I took this course in Semester 1, 2021 (external mode).
I have to say this course is quite underrated and the reviews below are outdated - they don’t reflect the course now that Dr Sara Herke has been the course coordinator since 2018.
This was my most enjoyable course in my first semester at UQ because the lecturers I had (Sara and Tim) were so enthusiastic. You can also tell that they put a lot of effort into the course and care a lot about the course because they reply almost instantly on Campuswire whenever you post a question. For the philosophy component of the course, Dr Pete Evans is also insanely responsive and helpful for any philosophy related questions. I’m not a fan of the content of this course but the enthusiasm of the lecturers really motivated me to put effort and care more about this course :)
In terms of the assignments, I think the python and communication assignment was quite straightforward, and we were given a long period of time to complete it. However, it might be slightly difficult to grasp the requirements for the communication part because to achieve the highest marks, no clear instructions were provided and you really have to guess what they’re looking for.
For the philosophy essay, I found it a lot more challenging but overall I think it is manageable if you have done some essay writing previously in high school. I don’t think the philosophy lectures were well introduced and it seemed as if some assumed knowledge of basic philosophy was required. I attended the philosophy lectures but I found it quite difficult to keep up with the content and I didn’t really understand the concepts at the end of the lectures. But luckily, the only philosophy assignment that we need to engage with is the essay so we only need to focus on understanding the topics that the essay is about, rather than needing to understand everything.
For the actual writing part of the philosophy essay, I think it’s really important to come up with a thorough plan before starting to write as it will help you to organise your ideas a lot easier. Although the concepts introduced in the lectures are quite complex, with a bit of re-visiting the lecture material and using logic, you will be able to ace the essay. If you need any clarifications, post on Campuswire and Pete will help you resolve your queries asap. I would like to highlight that if you receive a poor grade for the essay in the first instance, do not feel upset about it and do email Pete for a remark if you really feel that you deserve a better grade. This is because essay marking is quite subjective and grades can vary quite a bit between markers. I originally got a 65 for my essay and felt extremely disappointed because one of the tutors said my essay is definitely a level 7 essay, so I emailed Pete telling him my grievances and my essay ended up being 92.5.
For the mid semester and final, the 12 hour window really helped me to get a better grade because you can take your time to think through the questions thoroughly and there is no time pressure at all. As long as you do past papers to practice the approach and pay careful attention during the final, you will be able to get a decent grade.
Long Long Ago!
no but they are so fun
I honestly despise this course with the entirety of my dead, empty heart. However, far be it from me to give this course its due credit - Dr Sara Herke is a very capable lecturer and the one saving grace of this dumpster fire of a course.
I am sad to say that I only discovered this review page a semester after I completed SCIE1000, so i cannot be bothered to write a fresh review for this course. However, you all get to enjoy the next best thing - the 920 word review I wrote at the conclusion of the course last semester as a critical evaluation of the course. Lecturers, if you dislike the opportunity to improve your teaching skills, please do not read this review :).
1. Clearly outline what is content that should be learned. This sounds simple, and so it should be; yet this was done exceedingly poorly in this course. Often, the learning materials were saturated with examples or case studies rather than the actual, objective content that should be learnt. Including more definitions, clearly defining the content to learn for each lecture instead of making stale dad jokes for each lecture and maintaining clear delivery of content during lectures will greatly improve the practicality of the lecture notes and lectures for study purposes.
2. Cut the bullshit. Exacerbating the problem of poor communication of content is the needless inclusion of so very much bullshit in the lecture notes. Not only are there pages of introductions and preamble before each concept, so much needless information is included. The lecture notes are not meant to be enjoyable leisure reading material - cut the 'fun facts' and keep it on topic.
These aren't the only things that could objectively be classified as 'bullshit'. This course, rather hypocritically, enforces the idea of clear, concise and effective communication. Such bold demands were clearly not put to practice in the writing of the lecture notes - they are absolutely saturated with so much pointless deliberating. To quote Appendix B of the lecture notes, page 346: "Science by its nature aims to be precise, clear and concise. [with new paragraphs for each word, because, hey this document is already 400+ pages, a little more can't hurt] Consequently, communication by scientists about science aims to be precise, clear and concise [again with separate paragraphs for each word]". Not only do these statements blatantly contradict their own preaching (taking up a total of 8 lines for two simple, not complex, sentences), this whole section blathering on about effective communication spans no less than seventeen pages. I am willing to wager the handful of fragments left of my soul to claim that no one of high-achieving standard with effective study processes has used these, short of being forced to when directed there by the weekly tutorial pre-work. Replace these useless (with all harshness intended) sections and save both my remaining neurons from being obliterated and a couple hundred sheets of paper from being defiled with this unholy garbage.
