 100 quite quickly, so pay attention even to seemingly easy content as it'll build. Despite the difficulty of the course, I chose to give it a 4/5 because of how well it was organised and the the design of the course such that content is easy to learn but hard to master, which is also reflected in the layout of assessments which allow you to nearly pass before taking the final.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: Justin_L on April 25, 2021, 12:02:43 am
Subject Code/Name:
ENGG1000 - Engineering Design and Innovation

Project eEVee (Evolving Electric Vehicles for Emerging Economies)

Contact Hours: Depends on project

Assumed Knowledge: None

Assessment:
NOTE: Varies based on project
Impromptu Design Writing Task - 5%
Design Journal (checked twice) - 15%
Engineering Design Process - 15%
Professional Communities - 10%
Team Evaluation - +/-25% (Used to moderate marks within teams)
Design Performance - 20%
Design Commercialisation - 15%
Final Report- 20%

Lecture Recordings? Yes, available on Moodle and Teams

Notes/Materials Available: Depends on what project you chose

Textbook: Dym, C.L. and Little, P. (2014). Engineering Design: A Project-Based Introduction, 4th edition, John Wiley and Sons (Not required)

Lecturer(s): Varies based on project

Year & Trimester of completion: 21T1

Difficulty: 1/5

Overall Rating: 2/5

Comments:
For context, ENGG1000 is an introduction to design course generally taken in the first term of any engineering degree, and is setup so that students can preference projects to choose (I've attached the list available in T1, feel free to PM me if you want the detailed project pitch for anything)

21T1 Projects
Airborne Terrain Mapping
Autonomous Container Delivery
Battling the Big Dry
Bionic Hand
Project eEVee
Impact-proof Buildings
Mars Regolith
National Emergency Supply Equipment
Renewable Energy from Waves
Robots to the Rescue
SunRay Speedway
In response to previous reviews, the Impromptu Design Challenge has been moved to the start of the course. While this is nice in terms of not being disruptive, it also meant that we only got our group and project assignments well into in Week 3, which is a pretty significant amount of time into the term for a Trimester considering that we also had to do safety and lab inductions before we could even start work.

I picked and got into Project eEVee (Evolving Electric Vehicles for Emerging Economies), a chemical engineering project focused around designing an effective battery to drive a lego car, with the actual electric vehicle component being secondary. This project requires that you supply your own PPE (Lab Coat, Safety Goggles, and Face Mask) as well as some other precautions like closed shoes and long pants to be able to work in the chemical engineering labs.

While this project specifies no prior knowledge is necessary, you're basically screwed if you haven't taken HSC Chemistry or equivalent. While the course offers technical lectures on electrochemistry, it's simply not enough to facilitate more advanced cell designs which require a strong foundation in chemistry. Similarly, little to no support is given for the car design and things like torque, current, and gear ratios are never taught. I felt that I learnt more from my group members than from the teaching staff, which is a problem when you consider the massive disparities in skillset between groups.

Overall, I think this would be a fun course if you were adequately prepared and had the background knowledge to work systematically and effectively. As it is now, it feels like you're being thrown headfirst into a project with little to no support, with your success being entirely determined by the team you're assigned. While I was lucky to have a good team who was able to teach me a broad range of concepts, I know friends who ended up learning little to nothing in their projects as well teams who couldn't get a working battery by the end and so couldn't participate in final testing. With only 6 effective weeks to work on the project, it was difficult to do anything meaningful and to develop the technical knowledge needed before actually starting work.

I also dislike the assessment format, with things like structured reflections feeling very forced in that questions are specifically written to direct you towards certain insights to get marks. The Professional Communities assignment was also a bit strange in that it gave credit to people who attended camps and required you to create a LinkedIn profile. In the end, you do get exposure to lots of different areas of engineering (at least in this project) but I agree with earlier reviews that the course seems like a massive waste of time, and that these skills could be much more effectively gained through things like participation in student led projects and internships.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: fun_jirachi on April 25, 2021, 11:34:25 am
Subject Code/Name: MATH2111 - Higher Several Variable Calculus

Contact Hours:
2 x 2 hour lectures, 1 x 1 hour lecture
1 x 1 hour tutorial (there were three separate tutorial sessions, you were free to attend anywhere from 0-3 sessions)

Assumed Knowledge:
Prerequisite: MATH1231 or DPST1014 or MATH1241 or MATH1251 each with a mark of at least 70

Assessment:
10% Week 4 MapleTA Quiz (repeatable quiz) + Hand-in Proof
20% Week 7 MapleTA Quiz (repeatable quiz) + Hand-in Proof
20% Week 10 Class Test
50% Final

Lecture Recordings?
Yes

Notes/Materials Available:
Yes, supplied on Moodle

Textbook:
None that I can recall being mentioned

Lecturer(s):
Anita Liebenau, Guoyin Li

Year & Trimester of completion:
21T1

Difficulty:
3/5

Overall Rating:
5/5

Your Mark/Grade:
78 DN

Comments:
In short, brilliant course. While some concepts were difficult to wrap my head around at first, every single thing taught was taught extremely well, and the assessment structure, as well as the teaching style, was extremely accommodating. I honestly wish every maths course had this assessment structure - the lack of compulsory weekly tests on a dodgy platform (looking at you, 1141/1241) meant there was less work to get through weekly and less overall panic. This allowed us to work at our own pace and focus on learning stuff for what it was, not because it would let us pass tests. The complete lack of rigidity, especially with tutorials (and the aforementioned assessment structure, oh my goodness) made for the most comfortable learning environment I've been in since I started uni. Really.  The fact that this was employed without a hand-holding feeling was probably the best part of the course.

I know I should stick to strictly course-related things here, but it's impossible to skate over how good the lecturers were; they really knew their stuff and ran through their content well enough that most questions were about extensions to course content and not follow-up/clarification questions. They also had actual personality and some epic memes, which was seriously refreshing.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: HelpICantThinkOfAName on April 26, 2021, 09:32:42 pm
Subject Code/Name: ECON3121 - Industrial Organisation/Managerial Economics

Contact Hours:  2 x 1.5 hour lecture per week. 1 x 1.5 hour tutorial per week.

Assumed Knowledge: ECON2101. I would also recommend taking ECON2112 before this.

Assessment:

25% - Midterm exam. Nothing difficult here, just do your tutorial problems. Done in moodle though, so be careful when putting in your answers.

25% - Group Project. An interesting project where we had to read a research paper, summarise it, analyse it, and then propose a new research question that extended the original research.

50% - Final Exam. Same format as the midterm exam, just do your tutorial problems and you shouldn't have any issue here.

Lecture Recordings?  Yes.

Notes/Materials Available:  Full slides given out.

Lecturer:   Shengyu Li, 3/5.

Year & Trimester of completion: 2021/T1

Difficulty: 1.5/5.

Overall Rating:  3/5.

Your Mark/Grade: 75 D.

Comments: I was kinda bored of this course for most of it if I'm being honest. The first 5 weeks were essentially revision from ECON2112, while the last few were spent extending a few ideas that we'd already touched upon. Not a bad course, but don't expect anything radically different from ECON2112 like I was expecting here.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: RuiAce on May 20, 2021, 08:21:49 am
Subject Code/Name: MATH3161 - Optimization
Equivalent postgraduate variant: MATH5165. Note that as an honours student, MATH5165 was the variant I took.

Contact Hours: 2x2hr lectures, 1hr tutorial

Assumed Knowledge: 12 UoC of Level 2 maths courses (i.e. 2 courses in Level 2). Must be one of the following:
- (MATH2011 or MATH2111) and (MATH2501 or MATH2601)
- MATH2019 (DN) and MATH2089
- MATH2069 (CR) and MATH2099

Assessment:
- 15% class test
- 20% class test
- 5% assignment
- 60% final exam

Lecture Recordings? Yes, as per usual in COVID times. Also tutorial recordings.

Notes/Materials Available: A fair bit. Lecture slides are relatively condensed compared to other courses like MATH3901. Concise and to the point. (But lack some proofs for pure math minded students.) Tutorials available with solutions. Roughly two past papers per test given, with solutions. Resources are released on a weekly basis. Jeya also makes it clear that some more past papers are available on UNSW library, albeit without solutions. This course also got a digital uplift in 2019, and there are recorded videos for some hard problems, sample class tests, and also proofs of some results assumed in the lectures. Many of the videos are definitely worth watching. And also, for supplementary material, he has some recent research into optimisation made available for the interested student.

Textbook: None. I never felt a textbook was necessary either. But there are some reference books on the course outline.

Lecturer(s): Prof. Jeya Jeyakumar

Year & Trimester of completion: 21 T1

Difficulty: 3/5 for 3161, 3.5/5 for 5165

Overall Rating: 4.5/5 (A little surprisingly. Was honestly contemplating 4/5.)

Your Mark/Grade: 98 HD

Comments:
This course is one of several level 3 applied mathematics courses offered. Well known to be one of the most applicable math courses, optimization is the mathematics of making best decisions. This course is the multivariate generalisation of the introductory, univariate optimization introduced in Year 12. It sees applications in data science, medical research, financial industries and more. Personally, I don't see why any applied maths student would not take this course, and I'd also strongly recommend it for statistics students too. It's way too useful.

The course is understandably a grind to several students; myself included often. Some worthwhile algebraic skill is required, especially once you reach the final topic on optimal control theory. Little mistakes in algebra can cascade into a whole pile of working out based off a previous error, and then being catastrophic.

A lot of resources in this course are valuable, because Jeya seems to excel at using anything that he's taught in class. I lost my marks in class test 1 for basically not reviewing the subtle things in the lectures (which didn't appear at all in tutorials and past papers). After learning my lesson, I always studied the lectures to the finest detail. I felt it paid off a lot, and saved me a ton of marks. (Honestly that would be my advice: STUDY THE LECTURES.)

Tutorials and past papers are still valuable though. You start to see that many of Jeya's question styles do repeat a little. Also, videos I watched included the hard tutorial problems, the sample class tests, and the optimal control problems. (Without a doubt, optimal control is the most annoying topic, and takes loads of practice to get good at. Also, optimal control is basically guaranteed to be the last thing in the final exam - Jeya makes no attempt to hide this.)

It does also help that the topics build on one another (even the numerical methods topics). I felt it made studying for this course more 'fluent', for lack of a better word?

My only small peeve was the 5165 assignment felt too much effort for a mere 5%. Fun questions, but wish there was more reward to it for the heavy load of effort required.

Following on from a previous review for this course though, I highly agree with the need to be careful in your answers. Jeya is quite lenient in many aspects of marking, but attention to detail is definitely not one of them. Ensure that you've covered every bit of detail in your responses, just as he does so in the lectures and the tutorials.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: RuiAce on May 20, 2021, 09:12:09 am
Subject Code/Name: MATH3361 - Stochastic Differential Equations: Theory, Applications, and Numerical Methods
Equivalent postgraduate variant: MATH5361. Note that as an honours student, MATH5165 was the variant I took.

Contact Hours: 2hr lecture, 1hr laboratory, 1hr tutorial

Assumed Knowledge: Specified for 3361 are one of:
- MATH2011, MATH2111, MATH2018 (DN), MATH2019(DN), MATH2069(DN). and
- MATH2801, MATH2901, MATH2089(DN), MATH2099(DN)
No formal prerequisite specified for 5361, but should be about the same as the above.

Assessment:
- 15% written test, split into two parts (I think each part was basically 7.5%)
- 15% lab test
- 20% assignment
- 50% final exam

Lecture Recordings? Yes, as per usual in COVID times. Also tutorial recordings.

Notes/Materials Available: Lectures, tutorials, and lab exercises gradually uploaded. Pretty standard for maths courses. Some introductory MATLAB notes are also provided.

Textbook: No prescribed as far as I could tell. Reference books can be found in the course outline.

Lecturer(s): Prof. Thanh Tran

Year & Trimester of completion: 21 T1

Difficulty: 4/5 (mostly due to finals; up until then it's really just 2/5 at most)

Overall Rating: 4.5/5

Your Mark/Grade: 96 HD

Comments:
This course is one of several level 3 applied mathematics courses offered. Stochastic DEs address one key drawback from ordinary DEs, that everything has to be deterministic. Take something simple like modelling stocks, and inevitably there will be what looks like randomness in the stock price. Another could be just basic population growth, which we can't assume in general must be deterministic like exponential growth.

Admittedly, this course felt extremely comfortably relaxing prior to the finals. It felt like another where although the lectures were full on, the assessments were much friendlier and not demanding at all to do, provided you carefully studied everything. There's only 2 hours of lecture a week, so there's also less content to be absorbed.

Coding is done in MATLAB, and was assessed in the lab test and assignment. Generally speaking, it suffices to carefully study all the labs (but in particular, the numerical methods). MATLAB documentation was allowed for these, from memory. For the most part, Thanh cares about your code doing the right thing. (Missing a minor code optimisation was probably allowed.)

It also helped a lot that for minor errors, Thanh would point them out, yet not penalise. Helps understanding, and isn't harsh on the marks either.

You should definitely have some minor stats background before coming into this course (MATH2801/2901 is definitely enough). It is stochastic differential equations after all. MATH2121/2221 experience is not required (ordinary differential equations) at all, but if you took it then you might understand the Karhunen-Loeve expansion a little more quickly than others.

The difficulty pretty much all came from the final exam. Which had some relaxing questions early on, but gradually stemmed into what felt like a watered down analysis paper. Certainly felt harder this year than in other years to do, and was a little stressful. I later verified that 5361 had a couple extra questions on top of 3361. (Which was unfortunate, because I did struggle more in the 5361 only questions.)

Knowing how to use inequalities was helpful for this year's exam in particular. The inequalities were provided for you in the exam (i.e. less memorisation), but it was often hard puzzling where to use it. (Whereas for the past paper, it felt more like an ability to manipulate limits and sums.) These are all pretty common tools for proofs in analysis though. Not sure how many students would've fought through all of it.

An observation is that numerical methods seemed to appear more in the coding component, whilst everything else (elementary stochastic analysis, stochastic integrals, stochastic DEs) seemed to appear more in the theory. But still, numerical methods was also in the theory. KL expansions and GFE methods destroyed my head way more than pre-cursor topics, but that was not surprising. It does also mean that you should pay closer attention to those topics, for the finals.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: anomalous on May 20, 2021, 10:54:20 am
Subject Code/Name: COMP4141 - Theory of Computation

Contact Hours:
- 2x 2 hour lectures
- 1x 1 hour tutorial

Assumed Knowledge: MATH1081, and either COMP1927 or COMP2521.

