Although the content is not as heavy as many other subjects, I am frustrated by this subject overall. Many lectures were irrelevant (or did not help much) in writing the assignments. Assignments were marked subjectively, and requesting a review of your assignment would take a very long time (Because Jennifer is the only person who is in charge of replying and answering questions from such a big cohort). The rubric and criteria for each assignment were a bit vague and sometimes you can be confused about what to include in your writing. For the final take-home exam, all you have given is a series of articles to read and answer two questions (500 words for each question). There is no rubric given to this exam and it is really easy to go off track with the information given. You might not have to put so much effort into this subject, but I would not recommend it as the marking is all over the place as mentioned in previous comments. This subject is the worst-scored subject I have taken so far.

Bit disorganised but easy enough to get a H1. Statistics section was not taught well.

Thought this would be an easy H1 but it's not. Marking is all over the place and highly subjective; they seem to make up criteria for the assignments as they mark through -- thing that were never made clear or remotely specified in initial descriptions. Literally hasn't been updated since it began as a subject. Content is quite stale too. Don't take this.

Very subjective marking and they are very vague about what is required in each task. Honestly did not learn anything new, not worth it.

A very laid back subject as the instructors seem to not care about anything. Be prepared to get annoyed and frustrated by The lack of instructions from instructors on assessment tasks Assessment outlines contradicting with marking rubrics Lack of formal communication between instructors and students Lack of constructive feedback Lack of rubrics for some assessment tasks An obsolete rationale as to how things should be tested Etcetc... Think of the most artsy subject and times that by 10 with instructors not caring about anything. That is thinking scientifically The first 4 weeks of content is very vague accompanied by equally vague assessment outlines and criterion. It seems like the less effort you put in, the higher the marks you get. The next couple of assessments were problematic in that they do not reflect what is learnt in those online lectures (which have been recycled since 2014); the quizzes seem to be designed to take marks off rather than give marks. They also asked to write summary which would be so much better in a report form rather than a PowerPoint, but they want to test how we can convey information in a presentation where we can't present our ideas and proceed to penalise us for writing too much content in a PowerPoint. The final few assessments were also vague and frustrating as they do not give a marking criteria. The exam was also pretty much written by the instructor a week before the release of the take-home, showing the lack of effort from staff. Overall, expect to be frustrated by why you didn't get a 98% and got a 78% instead because they don't give constructive feedback. I expected this subject to be a wam booster but as soon as the census date passed, I immediately wanted to unenroll. It's a fun subject if you don't care about grades and just want to do nothing the whole sem but if people are genuinely interested in learning something and have assessment tasks which reflect on what you learnt, DO NOT CHOOSE THIS SUBJECT.

I would've given this subject 4 stars, but one thing which annoyed me very much was how little effort seemed to be put into it by the coordinators and to me, that's worth a two star reduction. For starters, the introduction video was made for the first cohort (2014), and was titled as such, without even being repurposed for the 2018 cohort. This was a trend throughout the subject. Video lectures from previous years were RECYCLED, with content in lectures occasionally differing from what was expected of us in assignments (for example, the lecturer in the video would give us a brief on what was expected on the assignments, but the coordinator would then post a separate assignment document saying that we should ignore that part of the lecture as it was no longer relevant). Even the exam rubric said "Exam 2017 Rubric" All these were more a slight inconvenience rather than something which caused much difficulty, but it was clear that not much effort was put into freshening up the subject. Add to this the fact that this COMPLETELY ONLINE was the most expensive of all my subjects, including physics, chemistry and maths subjects, which have up to beyond 60 contact hours, and I just felt that the coordinators of this subject were simply relying on this subject's reputation as a bludge to attract students. I understand that running a university is a business, but with this subject, it was almost like they weren't even trying to hide the fact that they are shamelessly trying to milk students for money. This really annoyed me because the subject has basically been the same since its inception, with no effort even made to change the dates in the videos. Yet, they charge more for it than a science subject with 3 hours of lab work, 3 lectures and a tutorial every week. Sure, there are lots of assignments which I am sure require a lot of effort to mark, but this is how it is for so many other subjects as well. Other reviewers have summed up the pros of this subject well (in my opinion) so I won't highlight those too much, but there are certainly a lot of pros to doing this subject, even though my review has mainly highlighted what I disliked about it.

Very good subject in the sense that it is all online and there are 4 main assessments with 1 exam at the end. If you adhere to all the criteria in the rubrics given for each assessment, you're pretty much golden. There are two streams of content; the modules and the general content section. The module videos are very important for the assessments but the general content sections, whilst interesting,are sometime irrelevant. Also, there are a lot of tutors/professors collaborating for this subject and therefore the discussion board is relatively well monitored - unlike some other subjects. All in all, would recommend as it decreases your workload significantly and hopefully returns a good mark (fingers crossed :D).

Very good subject if you're like me and do much better in essays/assignments than in exams. Final exam is take home and just a 1000 word essay. Didn't really need to watch the lecture videos, but some were relevant to the assessment. Overall, this subject took up much less time than my other subjects and a good grade is fairly achievable. Found the stats module quite interesting, though I don't think many others did. Very very basic stats. The discussion board is good to monitor as people as some good questions and is also a good way to ask lecturers questions, they usually within 24 hrs.

The subject is pretty easy, with relatively low amount of assignments. There is an assignment once every two weeks, but they're mainly essays, about 1000 words each. The lecture videos posted online are pretty much pointless, where you're not really needed to know/tested on the content. So this subject is an A+ if you think you want an easy elective/breadth that doesn't take up much of your time. However, the online exam (which is a 1000-1500 word essay) is not as easy as the previous assignments and they mark it quite strictly, so be mindful that your grades may change at the end.