NUS AY 2024/25 Semester 1 Course Review (Y2)

 

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: 

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). 

Introduction:

I’ve been holding off writing this semester’s course review because it was… traumatising. 

HY2237: The U.S.: From Settlement to Superpower (FASS, Lecture/Tutorial Style) 

Lecturer & Tutor: Dr Masako Hattori

I chose this course because I knew an embarrassingly elementary level of U.S. history prior. In hindsight though, I sort of regret taking this course. Partially, because all my friends chose to take other HY courses, so I was really lonely. But also, I felt that I’ve taken better 2k HY courses?

Lectures were alright... There’s really not much I can say, apart from that, it truly was, a lecture. Tutorials were structured such that we split into groups of 4-5 to discuss about three primary sources which we would then write on the white board. There was no segment for us to present our ideas to the class. Prof would just read what we wrote, agree, and maybe add a bit of her own insights. The thing is, there’s really not much I can criticise. However, because I keep comparing my experiences to past HY courses,  somehow the quality just feels vastly different. 

I think what was lacking in this course was the “so what?” factor. For example, I recall in one lesson, Prof was explaining the role of Ronald Reagan, saying things how he cut costs here—which was bad, shut down certain departments—which was bad. Reagan is a very polarising figure in U.S. history, but even the next person can admit that he was elected for a reason. So, explain the rationale; the political climate of the time. He didn’t just pop up from nowhere. Tell me—why did those who supported Reagan support him. And why did those who rejected him, reject him? Many questions were left unanswered, leaving a shallow version history. 

I didn’t really appreciate the assessments either. 20% came from two in-class tests. Maybe it’s just my Singaporean-ness speaking, but I believe the fairest way to grade non-essay questions is by assigning one point to each component of a standardised marking scheme. Each test comprised three identification questions worth 10 marks each, alongside one essay question worth 20 marks. That makes a total of 50 marks per test. On the surface, this setup might seem pretty standard, right? Yup, sure does, until you realise the entire test is only 25 minutes long. Think about it: 50 marks in 25 minutes means you have roughly 30 seconds to earn each mark. My concern, then, lies in how arbitrary the marking becomes under these conditions. I also wished she gave us lined paper. 

Other assessments included a primary source analysis paper (25%) and a final paper (25%). With regards to the former, we were to identify primary sources about a specific event, analyse it, and narrate the historiography around the topic. I chose to write on the internment of Japanese Americans during World War Two. With regards to the latter, we were to pick a specific theme (?) in U.S. history and choose three periods to narrate the theme on. Prof explicitly said that this assignment required little to no secondary research on our part; that our lecture slides, textbooks and class readings sufficed. It was kind of underwhelming considering this was the final assignment. She informed me that the assignment was more of a narration task rather than an argumentative piece. My worry was my work reading off as a Wikipedia article. The theme I ended up with was the role of women in war-time America. 

There was also this thing, where Prof kept releasing us really early (like, 30-45 minutes kind of early) from lectures, and totally cancel some tutorials. I’ve attended a total of three tutorials for this course, which is crazy considering tutorial participation was worth 25%. 

If there’s anything I liked about this course, it was how short our course readings were. And that’s not to say they were of poor quality. Our readings consisted only of primary sources—letters, diary entries, speeches, and the like. They were succinct, yet emotionally poignant, which effectively reflected the era and climate they represented. 

Moreover, learning U.S. history has helped me better understand the American psyche. I’ve noticed a growing trend these days for many people to clown on Americans—such as their lack of geographical knowledge, their self-centered (?) mentality and gun laws. Even some Americans I’ve met come off as pretty self-deprecating. But learning American history has helped me understand (not defend) the way they think. 

Though, if there’s anything you should take away from this review, it’s that you can learn all or more the course’s contents by reading The American Yawp—an online textbook. 

Learning Outcome: 2/5 

Workload: 3/5 

Overall Rating: 6/10 

Final Grade: A

PH2222: Greek Philosophy (Socrates and Plato) (FASS, Lecture/Tutorial Style) 

Lecturer & Tutor: Dr Abelard Podgorski

This was one of my favourite courses I took this semester (unlike logic, because, what was that). Socrates was such a cool guy. I also knew nothing about Socrates or Plato before this course. Although Socrates' tone in the dialogues can often seem harsh or confrontational, his unwavering commitment to intellectual humility and his belief in studying philosophy as the foundation of virtue remain profoundly relevant—perhaps now more than ever.