Be warned that the jump from something like 2521 to this is quite significant. If you wanted to be the most prepared, it would probably help if you did COMP3121/3821 beforehand, since you are at least introduced to the kind of problem solving you do in this course - make sure to pay attention to reductions in particular.

Assessment:
- 4x written assignments, worth 50% of your course mark in total (each equally weighed at 12.5%)
- final exam, worth the remaining 50% of your course mark

Lecture Recordings? Yes, screen and voice recorded. Tutorials, on the other hand, were actively discouraged from being recorded, so you either had to turn up to those or miss out.

Notes/Materials Available: There is a weekly set of tutorial questions, but solutions were very scarce - proper solutions to all were released < 24 hours before the exam started, but informal scratch solutions were given by one of the tutors a few days earlier at least.

Textbook: “Introduction to the Theory of Computation” by Sipser is the primary resource for this course and its analogues at other universities, and many references are made to it in lectures. If you really want more reading material though, then you can also try “Introduction to Automata Theory, Languages, and Computation” by Hopcroft, Motwani and Ullman. This book gets occasional references in lectures.

Lecturer(s): Dr. Paul Hunter

Year & Trimester of completion: 21T1

Difficulty: 5/5

Overall Rating: 3.5/5

Your Mark/Grade: 94 HD

Comments:
This is a really nice course, and it’s very interesting if you want to learn more about the fundamentals of how we define and analyse computation in its purest forms. The first half of the course answers the question “how can we model computation?” by looking at various types of languages and their corresponding machines. After these models have been sufficiently established, the second half of the course switches gears in order to answer the question “how can we properly analyse computation?”, by introducing formally the notion of resource-bounded computation and examining many complexity classes that generalise/extend the two most famous classes, P and NP. In some sense it’s a bit of a crime that people studying CS don’t have to do this course or anything similar: computation is the literal basis of the field, yet I think many would struggle to explain what exactly it means when asked. This is an essential for the theoretically-minded CSE student, or anyone who really likes mathematical COMP courses.

There is a price to pay for all of this fun, though - this is quite a hard course. There is no programming to speak of (although we did get to write Turing machines to be run on an online simulator, which is about as close as it gets), so if you struggle with some of the more CS-style math (think MATH1081), proving things and particularly at coming up with constructions, then it’s likely that you’re going to struggle to keep up with assessment tasks.

While this has been one of my favourites, what drags down my rating of the course in terms of the quality of experience is timing issues. Unfortunately, it seems like Paul was dealing with some personal issues on the side of lecturing this term, so there were quite a few instances of delays. A lot of the assignments were released a few days later than anticipated, we didn’t get a lot of the exam prep stuff promised (we ended up getting tutorial and assignment solutions, but none of the past assignment/exam questions) and we didn’t receive any marks back for the assignments until after the final exam. It’s a shame, because if he was a bit more prompt with things, or was at least up front that he was busy and couldn’t get them to us, this course would be an easy 5/5. I hope in future offerings he’s a bit more timely with releasing things.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: anomalous on May 20, 2021, 11:01:18 am
Subject Code/Name: COMP3131 - Programming Languages and Compilers

Contact Hours:
- 2x 2 hour lectures
- 1x 1 hour tutorial

Assumed Knowledge: The only prerequisite is COMP2511. All of the assignments are written in Java, and some OOP design patterns (notably, the visitor pattern) are used.

Assessment:
- 5x programming assignments, each with a specific weighting and contributing to an assignment mark out of 100
- final exam, contributing to an exam mark out of 100
- 1x bonus programming assignment, worth up to 5 (unconditionally-weighted) course marks

Your overall mark is the harmonic mean of your assignment and exam mark, plus however many marks you got for the bonus assignment. This means that you need to be consistent: if you aced the assignments but only scored a 65 in the exam, your final mark will come out to 78 before bonuses, which is probably lower than you’d otherwise expect compared to the arithmetic mean used by most other courses.

Lecture Recordings? Yes, they were live over Teams.

Notes/Materials Available: Decent; you get lecture slides and an almost weekly set of tutorial questions during the term, but we also ended up getting 4 past papers (albeit from about 20 years ago; still relevant, mind you) to help with exam revision.

Textbook: “Compilers: Principles, Techniques and Tools” by Aho, Lam, Sethi and Ullman is recommended. Jingling often refers to it as the "purple dragon book" due to its cover.

Lecturer(s): Scientia Prof. Jingling Xue

Year & Trimester of completion: 21T1

Difficulty: 3/5

Overall Rating: 4/5

Your Mark/Grade: 100 HD

Comments:
This is a course primarily focused on the frontend components of a compiler, i.e. the phases from reading in a source file to producing the first iteration of executable code for the program.  If you’re going into it to learn about things like compiler optimisations, then you might want to reconsider. You’ll spend most of your time learning about parsing programs and extracting meaning from them, both theoretically (via some automata and language theory) and practically (via scanner generators and things of that sort). You cover the process of how a program is turned into an abstract syntax tree, and then how the AST is used in order to check that it is semantically correct and then to finally generate executable code for that program. There are components of compilers past this point, but like I said, they aren’t within the scope of this course (or any other undergraduate course at UNSW anymore, it seems).

The heart of this course is the set of 5 assignments, with (almost) each one following on from the last by getting you to build a phase of a compiler for a simple variant of C. This is all done in Java, so you need to be confident with extending a given Java codebase, although specific OOP knowledge isn’t really needed outside of the basics and being vaguely familiar with how the visitor pattern works. You should also be comfortable dealing with a codebase that is a bit of a mess design-wise, as the starter code is quite questionable in that regard. A considerable amount of the lecture time is dedicated to talking about these assignments too, so in addition to the per-assignment FAQs and other documentation, you’ve got everything you need really, and they shouldn’t be too rough. Having imperfect solutions to the previous parts won’t hamper you too much, since compiled reference solution files are given so that the supporting code can at least work for you in subsequent assignments. However, if you do want to try and fix your code beforehand, Jingling always has assignment marks out within a few hours of submission, which is really quite an impressive logistical feat, and also very good for the students.

As an aside: this course pairs quite well with COMP4141 for the first few weeks. Just be careful of the workload later on in the term.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: Sdkkkt on May 20, 2021, 11:08:53 am
Subject Code/Name: MATH2871 - Data Management for Statistical Analysis

Contact Hours: 3 Hours of Lectures, 1 Hour of Laboratory/Tutorial

Assumed Knowledge: MATH1041 or ECON1203 or ECON2292 or PSYC2001 or MATH1231 or DPST1014 or MATH1241 or MATH1251 or equivalent.

Assessment: 4 online quizzes weighted 20%, 1 group assignment weighted 20%. The final exam is weighted 60%.

Notes/Materials Available: SAS notes provided in PowerPoint format available only on Moodle. However, Google is a great resource especially the SAS Documentation website. Tutorial/Lab questions and answers are also provided on Moodle. SAS practice multiple choice questions and answers are also provided.

Textbook: No prescribed textbook.

Lecturer(s): Dr Leung Chan

Year & Trimester of completion: 2021/2

Difficulty: 1/5

Overall Rating: 1.5/5

Your Mark/Grade: 85 HD

Comments:

This course is simply a database management course in SAS which teaches you the absolute basics of SAS and peaks at loops, arrays and merging data sets. Simple Excel 'spreadsheeting' is also used towards the end of the course but the bulk of the course is in SAS 9.4 (available through Citrix). Even though there are prerequisites, you won't use any mathematics and statistical knowledge in this course. Content is quite heavy and may be confusing to understand if this is your first time programming but don't worry you will definitely get the hang of SAS very quickly. If you have used data base management software then MATH2871 will be easier.

The 4 online quizzes are in Moodle format (~ 10 questions) and are spread throughout the term. The quizzes were all based off the lecture slides. The group assignment is a coding one and the tuts/lab work will be beneficial. The final exam is a bit tough and time consuming, so make sure you know your SAS well (do the tut/lab work, and practice your SAS MCQs thoroughly).

Unfortunately with the course, Dr Leung Chan was the main complaint from peers. His accent is extremely hard to understand especially when his lectures are just him reading off the SAS lecture slides. He also runs some of the tutorials too. I felt that it became a self-learn/self-teach class because of this, so be aware. A positive though is that he was responsive on the forum and there weren't any admin issues throughout the course! Also please NOTE lectures and tutorials are not recorded due to SAS restrictions. Due to Dr Leung Chan and non-recordings, I felt the course was dragged down to a 1.5/5.
 
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: Opengangs on May 20, 2021, 05:44:26 pm
Subject Code/Name: MATH3361 - Stochastic Differential Equations / MATH5361 - Stochastic Differential Equations (postgraduate equivalent)

Contact Hours:
- 1 x 2 hour live lecture.
- 1 x 1 hour tutorial.
- 1 x 1 hour lab.

Assumed Knowledge:
The official pre-requisite is MATH2011 or MATH2111 or MATH2018 (DN) or MATH2019 (DN) or MATH2069 (DN) and MATH2801 or MATH2901 or MATH2089 (DN) or MATH2099 (DN).

Assessment:
- 2 x class tests (7.5% each, totalling 15%)
- Lab test (15%)
- Assignment (20%)
- Final exam (50%).

Lecture Recordings? Yes.

Notes/Materials Available: Lecture slides are sufficient.

Textbook:
None prescribed.

Lecturer(s):
- Lecturer: Prof. Thanh Tran

Year & Trimester of completion: 2021 Term 1

Difficulty: 3/5

Overall Rating: 4.5/5

Your Mark/Grade: 88 (HD).

Comments:
This course made me appreciate the things we took for granted in MATH2901. The course begins with some discussions on stochastic analysis (which is probably the most pure component of the course) before the discussion on stochastic differential equations begin. If you're a stats major looking for an elective, this course is definitely something to consider. For the bulk of the course, however, it places a heavy emphasis on the differential equations aspect, as well as some discussions on some numerical approximations using Euler-Maruyama and Milstein.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: Opengangs on May 20, 2021, 06:32:44 pm
Subject Code/Name: MATH3711 - Higher Algebra / MATH5706 - Modern Algebra (postgraduate equivalent)

Contact Hours:
- 2 x 2 hour live lecture.
- 1 x 1 hour tutorial.

Assumed Knowledge:
The official pre-requisite is 12 UOC of Level 2 Mathematics with an average mark of at least 70, including MATH2601 or MATH2501 (CR).

Assessment:
- Mid-term exam (25%)
- Assignment (15%)
- Exam (60%)

Lecture Recordings? Yes.

Notes/Materials Available: Lecture slides are sufficient.

Textbook:
None prescribed.

Recommended textbooks:
Artin, Algebra (I used this textbook and it was pretty alright. Nothing too spectacular.)
Armstrong, Groups and Symmetry
Rotman, A first course in abstract algebra
Herstein, Topics in Algebra
Jacobson, Basic Algebra I
Stillwell, Elements of Algebra
Lang, Algebra
Lederman, Weir, An Introduction to Group Theory

Lecturer(s):
- Lecturer: Dr. Mircea Voineagu

Year & Trimester of completion: 2021 Term 1

Difficulty: 3.5/5

Overall Rating: 4/5

Your Mark/Grade: 89 (HD).

Comments:
This is your standard abstract algebra course. The course is split primarily into three parts: group theory, ring theory, and field theory. The latter two are combined as one since they play very similar roles. For the bulk of the course, you will be discussing group theory, properties of groups, and important theorems that surround them. You will have had brief stints with groups in MATH2601 and MATH2701, so the properties of groups should be no surprise to you. The difficulty of the course begins to ramp up as you dive deeper into these theorems. The second half of the course talks about ring and field theory, two more important algebraic structures that are built from the study of groups.

I went into the course thinking this would be quite dry but actually really ended up enjoying it. The course content was interesting enough to keep me from falling asleep at 9am lectures. The pacing of the course is quite fast so it's in your best interest to keep up to date to prevent last minute cramming. But it's a course worth doing if you enjoyed the group theory component in MATH2601 (not like you have a choice if you choose to major in pure anyways).
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: HelpICantThinkOfAName on August 04, 2021, 05:38:29 pm
Time to kick off T2 2021!

Subject Code/Name: ECON3101 - Markets and Frictions (Microeconomics 3)

Contact Hours:  2 x 1.5 hour lecture per week. 1 x 1.5 hour tutorial per week.

Assumed Knowledge: ECON2101. Be very comfortable with micro 2 and calculus. I'd also recommend having taken ECON2112 and one other third-year micro course before this (behavioural, organisational, or IO)

Assessment:

4x10% homework assignments. Nothing too difficult, just a lot of algebra

4x5% journal entries. These are short 300-500 word journal entries similar to ECON1401, but with more engagement with the course. You can't say "in week 1 we studied x and I found this interesting because...", you have to talk about where the topics discussed fail in the real world, or connect it to some other course, or even to literature (apparently someone related consumer theory to Dostoevsky???)

40% final exam. Nothing too difficult, about the same level of the problems discussed in the tutorials, not quite as hard as the homework quesitons.

Lecture Recordings?  Yes.

Notes/Materials Available:  Full slides. Would recommend having a copy of the Varian textbook handy, always nice to have a second explanation of these topics.

Lecturer: Gautam Bose, 3.5/5. Fairly decent lecturer, with good explanations of the topics. I feel that the lectures towards the end of the course would've benefited from more time.

Year & Trimester of completion: 2021/T2

Difficulty: 3.75/5 for the whole course

Overall Rating:  3/5.

Your Mark/Grade: 86 HD

Comments: This course is a marked improvement over micro 2, but also suffers from some similar failings. Namely the lack of examples done in lectures and tutorials. This time the lectures went much more in-depth with the material than micro 2 did, so it was never really a problem until later into the term, where it would've been nice to have some more concrete mathematics shown. If you like micro or are planning on taking economics honours, this is a course that you can't miss.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: fun_jirachi on August 05, 2021, 07:02:16 pm
Subject Code/Name: MATH2901 - Higher Theory of Statistics

Contact Hours:
2 x 2hr + 1 x 1hr lectures
1 x 1hr tutorial

Assumed Knowledge:
MATH1231 or MATH1241 or MATH1251 or DPST1014 (or, in program 3653, MATH1131 or MATH1141

Assessment:
5% Mobius Quiz
15% Assignment
20% Midterm
60% Final Exam

Lecture Recordings?
Yes

Notes/Materials Available:
Lecture slides, R manual, course formula sheet, tutorial questions are provided and sufficient

Textbook:
Above materials

Lecturer(s):
Dr Donna Mary Salopek

Year & Trimester of completion:
21T2

Difficulty:
3/5

Overall Rating:
0.5/5 (down from pre-exam 2 because of the exam)

Your Mark/Grade:
80 DN

Comments:
Wanted to do this first while I'm still a little bit mad, don't want to waste energy later getting mad again.

