ATS3639: Poverty, ecology and international justice

50%: Major essay 1
50%: Major essay 2

Let me first explain what I meant by suggesting that the unit reader isn't critical. The assessment structure in this unit is rather unusual: simply two essays worth 50% each. Each essay topic focuses primarily on one reading, while other readings may or may not be peripherally relevant. Subsequently, there is really little incentive (in terms of marks, at least) to complete all of the readings. In fact, attendance at the lectures seemed to drop continually throughout the semester, for what I assume were similar issues. Really, you could get by by completing two readings for the semester and attending none of the lectures. Obviously, this isn't at all advised, and one suggests that marks would not be particularly favourable, but I think that it would be possible. But anyway, get the reader: the readings are actually very interesting, and unless you want to feel silly during tutes, it's best to read them.

I like the structure of this unit. Really, it's two mini-units in one. The first six weeks or so focuses on the morality of poverty; then, the second half of the semester relates more to the morality of climate change. Both parts of the unit are particularly interesting. By the end of the semester, it's fairly clear how the two issues intertwine, which is rather thought-provoking.

Based on advice in this thread (I think from Brenden, though I can't seem to find the relevant post), I made sure that I hate Kate as my tutor. That proved to be a good decision. Kate relates well with her students, and is extremely approachable. When I asked her how I could improve on my first essay, she went well out of her way to try to help me for the second one. The tutes themselves varied a bit, depending mostly on the collective mood of the class. Sometimes, discussions were active and lively; other times, they were less so. I didn't contribute a great deal, so I guess I'm not in a position to critique this part of the unit. Regardless, Kate did her best to encourage students to participate without being at all forceful or judgmental. She's a very good tutor.

Here is a brief overview of the assessment tasks:

Essay 1:
Students were required to choose one of five essay topics. Each topic related directly to one of the readings from earlyish in the semester. My essay, for example, was on Peter Singer's (good old Singer - I was surprised that Bentham didn't pop up in this unit, because most of the usual suspects did) suggestion that most of us have very extensive obligations to the poor.

Essay 2:
The structure of the second essay was essentially the same as the first. Again, there were five essay topics from which to choose. My essay was on the alleged conflict between generations in regard to the issue of climate change.

But both of these essays grated me for a couple of reasons. Firstly (and I acknowledge that this is a minor issue), the word count for each essay was 2,250 words. Now, usually that would be fine, but here's the thing: that included all referencing, footnotes, and even the bibliography. I am rather a prolific footnoter, so this knocked me off course, a little. I guess you could treat the essays as 2,000 word essays, which would give you a buffer for referencing and the like. Still, I found it a little frustrating.

Secondly, a ridiculous proportion of the cohort was granted an extension for the first essay (I can't quite remember, but I think it was something like 55/80 students). As a result, a cohort-wide extension was given for the second essay. I guess this isn't really a criticism of this unit so much as a criticism of Monash's extension policy, but I was a little bitter after submitting my first essay (on time).
A final word on the unit: I encourage students to take this unit. However, I think it would be improved should the assessment structure be modified slightly. Making each essay worth 40% and then having a 20% exam, say, would encourage greater consistency throughout the unit. However, the 50% essays did result in less stress during the exam period!

• Dr. Linda Barclay:

I have had Linda as a lecturer in some previous units (Human Rights 1, Philosophy 1), and enjoyed her style, so I was glad to see that she was taking this unit. One of Linda's biggest strengths, I think, is her ability to clearly explain concepts in isolation, and then relate them back to the bigger picture. She obviously knows the content very well. Something else I like is that she doesn't tolerate students talking during her lectures. Now, I'm too shy to actually approach other students to ask them to be quiet, but talking through lectures is one of my biggest pet peeves. As such, I like that Linda calls out those being inconsiderate. Linda took us for the first half of the semester. I'm not sure if she will continue to lecture next year, but I very much hope she does.

• Prof. Neville Nicholls:

We were fortunate enough to have Neville take us for a one-off lecture around the middle of the semester. The unit is broken into two parts, looking firstly at poverty, and then climate change. Neville's lecture was an introduction to climate change for students like me who are horribly ignorant. This lecture was enjoyable, very informative, and a nice change-up from the usual lectures.

• Toby Handfield:

Toby has been given great reviews in this thread, and deservedly so. He reminds me of a VisCom teacher I had at school; he is respected too much for anybody to misbehave. The reason that he is respected is probably because he's a grouse lecturer. He makes concepts so clear, and even the trickier ones to grasp become less overwhelming thanks to Toby's analogies and numerous examples. He is a fantastic lecturer to have in a unit such as this.

In summary, the lecturers in this unit are terrific.

That I do not know.

4.5 out of 5

Yes, with screen capture (I think).

Nothing is needed aside from the unit reader, and even that is questionable. (Well, not really, but I'll expand on that in a bit.)

1x one hour lecture per week
1x one hour tutorial per week

Semester 2, 2014.

N/A