Average subject overall. The previous comment could not describe it better.

The content itself is interesting and thorough, and the lectures competently delivered. Mirko's lectures, in particular, were delightful. My main gripes are with the assignments and feedback given. The essay questions were vague and offensive (e.g. one of them was about how we could prevent autism/ADHD from existing) with no space allowed to challenge those problematic premises. Additionally, I was informed after the fact that our essays were being marked according to specified model answers rather than a flexible marking rubric, which I think is an unfairly rigid marking protocol for Honours level essays. We (the students) were also under the impression they would only be marked according to the rubric. The feedback given for a H2B essay (my only non H1 mark in the entire year) was worded very harshly and not at all encouragingly, which was devastating for me to receive along with all the stresses of Honours. In addition, the MCQ had numerous issues including ambiguous wording and questions with no correct answer at all (verified with several other students), and these issues weren't directly addressed by the coordinators. As an aside, lecturers constantly referred to autistic people as "people with autism" despite identity-first language being the most common preference among autistic people (and other disabled people).