NUS AY 2023/24 Semester 2 Course Review (Y1)

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 😢. I also wrote the review before I got my final grades back, so you can guarantee that I'm not being biased!

Like the last review, my criteria for rating the courses are as follows: 

1. Learning Outcome (1 - Useless 🙄 / 5 - Enlightened 🤯) 
2. Workload (1 - Dying 😵 /  5 - Manageable 😌) 
3. 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). 

HY2207: The Struggle for Modern China since 1800 (FASS, Lecture/Tutorial Style)

Lecturer & Tutor: Dr. Jennifer YIP

This course covers the period from the decline of the Qing dynasty to economic modernisation under Deng Xiaoping. As I studied just a bit 🤏 of Chinese history in the past, I initially considered choosing a different 2K HY course, such as Ancient Greece (HY2263). Nonetheless, I followed through because I believed a university-level course could offer advanced insights and alternative interpretations of pivotal events. And it did! More importantly, modern China encompasses regions and an era that are highly relevant and significant today.

Lectures were structured and easy to follow, though topics were at times rushed. Apparently, the time frame covered by this course used to end at 1949 (founding of PRC). I assume that upon recently extending the time frame to cover up till the early 21st century, many details needed to be cut short. For example, in one week, we covered the White Lotus Rebellion, the First and Second Opium Wars, the Taiping Rebellion, and several other uprisings. These are major events that would typically warrant more than just a cursory glance to truly understand their gravity. Nevertheless, I think Prof did a commendable job of explaining each event within our limited time. 

Although the contents of the lecture are often browsed over, it is during tutorials where in-depth discussions are held. Before each tutorial, we would be assigned several primary sources to read, and Prof would give each group different discussion questions. Here, Prof consistently made an effort to highlight the everyday struggles of ordinary people simply trying to survive in a tumultuous era — hidden beneath the broader political narrative presented during lectures. I thoroughly enjoyed tutorial sessions more than lectures and managed to make some friends there. 

The assignments were alright, but I was pretty upset about doing a written mid-term examination (20%). It consisted of answering several identification questions and writing one mini-essay. I thought I had put memorising historical facts behind me, but I guess it follows me into university 😭. I get pretty anxious during exams, and my handwriting becomes atrocious under those conditions, so I much prefer continuous assessments.  Following this, we were to write a 1,200-word reflection essay on selected topics covered in certain weeks. (15%). Naturally, I chose the week with the shortest readings. The twenty-minute group presentation (20%) was truly a roller coaster ride. My group presented on the 1950 Marriage Law. Initially, I believed we were all in agreement when we divided the workload among the five of us. However, during our subsequent meeting, we discovered that some members had significant overlaps in research. This led to several hours spent on multiple calls attempting to untangle and reorganise a heap of information. Ultimately, I believe our efforts paid off as we managed to snag an A+!

For the final research paper (20%), I decided to write on Taiwan's supposed "nostalgia" for Japanese colonial rule. In any case, crafting this research paper proved to be incredibly time-consuming. For several days, I found myself stationed in a café (café make working more bearable!!!), poring over numerous sources; reading lines upon lines of text. At this point, I have written a fair number of university papers, but... the process never fails to be any less exhausting 😞 (maybe I just work slow idk). 

Prof Jennifer is a very nice and approachable lady who articulates her thoughts well. She is accommodating to her students' needs and strives to make class discussions engaging. I highly recommend this course whether you are interested in Chinese history or not. There are many meaningful lessons to take away!

Learning Outcome: 4/5

Workload: 3/5

Overall Rating: 9/10

Final Grade: A+

AN1101E Anthropology & Human Condition (FASS, Lecture/Tutorial Style)

Lecturer & Tutor: Dr. Ivan Kwek Eng Tai

I had no idea what exactly anthropology even was upon selecting this course. I had a vague idea of it being something like sociology but more people-focused (whatever that means 😔). From this introductory course, I believe anthropology is the study of human societies, where we examine intimate contexts from various communities across the world to "make the strange familiar and the familiar strange." 

The lectures were fine. Each week, we covered topics based on themes such as health, religion and environmental sustainability. However, I believe that within each lecture itself, points of discussion could be a little bit more organised. I sometimes found myself zoning out because the content lacked coherence. 

