AY2015/2016 Semester 1: EC3102, EC3351, EC3332, EC3303, SPH2106

EC3102: MACROECONOMIC ANALYSIS II

Description:
This module was generally not difficult to study. Everything in the syllabus can be found in the textbook, and the crux of the module was mainly learning about how the Solow model is derived. The lecturer, Professor Vu Thanh Hai, may be a little difficult to understand at times, so I generally preferred studying the textbook. Another option is watching the webcasts, so you can repeat when you cannot understand his teaching. Tutorials are based on the standard format of lecture summary and presentations of problem sets.

Assessment:
The assessment for midterms and finals was generally a few MCQs, some calculations using the production function, and short-answer questions that required graphs and explanation. The professor tends to take questions that are similar to the question bank for his tutorials and papers. It might hence be a good idea to look through some of the questions and answers in the test bank of the textbook.

Tutorial Attendance: 10%
Class participation: 5%
Mid-term Exam: 25%
Final Exam: 60%

EC3351: PUBLIC FINANCE

Description:
I took this module under Professor Chia Ngee Choon, the creator of the module. She told us that she had set up the module 15 years ago and designed the syllabus for it. Prof Chia is a really good teacher, and is quite well-known for teaching this particular module. I had students in my tutorial from Beijing University, and they had chosen to take her class based on their seniors’ recommendations. The module is therefore quite popular, and can go for a few hundred bid points. The class size is also rather small at 60 students.
The teaching of the module itself is somewhat different from other modules. Prof Chia’s style is for students to print and bring handouts, which she will then go through during lecture. Therefore, expect to be scribbling notes and drawing graphs during lecture. She will also give out readings and extra problems during lectures for students to complete on the spot. The problems are not graded, and she will walk around the LT to help students and answer any questions. She will then go through the problem with the whole class. It is therefore quite important to attend the lectures, especially because the webcast is not released until before midterm and final (to encourage students to come to lecture), and the textbook does not cover all the lecture material.

Tutorials are all taught by Prof Chia, and she generally will go around and look at students’ answers before choosing the students to present. The students she chooses often have the wrong answer or some common mistake that she will then explain to the class for everyone to learn. She is really nice, and will never press you to present if you choose not to do so. I have never felt her tutorials to be competitive, and have always enjoyed them.
In terms of the module material, we looked mainly at market failures, such as public goods and externalities, and government policies to achieve Pareto efficiency. Taxation is one main part of the syllabus. We also looked at political processes from an economic perspective.

Assessment:

The midterms and finals of this module are not easy. They are mostly application questions of the material learnt during class, and can be a little tricky. Therefore, to do well, you will have to be very sure of your concepts. The times given for the exams are also a little tight, so make sure you can draw graphs quickly and efficiently. A little trick discovered by me and my friends to draw indifference curves neatly and quickly is to bring a French ruler into the exam hall.

As for the project work, I found it to be much more taxing and difficult than the paper examinations. We had to complete a 25 page report and a presentation of a real-world issue, with possible resolutions using the concepts taught during class (e.g. tax redistribution). Analyzing real world data is highly recommended, although regression tables and graphs are a bonus and not necessary. I really recommend planning your time well to manage assignments if you aim to do well for the project, as it will definitely take up a lot of time and effort. Consultations with the prof are also helpful, although Prof Chia’s benevolent personality, may sometimes lead to confusion as to whether she really likes an idea or not. Regardless, she will warn you if she foresees major problems with your project.

Tutorial attendance/ participation: 10%
Mid-term: 20%
Project: 35% (including presentation and report)
Finals: 35%

EC3332: MONEY AND BANKING I

Description:
In this module, students learn economic analysis of the following: (1) the structure and role of financial institutions, (2) tools and conduct of monetary policy, including monetary theory. Topics include the role of money; financial structure; management of financial institutions; financial crises; financial regulation; interest rates; the money supply process; theories of money demand; conduct of monetary policy, role of expectations in monetary policy and the role of money in different macroeconomic frameworks.
This module generally involves mostly memorization work regarding the different factors and effects of monetary policy. It is not particularly difficult, but can be a little tricky. The professor, Dr. Seet Min Kok, is an entertaining lecturer and I enjoyed learning about how financial crises came about. Webcasts are available for this module.

Assessment:
Tutorials follow the standard format of problem set presentations. However, there happened to be a surprise assignment during the second half of the semester. It was included as part of the 20% tutorial participation, and the assignment question (short-answer question, not calculation) included material not directly derived from the lecture material.