If a course's saving grace and only salvageable positive is the course content, you're doing something wrong. It's a prized asset that should ideally make courses great. Unfortunately, that was the case for this particular course. I want to stick to slagging off the course but it's really tough to do without putting my toe across the line, so I'm going to stick to two main issues:

Problem 1: Assessments
A potential final with a portion on Mobius? That angers me and a lot of the students (from the little I have heard). (also the reason why the 2/5 rating remains tentative). This also comes after the uproar surrounding the midterm on Mobius. While some of my problems with the midterm include some self-sabotage marks wise, it's tough to objectively ignore the associated issues with a) demonstration of knowledge and b) results distribution.

Problem 1a) Mobius is such a reductive platform that is good only for quizzes that were basically free marks anyway. For actual demonstration of what you've learned, it's genuine garbage. For maths, you need to show thought processes and working out, which was only available on one question in the midterm. Hearing that it will likely compose a part of the final pisses me off a lot. Again, the platform is reductive as hell and marks a huge departure from in person exams. The best way to mimic these and allow to you use the skills taught in each course is to have moodle submissions of pictures of your work (which literally every other course uses; I've done this in every maths course after math1a/1b (admittedly only two) and it is so much better).

Problem 1b) This is somehow worse than problem 1a). We were told we weren't allowed to review our midterm because a) questions were going to be reused in later course offerings and b) it wouldn't have helped us learn anyway. If there's anything I've learned in general from school, it's that everyone learns differently. Not even getting the choice to review our midterm and instead having the choice made for us was nothing short of bullshit. I don't even know where I screwed up (and I screwed up heavily, as mentioned). I wanted to improve by looking at my mistakes and making sure I document them so as not to make them again, this is impossible because of the aforementioned situation. It's also telling that I'm still fuming about this three weeks after the midterm.

Problem 2: Exam practice
I am also still fuming about the lack of exam practice usually provided by other mathematics courses. While I get that the onus is on the student to prepare, I don't think it equates to poring over lecture slides and a completing a painfully limited set of tutorial problems which you can only do so many times. The wishy-washy excuse for not being given past midterms and finals was 'the questions will be different, it won't be relevant anyway'. Again, the part that irks me is that the student was not allowed to make the choice as to whether this practice would be beneficial or not (which personally, it is, practicing concepts makes them click more intuitively). Applying concepts proves you've learned them, when little or no such opportunity presents itself it's hard to justify to yourself that you've learned anything at all. It's just been a frustrating ride overall, only the cool content has really salvaged anything, at least I can say it definitely had me paying attention.

A lot of these issues can be attributed to the administration of the course, so hopefully the course itself remains unsullied if the administration improves. There is plenty more I can delve into but won't because it's not pertinent to the course itself and rather the way it was taught. Like many courses I've reviewed previously, stick around just for the content, but you'll really have to stick it out. Unfortunately it's a key course for mathematics, so I can't not recommend it - but if it was avoidable I wouldn't take it in its current state.

Post-final edit: The only creditable aspect of the course was that the final had a better format than expected ie. file submissions.  That is the only part which I will give any credit for (the relevant pre-exam criticism can be rescinded). It should still be noted that Mobius file submissions have limitations on filenames and is in general clunkier than a Moodle submission (personal preference only). However, the organisation of the final was still disastrous. Key edits to the paper (for example a probability distribution function that wasn't actually a probability distribution function) came frustratingly late and forced me (and I presume at least a few other students, if not more) to lose time both fixing my answers to reflect the edits and on other questions since I had to fix my answers. It's telling that I wasn't surprised by this, nor the fact that there were no immediate concrete concessions made to alleviate potential losses. I quote: 'No one will be penalized if you did not see the corrections', which sounds to me like errors that reflected the original paper on the questions that had typos were not penalised, but other questions would be; hence, the second point I make (about losing time on other questions by altering answers to reflect corrections) was not accounted for by any publicly announced concession. While the exam was more than doable, the organisation of it was essentially a microcosm of the course as whole.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: fun_jirachi on August 05, 2021, 07:24:15 pm
Subject Code/Name: MATH2601 - Higher Linear Algebra

Contact Hours:
1 x 1 hr tutorial
Prerecorded lectures ~ 3-4 hours in length weekly.

Assumed Knowledge:
MATH1231 or MATH1241 or MATH1251 or DPST1014, each with a mark of 70 or higher

Assessment:
2 x 6% Mobius Quizzes
2 x 15% Class Tests
1 x 10% Assignment
48% Final

Lecture Recordings?
Yes

Notes/Materials Available:
Lecture slides, past class tests, practice tutorial set, past finals, weekly tutorial problems

Textbook:
None, the above is sufficient

Lecturer(s):
Dr John Steele

Year & Trimester of completion:
21T2

Difficulty:
3/5

Overall Rating:
3/5

Your Mark/Grade:
83 DN

Comments:
It's really hard to screw up a course like this, which makes the above review somewhat more scathing. The assessment structure was exactly what you'd like (can't complain really, any Mobius element was supposed to be free marks, which works for most people), class tests actually testing people. The course content makes you go 'oh, that's pretty cool' occasionally but often regresses to a love/hate dichotomy. In a lot of ways, I could get away with copy-pasting the first paragraph of review from last term on MATH2111. Also, while the prerecorded lectures allowed for flexibility, they were often really dry. There's not really a lot to say since this is a compulsory course and was definitely a stock standard maths course. Special shoutout to David Angell who took my tutorial, absolute treasure to UNSW maths and stats and made the experience that much better :)
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: fun_jirachi on August 05, 2021, 07:47:13 pm
Subject Code/Name: COMP3121 - Algorithms and Programming Techniques

Contact Hours:
2 x 2hr lectures

Assumed Knowledge:
Prerequisite: COMP1927 or COMP2521

Assessment:
4 x 10% Assignments
60% Final

Lecture Recordings?
Yes

Notes/Materials Available:
Lecture notes, slides, exercise set for each topic (with solutions)

Textbook:
Kleinberg and Tardos: Algorithm Design
Cormen, Leiserson, Rivest and Stein: Introduction to Algorithms

Lecturer(s):
Dr Aleksandar Ignjatovic

Year & Trimester of completion:
21T2

Difficulty:
2.5/5

Overall Rating:
4.5/5

Your Mark/Grade:
93 HD

Comments:
Will start by praising the lecturer who made lectures worth showing up to - personable, clear, appropriate amounts of detail for literally everything.

As for the course itself, it was a great course! Probably one of the most useful courses I've taken to date. Course content and the course itself were really well set out and I don't recall ever being lost. While I can have my complaints about the course forum, that's about where the complaints stop. The assessments were relatively chill and the workload was comparatively low; any stress I had with this subject was due to other subjects having assessment due dates converging, and was not as a result of this subject alone. What feedback I got on assignments was valuable, and the tutorial questions covered most variations of concepts taught, with good solutions that explained pretty much everything. It's impossible not to come away from this course having learned nothing of value, and having not enjoyed it (with the caveat of some engagement). While some students can claim to have been confused at one point with the content, the administration of the course is something I feel cannot be complained about, everything ran smoothly. Any enjoyer of COMP2521 should definitely take this course, as should any other interested party :)
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: Opengangs on August 09, 2021, 12:07:40 pm
Subject Code/Name: COMP3153 - Algorithmic Verification / COMP9153- Algorithmic Verification (postgraduate equivalent)

Contact Hours:
- 2 x 2 hour live lecture.
- 1 x 1 hour tutorial.

Assumed Knowledge:
The official pre-requisite is MATH1081. Recommended courses to take before COMP3153: COMP2111 and/or COMP4141.

Assessment:
Original assessment schedule (see comments):
- 4 x assignments (2 x 15%, 2 x 10%)
- Final exam (50%)

Lecture Recordings? Yes.

Notes/Materials Available: Lecture slides are sufficient.

Textbook:
A list of texts can be found at the end of each week's slides for further reading.

Lecturer(s):
- Lecturer: Dr. Paul Hunter

Year & Trimester of completion: 2021, Term 2

Difficulty: 3/5

Overall Rating: 2.5/5

Your Mark/Grade: 85 HD.

Comments:
In short, the course was a huge interest booster marred by poor management by the administration team.

This course serves to be the more practical side of theoretical computer science course. The original plan was to be introduced to a range of verification model checkers, such as SPIN/Promela, nuSMV, and SLAM/CBMC which helps to verify algorithms to solve different tasks (including satisfiability and LTL model checking). The theory of the course introduces students to concepts in modern day static analysis and logic in time (temporal logic), which is crucial to algorithmic verification (hence, the name of the course).

The theory was interesting and has definitely been one of the better computer science courses as far as the content goes. Although there wasn't a lot of mathematical concepts, I found myself enjoying the study on topology of behaviour spaces and found that engaging. The assignments weren't too hard and it definitely helped grasp the concepts of the course a lot better.

However, this course has been a nightmare to manage and study for. Assignments were released late, tutorial problem solutions weren't released at all (or at least, they were released extremely late). As a result, assignment marks were released extremely late. Assignment 1 marks were released a few hours before the extended census date - even then, I had to email Paul himself to see where he's up to in terms of marks. To give a taste for how late assignments were released, assignment 3 was meant to be released in week 8. However, delays happened and it was released around the end of week 10 and due on Wednesday of STUVAC week. I am sympathetic to the fact that this is Paul's first time lecturing this course (after Liam's departure) and I have no doubts that the next few offerings will be better.

With the way that assessments have been laid out, there has been a massive overhaul in the distribution of assessments. Assignment 4 (still yet to be released as of writing this review) is now optional, while the previous three assignments have been scaled accordingly. If you were to do assignment 4, then Paul will consider the final marks with and without assignment 4 and take the maximum of the two.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: HelpICantThinkOfAName on August 13, 2021, 06:52:41 pm
Subject Code/Name: ECON3106 - Politics and Economics

Contact Hours:  2 x 1.5 hour lecture per week. 1 x 1.5 hour tutorial per week.

Assumed Knowledge: ECON2101. I'd also say take 2112 before this as well.

Assessment:

6 x 3% problem sets.  3 of these involved deriving equilibrium conditions for some setup, the other 3 were responding to empirical papers. I liked these, they weren't super intensive, but you did have to understand the material to do well on them.

16 x 1% online quizzes. 2 of these were due for each week of lectures. Just short multiple-choice quizzes (4-5 questions each), nothing very intense. You can repeat as many times as necessary. Free marks.

4 x 5% discussions. These were in-tutorial discussions about research papers that we were given a week to read. This is the weirdest part of the course for me, it seemed very difficult to actually get the marks for this, 3-4 contributions per discussion were needed from my experience, but when you have 30 people in an online tutorial it gets very messy very quickly - you're forced to gun for the marks early on so that nobody steals your idea and so you can actually get a word in.

46% final exam. This wasn't very difficult overall. 2.5 hours to do 2 short math questions, 2 short responses, and 3 multiple-choice questions. The final exam covered (at most) 10% of the course, and didn't take anywhere near 2.5 hours to complete. There were strange word limit requirements though, with one saying that your mathematical reasoning had to be strictly below 20 words.

Lecture Recordings? Pre-recorded lectures, four per week. This is one of the few times where I have felt that the pre-recorded lectures were superior to having live lectures, mainly due to the lecturers.

Notes/Materials Available:  Full slides.

Lecturer: Gabriele Gratton, 5/5. His lectures are always engaging and he was super helpful throughout the term. If you have the opportunity to take a course under Gabriele, take it.

Federico Masera, 4/5. Not quite at Gabriele's level, but close. A big improvement (in my opinion) over 2206.

Year & Trimester of completion: 2021/T2

Difficulty: 2/5.

Overall Rating:  5/5.

Your Mark/Grade: 82 DN.

Comments: This is such a great course. I wasn't very convinced early on, but the topics flow nicely from one to another, individual preferences lead to social choices, then to lobbying and corruption, political advertising, and conflict. The course cleverly integrates empirical data throughout to reinforce what the theory is saying, and closes with a lecture devoted to exploring empirical data. It's well structured, well-paced, well taught, and well assessed. If you're looking for a third-year economics course that isn't super intense, this is your new best friend.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: Opengangs on August 14, 2021, 11:46:50 am
Subject Code/Name: MATH1041 - Statistics for Life Sciences

Contact Hours:
- 2 x 2 hour live lecture.
- 1 x 1 hour tutorial.

Assumed Knowledge:
No assumed knowledge is required for the course.

Assessment:
- 9 x online tutorials on Mobius (10% altogether)
- 1 x midterm (15%)
- 1 x assignment (15%)
- Final exam (60%)

Lecture Recordings? Yes.

Notes/Materials Available: Lecture slides are sufficient.

Textbook:
The recommended textbook is Introduction to the Practices of Statistics.

Lecturer(s):
- Lecturers: Dr. Nicole Mealing and Dr. Laure Helme-Guizon

Year & Trimester of completion: 2021, Term 2

Difficulty: 1.5/5 (the average MATH1041 student, though, may feel the difficulty is about 3-3.5/5)

Overall Rating: 2/5

Your Mark/Grade: 85 HD.

Comments:
I did this course purely because it was going to be a WAM boost but I'm disheartened by a few things from this course. My biggest complaint is the assignment. I'll get to that in a bit.

The course serves to be one of two math-intensive courses for people doing a life science degree, the other being MATH1031 which is more akin to the content you find on MATH1131. MATH1041 is an introductory course on statistical practices for people who may not want to do any more mathematics courses beyond this course.

For the most part, the course was just revision from when I took MATH2901 and a lot of the content felt very familiar to me. You learn about the basic probability theory principles as well as the basic statistical inferences that permeate any statistics major (confidence interval, hypothesis testing, inferences about the mean). The midterm was also really nice, we were given enough practice to perform well in the test and it felt like a nice 15% to get. The tutorials felt very dry and I felt that the tutors didn't want to be there (or at least I got that energy from them), which made me not want to go to the tutorials.