As is the usual case, I enjoyed tutorial sessions more than lectures. Originally, the course only held two tutorial slots during noon. However, due to the unprecedented number of sign-ups, Prof decided to open another slot at 8 a.m. every other Monday. Naturally, not a lot of people volunteered to transfer to this slot. My two friends and I, however, foresaw this and decided to volunteer in order to monopolise the lack of people. As a result, we were able to freely speak our minds in a more close-knitted setting. Discussions would often steer towards problems of existentialism, where it was refreshing to hear our Prof's opinion about otherwise unconventional topics. It's the kind of conversation I would have with friends in a café on a random afternoon. Although similar to lectures, I do feel that there is a general lack of direction, and tutorials end up being a (sometimes unproductive) yapping session. 

The workload for this course was less than I had expected? The first assignment was a reflection exercise (20%) where we answered anthropological inquiries posed after each lecture across the first five weeks. We only needed to submit three of our best ones, however. Naturally, I only wrote reflections during the first three weeks and submitted those. Next, there was a five-minute group presentation (30%) where my team was to work on the topic of religion. However, I was really confused why each group was only given five minutes to present. We could barely go in-depth with our findings. In our feedback, Prof told us we could have expanded upon several parts. But if we didn't have the time, such a request is impossible...  

Our final assignment was an ethnographic essay (30%). The site I chose to conduct research on was an amusement gaming arcade, Virtualand @ NEX. Specifically, I analysed the sociality surrounding arcade rhythm (or, motion sensing) games. This was one of the more fun assignments I undertook this semester. I even managed to gather a group of ten arcade enthusiasts to interview through friends' friends/siblings. Though, during fieldwork, it was extremely awkward visiting the arcade by myself as I sort of just stood there and stared at people, typing notes on my phone and taking an occasional picture. 

Prof Ivan is patient and accommodating. For the many unintelligent things I spout during tutorial, he will answer with utmost thought and sincerity. However, he can be quite ambiguous with assignment requirements. I heard from others that upon inquiring how we should approach an ethnography, he refused to give specific instructions as it would "limit our creativity." I sort of understand? But understanding that almost all of us have little to no experience with writing or conducting ethnographies in the first place (this is an introductory course after all), I suppose some form of guideline could assuage our worries. Nevertheless, this is also not a very crucial point of contention because we could just study existing ethnographies during our own time. 

Overall, I find anthropology to be very meaningful. You discover and interact with beings and places beyond your conventional understanding, and develop a profound sense of empathy for those "different" from you. However, I don't foresee myself pursuing this discipline in the coming semesters, as ethnographic fieldwork is rather exhausting (although, I'm sure there are those who make up fake data). I guess I also realised that I'm just not super interested in anthropology haha 🤐.

Learning Outcome: 3/5

Workload 4/5

Overall Rating: 8/10

Final Grade: A

GEX1015: Life, the Universe, and Everything (FASS, Lecture/Tutorial Style)

Lecturer: Ethan Jerzak

Tutor: Chia Zhi Heng

TLDR: I enjoyed this course! It's really interesting but the quizzes are really tricky (to me 😵). 

I had been eager to take the introductory Philosophy course since last semester, and I came in fairly optimistic. Philosophers have always struck me as somewhat distant figures, and I've long wondered about what practical contributions they make to the world (see my semester 1 review on NTW2037). My sister describes them as "professional yappers." Regardless, in my day-to-day, I do enjoy hearing people's perspectives on knowledge, reality, and existence. Hence, I also chose to take this course out of my own interest. This course really helped me gain respect towards Philosophy. To excel, one must possess exceptional logical reasoning and accuracy. I believe these traits hold immense value both within and outside the discipline.

I really struggled with the quizzes. I had falsely assumed based on past reviews and word of mouth that the course would be on the "easier" side as the workload is light. And the workload is pretty light! Weekly readings, lectures, quizzes (40%), 45-minute tutorials, and one final examination (40%). Yet, I never seemed to get the hang of doing the quizzes. The mean was somewhere around 2-3  points out of 6 or 7. I recall doing the quiz for the first time and getting a 1.33. They let you drop your worst two quizzes though, so it wasn't too bad... Though, sometimes, I think I felt really frustrated because it seemed as though I was never improving throughout the semester. As a result, this course had constantly been plaguing the back of my mind this sem due to the continuous process of sucking 💀. But it's really not that deep. It's chill... I'm chill like that...

