MAST20004 vs MAST20006

[Planck's constant]

Esteemed Science and/or Commerce students,

I would appreciate a brief review/comparison of these two similar subjects.
Both have the same prerequisites and both are in turn prerequisite to MAST20005.

What factors would affect your decision to choose one over the other?

[Gloamglozer]

If you are doing actuarial studies, then you have no choice but to do MAST20004 Probability because that the subject that you can get exemption for in your accreditation.

MAST20006 Probability for Statistics is not as hard and covers most of the content taught in MAST20004.  Hence you can't get credit for both.  It is mostly aimed at economics students, diploma of mathematical sciences students and some maths students who want to do some probability but don't want to be challenged.

Both MAST20004 and MAST20006 cover conditional expectation but MAST20004 goes a little further and covers conditional variance.  MAST20006 also has a computer test but that computer test is pretty easy in my opinion.  So the exam for MAST20006 isn't weighted as heavily as MAST20004.

Personally, I wanted a bit of a challenge and I did MAST20004.  It was hard but quite rewarding in my opinion because given the notoriety of how MAST20005 is taught, I think in hindsight that MAST20004 gave me better preparation for the horrors of MAST20005.

[Planck's constant]

If you are doing actuarial studies, then you have no choice but to do MAST20004 Probability because that the subject that you can get exemption for in your accreditation.

MAST20006 Probability for Statistics is not as hard and covers most of the content taught in MAST20004.  Hence you can't get credit for both.  It is mostly aimed at economics students, diploma of mathematical sciences students and some maths students who want to do some probability but don't want to be challenged.

Both MAST20004 and MAST20006 cover conditional expectation but MAST20004 goes a little further and covers conditional variance.  MAST20006 also has a computer test but that computer test is pretty easy in my opinion.  So the exam for MAST20006 isn't weighted as heavily as MAST20004.

Personally, I wanted a bit of a challenge and I did MAST20004.  It was hard but quite rewarding in my opinion because given the notoriety of how MAST20005 is taught, I think in hindsight that MAST20004 gave me better preparation for the horrors of MAST20005.

Thanks a lot, Gloamglozer.
I get the picture.

[mankay]

the notoriety of how MAST20005 is taught, I think in hindsight that MAST20004 gave me better preparation for the horrors of MAST20005.

What was bad about Statistics/MAST20005?

[Gloamglozer]

What was bad about Statistics/MAST20005?

1.  Unlike the two "streams" for probability, you have actuarial, economics, maths and other students all doing MAST20005 Statistics.  As department policy is to have a nice normal distribution of marks for undergraduate subjects, the lecturer is forced to challenge the actuarial students as you can't have too many people getting H1s.  But at the same time, that means the non-actuarial students may struggle.
2.  The lecturer.  I think if you went to the first lecturer, you will understand.  Think of what defines a bad lecturer.  Yeah, he has all those attributes.
3.  The exam is worth 75%.  But the total amount of marks in the exam is 75.  Yes, that means each mark is a percentage.  So not only does it make it difficult to get a H1, it is also hard to pass for the student who is struggling all semester.
4.  It is the only statistics subject in second year.  Unlike Monash which offers a whole range of statistics subjects, MAST20005 is really the only statistics subject with juicy content.
5.  It is a theoretical statistics subject, not an applied statistics subject.  So that means proofs will be done in class and in assignments.

[mankay]

*snip*

Damn, oh well. Thanks for the heads up.