Then came the assignment. The assignment was convoluted and long, I felt like I was answering the same question 3 or so times. I was confused a lot of the times because the questions were worded awkwardly and left a lot of room for interpretation. When anyone tried to clarify a question, the answers were always the same: You're being assessed on it. When addressing a missing unit in the assignment, the lecturers didn't bother making a public announcement. Instead they simply left a comment in the thread that was so difficult to find because it was so hidden among the other questions that arose from the assignment. As a result, I had to redo one of the graphs because I realised oh there WAS a unit attached. I felt that, if we got marked down for it, there would be some major complaints. The marking was a bit controversial as well. A lot of assumptions that were not made clear from the assignment specifications were vital to how you were supposed to answer. This made the assignment even more frustrating to do. There were parts of the sample answer that I was not happy with and it felt like the markers were rushing to get marking done. Losing full marks for small errors should never be permitted.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: HelpICantThinkOfAName on August 15, 2021, 10:16:46 pm
Subject Code/Name: MATH3311/MATH5335 - Mathematical Computing for Finance/Computational Methods for Finance

Contact Hours:  2 x 1.5 hour lecture per week. 1 x 1.5 hour tutorial per week.

Assumed Knowledge:  (MATH2121 or MATH2221 or MATH2111) and (MATH2501 or MATH2601) and (MATH2801 or MATH2901 or MATH2871). Be very comfortable with all of these. I'd go as far as to say take all of the core second-year math subjects before taking this (yes, even complex analysis).

Also, take 2301. I found it helpful to have some decent background knowledge in Matlab, although there's no need to already know Matlab. There are free and accessible resources to help you learn, and it's quite simple to pick up if you're already decently versed in another programming language, or if you're learning from scratch!

Assessment:

4x5% Assignments. These weren't too difficult for the most part, mainly being able to translate mathematical logic into Matlab efficiently. There are a few times where you'll want to bang your head into a desk, but as long as you know a couple of tricks (such as not always needing to store an entire matrix, but just one vector that you can play around with for some recursive fun), you shouldn't have too much trouble with it.

20% Matlab Test. This was a bit scary in the leadup, but as long as you just grind out the lab work and past papers you'll smash this.

60% Final exam. Very little preparatory material for this, only past papers. There's no 30-page problem set for this course (unlike every other math course I've taken). The only stuff you're given are weekly self-study questions taken from past papers, so what'll happen is that you finish up the term and realise that there are no new problems for you to study. This made me feel very underprepared going into the final, and I had gotten near full marks on the assignments and problem sets. The final for MATH3311 is shared for MATH5335, so there may be some scaling up for 3311 students.

EDIT: I just finished the exam. What a shocking paper. There were large parts of that paper that we never once covered in lectures, never touched on in labs, and never appeared in past papers, and it certainly didn't come from the textbook or any of the prerequisite courses. I can only pray that we're scaled like hell, because I was only able to answer 25% of that exam with some confidence.

Lecture Recordings? Pre-recorded lectures, accessible from the start of the course. They go in-depth with all the topics, and even into some non-assessable topics if you're super keen.

Notes/Materials Available:  Full slides. As I said above, there are no problem sets for you throughout this course, so you're basically relying on remembering everything you learnt in second year. Some extra resources (even just some refresher questions) would've been helpful.

Lecturers:

Professor Josef Dick, 3.5/5.  He was alright, explained things well, managed to keep my attention.

Dr Leung Chan, 3/5. A bit difficult to understand at times, but alright for labs.

Year & Trimester of completion: 2021/T2

Difficulty: 4/5.

Overall Rating:  2/5.

Your Mark/Grade: 67 CR (seems like the final exam was heavily scaled)

Comments: For a course called Mathematical Computing for Finance, I expected a lot more of the finance side to come into play. It wasn't until week 7 that we first talked about Black Scholes, and that was only in the context of non-linear equations. The course isn't super focused on finance, nor solving problems related to finance.

The first half of the course is your typical "here's Matlab, here's what you can do, here's why it's a terrible idea to use Matlab". The second half covers numerical integration, random numbers, simulations, and PDE's, with a few equations used in finance dotted throughout. I would've much preferred that the course have a focus on financial applications from the start, or at least have problems that help you to see the connection between what you're learning and what is used by financial analysts. Because of this I never felt that the course went below a superficial skim of financial computing. I still learned a lot about Matlab from this course, and if it weren't for catfishing us by calling it computing for finance I'd easily give it a 3.5 or a 4. It just feels like what I learned wasn't quite what I signed up for, which is a shame.

That's a wrap on my math degree though! What a journey! From failing extension math in year 11 and being told that a degree involving lots of maths wouldn't be a good idea, to ticking off all the requirements for a mathematics degree! Excited to finish up my economics courses next term, and then (hopefully) start my economics honours next year!
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: Opengangs on August 30, 2021, 03:44:49 pm
Time to put my remaining two courses up.
Subject Code/Name: MATH2400 - Finite Mathematics

Contact Hours:
- 2 x 2 hour live lecture.
- 1 x 1 hour live lecture.
- 1 x 1 hour tutorial.

Assumed Knowledge:
Pre-requisites are either MATH1081 or MATH1231/1241/1251 or DPST1014. Highly recommend doing this course after or with MATH1081.

Assessment:
- 2 x class tests (20% each)
- Final exam (60%)

Lecture Recordings? Yes.

Notes/Materials Available: Lecture slides are sufficient.

Textbook:
No textbooks for the course.

Lecturer(s):
- Lecturer: Prof. Igor Shparlinski.

Year & Trimester of completion: 2021, Term 2

Difficulty: 2/5 (although having done MATH3711 and MATH3411 beforehand played a major role in this difficulty score; it would probably be around 3.5-4/5 for someone coming into the course with only MATH1081 or MATH1231)

Overall Rating: 4.5/5

Your Mark/Grade: 97 HD.

Comments:
I didn't have to do this course but it ended up being one of my favourite courses this term. The course has given me a new profound appreciation towards MATH3711. The course goes through a lot of the abstract algebra concepts you would find in a course like MATH3711 without getting bogged down in the details of proofs. (Don't worry, there are proofs in the course but the focus is more on the applications of the concepts). Think of it as an introductory course to algebra and not the algebra you find in high school!

The course is designed to be taken alongside MATH2859 (hence, the 3UOC instead of the normal 6UOC). Don't get confused between 3UOC and the workload however! The workload is about the same as a normal 6UOC course and you should treat it as such.

The first half of the course is a revision of the number theory components of MATH1081. You revisit concepts such as the Euclidean Algorithm and divisibility. You then cover other algebraic structures such as groups, (commutative) rings and fields which become an integral part of the second half of the course (coding and information theory). So if you enjoyed modular arithmetic in MATH1081, this is a great follow up course for you to do! On the other hand, if you enjoyed MATH3411 and want to do a bit more on coding theory, then this course is also a great course for you!
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: Opengangs on August 30, 2021, 03:57:33 pm
Subject Code/Name: MATH3611 - Higher Analysis / MATH5705 - Modern Analysis (postgraduate equivalent)

Contact Hours:
- 2 x 2 hour live lecture.
- 1 x 1 hour tutorial.

Assumed Knowledge:
Pre-requisites are 12 UOC of Level 2 Mathematics with an average mark of at least 70, including MATH2111 or MATH2011 (CR) or MATH2510 (CR), or permission from the Head of Department.

Assessment:
- 3 x assignments (10% for the first two, 20% for the main assignment)
- Final exam (60%)

Lecture Recordings? Yes.

Notes/Materials Available: Lecture slides are sufficient.

Textbook:
The recommended textbook is Introductory Real Analysis by Kolmogorov.

Lecturer(s):
- Lecturer: A/Prof. Pinhas Grossman

Year & Trimester of completion: 2021, Term 2

Difficulty: 3.5/5

Overall Rating: 4/5

Your Mark/Grade: 78 DN.

Comments:
Definitely the most challenging course out of the four courses I did this term, and it's not surprising why. This is one of three core courses for anyone planning to go into Pure Mathematics and it serves to be the more "calculus" heavy course out of the three. Essentially, this is a rigorous calculus class and you need to have a certain mathematical maturity to do well in the course. The lecturer doesn't cover many proofs but rather develops the intuition for what the proof should look like and it's your job to fill in the details, and it's a pretty nice system to have.

The course begins with a conceptual understanding of what it means for you to say "cardinality" of sets (in particular, infinite sets), covering topics such as countability and uncountability before diving into the first real topic of analysis -- metric spaces. You'll develop an understanding for abstracting away from the concrete (instead of talking about distance functions, we can talk about metrics of a space). The course ends with a fairly dense topic on compactness of topological spaces, a topological property that generalises the notion of boundedness and closed-ness.

In all, I found this to be a really interesting course and the lecturer does an excellent job at explaining these topics in a way that seems fluid and cohesive. If you're interested in pure mathematics and want to dive into some more calculus, then this is definitely a course for you.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: anomalous on September 02, 2021, 12:39:51 pm
Subject Code/Name: COMP3141 - Software System Design and Implementation

Contact Hours: Just 2x 2 hour lectures, but there is a split:
- One of them is a content lecture which introduces the course content for the week
- The other is a practice lecture, which covers the solution to the previous week’s programming exercise as well as reinforcing the material from the content lecture, usually with a focus on working through actual problems

Assumed Knowledge: Either COMP1927 or COMP2521.

Assessment:
- 2x programming assignments, worth 20% of your mark (10% each)
- 8x online quizzes, worth 10% of your mark (be warned, these are very difficult!)
- 6x weekly programming exercises, worth 20% of your final mark
- Final exam, worth 50% of your mark, with a hurdle of 40/100 in the exam to pass overall

Lecture Recordings? Yes, recorded and uploaded onto YouTube.

Notes/Materials Available: Not much, but what you do get is nice: a set of good lecture slides and some tutorial questions.

Textbook: No textbook required, but the following are recommended as Haskell references by the course if you're looking for something:
- Thinking Functionally with Haskell, by Richard Bird
- Haskell Programming From First Principles by Christopher Allen and Julie Moronuki
- Programming in Haskell by Graham Hutton
- Real World Haskell by Bryan O'Sullivan, Don Stewart, and John Goerzen
- Learn You a Haskell for Great Good! by Miran Lipovača

Additionally, the course content draws from Data Refinement: Model-Oriented Proof Methods and their Comparison by Kai Engelhardt and W.P. de Roever, but it’s said that this text is not suited for undergraduates.

Lecturer(s): Dr. Christine Rizkallah and Curtis Millar (who have both now left UNSW)

Year & Trimester of completion: 21T2

Difficulty: 4.5/5 without functional programming experience, 3/5 if you’ve done some before

Overall Rating: 5/5

Your Mark/Grade: 93 HD

Comments:
Most people treat this as “the Haskell course” because there is a fair bit of Haskell programming, but that’s not its stated intention. Rather, it provides a perspective on how we can use ideas inspired by mathematical proof and reasoning to construct safe software: Haskell just so happens to be a good language for applying this theory. The true value of this course is in the appreciation it gives you for safety and reasoning about programs, which is a point that some people (typically the more applications-focused crowd, though I mean this in the nicest way) can miss, because a lot of the stuff in this course can come across as abstract nonsense. It really does force you to examine how you previously approached correctness and take a more principled approach to designing software, not only during the development process but also the testing process. On its own this is a very useful perspective to have, and makes this worthy of consideration as an elective for CS students (worth noting this is core for Software Engineering students, and I definitely agree with that).

If you haven’t done functional programming before, this course will probably make you feel like you’re relearning programming, which is entirely normal. You don’t have to write very much code at all in this course in terms of the number of lines needed to finish most tasks, but the tradeoff is that you’ll be thinking much harder about each line than you’ve probably ever done up until this point. To supplement all of this programming, there is some theory regarding types and the connection between programs and proofs, which is probably the coolest bit of the whole course (the surprise is ruined if you’ve seen it before as I did though). Structural induction and natural deduction are also taught as it relates to that theory. While this is a bit of maths, don’t worry - very few courses are necessary nor sufficient to have already covered it going into the course, so it gets taught from scratch.

Overall, quite a fun course if a bit tough at times. This is a must do if you’re interested in functional programming, since this course offers the most substantial introduction to the area at UNSW. If you like this course, consider following it up with COMP3161, which offers an analysis of programming language design (and particularly the design of functional programming languages).
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: RuiAce on September 02, 2021, 04:43:32 pm
Subject Code/Name: MATH5845 - Time Series

Contact Hours: 2 x 2hr lecture (no tutorials; some 'tute' questions covered in the lecture)

Assumed Knowledge: None explicitly stated, but just as with all level 3/5 statistics courses you should have foundation up to second year statistics (MATH2801/2901 level). Knowledge of linear models (MATH2831/2931) is highly recommended for one topic, but it only matters for that topic, and you only need to understand the linear model itself (don't worry about F-tests etc). MATH3801/3901/5901 not required,

Assessment:
- 1 x 15% Assignment
- 1 x 20% Assignment
- 5% Class participation
- 60% Final exam

Lecture Recordings? Yes

Notes/Materials Available: Detailed lecture notes and lecture scribbles are given. Excerpts from textbooks given.

Textbook:
- Shumway, R.H. and Stoffer, D.S. (2016) Time Series Analysis and Its Applications with R Examples, 4th edition, Springer-Verlag, New York
- P. J. Brockwell & R. A. Davis (2002), Introduction to Time Series and Forecasting, Second Edition, Springer-Verlag, New York.
They're both good reads, but not needed.

Lecturer(s): Dr. Zdravko Botev

Year & Trimester of completion: 21 T2

Difficulty: 4.5/5

Overall Rating: 4.5/5

Your Mark/Grade: 93 96 HD

Comments:
This is one of many postgraduate statistics courses. Recently, it has remained on a yearly offering.

Time series branches off from stochastic process. It is the analysis of data that is indexed by a time variable. Time is assumed discrete in time series, because in practice although the phenomena may be continuous, you only collect it at discrete time intervals. In practice your time series data can be quite long (collect data over lots of timestamps), but you only study the data set itself. There is no comparison between two time series in this course.

The first thing to mention is that this is a Zdravko course. He teaches you the theory. It's more appropriate to think of this course (at least presently) as Theory of Time Series. You'll be introduced autocovariance/autocorrelation, ARMA, spectral densities, etc. all from a mathematical standpoint. Of course, there are a couple questions that make you apply the theory to solving real problems/on real data sets, e.g. maximum likelihood of the ARMA parameters. For someone like me, this is exactly what I want. Yet somebody who only cares about applications may not be so interested.

