NUS AY 2023/24 Semester 1 Course Review (Y1)
.jpg)
My review follows the order outlined above, so feel free to scroll to the section you're interested in! My reviews tend to be a lot longer and reflective, so I apologise if I tend to ramble 😢.
Like the last review, my criteria for rating the courses are as follows:
- Learning Outcome (1 - Useless 🙄 / 5 - Enlightened 🤯)
- Workload (1 - Dying 😵 / 5 - Manageable 😌)
- Personal anticipation/dread for attending class 🧍
Below each review, I will provide individual ratings (out of 5) for the first two criteria: (1) Learning Outcome and (2) Workload. The third criterion, (3) Personal anticipation/dread for attending class, is super subjective and influenced by personal biases, so I won't explicitly rate it. However, it will greatly influence the Overall Rating (out of 10).
Introduction:
NTW2037 Absences: Beyond the Edges of the Material World (NUSC, Seminar Style)
Dr Philip Meadows
Entering this course, I was completely unprepared for what I encountered. When the course description mentioned "absences," I interpreted it in a more abstract sense; absences, being, social constructs (e.g. in the field of Law, the rules we follow so stringently, as if they were real, are really just absent). However, it turned out that "absences" is taken in its most literal sense. We delved into topics like shadows (absence of light), holes (absence of matter), solar eclipses (absence of sight), and the distinction between killing and letting die (absence of action).
For a significant portion of the course, we explored what was essentially metaphysics. This culminated in our first full-length essay, a 1.5k paper critiquing Roy Sorensen's eclipse riddle. As depicted in the image below, we were tasked with arguing whether we see (1) Near, (2) Far, (3) both Near and Far, or (4) neither.
 |
| Roy Sorensen's Eclipse Riddle Initially, I found myself questioning the relevance of determining whether we see Near, Far, both, or neither. After all, if we know for a fact that Near is nearer, and Far is further away - what difference does knowing what I "see" make to my life? Needless to say, I was really confused and couldn't find value in what I was learning. However, as I continued to work on the paper, I unexpectedly found the process to be relatively enjoyable? It felt like solving a fun little riddle with no real implications to whatever I whacky theories I claim. Over time, this course became therapeutic, providing a welcoming break from others which often focused on heavy real-world issues. (P.S. My conclusion was that we see Far.) |
My favourite topic in the course was the Doctrine of Acts and Omissions. This doctrine posits that there is an ethical distinction between actively causing a result and failing to act when the same result is foreseen. It's unfortunate that the Prof introduced this topic only nearing the end of the semester. I had the impression that we were going to talk about shadows and holes the whole time. I was so captivated by this topic that I changed the subject of my final 2.5k essay last-minute to explore whether there is a significant moral difference between active and passive euthanasia. Before that, my topic was about shadows in orientalist architecture (boring!) Writing this paper was genuinley one of the highlights of the course.
Professor Philip Meadows is a calm and articulate instructor who explains concepts clearly, albeit at a slower pace. Moreover, his feedback for our drafts is one of the most detailed and well-thought-out I've encountered. Importantly, he never puts his students down. However, as topics like holes and shadows do not elicit strong opinions from most people (also considering that many of us are confused), there tends to be minimal class participation. Consequently, the Prof typically leads most of the discussions. Nonetheless, he is very welcoming in allowing students to speak up if they wish to contribute to the conversation.
I highly recommend this class if you have an interest in philosophical riddles, dilemmas and niche arguments. Prof is clearly passionate about the subject matter, but I do understand that it may not resonate with everyone.
Learning Outcome: 3/5
Workload: 3/5
Overall Rating: 8/10
Final Grade: A
NGN2001G Global Narratives (NUSC, Seminar Style)
Dr Hannah Smith-Drelich
Don't be misled by the course title. Despite being labeled "Global Narratives," this class primarily focuses on literature. The term "Global" simply signifies that we explore texts from various parts of the world. Students are required to engage in close readings of various text forms including poems, short stories, graphic novels, and films. Personally, I didn't feel strongly about this class; it felt more like a task than an engaging experience. While I acknowledge the educational value of this course, since I previously studied a similar subject in IB with Higher Level English Language and Literature, it felt somewhat repetitive?
I rarely found myself looking forward to class, primarily due to the extensive class discussions. Professor Hannah Smith encourages active participation, which is commendable, but at times, I wished there was more direction. We often veer off into tangents on things that (I find) don't really matter, sometimes spending up to 30 minutes on one niche point. Additionally, I may be overly critical, but there are moments when I feel the urge to say, "it's not that deep!" I don't blame the Prof for this though; it's a sentiment I've held sever since I first dabbled into literature. It really isn't my thing...
