Didn't bother with the lectures after the first few weeks. I managed a 71 by just using the textbook and attending tutorials (Rod is amazing). Overall, pretty disappointing. Also, a number of the problem questions come from 'Corporations Law in Principle 10th edition', which is a far superior textbook with excellent guides to answering problem questions. The exam was SO disappointing as it was littered with grammatical errors that made understanding the questions difficult at times.

Vijaya's lectures are scatter brained and all over the place. When you enrol bulk buy white out for your notes (if by hand) or get ready to backspace half of everything she says. Read the text, make your notes from there and then add on top what the lectures say. Bloody wish I figured that out in the beginning. Every single person I've spoken to about this unit has the same feedback; its a dog's breakfast despite the change of convenors and the removal of the infamous Frank. I don't know if MQ just hires incompetency or what, but Business Organisations is super content heavy and its a struggle when the information is given poorly. If it was taught like Contracts or Property the unit would be fantastic. But alas we have a unit that's a brick in a washing machine. Rely on the readings, and the text book. The tutorials are crucial, so make sure you attend. Invest in notes from other students who did well, and build yours on that. Rod is the best tutor in teaching quality, but he'll write you off if you ask a stupid question, which is a bit of a shame. Even if he thinks you're a potato, still go to his tuts and just read read read. One day they'll get this unit right but today is not that day.

This was a poorly taught and structured unit. There were only two assessment tasks: a research essay weighted at 40% and a final exam weighted at 60%. The final exam comprised of two questions. 1. The first major issue was the research essay which was due earlier in the semester and required the student to rely on external research rather than course content to write a 1000 word essay. It was not an accurate reflection of one's understanding of the course content. Despite it being due at the end of week 6 it was only returned in week 13 and with minimal feedback. Several students noted having almost identical comments to each other showing the laziness and lack of attention of the markers. One student complained that the marker suggested that the quality of their work was so mediocre, it should be fed to their dog. Many students found this to be extremely unprofessional. My feedback indicated I needed to provide more divergent views and analyse debates further despite the fact that I had specifically made an effort to provide contrasting viewpoints and with a 1000 word limit it is very difficult. if the marker had at least pointed out specific areas in my essay where I could have developed it, these comments would be better substantiated. For the amount of time we were required to wait to receive feedback, I am appalled at the poor quality of feedback given. I wasn't all surprised of course as the 1000 word limit is obviously a way of the markers to not read as much and to do less work at the expense of quality of teaching. 2. The second issue was the lack of structure and organisation in the unit. There were NO live lectures, NO Lecture slides and only audio recordings. David obviously has a lot of experience in the field of corporate law but he is a very poor communicator when it comes to lecturing. He frequently goes off on tangents, makes irrelevant or trivial side comments and is difficult to follow as well making the lengthy two hour audio lecture wasteful. Moreover, some of the audio lectures he would upload on ilearn had technical problems that could not download or would get cut off half-way through. Despite emailing David, he did not respond to my requests. Many students cheered and were extremely glad when David was too sick to continue halfway in the semester due to a terminal illness and we didn't have to deal with his poor teaching anymore. 3. Lack of support in learning, understanding and answering exam-ready responses. A large portion of the course requires students to learn vast amounts of sections from the Corporations Act 2001 which is no easy feat. The textbook is difficult to follow and the exam only allows two 1-sided A4 notes to be brought in. There was no guidance by the tutors on how to best prepare for studying this subject approaching the exam. This subject differs from Contracts and Property Law that has key principles that can be learnt. Memorising the whole Corporations Act is impractical and no lawyer is expected to know word for word and exactly which section each area relates to unless they have obviously worked extensively in the area of corporate law and frequently refer to the Corporations Act in their work. Rod was a good tutor, but I still found that much of the lesson was just discussing what areas of the law a problem question related to rather than how to structure and properly craft an answer and most students had a lot of difficulty up until week 13 in answering problem questions. Suggestions for next year: - Introduce a 10-20% quiz either weekly or in a chunk etc. that actually tests on course content rather than external research. - breaking up exam into more questions rather than two large questions. - Provide more quality feedback in a shorter time frame. For example, breaking down the marks by different sections of the marking criteria to understand which areas you lost most of the marks e.g. in your argument, or analysis etc. and pinpointing specific areas where analysis could be improved etc. - Change of covenor. Reading past reviews indicates that a large portion of students find David to be an ineffective lecturer. There was no discussion forum, students who asked questions were rarely responded to, his communication style and structure of the course made it difficult for students to comprehend information and there were no lecture slides and multiple technical issues in recordings.

The lectures were overly complicated and followed a stream of thought, rather than any clear structure. Coupled with the lack of lectures slides or any type of outline, the lectures were very difficult to follow. This made the content seem intimidating, however once I started teaching myself from the textbook it became obvious that this was not really the case. There are only two assessments, a 40% essay and a 60% exam. There was no opportunity for feedback, with the results of the essay being posted just two weeks before the exam. There was no communication in the meantime on when to expect our results. Not an enjoyable learning experience.

Completely agree with the review below. This unit was shocking. Its frustrating because the content is easy but the lectures are so scattered and confusing. There are no lecture slides, just David rambling on for an hour and a half. Absolute joke of an essay question. It was worth 40% of our grade yet was on theory and we couldn't use anything that we learnt from the unit??!!! Really don't get how that tested our knowledge of the law. Only positive in this unit was Roy my tutor, absolute amazing tutor and filled in everything David missed telling us about in the lecture. Note- I switched from Frank's class DO NOT enroll in Frank's tutorials unless you feel like being degraded and questioned every five minutes, "Hm why are you guys all here." He absolutely did not want to teach. Good luck to everyone taking this unit. I hope for your sake they change the way its run.

Lecturer was a bit of a poor communicator. Lectures were difficult to follow. Did not like the way the tutorial was structured as quieter people did not have the chance to participate. The same confident people took over each lesson.

I did not think this unit was as bad as everyone is making it out to be. It is a different style of teaching which I have seen incorporated into subjects like Equity and Trusts in that there are no lecture slides given, only online audio lectures. The unit convenor is extremely flexible. He asked us a couple of weeks into the semester whether we would prefer for him to follow the content of the textbook a bit more closely - I believe the consensus was yes and he changed his approach the following lecture. He is extremely intelligent and has a lot of experience in corporate law. I found him refreshing and the difficult marking only made you try harder. It picked out the minds that brought something new to the table. The essay question was broad for a reason. Granted, the tutorial presentations are quite time consuming and you don't learn a lot from the tutor as much of the time is spent on those presentations being marked. I would not say the exam was difficult, the content itself is not difficult either - if you give it a chance, you will really enjoy it.

Hang in there for the first couple of weeks and the subject will get better and you'll absolutely love it when everything falls in it's place in the end. This is a classic example of subject where every week matters, you learn one piece of the puzzle every week and you put it all together in the last few weeks. It's a brain baby that took 12 weeks to grow- it was struggle but it's absolutely worth it!

Once you get passed the black letter law component of the subject (unless that's what you're in to), you really grow to love the subject. The deep analysis of corporate law and its place in society is truly thought-provoking. I really enjoyed listening to the lectures and participating in our heated class discussions.

When you look at the bare bones of this subject, content-wise it isn't difficult. However, I did not like the style of lecture - it was tough to follow and often went on tangents. David is an intelligent guy (albeit an arse) but needs to work on his communication skills - Rod (tutor) was fantastic and overall a great person You need to do your readings, participate when you can and chase your tutors if you don't understand a concept.