The first half of the course introduces the mathematical background (including autocorrelation; quite surprisingly huge) needed for time series algorithm. The second half focuses on time series concepts, and develops the algorithms that typically get implemented for time series analysis.

Class participation is free marks - just contribute once (question OR answer) and you walk away with 5%. Quizzes are mostly free marks as well. Basically, the question bank gets released, and one question gets randomly selected for which you have to submit a response for. We had at least 1 week to prepare our answer for both the quizzes. The difficulty really comes from the final exam in my opinion (up till then, difficulty is something like 2.5/5).

In short, I just felt there was no time to answer everything. It was nice to know that out of the 4 questions given, we only needed to answer 3 such questions. Somehow, one of the three I picked was way too long. I remember submitting the exam with 26 or so seconds to spare; zero time to actually check my answers.

In terms of the coding, Zdravko supports at least Matlab, R, and Python. Choose any one of the three, and roll with it. (However, his live coding is in Matlab, because that's what he's more comfortable with.)

Despite being a theoretical course though, I would at least ask many postgrad students "why would you skip time series"? It's still pretty fundamental to know, in my opinion, as a working statistician. (Time series is also used in ML apparently, but I haven't investigated how.)
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: anomalous on September 02, 2021, 05:00:36 pm
I originally wasn’t going to post this review since another poster gave an excellent summary, but I have been persuaded...

Subject Code/Name: MATH2901 - Higher Theory of Statistics

Contact Hours: 2x 2 hour lectures, 1x 1 hour tutorial

Assumed Knowledge: Formally, only one of MATH1231, MATH1241, MATH1251 or DPST1014 is required.

However, I would probably recommend you to have done MATH2011 or MATH2111 as well, not just because some of the content from it appears, but also because you’ll benefit from the mathematical maturity.

Assessment:
- Quiz, worth 5%
- Midterm quiz, worth 20%
- Written assignment, worth 15%
- Final exam, worth 60%

Lecture Recordings? Yes, on Blackboard Collaborate.

Notes/Materials Available: Nothing too impressive here: some mediocre lecture slides that had typos in them here and there, some tutorial problems with solutions and some notes on how to use R (which were actually very good).

There’s a very comprehensive set of course notes floating around from a previous lecturer of the same quality as the R notes, although you had to find these on your own as they weren’t provided.

Textbook: Not required, but Introduction to Mathematical Statistics by Robert Hogg may be helpful.

Lecturer(s): Dr. Donna Mary Salopek

Year & Trimester of completion: 21T2

Difficulty: 4/5

Overall Rating: 0.5/5 - harsh, but unfortunately deserved in my eyes

Your Mark/Grade: 84 DN, which is the most poetic end to this course I could've imagined

Comments:
Whether you do this course or not, learning some proper statistics beyond what is taught in high school or 1st year maths is always really good knowledge to have. This course is inherently a more applications-focused one, but the first half of this course (probability theory) should appeal to you if you’re more into pure maths as I am. For a variety of reasons, this was the most difficult of the level 2 core maths courses so far for me. (Update: MATH2701, a much harder but also much better run course, now has this beat.) You really have to be on top of your game specifically when it comes to algebraic manipulations and calculus, as a lot of the side calculations that aren't even in the realm of probability or statistics anymore are sometimes very nontrivial. There’s also a lack of any real intuition for the inference half of the course, so prepare for a lot of rote and having to take a bunch of things on faith.

What absolutely tanks the rating of this course is the teaching and organisation side, which was fairly disappointing this term compared to what I’ve heard about previous offerings. I truly could rant without end: the midterm, the assignment, the exam, basically anything. You name it, there was probably something wrong with it. A lot of what I have to say is just going to be straight shade though, so I won’t comment on specifics (I also don’t want to rehash the points mentioned by a previous review from this term). That should give you enough of an indication as to my thoughts, and I can assure you that this isn’t just a personal thing - the disappointment seems universal amongst those who did the course this term.

It borders on cliche at this point that so many "intro" statistics courses end up being of rather poor quality, and cases like this certainly do not help with that stereotype (at least as far as stats at UNSW is concerned). I already wasn’t planning to do any further statistics courses after this, but I could certainly see how this would leave a sour taste in the mouths of those who are on the fence about their major and potentially turn them away, which is always a shame. If Donna is going to take this course again (Update: apparently she is in 2022), she definitely has much room for improvement, and I really hope she reads the constructive feedback she has been given this term and tries to take some of it on board.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: cherloire on September 08, 2021, 11:07:30 am
Subject Code/Name: COMP6771 - Advanced C++

Contact Hours:  2 x 2h Lectures (delivered over Youtube Live), 1 x 1h Tutorial (delivered over Zoom)

Assumed Knowledge: Formally, COMP2511 (only basic OOP concepts such as inheritance and polymorphism are drawn from this course)

Assessment:
- Assignment 1: STL containers/algorithms (15%)
- Assignment 2: Operator overloading, OOP (25%)
- Assignment 3: Templates and iterators (30%)
- Final exam: 3 hours online, 2 programming exercises (30%)

Lecture Recordings?  Yes, all lectures are archived on Hayden's youtube channel (you can watch all of them here, and also includes his other courses, which is great). Hayden's tutorial is also recorded each week.

Notes/Materials Available:  Slides to accompany the lectures are given, however they are sometimes pretty barebones, and often had errors or had not been updated since the previous offering, which is slightly annoying if you rather learn by reading notes rather than watching lectures, like me.

Textbook: Bjarne Stroustrup's textbook is listed as "If we had to point you to a single resource", but don't bother, the recordings/slides along with cppreference.com are more than enough.

Lecturer(s): Hayden Smith (with guest lecturers in week 10 from Optiver)

Year & Trimester of completion: 21T2

Difficulty: 2.5/5

Overall Rating:  4.5/5

Your Mark/Grade: 96 HD

Comments:
Despite the big self learning component of this course (which is basically wading through cppreference.com and S/O), this course has the best content out of any course I have learned so far. Hayden is a really great lecturer. One of the comments I've seen a few times about him is that "he doesn't seem very knowledgeable since he googles stuff in the lectures". I actually think this aspect of his C++ teaching is good - most of the time in this course you will spend navigating online C++ library specifications etc, and seeing him use these websites and picking up on the things he looks for when seeking an answer will become very relatable as students complete the assignments. The forum support (edstem) is excellent, shoutout to one of the tutors Nathaniel.

I really like the way the language is presented in the lectures, and students can immediately see the advantages of C++ over other languages they will have previously learned in CS at UNSW such as Java and C. One thing I wasn't aware of initially was that the course is more of a "C++ design course", in other words how to write C++ in a "correct" way (as there are many ways to do things in this language). The assignments are tailored towards this idea - rather than getting students to build cool applications in C++, the assignments are a means to reinforce good C++ practices. This did slightly get on my nerves a bit with the assignment marking though - different tutors marked assignments differently, and it seemed there wasn't much of a consistent marking criteria in some places, which became very obvious as I talked to other friends taking the course.

The assessment structure, being heavily assignment loaded and only a 30% exam, is a big plus IMO, and I think more CS courses should move to this model (if they haven't already). This is pretty rough however if you have a heavy workload term with other assignment loaded courses. The first question of the exam doesn't really test the learning done throughout the course, which was mainly from learning about and leveraging C++ features to complete the assignments. Instead it was an algorithmic type question that students could have completed before ever taking the course using C knowledge. The second question specification was a bit poor, many important details were left in a footer at the bottom, which took me a while to read as I was trying to decipher the overall question (thankfully these were only small parts in terms of marks). Despite this, I personally I thought the exam was reasonable, and could have done better if I was well slept and/or better prepared, however it was tight, and many students did not finish (or get close to finishing).
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: HelpICantThinkOfAName on November 18, 2021, 04:13:15 pm
Subject Code/Name: ECON2127 - Environmental Economics

Contact Hours:  2 x 1.5 hour lecture per week. 1 x 1.5 hour tutorial per week.

Assumed Knowledge:  ECON1101. This will probably change next year to ECON2101, as the lecturer is considering making this a third-year elective. Even if it stays as it is, take 2101 and consider taking 2112. It'll make this course a breeze. Taking something like 3106 before as well made this course revision for the most part.

Assessment:

10% Tutorial Questions. They chose two or three problem sets we had to submit at the start of the tutorial. You can also just submit every problem weekly if you're not into that sort of thing.

20% Midterm. Nothing super difficult, just stay on top of the tutorial questions. Average was in the 70's.

2x10% Assignments. These were a little more difficult and had more parts that the tutorial problems. These just served as exercises to extend on previous tutorial problems and lecture material.

50% Final Exam. Questions similar in difficulty to the midterm, but focused on the latter half of the course.

Lecture Recordings? Full lecture and tutorial recordings available.

Notes/Materials Available:  Full slides and textbook chapters available.

Lecturer:

Dr Tess Stafford, 4.5/5. Tess sat in a two-hour consultation call every single week for whoever wanted to pop in and ask questions, which says enough about her - she's great to learn from.

Year & Trimester of completion: 2021/T3

Difficulty: 1/5.

Overall Rating:  5/5.

Your Mark/Grade: 85 HD

Comments: A nice and chill final econ elective to round out an otherwise hectic term. Would recommend to any econ student who is even mildly interested in the subject. I've also heard good things about its little sister ECON1107 (which I think some people doing environment degrees can use as an elective?), so consider that as well.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: HelpICantThinkOfAName on November 22, 2021, 10:40:50 pm
Subject Code/Name: ECON3208 - Applied Econometric Models

Contact Hours:  2 x 1.5 hour lecture per week. 1 x 1.5 hour tutorial per week.

Assumed Knowledge:  ECON2206 (or be enrolled in a Data Science degree and take MATH2831).

Assessment:

2x15% Assignments. We were given a dataset and a stata file, and a sheet of questions to answer. These questions were then tested in a multiple choice moodle quiz. A bit strange, but nothing difficult.

25% Group Project. This is an 8 page empirical research paper where we were given a dataset used in a paper, and then asked to answer the same question as the paper using the techniques described in lectures. They randomly assigned the groups within tutorials, or you could choose to do the project by yourself. 5% is from a team assessment, so if you've got a bad group you can flame them there.

45% Final Exam. 50 multiple choice questions in 2.5 hours.

Lecture Recordings? Full lecture and tutorial recordings available.

Notes/Materials Available:  Full slides provided.

Lecturers:

Mike Keane, 3/5. Mike taught the start and end of the course. His slides were a bit dense, but alright overall.

Fanghua Li, 4/5. Fanghua was pretty good for this course, can't really have asked much from her.

Year & Trimester of completion: 2021/T3

Difficulty: 4/5.

Overall Rating:  3/5.

Your Mark/Grade: 71 CR

Comments: A lot of statistics courses get (deservedly in my opinion) a bad rap for being deliberately obfuscatory and hard to follow. I can't really say the same about this course. Sure, it still has difficult content that takes time to wrap your head around, but it never felt like there was a need for the big conceptual leaps and blind acceptances of theorems that I felt were present in ECON2206. This course doesn't hold your hand, but it takes time exploring the big ideas before launching into a more in-depth exploration of the topics.

This course is essentially an extension to ECON2206, where you spend most of your time patching up the holes left behind by that course. Most of the lectures start with the premise of "here's something wrong with a particular regression, how can we fix it?", and then take a very logical path in ruling out what can and can't be done to fix that issue. This resulted in a course that felt a bit disjointed and lacking an identity of its own - you're constantly going back and forward between issue and solution, and not really considering if that solution would bring any issues as well.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: fun_jirachi on November 25, 2021, 02:41:55 pm
Subject Code/Name: COMP2511 - Object-Oriented Design & Programming

Contact Hours:
2 x 2hr lectures
1 x 3hr tutlab

Assumed Knowledge:
Prerequisite: COMP1531 AND (COMP2521 OR COMP1927)

Assessment:
Assignment - 15%
Project - 35% (3 milestones over 4 weeks)
-- milestone 1 + 2 given two weeks, worth 17.5%
-- milestone 3 also given two weeks, worth 17.5%
Class Mark (Tutorials + Labs) - 10%
Final Exam - 40%

Lecture Recordings?
Yes

Notes/Materials Available:
Slides and tutor notes, lab exercises

Textbook:
Some suggestions for books that cover at least some of the topics in this course
Head First Design Patterns, by Elisabeth Freeman and Kathy Sierra, The State University of New Jersey
Refactoring: Improving the design of existing code, by Martin Fowler

Lecturer(s):
Ashesh Mahidadia

Year & Trimester of completion:
21T3

Difficulty:
2/5

Overall Rating:
-2/5 (adjusted from 0 pre-exam)

Your Mark/Grade:
81 DN

Comments:
The course was pretty okay for the first half - new raccoon (Refactoring Guru > Tom Nook), relatively tame assignment (albeit verbose and frustrating to work through, relatively easy to shrug off. I didn't like how long it was for the purpose it served; an intro to Object Oriented programming. It was easy but too long.), occasionally unnecessarily long lab tasks, etc. I could get past that, but then the course went to shit when the project happened. I'm going to also add that the labs that ran during the project were really long so learning stuff from the labs was lost on the students because of how bad the project ended up being. Retrospectively these only really served their purpose as study material for the exam, and as such the labs were often put out of context with the lectures at the time.

For context, we were told that the automarking process (which wasn't a thing in the previous offering of the course) was needed to ensure greater breadth in testing the correctness of students projects, which in turn awards fairer marks, particularly to those who completed more work. The only problem with these intentions (which I fully support, as they do make logical sense) was the execution was mindbogglingly poor, and the execution didn't achieve either of the objectives I've listed (correctness + fair marks) to varying extents, which will both be addressed below. There are also certain other reasons that I think are potentially partially responsible for the poor execution, but I won't go into those in depth because aren't as pertinent to the course itself as the following reasons. Just touching on them however I think is okay though -- it often felt like there could have been more hands-on support from course administration, especially when the course was in fact going awry but there wasn't for whatever reason (extra work, other commitments etc.). Nitpicking slightly, the announcements were sometimes inconsistent (ie. we won't give you X input / we won't test you on Y case, then those events actually happened, stuff like that).