For examinations, the midterm was very manageable, but the finals were quite difficult. I did not manage to finish the whole paper in time. Since most questions were short-answer questions, my advice would be to learn and remember your material well, and write shortly and succinctly.

20% for CA in tutorial participation
30% for closed book MCQ mid-term test
50% for closed book final examination.

EC3303: ECONOMETRICS I

Description:
The major topics covered in the module includes a review of probability distributions and statistical inference, rudiments of matrix algebra, classical linear regression model with two or more variables, estimation and hypothesis testing, and violation of classical assumptions and some remedial measures. It also includes a simple introduction into using Stata to run simple regression analysis.

The first half of the semester was really boring in this module because it mainly repeats material from EC2303. This is because other modules are accepted as pre-requisites to this module. Therefore, some students may not have learnt the basics that were covered in EC2303. Although I generally don’t recommend skipping lectures, I would say that the first three lectures of the module are unnecessary; unless you think you need a refresher course in EC2303 probability distributions and simple statistics. Also, there is always the wonderful option of webcasts. In general, the lectures were quite tedious because of the nature of statistics, although Prof Kelvin Seah did try to make it more interesting with his examples. However, if you are able to understand the textbook explanation, you are more or less covered for this module.

Assessment:
The tutorials are standard format of problem set presentations in class. Assignments were a little difficult, but manageable. Prof Seah requested group work for assignments, although he did not stop us from individual submissions. For the Stata part of the assignment, you will have to go the computer lab at AS7 to use the program. Alternatively, what I and my friends did was to read the assignment question beforehand, and research and write down the commands to be typed in. We ran the regression during tutorial, saved the results and brought it home to analyze. It saved us some time, but I’m not sure if it would have worked if the regression functions had been more complicated.

Moving on, midterm was ridiculously easy. There was MCQ and short problem sums with some explanations required. I think this was because we were the first batch of students taught by Prof Seah, so he decided to go easy on us. However, this led to a really steep bell curve of mean 45 and 75th percentile 47.5 out of 50. The Final was thankfully at a more challenging standard, but still manageable.

Tutorial participation: 10%
Homework: 20%
Midterm test: 30%
Final exam: 40%

SPH2106: Health in Later Years

Description:
This module is a very good introduction into the biology of aging in the human body and the needs of the elderly that arise because of it. It is really interesting, but can be off-putting for those without background in biology or psychology. I previously took PL1101E, so the material regarding The Aging Brain, overlaps with some of the material covered in this module. The module is conducted in a seminar style, with three hour lessons per week. There were three different lecturers that covered different parts of the syllabus, with different perspectives of aging based on the area of healthcare in which they are working in. Dr. Gerald Koh provides the medical knowledge regarding the biology of aging, while Dr. Fong taught more of the terminology looking at the population data of aging, while Dr. Lydia Seong provided perspective on the social effects and aspects of aging. Webcasts were made available for the module.

Assessment:
The one thing I did not like about this module was the project work. As there were three lecturers, all three designed separate project assignments, which the groups were then assigned. My group therefore got Dr. Koh’s project assignment, which was much heavier in content and breadth than that of the other assignments. Although I believe the unfairness in grading was ultimately corrected for, my group still had to put in a lot of extra effort into understanding and completing the project. Furthermore, Dr. Koh, as a practicing doctor, was the busiest of the three lecturers, and it was really difficult to arrange consultations with him. I have raised this issue through the school’s module review, so hopefully the problem will be resolved in the subsequent teaching of this module. This is especially since this module is actually really educational and helpful for those who intend to work in the healthcare sector.

In general, the examinations were very manageable, but memorization work is needed in order to do well.

Mid-term test: 15%
Class presentations and write-up: 35%
Final Exam: 50%

AY2014/2015 Semester 2: PS2245, GL2101, GL2103

PS2245: Southeast Asia Politics

This module focuses on the effects of democratisation for 3 SEA countries namely, the Philippines, Thailand and Indonesia. The lecturer, Yoshi, was really good and well-liked amongst all of the students. He teaches in a very systematic way and his powerpoint slides are informative and sufficient. However, there is much to study for this module, and I would advise you to make a consistent effort to review each week’s lecture content so that you don’t have to memorise too much during reading week. Also, it’s better to understand the concepts than to cramp everything in. All in all, it’s always a privilege to be taught by a passionate and awesome lecturer, but if politics is not your thing, you might have to risk one of your SUs for this module – give and take  

Assessment: 

Class participation: 20% – if you’re lucky enough, you’d ballot for the tutorial slot that is taught by the same lecturer. He’s even more awesome when teaching a smaller group of students and ensure that everyone has a chance to speak, so that we score in this area. 