The first full-length essay assignment focused on a close reading, and I selected Clarice Lispector's "Love." A heads-up for future students: many others might also choose this text, as it has been a popular choice in my batch and previous ones. Nothing particularly stood out to me in this assignment; it felt like a routine close reading exercise.
The second and final full-length assignment offered students more freedom. I opted for the Creative Comparison option (of three options), which allowed us to integrate two different text mediums into one. I decided to combine a scene from Wong Kar Wai's "Happy Together" (film) with Sonny Liew's "The Art of Charlie Chan Hock Chye" (graphic novel). Since I was taking several writing-intensive courses that semester, I felt relieved to have the opportunity to work on something illustrative. However, it's worth noting that we still had to write a 900-word close reading to explain our creative work.
Overall, Prof is charismatic, articulate and clearly knowledgeable in her field. She also really likes Shakespeare. However, I find that she can be quite strict when it comes to structure and formatting. Additionally, while her written feedback is helpful, there are instances where I wish it could be more detailed. Something to keep in mind, Prof also assigns five smaller written assignments (usually around 300-500 words each) throughout the semester in addition to the two full-length assignments.
Learning Outcome: 4/5
Workload: 3/5
Overall Rating: 7/10
Final Grade: A
HY1101E Asia and the Modern World (FASS, Lecture/Tutorial Style)
Lecturer: Dr Sayaka Chatani & Dr Jack Chia
Tutor: Tan Guan Fan
Even before enrolling in this module, I received warnings from several seniors that the introductory History course does not accurately represent the discipline as a whole. Consequently, I came into the course with moderated expectations. My primary criticism of the course stems from its broad scope, focusing on "Asia" and the "Modern" world. Given the vastness of "Asia" and the expansive timeframe of "Modern," it was challenging to construct a coherent narrative between lectures. Instead of following a chronology, each lecture adopts a thematic approach, covering topics such as religion, youth, and revolution. However, I acknowledge that as an introductory course, it would be unreasonable to expect an in-depth study of a specific period or country's history. I must give credit where it's due; the structure of the lectures was likely the best they could do. Regarding the professors, I didn't really form strong impressions. Prof Jack Chia injects humour into his lectures (some of which I don't always understand but still find amusing), while Prof Sayaka Chatani adopts a more serious but eloquent tone.
The tutorials provided a fun and engaging learning experience. As compared to the lectures, they were more structured and focused. Guan Fan organised us into small groups to discuss a series of primary sources during each session. I had the opportunity to form a small group of friends within the tutorial. The atmosphere was welcoming and conducive to listening to new perspectives. Guan Fan also provides incredibly detailed feedback, delving into even the minutest details. I recall receiving an extensive comment from him explaining the difference between an em dash and an en dash, and when to use each. Additionally, he meticulously examines every citation, a level of scrutiny that exceeds that of my professors so far.
Even though it feels odd to admit, my favourite aspect of this module was its assignments. Due to the remarkably broad scope of the course (as previously discussed), as long as a topic fell within the parameters of "Modern" and "Asia," we had the freedom to explore it.
For the first assignment, we were tasked with writing a 500-word Fictional Primary Source. This could take the form of a diary entry, letter, or report from the perspective of someone living in Asia until 1970. I chose to write about a child whose father was persecuted during the Sook Ching massacre in Singapore during the Japanese Occupation. Research for this assignment was both fascinating and harrowing as I delved into firsthand survivor accounts and testimonies from family members of Sook Ching victims.
The next assignment was a 1.2k Museum or Historical Site Review where we analyse how it represents and narrates an Asian past. I thoroughly enjoyed this assignment. It taught me to scrutinise and analyse the significance of every minute detail of a memory-making site, from the organisation of displays to the selection of exhibits and text panels. I selected an open exhibit at Fort Siloso for my review. What sets this site apart from many other WWII memorials in Singapore is its location within Sentosa, a tourist attraction. Instead of fostering a collective Singaporean narrative of shared hardships and reminding younger generations not to grow complacent in our defence — it sensationalises war through buzzwords, dramatic sounds, and extravagant wax displays.
The final assignment was a 1.8k Media and History Essay, where students had the option to select a non-scholarly article from a provided pool or choose their own (with prior consultation with our TAs). I chose an opinion piece from The New Yorker. While I won't delve into the specifics of my essay, I couldn't help but feel that requiring an article was somewhat redundant since we had to craft a formal research question independent of it anyway. This aspect appeared to just inflate my word count since I only made use of the article in my introduction as a segway to the the body paragraphs. After all, the instructions made it clear that our essay should primarily be built upon scholarly articles and primary sources. While the professors asserted that a non-scholarly article would provide us with a starting point, I observed that many of us worked in reverse. Most already had a topic in mind, and then had to search for an article that aligned with their research question. Nevertheless, the assignment was a good learning experience, especially in terms of research, corroboration, inquiry and analytical skills.