But anyway, the main spiel:
From the start, the timeline that seemed to be employed should've rung alarm bells. Two weeks per milestone is not bad, though more time is preferable. But when the assignment is split like it is, and the second "half" of the assignment depends hugely on the first "half" (the whole point of the second bit is how well your design in the first adapts to new criteria. To quote the project specification: "60% of your [Milestone 3] automark will come from testing a completed interface which includes all the requirements in Milestone 2, and incorporation of the following new requirements (1.1 to 1.4).") it's imperative that students get feedback really quickly. There are two weeks between the two due dates, and as such two lab sessions. However, due to the structure of the course, we demonstrate our product to our tutors in the lab session immediately following the first due date and receive feedback in the next. Depending on when your session is (or if your tutor decides to give feedback outside lab time), the time remaining to act on that feedback for the final product may vary from anywhere between 4-7 days. This is particularly nitpicky but it certainly isn't the worst part, because that title is reserved for the various shenanigans that automarking created. I have no other words to describe automarking other than genuine shit because a) as stated before the execution was awful, b) the process to remedy this was equally if not more awful and c) the automarks (which genuinely could have been released earlier, unless for an even weirder reason the autotesting suite wasn't available before the automarks were released (this would point to admin unpreparedness)) were released really damn late ie. they were released 5 days from the milestone 3 deadline. This course already has an implicitly high workload attached to it, but these late results made us scramble harder (and unnecessarily so, IMHO, since it was in no way our fault), especially since not many of the errors the autotests raised for groups were particularly helpful in pointing out actual flaws in groups' programs. It was genuinely enraging at the time, and even in hindsight, and remaining somewhat level-headed it's impossible to describe it as anything other than a complete shocker. The flow-on effect of this late release and failure to accomplish the initial rationale set for automarking was that despite it being no fault of the students, students had close to no time to fix these non-errors in milestone 2 because of the looming milestone 3 due date. It became a dilemma between working on milestone 3, which relied on the "buggy" milestone 2, or maximising the previous marks and sacrificing milestone 3. For context, you would have been likely to fail other autotests in milestone 3 similar to those in milestone 2. In the end many groups had no choice but to go with the latter option because of the hanging threat.

Now, addressing the remarking process (ie. "b) the process to remedy this was equally if not more awful") -- the initial remark was slated to be returned on the Saturday before the Monday due date, IIRC, which to a student is absolutely outrageous. The amount of organisational disarray would have been ridiculous. We had no dry runs prior to the submission for Milestones 1 + 2 ie. nothing, even the most basic stuff just to ensure we wouldn't fail on technicality rather than incorrectness. This would have prevented a lot of the problems that arose. The official? reason for not providing a dry run was that it'd give away the testing suite, which seemed weird and remains so. A LOT of groups failed on dumb technicalities, and even a remark wouldn't have solved this because there were so many technicalities that a single remark may have solved one only for your group to uncover another. Despite this literally being in no way the students' fault, it was made out to be as if it was. We weren't allowed to "debug" -- but many groups just wanted to fix the technical errors as opposed to logic errors, ie. the ones that the autotests wouldn't facilitate, which weren't even wrong in the first place. In the end, dry runs were released for milestone 3 (any away from the actual testing suite would have been okay for milestone 2) but these ended up being provided two days after the automarks were actually released and were lacklustre at best. They were just the most basic reused milestone 2 tests.

Other issues related to remarking include but aren't limited to:
- The use of a marking cap to allow for small incremental errors/differences between the tests and groups' work, however, this initiative failed for multiple reasons; as stated elsewhere, because of how the autotests ended up running, one reason this failed is that this came off as an implication of a poor specification, rather than assumption variation. The autotests were capped at 80-90 which wasn't particularly helpful at first since a lot of groups initially got way lower than that. I will concede something below
- There was a remarking penalty for "non-atomic changes" which were often necessary for some groups because the set of changes classed as atomic was (somewhat) objectively narrow. This penalty was kept in place even after the shitshow this ended up being, which I personally thought was rather ridiculous (it wasn't even reduced, but I'd like to think it was adjusted slightly behind the scenes, despite the max 20% penalty still being a thing)

I will concede though, that this whole process would have been acceptable had the autotests worked as intended (with a provided dry run, of course) but as it didn't, it just made everything a whole lot worse. Another concession; you did get the highest mark of all the remarks, but this I think pales in comparison to how bad automarking ended up being.

The last point (ie. "a) as stated before the execution was awful"); the biggest problem here was that a lot of the project was open to interpretation, which a lot of the autotests did not factor in. While there was good breadth in testing, what they ended up doing was going into too much depth, thus by definition making assumptions which in many cases conflicted with the more than valid assumptions made by some students. We were told that we should make assumptions and were encouraged to do so where necessary, then we essentially got screwed for doing the exact thing we were told to do ie. basic errors not cleared up by the specification and were fair assumptions ie. no questions required on the forum were causing autotests to screw up, but we didn't know what these "errors" were. We were also told that the autotests would test "lower level / general stuff" and NO edge cases but this was in general not true (some tests fell under the general umbrella of "edge case", others tested higher level stuff where by definition students' interpretation comes into play). A phrase that I saw another student use that encapsulates this whole saga rather well is that "you're allowed to make assumptions, as long as they're also the ones we make", which is frankly ridiculous. If the specification and autotests needed X assumption to pass autotests, these should have been explicitly stated in every case, not just a select few (which I will give *some* credit for) and vaguely elsewhere. I also saw a student say something along the lines of "the project uses design by contract but essentially expects us to defensively program". It's just a shame because overall, autotesting is worth 14% of your OVERALL grade ie. for some rather extreme context, getting 0 for automarking in total can drop you from 100 almost down to a Distinction. It's even more of a shocker when the autotests didn't do their job properly, and even more so when you realise that autotesting was worth more than design in what is fundamentally a software design course (1.33x more, if I recall correctly).

An example of a really bad test that was actually given:
For context, we made a dungeon crawler game. A particular enemy can spawn and has a chance of spawning with armour. That chance is arbitrarily decided by your group. However, there was a test in the automarking suite you could fail if NONE of the first ten of that enemy spawned with armour ie. if you assumed this enemy had a 10% chance of spawning with armour, you'd fail this test roughly 1/3 of the time. This test was purely luck-based, and just statistically favours those who arbitrarily chose a higher chance of armour spawn. Now, this particular test wasn't worth a lot (given the number of tests in the testing suite), but when this sort of thing crops up multiple times across the testing suite, you can imagine the fury of the students. How this particular test was a good idea, I'll never know.

Other pertinent points:
- The response to criticism was passive and slow. Some feedback ran along the lines of "go read the spec", "don't worry about it", etc. There was also a 15m ish window where the course forum had temporarily disabled public posting/commenting, which seemed really strange given the timing (at the peak of the complaints and student anger). Even considering how long it took to get marks, it felt like it took longer to took forever to get responses and feedback on criticism of the automarking process. In short, lack of transparency, stability and communication
- I personally found it weird that no deadline extension was ever on the table (even though many students had made it clear that an extension wouldn't fix things in private circles). The only one afforded to us was the 5hr one for a 5hr GitLab outage in the first submission. I can guarantee that this ended up slowing students for a lot more than 5 hours, even though a deadline extension would have just extended the pain
- Groups with bigger issues that couldn't be resolved by a remarked automark received manual marking, but on a large scale, this was unfeasible. It felt really selective, and I can imagine that a) some groups may not have been bothered anymore and b) many had bigger issues. It would have been better to have executed this properly the first time given the problems that have existed in this course from previous offerings. Having success after manual marking just felt bittersweet; it felt really damn wrong to have to blunder through all this bureaucratic BS just to get correctly assessed.
- If code coverage was high enough, it's worth wondering if using each group's testing suite may have actually been fine, but that's a point for another time.

It's a shame because this course genuinely has potential; OOP as a concept is pretty interesting, but like many other courses (especially certain ones I've taken previously), off the mark administration ruins the student experience. I took two courses and was still occupied ie. a disproportionate workload. It's hard to believe I was considering taking another course at the start of term, and I couldn't be happier that I didn't after how this turned out. I should also reiterate that this is NOT in any way an attack on the course staff; they clearly had the right intentions and the right rationale for their changes. It just so happens that the final product was a devastatingly poor student experience. I might add; the project is worth 35% of your total grade, the labs are a portion of 10% but I have in fact taken more away from the labs given how panic-inducing this project has been; I've also never seen an effort vs marks ratio this disproportionate, even in some parts of HSC English.

Post-exam: Literally all the problems pre-exam were compounded. I went into the exam a bit more open-minded and hoping for improvement, which unfortunately never came. The exam itself was shocking. I would not be surprised if many people failed the 40% hurdle (raw marks, before any scaling).

I will give them the fact that the theory part of the exam was pretty smooth sailing, and well written. The programming questions just about summed up the whole term. The questions were too long, too hard and too verbose. Difficulty wise: literally none of the stuff we were told to prepare with (sample questions, lab questions, tutorial questions) could match up to this in the programming section. The prep was piss-easy, this was notoriously difficult. The prep absolutely paled, and the samples were largely irrelevant because we'd seen the questions as lab problems as well. In any case, I would imagine some if not most of the students who did the recommended preparation would have been 100% screwed, which speaks to the ridiculousness of the exam.

You basically had two choices: plan out your response or dive straight in. Either way, you'd encounter time drains; diving straight in meant you couldn't properly tackle the problem, which would have been evident for a course literally called Object-Oriented Design and Programming. Planning out your response would have taken too long (as it did for me, after which I panicked and ended up half-arsing a plan and a response), leaving you with not enough time to complete the exam. The sheer verbosity and length of the exam meant it was impossible to finish; I doubt the writers of the exam took it, nor even gave it to a tutor to try because this was just frankly ridiculous. Given six hours, twice the allocated time wouldn't have saved the majority of the cohort (and it would have extended the pain and confusion anyway), who were post-exam making jokes about "haha see you next year guys". If last term's exam was just "bad" (or so I have heard), I have no choice but to brand this one absolutely fucked. I have never taken an exam written worse, nor had an exam experience worse than this, EVER (regardless of if it was self-sabotage, as has happened before, or the fault of the people involved in running the exam). It's telling that I've enjoyed courses while not doing so well and will merit courses regardless of my mark, so I think for this offering of the course I'm being more than fair.

Again, this course absolutely has the potential to be a good course, but this offering has been nothing short of shocking. I really thought the automarking saga was rock bottom, but as it turns out there was an even rockier bottom underneath. I wanted to rant more, but I'm honestly so done with this particular offering of the course; I think the fact that a) I've bumped my course rating down to NEGATIVE two says enough, and b) "I have never taken an exam written worse, nor had an exam experience worse than this, EVER" says more than enough about a course already rated 0.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: HelpICantThinkOfAName on November 29, 2021, 07:36:18 pm
Subject Code/Name: ECON3123 - Organisational Economics

Contact Hours: 2 x 1.5 hour lecture per week. 1 x 1.5 hour tutorial per week.

Assumed Knowledge: ECON2101 or ECON2112. I'd recommend taking both before this course.

Assessment:

4x10% Problem Sets. Two or three problems that are a bit more difficult than what was shown in tutorials or lectures.

60% Final Exam. Similar structure to the problem sets. Three questions with multiple parts. Some with calculations, and some asking you to verbally explain the underlying contract structure.

Lecture Recordings? Full lecture recordings on hand.

Notes/Materials Available: Full slides provided.

Lecturers:

Hongyi Li, 3.5/5. This might not be a fair score for Hongyi since I had Gabriele, Federico, and Gautam last term for other third-year micro courses - I'm a bit spoiled! I've had friends say they he was one of their favourite lecturers. I enjoyed his lectures, and his notes were very comprehensive.

Year & Trimester of completion: 2021/T3

Difficulty: 4/5.

Overall Rating:  3/5.

Your Mark/Grade: 75 DN

Comments: This is course should really be called Contract Theory. We spent all of our time investigating interactions between principals and agents (essentially just employers and employees) under different circumstances. Principals will have one set of desired outcomes (maximise profits), and agents have another, often conflicting, set of desired outcomes (maximise pay). The fun of this course comes in playing around the different times that the principals and agents make moves, how the principal pays the agent, and how the agent produces the good. I found the weeks spent on Asset Ownership and Career Incentives to be particularly interesting because of how fun it was to keep track of all the different variables and timings that were introduced.

There are a couple of weeks in the middle that I thought were a bit of a slog - the lectures on Performance Evaluation, Teamwork, Incentives, and Authority. They each took me a while to understand the underlying interaction, but I can't say that I'm very comfortable with them.

Overall, this is a pretty fun course. I wouldn't recommend that you take this over courses like ECON3106 or ECON3121 though.

Aaaand that's it for my undergrad degree! It's been a great ride for the last four years at UNSW, even with the chaos of 2020 and 2021. I hope that my course reviews have been comprehensible and useful for everyone who has read them. I might be doing econ honours next year, so keep an eye out for a review on that at the end of next year if I'm not burnt out at the end. Thanks everyone!
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: fun_jirachi on December 10, 2021, 09:36:17 pm
Subject Code/Name: MATH2621 - Higher Complex Analysis

Contact Hours:
2 x 2hr lectures
1 x 1hr tutorial

Assumed Knowledge:
Prerequisite: MATH1231 or DPST1014 or MATH1241 or MATH1251 each with a mark of at least 70; Exclusion: MATH2069

Assessment:
2 x 20% Class Tests
60% Final Exam

Lecture Recordings?
Yes

Notes/Materials Available:
Yes

Textbook:
None

Lecturer(s):
Dr Arnaud Brothier

Year & Trimester of completion:
21T3

Difficulty:
2.5/5

Overall Rating:
4.5/5

Your Mark/Grade:
91 HD

Comments:
I can only really criticise this course for its annoying timetabling, and that's being *really* nitpicky.

Ridiculously good course. The exams were fair and well structured (both the exams themselves and the assessment structure overall [see assessments]), the teaching couldn't be faulted and the content was brilliant. When you talk about maths clicking in a satisfying manner, this is definitely it. To find topics that get tied up as elegantly as the ones covered in this course has been somewhat rare so far, and has been much appreciated this term. Up there with one of the best courses I've taken, full stop; pick anything in the course and you could probably find at least three things great about it. Not much else to say, except just take this course if willing and able.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: Opengangs on December 13, 2021, 11:48:54 am
Subject Code/Name: COMP4418 - Knowledge Representation and Reasoning

Contact Hours:
- Pre-recorded lectures.
- 2 x 2 hour live interaction sessions that act as consultations.