3. We aren't all losers. On the note of the weekly tutorial pre-work, this course would benefit from employing a degree of empathy before setting this work. As a person of minimal social interaction (an exaggeration of course, but it serves my point), I've managed to complete my pre-work every time - but in doing so I've been made aware of the impossibly high standard this work demands. This is not due to its difficulty level, but rather the sheer quantity of work. For about a quarter of tutorials, the pre-work demanded several hours to complete, once (memorably), demanding 75mins of our time in watching a lecture to demonstrate the simple point of overpopulation. Now you may be scoffing at these claims - "99.9% of our students managed to complete this, so surely they are capable of continuing to do so. You are just the voice of an insufferable, indolent minority that I should pay no heed to". Listen here. It is common opinion that SCIE1000 lacks the key features of other courses that make them enjoyable, or at least tolerable. If this is the attitude to this course, it does not require much critical thought to understand that the importance of the work demanded of SCIE1000 students is often overlooked. Setting large quantities of work increases this lack of interest, and often students will resort to copying work or half-arsing it - both are situations that I have unfortunately been witness to several times. It is in your own disinterest to set such large amounts of work, especially if that work is intellectually numbing.
4. Okay maybe I got a bit carried away on that last point I don't really care if you maintain a large workload (after all it would only benefit loser such as myself who have the time to complete such things to acceptable standard).
5. Please, please, please focus lecturers. If you are easily susceptible to the desire of not wanting to critically improve your skills as a lecturer, please don't read this point. I have frequently noticed that lecturers maintain very minimal levels of interest in their audience - this is easily proven by the count of people who actually still turn up to the lectures (you can't hide form the truth). In this case I would suggest maintaining on topic - many lecturers fly off on tangents, and it doesn't help that having two lecturers per lecture staggers the pace of the lecture. Being two different human beings, they are naturally on, more often than not, different trains of thought; thus sending their audience jumping from one concept to another with little cohesion. Sometimes, traditional methods are more superior to innovation - having one lecturer (as all *other* courses do) seems to be more effective in both teaching concepts and maintaining audience interest. Of course, about half of you are out of a job, I guess, so sort that out among yourselves :) (keep Dr Sara Herke though she was easily the best).
6. I am currently in construction of a voodoo doll of the philosophy lecturers. Please inform me if it wasn't them who marked my paper as I would hate to get the wrong person.
In conclusion, please make this course not compulsory for BBSc, thanks.
Semester 1 - 2017
I did this course in 2019 semester 1 - it’s not letting me input that...
This course is just one big fuck you. Lectures are boring and slow with the lecturers essentially wannabe court jesters failing horribly with their awful antics. Lecture attendance is not mandatory lol.
Tutorials yeah I mean go if u want but realistically it’s only 10% so idk keep this in mind. Mid-semester exam is easier than final for sure. Python coding in tutorials becomes a meme.Idk dude what can I say. It’s confusing and dumb and the python assessment don’t get me started on that shit.
This course is just a cluster fuck of random information that helps you how? Unfortunately it’s mandatory for a lot of degrees but if you can give it a miss
Semester 1 - 2017
No fucking way lol
Terrible course, had no relevance to any form of science, and should not be compulsory
Semester 1 - 2017
Yes, too boring to rewatch
HORRIBLE course. Should not be compulsory and should be removed.
Semester 1 - 2017
If you enjoy extremely non specific courses that will overall have no positive effect on your degree or university experience this is for you.
They give you completely random scenarios from any area of science and try to make you apply mathematics to them each week.
There's no real progression or sense that it's going somewhere and it's utterly pointless as any degree that you're in will cover the relevant math aspects at some point anyway.
The philosophy module is absurd, they teach you all about some australian philosophers outdated views on science which he changed later in his life, and devote an entire module to this one guy. It's the most infuriating thing I've ever experienced. The coding component is extremely basic and the exam questions regarding python are likely to unintentionally result in an error output because I guess they can't code.
Oh, and the lecturers will pose in the lecture theaters and then show famous dead philosophers to subtly compare themselves to them. Pretentious as heck.
Anyway, course is pointless, just seems to exist because heads of departments want to impress kids with how great they are. If you can avoid it, do.
Semester 1 - 2017
SCIE1000, how do I even begin to describe this dreadful course. First of all, its compulsory for any science course, if you find a way to get out of it DO NOT TAKE IT!! (At one point I was actually considering to drop out of uni and become a couch potato, because this course has given me depression!!!) It’s unnecessary way of making poor hopeful students thinking they’d be good enough to get into med school, beware this will ruin your GPA. I have nothing nice to say about the course. Every week we are supposed to attend the soul sucking and migraine-producing programing tutorials - this has been such a waste of my time.
But hey, you may be different from me. You may like the math, philosophy and coding...