The lectures were very interesting and enjoyable, with Prof explaining various concepts in a clear and engaging manner. Every week, we would delve into different philosophical topics such as relativism, God, and the problem of evil, goodness, and death. The syllabus offers an excellent survey of the discipline, providing a broad palette for students to sample and potentially explore further in future semesters. Lectures were also recorded, so I never showed up in person. 

With regards to tutorials, it's best if you pick a slot before the quiz is due. Mine was on a Friday, but quizzes opened and closed on Wednesdays. It would be to your advantage to have your tutor go through the week's content before you do the quiz; (Note: quizzes and tutorials for any given week will always cover the material from the previous week). Otherwise, tutorials were fine. While I'm not entirely familiar with NUS' workings, most students in my tutorial weren't FASS kids. I assume many were fulfilling some requirements and might not have been particularly enthusiastic about taking the course. Consequently, discussions were often dry, with many students hesitant to participate. Our tutor, Zhi Heng, would rotate between Kahoot quizzes and group discussions in each tutorial. After receiving answers from the class, he would ask if anyone could volunteer an explanation for their answer. Then, there would be frequent awkward silences as Zhi Heng stared at the class awaiting a response, while the class returned his gaze in silence.

Nevertheless, Zhi Heng is a calm and patient person. He is willing to set time aside to clarify questions from students. I frequently approached him after tutorials to enquire why my quiz answer was wrong (and it is usually wrong), and argue why it could be right (and it is still usually wrong). For some context, the course encourages students to challenge the quiz answers as there may be "alternative understandings of the question that make it genuinely ambiguous." Given that I'm already not doing so well in quizzes, I would really benefit from some extra points. Quizzes were worth almost half our grade after all. Though, I felt bad for tormenting Zhi Heng with my ignorance  😬.

The final examination was a lot less tricky than the quizzes in my opinion. During the examination, it also came to my attention, as I sat down at my assigned table, that it was the first time I had ever seen Prof in the flesh.

This course is thought-provoking and is suitable for individuals from all academic backgrounds. I really recommend taking it.

Learning Outcome: 4/5

Workload: 4.5/5 

Overall Rating: 8/10

Final Grade: A (update from future me: it's a miracle 😭😭😭???)

NSW2001A: Understanding the Social World: Singapore & Beyond (NUSC, Seminar Style)

Chee Han Lim

This course blends elements of political science, sociology, and anthropology – with a primary focus on Singapore-centric issues. I wasn't looking forward to taking this course. Now that I've completed it, I still don't really like it. My overall lack of interest in most topics, the disorganised nature of lessons, and Prof's sometimes questionable antics made me exceptionally unenthusiastic about attending lessons (it was held on Monday mornings too 😭).

I don't doubt Prof's intelligence. He says smart, insightful things. However, I can't help but feel there is a better approach to education..? On one hand, it's evident that Prof holds expectations of us. When our answers fall short, he dismisses them as "secondary school level." Additionally, he keeps our egos in check by noting that he grades a letter higher than he otherwise would to "align with contemporary university grading standards" — so we shouldn't feel too elated if we receive, say, an A- from him (because it's actually just a B+). On the other hand, no one can read his mind. No one can discern exactly what he wants. This applies both during seminars when he asks the floor questions and regarding his assignment expectations. Indeed, I don't believe teachers should hand students answers on a silver platter. However, his instructions are sometimes too cryptic. 

Additionally, Prof tends to get easily distracted about the topic at hand and frequently veers off onto tangents about his life, beliefs, or just about anything under the sun. However, I must admit that listening to his stories is usually very entertaining. He really does yap a lot about his life—and he does lead a very interesting one!

With regards to the class facilitation (10%), my group was the first to go. In an email, Prof said it should last for about twenty minutes, so we prepared accordingly. However, throughout our presentation, Prof was interrupting us every other sentence for his own input. While occasional questions would have been understandable, he often preempted information we had planned to discuss later, making it awkward when we reached those points. Consequently, our twenty-minute facilitation stretched to eighty minutes. Our sacrifice allowed the remaining groups to gauge Prof's style and adjust their presentations accordingly. 