Assumed Knowledge:
The official pre-requisite is COMP3411, although you don't need any knowledge from that course at all. Some proof logic would be useful for the logic topic.
 
Assessment:
- 3 x assessments (45%; 15% each)
- Final exam (55%)

Lecture Recordings? Yes.

Notes/Materials Available: Lecture slides are sufficient.

Textbook:
None prescribed.

Lecturer(s):
- Dr. Maurice Pagnucco (Formal Logic and Reasoning)
- A/Prof. Haris Aziz (Reasoning about action, multi-agent resource allocation, social choice, cooperative game theory)
- Dr. Abdallah Saffidine (Answer-Set Programming and Clingo)

Year & Trimester of completion: 2021 Term 3

Difficulty: 3/5

Overall Rating: 3/5

Your Mark/Grade: 77 DN.

Comments:
This course felt very... meh. It didn't feel like I learned anything particularly useful if I want to go into Artificial Intelligence, and very much just felt like three separate courses squeezed into one. The course is split into three parts. The first two weeks delves into the different logic systems, including propositional logic, first order logic, and Horn logic. You learn how to prove statements, both semantically (interpreting its meaning) and syntactically (by manipulating symbols to arrive at other statements). The advantages and disadvantages of each logic system is explored and gives further motivation to why we should care about other logic systems (for example, our logic system should be complete and sound, yet simple and easy to adapt to new rules). I found this to be the easiest of the three topics because it's the topic that is the most familiar to me.

The next few weeks were exploring how agents share resources and how they should distribute bundles among each other so that certain properties of efficiency and fairness are respected. For example, if certain people express dissatisfaction about a candidate, their voice should at least be considered (which is something that's further explored in social choice). I found this topic to be... the most disconnected(?) of the three. It seems like this is a very specific field of artificial intelligence that should be taught as an economics course, not in this course. Even though the course content was interesting enough for me to continue, I often asked myself what the entire point of this topic was and found it hard to relate to aspects of artificial intelligence. The lecturer for this topic wasn't the best either; he didn't really go over how to do computations, but rather left it as an exercise for the viewer. So it took me longer to figure out what was happening than it needed to be. Even in the live session, he glossed over the computations and decided to focus on the less computationally heavy aspects, only for the bulk of the computations to appear in the final exam.

The last few weeks were left to explore a rather esoteric language. The notion of Answer-Set Programming is to convert a problem statement into a computational model whose answer sets correspond to solutions to the original problem statement. The theory of the last topic was interesting enough since this is a rather new way (not really new, the language is more or less the same as Prolog) to view problem solving. The interactive session was dedicated to solving NP-hard problems, Abdallah did a great job at motivating the use of answer set programming and teaching us the tricks of the language.

Overall, I felt that the course could have improved by making the link between the three topics a bit clearer and by motivating the middle topic a bit more. On their own, the topics would be interesting for anyone who just wants to learn new things. But if you're serious about artificial intelligence, it just felt very clunky and disjoint.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: Opengangs on December 13, 2021, 12:55:40 pm
Subject Code/Name: COMP4920 - Professional Issues and Ethics in Information Technology

Contact Hours:
- 2 hour lecture
- 2 hour tutorial

Assumed Knowledge:
You're expected to be in the last year (or close to) of your computing degree. I strongly urge you to find a group of around 3-4 people you're comfortable working with before enrolling into the course because it's going to be a pain if you don't.

Assessment:
- Seminar participation (10%)
- Lecture summaries (10%)
- Movie Review (20%)
- Student seminar (20%)
- Essay (40%)

Lecture Recordings? Yes.

Notes/Materials Available: Lecture slides are sufficient.

Textbook:
The prescribed textbook is Ethics for the Information Age but the course admin has said that it's a bad textbook for ethical argumentation soooo....

Lecturer(s):
- Course admin: Dr. Wayne Wobcke
- Lecturers: Dr. Stephen Cohen (ethical theories) and David Vaile (law)

Year & Trimester of completion: 2021 Term 3

Difficulty: 2/5, but this is difficult to judge because the marking seems somewhat questionable.

Overall Rating: 0.5/5

Your Mark/Grade: 73 CR.

Comments:
Oh man, where should I start? I'll probably start by praising the course for their efforts in improving the course from 2020's offering. Reducing the seminar participation from 20% down to 10% is a big win for the 2021 cohort because, otherwise, it's a battle royale of people just shouting answers as loud as they could. The lecturers (Stephen and David) couldn't be faulted, they were engaging enough to keep me going. That is all, onto the criticisms now.

The enjoyment of the course very much depended on whether you had a decent tutorial or not, whether your tutor enforced turning on your camera (thankfully my tutor was very laidback about it), and whether you could deal with students speaking for 5 minutes about absolutely nothing at all. About 50% of the course depended on the tutorial: 10% on the seminar participation, 20% on the movie review where you find your partner in your tutorial, and 20% on the student seminar where you find a group of 4-5 within your tutorial. So yeah, if you don't have a decent tutorial, you'll have a hard time with the course, which is why you should ideally do it with a group of friends so that the pain of enduring the course is shared among the group.

The course assessment structure was confusing. Lecture summary requirements were rather ambiguous. Wayne mentioned that the lecture summaries could not exceed one page per summary without any other description of page margins, font sizes (okay he said 9-11pt, but different fonts have different heights which drastically change the number of words), and font faces. When this was rectified, there was no major announcement and we, as students, are expected to find the updated change. This seems almost intentionally malicious but I'll believe that Wayne just forgot to make an announcement that a word limit was set. The movie review was pointless, the feedback was meaningless because it was vague. It was introduced just so that students didn't use The Social Dilemma as a reference for their essay. However, the structure of the movie review was just confusing. It was a mix of a self reflection and a review of the documentary in which the feedback wouldn't be relevant for the actual essay, despite Wayne saying so.

The marking seems a bit harsh and somewhat arbitrary. It seems like not many groups can achieve 17+/20 for the student seminar unless they do something extremely creative and out of the park. The feedback didn't really match the criteria and they were vague and unhelpful. Comments like "deeper ethical discussions" do not help unless you can pinpoint which areas required deeper ethical discussions and what constitutes as "deeper ethical discussion". One seminar tutorial should be dedicated to ethical argumentation and ways to strengthen those reasonings instead of looking at different scenarios (believe me, that's a good thing; we just have too many of those laying around right now). It seems like the tutorials are developed so that the tutors don't have do much since their comments tend to be short and unhelpful with the occasion "good point, [insert longer quote]".

Overall, I'm led to believe that Wayne has good intentions but I feel that he's a bit lazy which makes it seem like he's intentionally trying to fail people despite the fail rate being close to non-existent. With a change in administration, this course could have the potential to be really good. Ethical reasoning is always an interesting discussion but that can only be done when the administration is fixed. Tutorials should be tailored towards developing and strengthening ethical discussions and reasoning. Assessment feedback could be a bit deeper so that it's more helpful for future assessments.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: Opengangs on December 16, 2021, 12:56:39 pm
Subject Code/Name: MATH3871 - Bayesian Inference and Computation (postgraduate equivalent)

Contact Hours:
- 2 hour lecture
- 1 hour tutorial
- 1 hour lab

Assumed Knowledge:
The official prerequisite is MATH2801 or MATH2901. The content on law of large numbers will be pertinent for the discussion of the theory of Monte Carlo methods.

Assessment:
- 2 x class tests (35%; 15% and 20%).
- 5 x quizzes (5%; 1% each).
- Final exam (60%)

Lecture Recordings? Yes.

Notes/Materials Available: Lecture slides are sufficient.

Textbook:
None prescribed.

Lecturer(s): Dr. Clara Grazian

Year & Trimester of completion: 2021 Term 3

Difficulty: 3.5/5

Overall Rating: 4/5

Your Mark/Grade: 92 HD.

Comments:
A fantastic and highly practical course that shies away from classical statistics. The course is split into two major themes: the theory of Bayesian inference, and the practicality of implementing Monte Carlo methods which is arguably the most important aspect of the course. There is equal weighting between the theory and the practical component so you should familiarise yourself with both aspects of the course. And in fact, the way to understand the theory is to understand what you're implementing when you're in the labs. This was how I understood the Monte Carlo methods. The assessments were relevant to the lecture content and the lecture slides were more than sufficient to do well in the course. However, because the tutorial and the lecture slots were so packed together (lecture was 7-9PM on a Tuesday evening and the tutorial was 9AM on a Wednesday morning), I often found myself not having any time to complete the tutorial problems until the first week of stuvac. In short, I basically learned how to do each of the problems without attempting it first during the tutorial.

In saying that, if you need an elective and don't mind the challenge to learn something interesting, I would recommend this course. Just don't neglect either the coding or the theory, and you'll be fine.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: RuiAce on December 16, 2021, 10:38:35 pm
I wholeheartedly despise this course

Subject Code/name: COMP4920 - Professional Issues and Ethics in Information Technology - Course renamed in 2021

Contact Hours: 2hr lecture in weeks 1, 2, 3, 5, 7 (note: week 4 was a public holiday), 2hr seminar (tutorial)

Assumed Knowledge: Not really anything to do course content. Prerequisite is COMP2511 (or the old COMP2911), and have completed 96 UoC within a computer science degree, but really this just reflects that you should be towards the end of a CSE degree and hence have the background of a software engineer.

Assessment:
- 10% seminar participation
- 10% lecture summaries
- 20% movie review (reflection)
- 20% student seminar
- 40% company case study

Lecture Recordings? Yes

Notes/Materials Available: Mostly just the lecture slides. However, some seminars also required preparation material, which was provided.

Textbook: Quinn, M.J. Ethics for the Information Age. Eighth Edition. Nobody used it though to my knowledge.

Lecturer(s): A/Prof Wayne Wobcke. He only really delivered the first lecture though. Content was instead delegated to guest lecturers: A/Prof Stephen Cohen, David Vaile, and members of FPA Patent Attorneys Pty Ltd.

Year & Trimester of completion: 21T3

Difficulty: 3/5

Overall Rating: -2/5

Your Mark/Grade: 76 DN

Comments:
This is a core course to all CSE students that don't have SENG4920 required instead. Note that in 2021, SENG4920 was an identical course to COMP4920, and students between COMP4920 and SENG4920 could partner together for the movie reflection and the student seminars. (Effectively, the "management" component of the course has now been completely phased now, which justifies the course name change.)

Clearly, I hated every moment of this course. But when comparing to the aforementioned review, one should at least observe that -2 is a better rating than any number from -5 to -500. This is because improvements should be acknowledged where due. Some of the more noticeable improvements from last year:
- Essay plans were actually reviewed
- Removal of the second student seminar from 2020 certainly freed up more time
- Participation cut from 20% to 10%, which made it feel considerably less like a warzone trying to participate in the seminar.
- A couple admin improvements as well. (For example consultation hours, though I didn't use these specifically myself.)

Also, in all fairness the content is fine. And the best thing about the course for me was the absence of a final exam. This freed up my time a lot at the end, and this I am thankful of. (Oh and also, I found out my final mark before release of results day because of this.)

So why is the rating still non-positive? Because:
- Although the documentary itself wasn't bad, the movie review task itself was nothing but confusion. Many marks were lost for things that were just bizarre. 750 words also feels way too short for ethical argumentation and reflective components to be mixed together.
- Feedback received was often ambiguous. It felt like a plus that marking guidelines were given, but sometimes the feedback received just seemed to have nothing to do with it. The feedback was also usually very brief and hence unhelpful.
- For some reasons HDs are just a non-existent concept in this course. Though DN is very much possible (including DNs higher than the mark I received), HD seems to be eliminated altogether.
- Hard limit for the essay was certainly a benefit. But alongside everything else we needed to include, it just seemed impossible to have stuff like "stakeholder perspectives" covered with the 1500 words we were given.
- It's never clear what the right balance of stuff is. How deep should the ethical arguments be? How do we incorporate everything (e.g. background context, the "stakeholder perspectives" mentioned above)?
- Information surrounding the lecture summaries was often unclear, or ambiguous.
- Oh, and not being taught how to write. Movie reflection and essay both suffered here. (Perhaps also student seminar, but can't really comment here.)
- (On a personal note, I find it hard to envision when I'd ever use Kantian ethics to analyse behaviour in the workplace.)

The level of subjectiveness in the marking really makes me question what arts faculty students have to go through when they take courses similar to this. It's hard to not believe that deliberate limitations are placed on each student denying them from truly feeling any "success" in the course. (Some people also argue that some of the marks released are really just an RNG.)

Often times, it was very unclear to me why this course felt necessary. I do support the concept of an "ethics" course in the 21st century. (And again, to be fair the content itself is not bad.) But expecting me to be satisfied with something that hinders any sense of academic accomplishment is a completely different matter. No wonder some students seemed to run off into the electrical engineering version (despite that one having a final exam and blah).
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: Opengangs on December 20, 2021, 10:30:25 am
Subject Code/Name: MATH5645 - Algebraic Number Theory

Contact Hours:
- 1 x 2 hour lecture and 1 x 1 hour lecture
- 1 hour tutorial

Assumed Knowledge:
There are no formal prerequisites for the course since this course is expected to be taken in your Honours year. But if you plan on taking it pre-Honours (like I did), then you are expected to achieve an average mark of 70 in MATH2601 and one of MATH3711/MATH3521/MATH5706. It is highly recommended that you take MATH3711/5706 because the content from that course will be fruitful for the discussions in this course.

Assessment:
- Weekly problem sets (10%; top 4/10 will be counted towards the 10%).
- Assignment/project (30%)
- Final exam (60%)

Lecture Recordings? Yes.

Notes/Materials Available: Lecture slides are sufficient.

Textbook:
None prescribed.
Recommended: Number Fields by Daniel Marcus.
The course seems to follow closely to this book.

Lecturer(s): Dr. Alina Ostafe

Year & Trimester of completion: 2021 Term 3

Difficulty: 4/5

Overall Rating: 4.5/5

Your Mark/Grade: 83 DN.

Comments:
One of my favourite math courses thus far, and really consolidated why I’m choosing to do a Number Theory / Combinatorics thesis when I start my honours in 2023. It is essentially a follow on course from MATH3711; you begin with some brief discussions on field extensions because everything you do from that point forward assumes you know what a field extension is. There are a lot of MATH3711 content so if you plan on taking this before/during honours, ensure that you review MATH3711.