Semester 1 - 2017
I think this is a great subject, but (as with any other subject) you need to reflect on how you're going throughout the semester so the final is not a shock.
- Based on the the workbook with 2 lecturers in each lecture
- Personally I found the lectures to be interesting and entertaining as they were not content heavy (like BIOL1020 or CHEM1100)
- Great way to learn how to approach questions in the exam (some questions given are past exam questions)
- Provides opportunity for feedback
- Marks assigned for each tutorial --> easy marks
- Fun but annoying when you first start due to all the errors
- Okay even if you're new to programming
- Interesting content, easy to understand summary of philosophy in the workbook
- Go to the end of semester revision session, it is very helpful
- Make sure you are understanding how to do the tutorial questions throughout the semester, if not, seek help from tutors early on
- Do the optional mid-semester exam
- Do all the past papers, they will give you a good idea of how you will fare in the final
- For the philosophy essay, try and book one of the optional sessions with the philosophy lecturer as you mainly learn what philosophy is in the lectures but not how to write/structure your essay
- Maximise your marks in the non-exam components as the final exam can be difficult
- If you're new to programming or are having difficulty with Python, attend the optional Python class
Semester 1 - 2017
All lectures are based on the workbook
The lecturers are entertaining but this subject is a bit different from the other more "traditional" subjects. There is a focus on maths and programming so if you're not into that then it's probably not for you. I found the tutorials pretty hard at first because I wasn't really quite sure what was required of us. Few mistakes to avoid:
- if you're not a morning person, don't sign up for a morning tutorial. likewise with later arvo tutorials.
- attend the lectures or get talking with the lecturers, they can be very helpful if you show initiative
- go to the end of semester revision session even if you hate the subject and don't understand anything etc. My best piece of advice is to attend the end of sem revision session.
I learned a lot in SCIE1000, not really about the content but a way of problem solving and thinking that is different from high school and has helped me since.
oh and the philosophy lectures, I'm ashamed to say I walked out/didn't attend
Semester 1 - 2015
As a general overview, the only real positive thing I found for this course was that it was interesting and opened your mind to the science around you, basically, you learned some stuff. Apart from that, I hated this course. It is recommended on (I believe) all the science and mathematics degrees course planners, however was definitely the biggest waste of time as it didn't assist me in anyway.
The lectures: Not entirely necessary as it is easy to catch up by just looking through the course notes, however I would recommend attending some. Be prepared the lecturers are very boring, as they were very 'ordinary' which made it hard to stay awake at times, especially if you're rewatching them at home on the couch.
The tutorials: I'm definitely not an expert on them, as I attended only one. This was because, I found it a waste of time as I understood the general goal of the course and therefore found the course very easy and more of a subject that got in the way of my other, more important subjects. I hated the tutorials the most of everything in the course as I genuinely did not feel the need to attend them, yet they went towards our assessment.
Python class: These were fine as they were optional to attend additionally you could live stream them and watch them online, however due to the course structure it just seemed a bit random. Apart from that, no real issue.
Overall, avoid this course and if you have a free elective take something that interests you rather then taking the course just because its "recommended".
Semester 1 - 2016
This course has quite a high failure rate and as a result I feel that quite a few people have unfavourable memories it. The course content is quite varied but it does draw a lot on maths and techniques that were covered in high school maths B and C. There are a number of interesting topics throughout the course as it covers a lot of practical applications of the aforementioned mathematical techniques from different scientific contexts. The philosophy module also gets a number of mixed reviews. Personally I found it quite interesting and it really exposed me to a different perspective on how we conduct science but I know that a lot of my friends didn't enjoy it. I guess it just depends if you are into philosophy.
Tutorials were good. They were achievable especially because we could work in pairs. Just make sure that you don't neglect to learn certain topics because your partner does those sections. e.g. the programming sections.
Overall this is a great course especially if you enjoy maths however if you are doing a BSc you will most likely be taking this subject as an elective. Therefore, I would recommend that you do something else like which can give you a more in depth look into the individual topics such as programming(csse1001) or just simply do a maths course.
Semester 1 - 2015
Let me just begin by saying that SCIE1000 was a gigantic waste of my time. It is a course without a clear concept or outline, with a very difficult to follow structure, and wishy-washy information that is generally given in formats and formulas that make very little sense and do not fit in with the standards found in other maths or science related courses.
The lecturers for this course are the only saving grace. Peter Adams, POD and Anthony are very entertaining and energetic. Watching them is fun for about the first three weeks of lectures before even their antics can no longer disguise that none of them really have a clue about what they are teaching you or the point of the course.
I found the tutorials to be the only worthwhile effort for the course, but they mostly only cover a certain portion of the course rather than try to untangle the mess of subject and topics that get tangled into the course.
Semester 1 - 2015
Yes and no