Research Paper: 40% – This is a tough one. Choose the right topic, and please, analyse. Don’t give superficial/passing statements. Try to get your classmate to proofread the content of your report, if they’re nice enough. It should be fine cause this lecturer offered a wide range of topics, and during then, none of my friends did their research papers on the same topics as another. 

Final Exam: 40% – There were no surprises except that you needa manage your time well, and be able to write a coherent argument under a short 2-hour exam. 

Workload: 

The workload is fine, most of the readings weren’t that long. Would be better to study in groups, to discuss about the main arguments for the readings and lectures. 

GL2101: Origins of the Modern World 

I hate history. But this history module is an exception because it’s so interesting. It touches on new imperialism, world war II, the cold war period, slavery, etc. As the name of the module suggests, this module teaches the areas of history which point towards the origins of our modern world! Unfortunately, the lecturer, Akiko, only puts up key words in her powerpoint slides. Hence, if you’re a fast typer, I would suggest that you whip out your laptop and type down what she says during lecture, and piece them all together afterwards. The powerpoint slides alone is insufficient to score. Her words are therefore golden. 

Assessment:

Tutorial participation: 10%

Mid-term Test: 20% – exams are super analytical, so you cant just regurgitate your facts like how you would do in school prior to university. So, be prepared to be flexible and always answer your question, preferably in an argumentative manner. 

Writing project: 30% – I think it’s best to consult your tutor about your report because even as the lecturer states the specifics for this project, it can differ from what the tutor (who is your marker) expects from you. 

Final Exam: 40% – look at what is written for the mid-term test.

GL2103: Global Governance

Enjoyed this module. The lecturer was Nancy Gleason, but she’s no longer teaching this module. I heard that the previous module leader wasn’t as great, but Prof Gleason did a wonderful job here. Although I didn’t particularly enjoy the topic on environmental governance, I did enjoy learning about the UN, UNSC, genocides, IMF, WB, etc. It gives you a good idea of global governance, and a good foundation if you’d like to explore this area more in your undergrad years.

Assessment:

Report: 30% – Extensive research is needed for this! It’s like a mini-thesis I would say. For this, we were given the liberty to define our own report topics. And so, it’s really up to you!  AWESOME

Project Presentation: 20% – Good group mates are necessary to score… Likewise, it’s up to us to define our own presentation topics! 

Finals: 30% – Had to know all the readings, and then answer about global governance. 

Participation: 10%

AY2014/2015 Semester 2: SE1101E, SC2202, PS2237, PS2258, PH2202

SE1101E/GEK1008: Southeast Asia: A Changing Region

I took this module thinking it would be an easy option, but was (not-so-pleasantly) surprised by the workload this sem. While students were previously assessed based on a single individual essay, we were faced with an extremely time-consuming fieldwork project. There is a small plus point however – the content for this mod was rather interesting (especially if you have a penchant for anything Southeast Asian), and the lecturers were humourous and engaging. It may sometimes get too “fluffy” and vague (maybe that’s SEA for you), but that was okay since everything was neatly organized into clear and distinct topics.

 

Assessment

10%: tutorial attendance/ participation

50%: fieldwork project (25% for presentation, 25% for group paper)

40%: finals (MCQ, short answer questions, essay)

 

For the project, we were sorted into groups of 2-3 people and assigned a fieldwork location. Don’t bank on grouping with your friends because (depending on your tutor), you may not get to choose your group mates. Also, the fieldsite allocation is completely random, and done by drawing lots – good luck if you’re stuck with something a bit more difficult. 

 

We were given a few questions to guide our field study. Try to answer those questions as best you can (both in the paper and presentation), because you’ll be graded largely based on that. Observe, take pictures, and if there is a need, conduct interviews.

 

The final exam was a bit of a nightmare. The MCQ consists of a map section, and you’ll be expected to know the rough locations of countries, capitals etc. You’ll also have to read almost all (or at least scan) the readings, because they may test on the smallest of details in the MCQ. Although, I doubt anyone will have the time and willpower to plough through every single one of them. The short answer questions were killer as well. We were asked to give at least four examples for every question, so be prepared to mug as many as possible. Lastly, there was one essay (no options!) to complete. Again, examples are important and since the question requires that you draw on content across multiple topics, you basically have to study everything.

