The GEOM20013 course is piece of trash , and it was honestly one of the worst experiences I've had at university. This course is supposed to introduce students to GIS and digital infrastructure, but it really missed the mark. The lectures were all over the place, often feeling random and not connected to the assignments at all. It was hard to understand how the lecture content was supposed to help us with our projects, which made everything more confusing and frustrating. The assignments were incredibly unclear with sky-high expectations and harsh grading. The workload was heavier than any other course I’ve taken, and bizarrely, a big chunk of our grade was based on how pretty our assignments looked. For a science course, this focus on aesthetics over content seemed really out of place. The worst part, though, was the lack of support from the course coordinator, the tutor and coordinator barely did anything in the tutorials to help us. When we posted questions on the online discussion page, he would just tell us to ask in class, but then he wouldn't actually help us in the tutorials. On several occasions, students asked for clarification on assignments and were told it was too late to ask. He also refused to record lectures, which made it impossible for those who couldn't attend in person to keep up. The policy on group assignments was unfair. Stephan Winter removed special considerations, meaning if any group member had issues, the others had to pick up the slack. His reasoning was that good groups should adapt to "adverse" circumstances, but this was incredibly unrealistic and unfair. I would not recommend this course to anyone. This is just pure pain and suffer🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕

This subject has been renamed to "Applying Digital Infrastructure," with a slightly different focus compared to its previous version. It places less emphasis on GIS, except for the assignments, and is intended to serve as a broad introduction to the digital infrastructure engineering systems major. However, the lectures covered mostly random and irrelevant content, with only about half of the material being somewhat relevant to the (group) assignments. These assignments were incredibly unclear and came with very high expectations and harsh markings, demanding a workload higher than any other course I've taken at the University. A significant portion of the grade is also based on the assignments' aesthetic quality (considering this is a science subject), adding to the already high expectations. In saying this though, the assignments were interesting, and I had a great tutor who guided my group and I through the requirements. I could forgive this subject for its many shortcomings, however, I'm giving it a score of 1 because of its coordinator and lecturer Stephan Winter. Never in my life would I have expected such an inconsiderate and rude person to be a subject coordinator, for not only what is supposed to be subject to introduce students into the major which is already struggling for numbers but also for what is supposed to be one of the top universities in Australia. I could talk for hours about the way he behaved throughout the semester, but I'll mention his two biggest "red flags" from this semester Red flag 1 - Refusing to help students in the Ed discussion page: Stephan set this up and told students to ask for support since it would be better than emailing and then offered zero support. On several occasions a few days before some assignments were due and students asked for support about specific things that weren't mentioned in the assignment handout he replied to these posts saying that it was too late to ask these questions and that there was no point in him answering (this is several days before the assignment was due). On another occasion on the day an assignment was due, a student asked another question he replied by saying that this question could be asked in a tutorial (knowing that there would be no opportunity to ask this question). A final example was when a student asked a question about the recorded lecture content and he responded by saying that this was discussed in the live in-person lecture which he refused to record. He had zero consideration that students may have other commitments to subjects or just life and may not complete their assignments in advance. This brings me to my second major concern. Red flag 2 - removing special consideration from the group assignments: For all the group assignments Stephan overrode the University's policy for an "educative reason" being training in group work and did not accept late submissions in the LMS. His reasoning in the assignments is that a good group can adapt to "adverse" circumstances if they have good time management. God forbid something goes wrong with one or several members meaning that the others have to pick up the workload and burden of an already intense assignment in addition to whatever else they are studying/having going on in their lives. He genuinely has ruined what could be an ok subject by being as inconsiderate as he is. My advice to people interested in GIS / this major is to take the subject GEOG20017: Spatial Analysis in Geography which offers a better introduction to GIS in general, and GEOM20015: Sensing and Measurement which is needed to complete the major, and then to take this subject the following year with the rest of the major as this is allowed if you enjoy these subjects

Really great subject if you're interested in GIS (otherwise it is probably very dry). Good practical assessments (however they are mostly group assessments which can be a challenge). Gives you excellent, practical understanding of how to use a GIS and how they can be applied to real-world problems. Great lecturers too.

A great subject with very helpful and nice staff. There's a bit of a learning curve with GIS but it helps when you ask for help from your friends or group mates. The content is very applicable and useful for the job market. Marking for the assignments were surprisingly lenient. As long as you do everything in the criteria it's an easy high H2 or H1. The exam was a bit difficult as it really requires a good understanding of the content. You can't just rote learn the content as most questions were application questions.

Subject was organised very well, and teaching staff were very professional and approachable. The GIS component was hard to get my head around, but everyone in the class helped each other out. Staff are very lenient with marking. Final assignment is very complex, but if you get your head around the GIS program, you will be able to trial and error your way through. It does require quite a bit of work, but you are in a group so its good to share the workload evenly. Exam felt unfair based on the amount of work put into the assignments. However, it is only based on the first few lectures so not something to really stress about. Overall, really cool subject, especially for the maps that you create. Super rewarding and interesting.

Boring overall, but subject staff are interesting, friendly and helpful.

This subject is awesome.. You will gain knowledge upon how GIS is being implemented in the current technological era, as well as its opportunity to be developed in the future. Make sure you have a good teamwork, I say scoring more than H2 mark is quite easy for this subject

This subject is GREAT!!! It's very easy to get a high score on the assignment. HOWEVER, YOU SHOULD NEVER COME TO THE LECTURE, since most of the time, you will only listen to the guest lecture. There was a lecture that had 4 guest lectures. So basically, if you take this subject, you just pay fees to attend regular seminar each week. But, if you just aim to get a high score, this subject might be worth a shot!!