Every lecture, Prof would go through the main arguments of one of Plato’s Socratic Dialogues. If the reading is too long, he would span it over two lectures. We were to complete the required readings before each lecture, and the reading quiz (15%, to be completed at 2359 the day before the lecture) kind of forces you to do so. They're really manageable though; only 2-3 questions per reading. 

In tutorials, we would form groups of about 5 and Prof would conduct some little exercise that would usually train us on how to form logical arguments and familiarise ourselves with Socrates’ beliefs. 

Prof is very chill yet very passionate about Socrates. He also explains complex arguments in very a simple and relatable way. I would always have that eureka moment every time Prof elucidates something that I hadn’t noticed myself reading the dialogue prior. His lecture slides are easy to follow, and he often incorporates his own humour, usually through pop culture references (like video games or movies). 

Throughout the course, we had class participation and an online forum participation (20%). Our first actual assessment was a dialogue reconstruction (20%). We were to choose a text from a pool of texts sourced by Prof. They weren't Plato's Socratic dialogues, but are structured as such. Our task was to extend a chosen part of the dialogue such that it resolves a dilemma or argument. The text I chose was "The Grasshopper" by Bernard Suits, in which a dying Grasshopper justifies why he would rather die than live a life of work, like the ants.

Our second assessment was to write our own dialogue full-sail (25%). I chose to write a conversation between a dog and a cat, debating whether it is just to have special obligations toward certain individuals. It was surprisingly time consuming. 

Lastly, for the final examination, we were tested on Socrates’ main beliefs, or the Socratic views (there were about 30?) Here, Prof would craft certain scenarios and we were to identify whether Socrates would agree or disagree, and why. 

Overall, this course is very accessible to those who have no experience with Philosophy. It's very fun and thought provoking! I recommend it. 

Learning Outcome: 4/5 

Workload: 3/5 

Overall Rating: 9/10 

Final Grade: A

GET1028/GEX1014: Logic (FASS, Lecture/Tutorial Style) 

Lecturer: Dr. Neil Barton

Tutor: Ryan Tan Yu Kit

It really takes practice to get the hang of logic, especially first order logic. It’s embarrassing to admit, but I found it very, very difficult. Truth tables were pretty easy to grasp, and I scored decently well in the mid-term examination as that was all they tested (30%). However, the finals (30%) only consisted of first order logic... and it was a disaster. in hindsight, I really should have done more practice questions.

There were four quizzes spread throughout the semester (20%). With unlimited attempts, everyone ends up with full marks, but they’re really helpful for practice. Tutorial participation (20%) might seem like it's worth a lot, but as long as you make an effort to participate, you receive full credit. 

I only attended lectures the first couple of weeks, until I realised just referring to the textbook sufficed. Though, I still recommend browsing the lecture slides as Prof simplifies the contents and you also get a better gist on what he may be focusing on for the exams. Prof was approachable, not that I ever approached him, but I’ve seen many who do. He seems very willing to help students. 

Tutorials were structured such that we were split into groups of about five to work on problem sets—which would then be presented to class. Our tutor, Ryan, was helpful and would go around the classroom to ensure we were on track. He also explains things very intuitively and efficiently. 

Not going to lie, I felt like a perpetual fool throughout this course. I took logic because I was considering taking Philosophy as a second major, and doing logic is a requirement for that. Looking back, I should have just taken it in Year 1 and made use of my SU’s. My humble advice is that if you’re a Year 1 thinking if you should take this in Year 2—don’t. It’s not worth it. Save yourself and use your SU on this course… 

To get a better gist on what you'll be working with, refer to the below:

Learning Outcome: 3/5 

Workload: 2/5 (LOW POINTS BECAUSE I FIND IT DIFFUCLT, WORKLOAD IS ACTUALLY VERY LITTLE) 

Overall Rating: 6/10 

Final Grade: A-

NGT2001J: Global Social Thought (NUSC, Seminar Style)

Dr. Benedek Varga

This course was so mentally exhausting and I’m beyond relieved that it’s finally over. Not just because it was at 8 a.m. twice a week. It was incredibly poignant in addressing real-world issues and fast-paced. Though there is a lot of learning value, it’s not easy at all. It's, in my humble opinion, the most NUSC course of all NUSC courses.