 

Workload

Being an intro mod, SEA studies definitely has an insane workload. I would say that unless you’re interested in majoring, think twice about taking this mod. You’ll have to be willing to spend a lot of time on the project, on top of your other more important core mods.

 

SC2202: Sociology of Work

I took this mod for the sake of my timetable, and wasn’t expecting anything much. So while I wasn’t exactly disappointed, this mod was so-so at best. The content wasn’t particularly interesting or eye opening. Main themes include capitalist production, gender and labour migration – plenty of dry general knowledge stuff/ stuff I encountered in other mods, with a few sociological theories inserted here and there.

 

That being said, lectures were well-structured and everything was straightforward and easy to understand (no difficult theories or concepts whatsoever). The lecturer did a fine job of dissolving the main ideas in readings. The amount of information disseminated was also comparatively little, so it made studying for finals easier.

 

Assessment

10%: tutorial participation

20%: 2 IVLE blog posts

20%: 2000 word memo

50%: finals

 

The blog component was easy enough – just produce two 250 word IVLE forum posts on any topic of your choice, and reply to posts made by others. I think the downside is that it’s hard to score well, unless you can think of a novel topic vastly different from the rest.

 

However, the lecturer’s requirements for the 2000 word memo were vague, and left me feeling very confused. Rather than a specific essay question, we were given a few broad topics to choose from (e.g. labour migration), and were expected to “organize the readings around a central argument”. I wasn’t sure what the lecturer was looking for – “organizing” seemed to imply summarizing and explaining, like what you would do in an exam. Furthermore, there didn’t seem to be much room for me to challenge or add on to the arguments presented in readings (since they were more factual, and not really contestable). I guess we were supposed to come up with an entirely original argument, but I ended up producing a part-rehash of the readings, and didn’t do so great. I wish the lecturer had given out more explicit requirements. It would have been better if there were actually real questions, so we can construct an argument for/ against something, instead of creating a random one based on a super-broad theme.

 

The finals consisted of three sections: quotation interpretations, short answer questions and an essay. Questions were direct and relatively simple; just regurgitate the material. Quite a few people even left the exam hall early – I guess that meant it really was easy (and maybe not so healthy for the bell curve?). Based on the lecturer’s answer guide, however, I had the impression that her marking style was quite rigid. Be careful to include only the relevant content, and cover all possible aspects of the questions.

Workload

This module is light- moderate. The content and assignments were perfectly manageable, and the teaching style was not bad, even though I didn’t feel like I learned loads of new or interesting stuff. My main gripe is with the marking style/method of assessment, especially the memo.

 

PS2237: Introduction to International Relations

I didn’t enjoy this mod that much, but it nevertheless provided a good foundation for future IR mods. I thought IR would be a bit more colourful with country case studies, but I was mistaken. The focus was on familiarization with the key theoretical concepts, so it can get a bit boring. The readings provided many examples, but I think we probably weren’t expected to know all of them in the exams. Demonstrating in-depth understanding of the theories seemed most important.

 

The lecturer was okay – very knowledgeable, funny and he uploads short summaries on IVLE. However, he goes very fast in lectures (and tends to ramble) so it may be difficult to follow at times.

 

Assessment

10%: tutorial participation

30%: two 900 word essays

25%: midterms

35%: finals

 

We were given four essay questions to choose from (due at different times), so that gave us the liberty to plan according to our own work schedules. You absolutely must read the relevant readings for the essays (one reason being you’ll need to cite). For the midterms, we were given a list of six possible questions to prepare beforehand; for the finals, twelve questions. Some of them were really, really hard and I hadn’t the slightest idea how to answer them. Luckily, the lecturer was tremendously kind when setting exam questions. For both the midterms and finals, he came up with the simplest and most direct questions from the lists. I’m sure everyone was very grateful.

 

Workload

I would say the workload for this mod is quite heavy. There were plenty of long readings to complete. While I don’t think it necessary to read them all, it’s good to read those you deem important. Or risk feeling completely lost during lectures and for the essays.

 

Studying for the finals was tough to say the least. There was a lot of content to cover, and the possible questions weren’t easy at all. It’s even worse when you’re desperate, and waste time trying to decide which topics to drop. On the bright side, final exam accounts for only 35% of your grade, so you don’t have all your eggs in one basket. Doing well for the CA will definitely help.