The assessments were split into three different sections. You were assigned weekly problem sets and a random question was picked out of 6-7 problems to submit for marks. This helped me stay up to date with the lecture material. At around week 8, you had to complete a mini project in the style of a small research paper which contributed 30% of the final grade. Finally, a 3 hour final exam which consisted of 6 questions. Overall, the assessments were fair and marking was lenient with really good feedback. 10/10 recommend.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: Opengangs on April 26, 2022, 09:14:07 am
Subject Code/Name: MATH5515 - Special Topics in Pure Mathematics A (Introduction to the Riemann Zeta Function)

Contact Hours:
- 1 x 2 hour lecture and 1 x 1 hour lecture
- 1 hour tutorial

Assumed Knowledge:
There are no formal prerequisites for the course since this course is expected to be taken in your Honours year. But if you plan on taking it pre-Honours (like I did), then you are expected to have completed MATH2621 and it is recommended to have taken some abstract algebra and analysis since we also deal with group homomorphisms when talking about Dirichlet characters.

Assessment:
- Assignments (45%; 15% each)
- Final exam (55%)

Lecture Recordings? Yes.

Notes/Materials Available: Full lecture notes are available.

Textbook:
None prescribed.

Lecturer(s): Dr. Lee Zhao

Year & Trimester of completion: 2022 Term 1

Difficulty: 4.5/5

Overall Rating: 4/5

Your Mark/Grade: 84 DN.

Comments: Quite an interesting course but quite difficult as expected. The course extends MATH2621 with a deeper focus on the number theoretic topics of analysis. With a primary focus on the Riemann Zeta Function, the course serves as an introductory class on many areas within analytic number theory which is refreshing to see.  Dr. Lee Zhao does an excellent job at not only teaching the topics but offer historical insights into the development of such topics. His exposition, both orally and written, is interesting to read and listen to.

The assessments are what you expect in a Level 5 course. They're not overly difficult but they require you to develop intuition and insights about the results examined in class. I wholeheartedly recommend this course if you enjoyed Complex Analysis and it really does the field of analytic number theory justice.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: Opengangs on April 26, 2022, 09:33:34 am
Subject Code/Name: COMP4141 - Theory of Computation

Contact Hours:
- 2 x 2 hour lectures
- 2 hour tutorial

Assumed Knowledge:
Undergraduate: The formal prerequisites are: MATH1081, and (COMP1927 or COMP2521).
Postgraduate: The formal prerequisites are: COMP9020, and COMP9024.

Assessment:
- Assignments (50%; 12.5% each)
- Final exam (50%)

Lecture Recordings? Yes.

Notes/Materials Available: Lecture slides and tutorial solutions are available.

Textbook:
Recommended textbook: Introduction to the Theory of Computation by M. Sipser.

Lecturer(s): Dr. Paul Hunter

Year & Trimester of completion: 2022 Term 1

Difficulty: 4/5

Overall Rating: 4/5

Your Mark/Grade: 90 HD.

Comments: The rating would be a 5/5 if the issue of administration were resolved but alas, even after a year, it has not changed. The course material is really fascinating but definitely not a typical COMP course. If you decide to take the course, be prepared to work your butt off. The assignments are really fun to do, but they can take so much of your time if you're not up to date with the course material.

The main complaint of the course (and the sole reason why this is deserving of a 4/5 and not a 5/5) is because of administration. It seems somewhat ridiculous to receive marks or feedback (if at all) so late in the term, especially when all of the assignments have been submitted. It makes the feedback that we receive meaningless because we can't use it to improve on the quality of the work. If feedback and/or marks were returned back to us in a timely fashion, then I may consider bumping this up to a 5/5.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: RuiAce on May 19, 2022, 08:11:59 am
Subject Code/Name: COMP9417 - Machine Learning and Data Mining
Equivalent postgraduate: COMP9417 (identical course code)

Contact Hours: 2x2hr lecture, 1hr tutorial

Assumed Knowledge:
Undergrad: Two pathways: (MATH1081 + either COMP1531/COMP2041), or COMP2521
Postgrad: COMP9020 + COMP9024

Data structures and algorithms (both UG and PG) and knowledge of python suffices for the computing aspect. But you really should know some calculus, linear algebra, and statistics, in preparation for the math side.

Assessment:
- 1 x 1% homework
- 2 x 7% homeworks
- Weekly questions from tutorial set, best 7 out of 8 counts, 5%
- 30% project - hackathon, or comp9417 group project
- 50% 90min final exam

Lecture Recordings? Yes, on Microsoft Teams and UNSW Echo

Notes/Materials Available: Relatively detailed lecture slides and tutorial sets. Half of the labs were very in detail; presumably all labs will be in detail next term. Also some supplementary youtube recordings from the head tutor. Head tutor managed the course forum very actively. Overall surprisingly abundant set of course resources. (However, the internet is still a valuable resource for more niche concepts.)

Textbook: No single textbook recommended anymore. A list of optional textbooks for further reading provided on the course outline on webcms3, but I didn't use any of them.

Lecturer(s): Dr. Gelareh Mohammadi

Year & Trimester of completion: 22T1

Difficulty: 3/5 (however hackathon can boost this up to 4.5/5)

Overall Rating: 4/5

Your Mark/Grade: 97 HD

Comments:
This is one of many Ai courses offered at UNSW. At this point I really feel "machine learning" is a buzzword, but the course outline definition is loosely speaking enough. Namely that ML is the algorithmic approach to learning from data. It can be perceived to have a similar goal to statistical modelling, but in ML prediction accuracy tends to overrule interpretability of the model.

The course introduces some classical ML techniques, but also touches on pieces of the current state-of-the-art models (e.g. ensemble learning, neural nets). There's quite a lot of content, but this is to be expected since ML is currently rapidly growing. Generally speaking it is a good overview to current ML techniques though. (Surprisingly, it's also made me appreciate neural nets more, despite only spending 1 week on it.) As a result of so much content though, the lectures were quite fast paced. For a math major like me i didn't care, but I can see it being difficult for other students.

I should direct your attention to this review briefly, and how the final exam dragged a 3/5 down to a -5/5. Thankfully that was over. No idea if the different lecturer meant anything here, but my exam was essentially 50 MC. Not a great experience per se - the curveball questions were quite hard. But the exam didn't feel evil or bizarre at all.

What hurt the rating? Well, homework 0 was a grind for just 1%. Not a hard to get 1%, but tiresome. As the course progressed, this was kind of forgotten, because both subsequent homeworks were interesting and made up for it. Then it came to the project. In all fairness, the hackathon itself was interesting - good final goal we were aiming for, and it gave a taster of real world data science. Have to go self learn stuff (e.g. modelling beyond 9417 scope, mastery of pandas), but that's okay. What sucked was the server and the restraints. Painfully slow to work on AWS against 50 or so groups, all trying to fit these high CPU consuming models all the time. Could only make 10 submissions a day (previously 1 submission a day which was worse), so hard to get better model performance. Some stuff just took hours to run. (Also personally salty at the final rankings.) Difficult to tune models as well. Overall killed the course experience. Nevertheless, didn't throw the course down in the dumps or anything.

Also take some caution with the last topic on learning theory. Very interesting, but much more mathematical. Might be hard if you haven't done theoretical comp sci. But it only lasts a week, so it can't torture you too much if you hate it.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: anomalous on May 19, 2022, 09:15:53 am
Subject Code/Name: MATH3371 - Numerical Linear Algebra

Contact Hours: 3x 1 hour lecture, 1x 1 hour tutorial, 1x 1 hour lab class

Assumed Knowledge: One of the following:
- MATH2501/2601
- MATH2019 with at least a DN
- MATH2099 with CR

Basically, any course beyond 1st year which covers linear algebra. Knowing some programming is an implicit requirement here too: you can use either MATLAB, Julia or Python for the course.

Assessment:
- 3x quizzes, worth 5% each and delivered via Mobius (not as bad as you think, but still, ugh)
- Class test, worth 20%
- Assignment, worth 15%
- Final exam, worth the remaining 50%

Lecture Recordings? Yes, on Blackboard Collaborate.

Notes/Materials Available: Full detail course notes are written, but the slides are also provided. The notes are a bit more terse than the slides, so for some topics I found it was actually nicer to read the slides instead.

Textbook: No textbook required, and none recommended either.

Lecturer(s): AProf. William McLean, Dr. Quoc Le Gia

Year & Trimester of completion: 22T1

Difficulty: 3.5/5

Overall Rating: 4/5

Your Mark/Grade: 88 HD

Comments:
This is a brand new course, so no one really knew what to expect, but I decided to take a chance on it since it seemed like an interesting mix of maths and computing. Having done so, I feel this was a decent pick. The next run in 2023 will probably feel a bit better to those taking it, since the course content was still sort of in development during the term, and they’ll have feedback from our cohort to use for further changes. To be objective though, the course was a little bit unpolished this term.

The focus of this course is, naturally, numerical linear algebra. Linear algebra is everywhere, and often the method you learn in the theoretical linear algebra courses for doing various things (e.g. finding the eigenvalues of a matrix) is too slow, totally impractical or prone to precision errors in the real world. As well as seeing the derivation/justification for these more practical methods of performing linear algebra, you also analyse how their computational costs scale and, where possible, how different methods compare. While the material in the first half of the course is pretty chill, things start picking up after flex week: the numerical analysis in the accuracy and reliability topic is no joke, and conjugate gradient methods can be a bit tough to get your head around at first. Probably the most confusing part of this course though is the sudden inclusion of a small “machine learning” topic on SVMs at the end, which felt very out of place due to its notable lack of any actual linear algebra (instead, it was basically all nonlinear optimisation).

Given that the course is inherently computational in nature, part of the course work involves programming. The lab tasks and assignment are intended to reinforce this in a hands-on way, while the rest of the course dealt with the theory aspects. The labs weren’t assessed directly, and I didn’t really see the point of them until the final exam, because you were basically required to use numerical computation to answer one question (which made me regret not doing all of the labs; I gave up in probably week 4).
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: fun_jirachi on May 19, 2022, 05:40:00 pm
Subject Code/Name: MATH3161
 - Optimisation


Contact Hours:
2x 2 hr lecture
1x 1 hr tutorial

Assumed Knowledge:
Prerequisite: 12 units of credit in Level 2 Mathematics courses including MATH2011 or MATH2111 or MATH2510, and MATH2501 or MATH2601, or both MATH2019(DN) and MATH2089, or both MATH2069(CR) and MATH2099.

Assessment:
2x Class Tests (one weighted 15%, one weighted 20%)
1x Assignment 5%
Final Exam 60%

Lecture Recordings?
Yes

Notes/Materials Available:
Yes - all course provided (Moodle or otherwise)

Textbook:
None

Lecturer(s):
Professor Jeya Jeyakumar

Year & Trimester of completion:
22T1

Difficulty:
2.5/5

Overall Rating:
4/5

Your Mark/Grade:
87 HD

Comments:
Not a hard course but definitely a course where you have to keep yourself motivated because there is a LOT of raw computation to get through. There are certain things that the course assesses that are painful to work through, namely line searches and Hamiltonians, but this view is admittedly subjectiveness because of my comparative unwillingness to do continuously practice the computation required to solve questions of this sort. My only other gripe with the course was the assignment, which seemed unnecessarily verbose and long for what the outcome turned out to be, but even then this clutches at straws.

Otherwise, the course was excellent without being brilliant; I got more or less everything I wanted out of the course without it being as impressionable as some of the previous courses. This course has been and remains consistently very good, any maths student that has time to take this course should do at some point.
Title: Re: UNSW Course Reviews
Post by: yliu5532 on May 29, 2022, 08:10:02 pm
Subject Code/Name: MATH2111 - Higher Several Variable Calculus

Contact Hours: 
2*2h lectures, 1*1h lectures, 1h tutorials

Assumed Knowledge:
a mark of 70 or above in MATH1231/1241/1251

Assessment: 
Mobius quiz + written proof *2 (10% + 20%, in week 3 and week 7 respectively)
70min Class test (20%, week 10)
3h Final exam which tests the whole course (50%)

Lecture Recordings?  Yes

Notes/Materials Available:  Lecture notes will be made available on moodle

Textbook: N/A

Lecturer(s):
Dr Anita Liebenau - 4.9/5. She is the LIC of the first component (multivariable calculus and real analysis) which falls under pure mathematics. She explains everything very clearly, but the lectures can get a bit dry. It might be due to the content that at times her lectures isn't super engaging. Also, her lecture slides are hand written so it might be hard to find a keyword compared to the typed slides in MATH1251. Overall great lecturer, she made me understood most the concepts, and she is so responsible that she always ask students to type questions into the zoom chat. One thing to note, she is really nice when it comes to marking proof questions :)
Apro Guoyin Li - 5/5. I'm happy to give more if theres an option for it, but yeah, he is the absolute beast here. He's so passionate towards applied mathematics that he sometimes laughs while teaching. He is the LIC for the vector calculus component of the course, which falls under applied maths. He explained the notes with great detail, and, although vector calculus can be very computational, he tried to explain all the relevant theory behind each formula that we use. As a result, I understood everything that he taught and smashed that class test + the second part of the finals.

Year & Trimester of completion: 22T1

Difficulty: 2/5

Overall Rating:  4.9/5 (I would give a 5 if Anita's lecture slides were typed, but this might just be me who kinda not liked the way it was)

Your Mark/Grade: 80 DN

Comments:
The course is structured quite nicely overall. The first two weeks can be very dull as it is all about those confusing limits stuff (open and closed sets, path-connectness and stuff), while the remaining weeks of content are very interesting. Differentiation could be a bit dull but integration and fourier series are really fun, the later stuff like path integrals and line integrals and their applications were a breeze, and integral theorems are pretty straight forward as long you kept up to date with everything. I kinda left everything at the last minute and didn't really had much time to do practice problems + I didn't manage to figure out the first proof question which was worth 1.5% of the course. With all those issues together, I still managed to scrape an 80, so it can be a wam booster if u actually do your tut questions and past papers (like how u study for the hsc). The main issue for me in the finals was time management since I wasn't too familiar with every concept i had to look back to the lecture slides a lot, but with that being said, the final exam is significantly easier than the first year 1151/1251 exams conducted on mobius, so if u are choosing the course, stay up to date to ensure that its a wam booster. Lastly, i strongly recommend this course (either over MATH2011 if u met the mark cutoff or as an elective if ur a compsci or science student), the course content and lecturers are amazing and 100% worth doing! It is probably the best maths course ive taken so far (compared to this 2621 was absolutely painful).