Learning Outcome: 4/5
Workload: 3/5
Overall Rating: 8.5/10
Final Grade: A
HY2232 Modern Japan: Conflict in History (FASS, Lecture/Tutorial Style)
Lecturer & Tutor: A/P Masuda Hajimu
I was enthusiastic about enrolling into this course, particularly because East Asian history has always fascinated me. I also believed that this course would complement another one I planned to take in Semester 2, focusing on modern China.
Professor Masuda Hajimu is a delightfully upbeat and, for a lack of a better word, "chill," instructor. He has a knack for explaining concepts in a clear manner. I can tell just how many times he has needed to teach this same course over and over again. What I value is his incorporation of diverse historiographical viewpoints, from traditional to revisionist narratives. Additionally, I appreciate his commitment to discussing marginalised groups and grassroots perspectives.
Tutorials were relaxed, and Prof often screened Japanese films, which was enjoyable. Though, since the classroom is on flat ground and I don't sit at the front, it was difficult to read the subtitles. One of the films he showed us was "The Eternal Zero," which sort of scarred me... I've always struggled watching war films. The film depicts the tragedies and sacrifices of Imperial Japan's Kamikaze pilots (suicide bombers). (Spoiler alert) The narration follows a pilot who really doesn't want to die. But after witnessing the countless deaths of his friends, amongst other struggles, he ultimately choses to sacrifice himself. He does so by exchanging his faulty plane with a close friend's last minute, compelling his friend to retreat mid-air, while he crashes into an enemy ship. That's really sad, isn't it! I would have cried, but I tried to appear disinterested by focusing on my laptop 😭. Nevertheless, at moments, it was somewhat unsettling to see a nationalistic and sympathetic portrayal of Imperial Japan.
The assignments were also quite enjoyable. The first was a 1k book review (20%), for which I selected "The Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere: When Total Empire Met Total War" by Jeremy A. Yellen. I recall speed reading through the book over the weekend before the deadline, finding it to be a highly engaging read. Additionally, I took the time to study previous book reviews written by Prof to gauge his standards and understand what he values in a book review, which helped me to carefully craft my own.
The second assignment was a 1.5k paper where we were tasked to examine a site of meaning-making (30%), focusing on the reconstruction and expression of memories during World War II. I chose to analyse the Former Ford Factory for this assignment. It was reminiscent of the museum review I completed in HY1101E, and my overall takeaways were similar.
We also had a take-home essay (30%), which turned into a bit of a fiasco for me. My parents had booked our holiday trip to Vietnam a little bit too early, so I ended up having to work on the essay during the plane ride.
Learning Outcome: 4/5
Workload: 4/5
Overall Rating: 8/10
Final Grade: A
GEA1000N Quantitative Reasoning with Data (NUSC, Lecture/Tutorial Style)
Lecturer: A bunch of people I forgot
Tutor: Dr Kyeonghi Baek
GEA1000 is a compulsory NUS course for many. GEA1000N is another version of the same course under NUSC, but more. "More" in terms of what? Aside from the doubled tutorial time compared to GEA1000, I have absolutely no clue. We have tutorials three hours every week. Oh my god... I'm completely unaware of what additional content justifies such a prolonged tutorial session every week in addition to pre-recorded lectures. I'm unsure why NUSC students get such "special treatment" in the very first place. GEA1000N is probably the most painful NUS course I have ever taken. To be fair, I've always struggled with mathematics and numbers, and during every tutorial, I felt really lost.
Prof Baek is an enthusiastic instructor who frequently employs relatable, real-world examples to elucidate mathematical concepts. She maintains an animated demeanour and strives to keep us engaged through the tutorial's insufferable duration. I truly value her dedication, and I feel bad for not meeting her standards.
In terms of the group project, I felt really bad for my teammates, especially because most of them came from STEM backgrounds, whereas I was one of the few FASS students along with another girl—although she appeared to be quite competent. I genuinely hope that I didn't hold anyone back. The quizzes held every other week were incredibly challenging; I often resorted to trial and error just to achieve full marks. As for the final exam, I found it to be extremely tricky. While there were fewer steps compared to the quizzes, I didn't find it any less difficult. Honestly, I don't have much to say about this course. In fact, it's a miracle I actually passed.
Learning Outcome: 2/5
Workload: 3/5
Overall Rating: 4/10
Final Grade: B (SU-ed)
.png)
Comments
Post a Comment