 

PS2258: Introduction to Political Theory

I didn’t have high hopes for PT, and took this mod only to fulfill my major requirements. While the experience wasn’t horrible, it wasn’t necessarily great either. By the end of it, I could definitely proclaim myself not a fan of PT. Before I start pointing out the negatives, I must say that the lecturer is new to NUS. He’s always asking for feedback and ways to improve, so you can probably expect something better in the future.

 

The amount of content was overwhelming, even for an intro PS mod. I felt that the syllabus was way too packed – plenty of topics, and more breadth over depth. The lecturer seemed to want to cover as many ideas as possible, but there just wasn’t enough time to address them well. It was also too much to study, and I had to filter and sieve out the not-so-important (or so I assume) stuff. I appreciate the lecturer’s efforts in giving us more background knowledge, but it became difficult to absorb. This is especially so for PT, where the ideas are much more abstract. Not to mention the readings, most of which are in such terribly convoluted and sometimes archaic (I’m looking at you, Hobbes) language you’ll feel like tearing your hair out. I would much prefer depth, emphasis on a few major concepts, and a more streamlined syllabus to alleviate my suffering.

 

Syllabus aside, the lecturer is actually quite good. He was always clear in his delivery, and his presentation slides were rather useful. Problem is, he doesn’t upload his slides. Lectures also go like the wind sometimes, so it’s nearly impossible to copy everything on the screen.

 

Assessment

20%: tutorial participation

30%: two essay papers

50%: finals

 

Marks for tutorial participation came mostly from a presentation we had to give (either individually or in pairs). Rather than a summary of the readings, the lecturer expected us to analyse them and bring something new to the table. I’m not sure if we managed it, but we did come up with fairly decent discussion questions.

 

Completing the two papers was really a struggle. We were given only a week to write the 1000 word paper (10%); two weeks for the 2000 word paper (20%). There wasn’t really enough time, and the difficulty of the questions made things worse. I believe I tried to analyse and elaborate on my points, but turns out that wasn’t enough. Perhaps such is the nature of PT: you must really know what you’re writing (no throwing smoke here), and be sure not to leave any gaps in knowledge, or undefined terms in your essays.

The finals consisted of an ID section and an essay. Almost anything can come out for the ID, so it’ll be very risky to drop topics. The essay questions (three options) were tough as well, and they were narrowly based on specific topics. To survive, you can’t spot topics.

 

Workload

This mod is definitely heavy, and even burdensome if you don’t like PT. If you have an interest in the subfield, however, do consider taking this mod because it will expose you to many critical ideas.

 

PH2202: Major Political Philosophers

This was my first ever Philo mod, and it certainty sparked my interest in the discipline. It raises pertinent questions of distributive justice – why and how resources should be spread across society. Should we maximize total happiness (utilitarianism), benefit the disadvantaged (Rawls), or focus on protecting the individual liberty (Nozick) of people? All of these make for very good discussion, and really forces you to think.

 

We had a great lecturer – very experienced, humourous with a knack for storytelling. He also knew exactly how to explain difficult concepts, in simple ways that wouldn’t confound students.

 

Assessment

10%: tutorial participation

30%: essay

60%: finals

Personally, I adored the “no frills” style of assessment, with only one 2000 word essay and final exam to tackle. However, I spent loads of time trying to get the concepts right, so it definitely wasn’t a walk in the park.

Workload

The workload was moderate, but it could be harder if like me, you have no prior exposure to Philo. The lecturer is retiring this sem, and I don’t know if they’ll still be offering this mod. But here’s to many more great mods to come!

AY2014/2015 Semester 2: BSP1005, MKT1003, DSC2006, ACC1002, GEK1527

BSP1005: Managerial Economics

This is a compulsory module for acc/biz students. If you have taken H2 Economics before, do not rejoice just yet. Around more than half of the content is new, with a heavy emphasis on Game Theory. While there is the usual introduction of demand and supply, elasticities, taxes and subsidies etc, this course goes a lot more in depth. This module is very calculation-based, so forget about those long essays from the bygone era of H2 Econs. Brush up on your mathematics, especially differentiation and simultaneous equations. That being said, the calculations are relatively simple, understanding the concepts and formulas is key towards scoring well in this module.

The lecture is split between two lecturers, Prof Yang Nan and Prof Seunggyu Jung. The former is in charge of microeconomics, while the latter dwells on Game Theory and behavioural economics. I had a hard time understanding Prof Jung’s Korean accent, but towards the end of the course I got used to it and found him to be generally quite an engaging lecturer who focused greatly on the conceptual understanding of his topics. Prof Yang Nan is generally ok, although he can get quite monotonous at times.