One reason I found this course so exhausting was its heavy emphasis on class participation (25%). I honestly don’t know how everyone else manages to be so energetic at 8 a.m... Keeping up with the discussions was really mentally draining, especially since they often revolved around touchy current affairs. I felt as though I had to be extra mindful of how I phrased my thoughts, which required even more brainpower. 

The course content is split up into two parts. Firstly, Global Humanity investigates how conceptualisations of the human at the global scale emerge amidst planetary exploration and conquest. Secondly, Global Challenges asks how cosmopolitan ideas about human rights and global flows intersect with multicultural approaches that cultivate tolerance and acceptance of human diversity. I enjoyed the first part more than the second, because I sometimes felt like we were talking in circles for the second part. Though, I also have a bias to the authors in the first part heh.

Assessment wise, we had a pair oral presentation (20%) on a reading not of our choosing (the pairs were also randomised). Here, I realised how strict Prof was about the nitty-gritty details. A classmate had asked why the author chose to use a particular linguistic term. I didn’t know the answer, as all I knew was the term’s meaning, which I had defined already (the word was “third space of enunciation”). Prof pointed out that I should have taken responsibility for conducting more thorough research 😰.

We also had a mid-term examination (25%, in class, pen paper) which I sincerely don’t understand the point of… As in, I felt that it would have been a lot more effective to test our understanding through a mini project (viva voce or essay) that isn't restrained by a one and a half hour time limit. Also, every class was assigned different essay questions to prevent cheating. I wished it was standardised. In his feedback, Prof said my essay was strong at the beginning, but my counter argument superseded and weakened my main argument. 😰

The final project consisted of a 15-20 minute oral analysis video of a global issue (35%). We were to integrate readings from mainly part two of the course. Erm… I tried my best… 😰

Looking back, I carried a lot of pressure coming into this course. In all the humanities-coded NUSC courses I’ve taken so far, I somehow managed to secure an A. Part of me was determined to maintain that streak, no matter how unrealistic it seemed. But I couldn't 😰. It's kind of a sucky feeling knowing I couldn’t live up to that expectation.

Learning Outcome: 4/5 

Workload: 2/5 

Overall Rating: 7/10 

Final Grade: A-

NSS2001B: Science & Society (NUSC, Seminar Style)

Philip Johns

I felt like I was cheated taking this course (not that I had a choice since it’s made compulsory by NUSC). Are you Science or are you Society? I’d say the first month of the assessments was almost all science. What do you mean I need to know how to measure a pendulum swing and write a science report... I dropped physics when I was fourteen years old 😰. 

I have a slight bone to pick with the mid-term examinations. My class was the first in the cohort to take it, and we were informed that every test paper, even within the same classes, would be different. Well, they sure were—by 1-2 questions 😂. The structure of every test paper was identical, and even if the scenarios varied, the concepts you needed to memorise were the same. Naturally, word spread. The funny thing is, I genuinely studied for this paper, but it still went so horribly wrong.

I was quite consistently in the lower quartile for every assessment throughout this course. It was kind of funny how much I was flopping. After the mid-terms, I kind of... stopped trying because I realised it was more worthwhile to redirect my remaining energy elsewhere.

Prof is incredibly forgiving and patient, especially considering how more than half the class stares at him with our beady eyes, clearly lost. He’s a very nice person. I feel kind of bad.

My STEM friends also often complain about how poorly planned and sometimes factually inaccurate this NSS is. But honestly, given how lost I was, I couldn’t even tell. 

Oh yes, here’s the assessment breakdown. There’s so, so many. I’m not even going to try talking about them all:

Learning Outcome: 2/5 

Workload: 3/5 

Overall Rating: 5/10 

Final Grade: B+ (Intending to SU)