During my Viva Voce presentation (25%), for some reason, Prof kept swinging a katana-like stick around and pacing around his room (I thought it was a mop, but a classmate insisted it was a katana). For better or worse, this assessment was conducted via. Zoom. Unfortunately, for some godforsaken reason, I wasn't able to close his Zoom tab, so I was sort of distracted by him throughout the assessment.

By the time I needed to work on the Site Visit Presentation (40% – 10% proposal, 30% final submission), my remaining stamina for NSW was on the brink. As a result, I didn't put as much effort into this assignment as I should have. 

I almost forgot to mention, but there were also quizzes about our readings on five selected weeks (15%). The readings were really long, so it was really time-consuming to prepare for them.

Unimportant, but I also occasionally get the feeling that I'm part of a social experiment whenever I'm in Prof's class. Perhaps it's because Prof is an anthropologist; the way he comments and observes us makes it feel as though we're subjects for his next ethnographic research paper on NUSC students — but I digress. 

Learning Outcome: 4/5

Workload: 3/5

Overall Rating: 7/10

Final Grade: A

HS1501: Artificial Intelligence and Society (CHS, Lecture only)

Lecturer: Prof. YU Chien Siang

Coordinator: Dr. WONG Tin Lok

I always forget that this course exists oopsies. I wouldn't go as far as to say that it's "useless." I believe it provides a good introduction to the problems of A.I. in our modern world and teaches useful A.I.-related terminology if you aren't already acquainted with it. Overall though, it was very bland – especially in comparison to the other courses I took this semester.

Firstly, many of the ethical lessons they teach are pretty self-evident. Secondly, the volume of technical terminology is nearly impossible to remember in the long run, so I've forgotten almost everything by the time of writing this. Thirdly, due to the lack of in-person engagement, I had long lost any semblance of pacing and sustained interest.

Lectures were held via. Zoom every other week at 8p.m. so I never showed up. Weekly quizzes (10%) were the sort where most would get full marks; you just need to read the given notes. The mid-term (20%) and final examination (30%) were open-book and fairly standard. I recommend downloading the professor's lecture slides in addition to the provided notes, as the exams occasionally include lecture-exclusive content not found in the notes. And then control-f 🚀. The individual project (40% – 10% proposal, 30% final submission) is a 20-page (PowerPoint) report on any A.I. topic of your choosing and is also possible to complete in one sitting. 

Overall, this course just wasn't a priority for me. I came into it with the intention of S/U-ing it. I'm sure it would be someone else's cup of tea though!

Learning Outcome: 3/5

Workload: 4.5/5

Overall Rating: 6.5/10

Final Grade: A- (S/Ued)

DTK1234: Design Thinking (CHS, Lecture/Tutorial Style)

Lecturer: A whole bunch of people I forgot

Tutor: Chia Xin Ying

I see the vision of what NUS was trying to do with this course, but I don't think it was executed very well... I fully support the concepts of understanding, observing, empathising, ideation, prototyping, and iteration. However, this course is almost no different from the methodological and rigid instructions we had long encountered during our secondary and JC days. The instructors constantly preach about "thinking outside the box," yet they proceed to give us quite literal boxes to think in. 

DTK is assessed continuously through Individual Learning Activities (ILA's) and Team-Based Workshops (TBW's). ILA's are to be completed every other week by filling up a PowerPoint worksheet during your own time. Similarly, TBW's are also conducted every other week but take place during tutorial sessions. 

It's almost as though the ILA's were designed to cultivate students to master the art of bullshitting. Every worksheet provides step-by-step instructions on how to further advance your prototype. However, the reflections are what really matter as they justify and substantiate your prototyping process — to prove you put deep thought behind it. Most reflection prompts follow a format similar to: "After [lesson taught by DTK], I realise that [stage of prototyping]..." Do the DTK committee members expect students to be honest? When grades are at stake, no one will risk criticising the lessons taught by the very people grading their work. 

The TBW's were somewhat better because of the arts and crafts session that was rather therapeutic. However, like the ILAs, they were still very "by the book." Moreover, I'm unsure if this is standard for all DTK tutors, but ours tended to be very talkative. Classes were comprised of about 70% instruction and 30% hands-on activities 😞 ... 

(Side note, I was updating this blog in April 2025 and I still think DTK is the most useless course I've taken at NUS).

Learning Outcome: 2/5

Workload: 3/5

Overall Rating: 5/10

Final Grade: A- (S/Ued)