The bell curve for this module is AWFUL. Despite doing very well for the group problem sets, case presentation, and class participation, my final grade was still less than desired. I suspect that in order to get a good grade, one must get full marks/close to full marks on the final examination. However, do not be too deterred from taking this module, as I found the content to be quite engaging and useful, and the professors tried very hard to make the syllabus more business-oriented. There is no need to buy the textbook (as stated explicitly by the prof), the lecture notes are more than enough to help you with your revision.

Assessment:

• Problem sets – 20%
• Case presentation – 10%
• Class participation/attendance – 10%
• Finals: 60%

Workload:

The workload for this course was moderate. Although my group of 6 people had 2 slackers, the rest of us were still quite dedicated so group work was quite painless overall. We were the first group to present (case presentation), so we got that out of our way quite early. The case presentations get harder as the weeks go by, so be sure to choose one of the earliest slots.

As for the problem sets, they were quite burdensome but on the bright side, its done together as a group. If you’re able to do these sets on your own efficiently, you probably won’t have much problem during the final exam. As such, it’s important to do the problem sets on your own and then corroborate answers with your group mates in order to get sufficient practice.

As stated earlier, the bell curve for the finals is super steep, so aim for full marks if possible.

The micro economic questions were easy, but the game theory questions were very challenging (much harder than those from the problem sets). It really tests your understanding of the concepts, so there’s no point in memorising mindlessly. In fact, a cheat sheet is allowed into the exam, so it can act as a failsafe in case you forget important formulas.

MKT1003: Marketing

While marketing is one of those things that does not require a degree to excel in, this course was nevertheless quite useful and practical. The lecturer, Prof Ang Sween Hoon, did a fantastic job in making the course interesting and engaging. Her teaching style actively encouraged student interaction, while at the same time creating a relaxed environment for discussion. She also includes real-world examples frequently, which helped to better solidify our understanding of the subject.

Overall, I found this course quite enjoyable, mostly because of the great lecturer. The bellcurve was also not as bad, so I did quite well for this module.

Assessment:

• Subject Pool Participation – 10%
• Group Case (Content) – 15%
• Case Competition (Content) – 20%
• Group Case or Case Comp Presentation – 10%
• Individual Class Participation – 30%
• Discussive Participation – 20%
• Finals Quiz – 25%

Workload:

The course material is actually quite light, but a significant portion of the module is taken up by the main marketing project, which is split into two parts – the case study and the case competition. Unfortunately, I had group mates that were very uninvolved, which made the general process very painful as I had to do both the presentation slides and the report by myself. Hence, it is of utmost importance to choose the right group mates. As for class participation, it is important to speak up during class, and more importantly, to say things of value (i.e. don’t bullshit). Finals were all MCQ, but the questions were VERY difficult and tricky.

DSC2006: Operations Management

Although the course material appeared rather daunting, this was actually one of the modules that I scored better in. There is a significant amount of math involved, so do brush up on your H2 maths, mainly the statistics part. Thankfully, there is no calculus needed, so say goodbye to differentiation and integration. In fact, I would compare the math in the module to that of physics, where your understanding of the concept is of vital importance. The actual formula and mathematical calculations are not very complicated, but it is essential that you can identify clearly the variables needed.

The lecturer we had was Lucy Chen, and she did an okay job overall. While there were a few topics that she failed to explain clearly, the other topics were taught quite well. She also tried to bring in real life examples to her lectures, which helped a lot in contextualising the lecture materials.

I would recommend this course to those who wish to start their own business someday, as it definitely helped me to see certain business processes in a new light. For acc/biz students, this is a compulsory module, and I can see why that is so. Although I may not go into operations management as a career, I can foresee that the knowledge I gained from this course would benefit me greatly in future.

Assessment:

• Class participation – 10%
• Group project – 30%
• Finals: 60%

Workload:

The workload was manageable, even though there was a group project involved. For the project, we had to pick out a theme within operations management and subsequently select 10 scholarly articles on that topic and write a report on it. My group mates were luckily all quite responsible and did their work well, so our project was relatively smooth sailing. As for class participation, my tutor would note down whenever someone answered a question, so it is best to come prepared to tutorials. Finals was actually all MCQ, which is actually a bad thing, since you wont get any “error carried forward” or extra/pity marks for your working if your final answer is wrong. However, the bell curve was probably not as steep, which explained why I did better for this module.

ACC1002: Financial Accounting

I took this module in Semester 2, and the lecturer was Professor Winston Kwok. He is truly a gifted educator, as he was able to make the material interesting and accessible to all. I have nothing but good words to say about him, and he is truly deserving of winning the teaching award for many years in a row. His sense of humour, while odd, definitely helps to make each lecture more lively and entertaining. I actually looked forward to his lectures every Wednesday at UTown.

HOWEVER, the bell curve for this module is absolutely killer, and as said by the man himself, “in order to receive the A grades for this course (i.e. A+, A, or A-), the students must have received either full or close to full marks for the test and participation, as well as very high marks for the exam.  In other words, students who did very well for the mid-term test might not get any of the A grades if their participation and exam were not also among the highest scores.”

The course material was actually not very difficult, given that this is a level 1000 module. None of the concepts were difficult to understand, and the content covered in this module was not too much to handle. To score well, it is important to be able to do the questions quickly and efficiently, and sincerely hope that your peers don’t do as well as you.

Despite all this, do not feel discouraged to take this module. Even if it may have a negative impact on your CAP, its intrinsic value is obvious, and I definitely learnt a lot about the internal finances of businesses. If you’re an accountancy/biz student, then this is a compulsory mod for you. For others, I still highly recommend this course, as it would definitely help with one’s financial literacy and would come in useful if you ever want to start your own business someday.

Assessment:

• Class participation: 20%
• Mid Terms: 25-30%
• Finals: 45-50%

Workload:

The workload was actually very light, as there was no group work or extra projects. The only work needed was the weekly tutorials, but make sure to be prepared as the tutor may pick on you to answer. Then again, most people were competing to answer questions in order to fulfil their class participation. I was able to get the professor as my tutor, but I felt that he was not very fair when picking students to answer, as he kept picking this one guy most of the time. Although I tried to participate at least once or twice during each tutorial, my class participation was deemed “below average”, which was rather discouraging.

It is important to not slack off and work consistently, although such advice can be applicable to almost any subject.

GEK1527: Genes and Society

Only take this module if you have taken H2 Biology in JC. If not, the extremely steep bell curve would put you in an even more difficult position. For acc/biz students, it is compulsory to take a science GEM/GEK module, and I made the unfortunate mistake of selecting this one.

The lecturer, Lam Siew Hong, was very passionate but did a poor job of teaching the course content. Despite starting each lecture with much gusto, he nevertheless did not organise the lecture material well, and students are left to themselves to decide which information is important and which is not. As such, I can see how this can be quite difficult for those who have not taken H2 Biology before.

I did try to attend the lectures in the beginning, but honestly they were of zero use to me. After all, not everyone can teach, and simply knowing the material well doesn’t make one a good teacher. As such, I skipped most of the lectures and studied on my own.

Assessment:

• Continuous assessment – 40%
• Finals – 60%

Workload:

For a GEM/GEK couse, the workload is actually disproportionately heavy even though there were no tutorials, much to my irritation. The continuous assessment, which takes up 40%, is split into 4 assignments and several in-class questions. If you happen to skip lectures, make sure your friends help you to take down the in-class question. The assignments, which add up to 34%, were a great burden, requiring an incredulous amount of time and effort. For example, we had to design and craft a brochure to increase awareness on intersex, and also write a long essay on the government collection of genetic data. Finals were all MCQ, and a relative breeze. However, it appears that they like to test seemingly obscure and irrelevant knowledge, which only furthered my dislike for this module.

Overall, I would not recommend this module to anyone, as it is simply not worth the effort, and more importantly, the final grade you get would hardly justify the time you put in.

AY2014/2015 Semester 2: JS1101E, EC2101, EC2102, EC2303, PL1101E

JS1101E: Introduction to Japanese Studies

This module briefly introduces students to the historical beginnings of Japan in the Jomon Culture, through the Heian era, the warring states, Tokugawa, Meiji and World War Two. Beyond merely history, it also explores the cultural and philosophical aspects of Japan. For example, the idea of Japanese-ness in the discussion of cultural identity, and the role of excluded ‘foreigners’ within such a self-proclaimed homogenous society. It also briefly touches on the changing gender roles within the Japanese culture. This includes not just within the society as a whole, but also between social classes. In general, I found the syllabus of the module to be quite broad and eye opening. However, it would have benefited with a little more depth in exploring the issues discussed.

Content aside, the lecturer Dr. Scot Hislop was entertaining in his delivery of lectures. Unfortunately, this positive aspect was overshadowed by several negative factors.

First, the lecture slides are not released before the lecture. Second, there is very minimal information on the slides itself. Imagine one sentence on one slide and you would not be far off. Third, lectures are not webcast so you have to studiously take notes during lectures. These three points may be off-putting but not too much of a hassle for a diligent student if not for the unfortunate circumstance, in which you cannot trust anything Dr. Hislop says in lecture as factually accurate. Dr. Hislop himself will tell you that he delivers off the cuff, and believe me, this is no lie. At this point, you may be considering the intelligent strategy of skipping lecture altogether. However, allow me to point out how highly risky that would be, since Dr. Hislop does actually design questions on the final exams based on what he talks about during lecture.

Assessment:

• Module assessment consists of tutorial participation – 10%
• IVLE forum participation – 10%
• Project (outline + final report) – 30%
• Final MCQ Exam – 50%

Tutorial participation in this module simply required general discussions on ideas mentioned in lecture. Class participation was not particularly competitive in nature.

As for the forum posts, any and all topics were welcome as long as it was related to Japan. The key element of doing well for this was merely doing sufficient research to back up whatever arguments or opinions you had on the subject. 1 or 2 academic sources per post is good enough. Also, although Dr. Hislop claimed that it is quality not quantity that counts in the forum, it is advisable to write at least 2 posts in the semester – one to begin a discussion thread, and one in reply to an existing discussion.

With regards to the project work, try to start early. However, do not be overly concerned with it, since it will ultimately boil down to your tutor’s preference on the topic being discussed and his evaluation of your group’s performance. This is especially since each group is presumably doing different topics of their choice, so there will be less to no direct comparison between different group reports.

Lastly, for the Final exam, you should know your acts and the big ideas. Most importantly, read the questions carefully.

Workload:

2 lecture hours per week. 1 tutorial hours per week. 0 lab hours per week. 3 hours for projects, assignments, fieldwork etc per week. 4 hours for preparatory work by a student per week.

The bulk of the workload is mainly the weekly readings (maximum 3 articles) and the time needed for the group report. I have found that little preparation is actually needed for tutorials as long as you have been following the readings and lectures through the semester.

EC2101: Microeconomic Analysis I

This is a core module for Economics majors. It comprises of basic principles on how to compare and maximize the utility of consumers for different types of goods (i.e. normal or inferior), minimize the cost of producers and market competition (perfect competition and monopoly). The theories themselves are quite simple, but the questions tested in tutorials, midterm and the final exam will really require a thorough understanding of them and acute critical thinking. To be honest, half the time I had no idea on even how to begin approaching the question. However, most people are in the same boat as you, so my only advice would be to work hard and consistently, and pray to the bell curve to save you. (Of course, this situation could always be due to my humbly inadequate level of intelligence, so I shall leave the conviction of judgment to your good sense.)

The lectures for this module are clear and concise, courtesy of Dr. Zhang, so no worries there. Also, as are most economics modules, the lectures are webcast. Tutorials are difficult, so make sure you revise after lecture and try to do them properly. There are usually not enough questions in all the tutorials for repeat presentations, so make your one tutorial presentation count. (Tutorial presentation refers to the presentation of your answer to a particular question to the class. This accounts for 5% of your entire grade, or half of your tutorial participation – refer to Assessment below.)

Assessment:

Homework, 15% Participation (tutorial), 10% Midterm Exam, 25%  (Starts at 6:30 pm, date TBD, could be on 2 March, 3 March, or 4 March. Those with conflicting schedules will be offered a makeup midterm.) Final Exam, 50%

In my opinion, the bell curve for this module has been very steep. During the midterms, the difference between the median (i.e. 50^th percentile) and 75^th percentile was a mere 3 marks. The total marks for the entire paper was 100. Thus, I cannot emphasize enough how important every aspect of the assessment is in making your grade. If possible, try to discuss homework answers with your friends to really score that 15%. Also, do your best during tutorial and make the most of the 10%. Lastly, do your absolute best for finals – then pray.

Workload:

• 2-1-0-4-3 Workload
• Components : A-B-C-D-E
• A: no. of lecture hours per week
• B: no. of tutorial hours per week
• C: no. of lab hours per week
• D: no. of hours for projects, assignments, fieldwork etc per week
• E: no. of hours for preparatory work by a student per week

EC2102: Macroeconomic Analysis I

This is another core Economics Module. As the module name suggests, this module is on macroeconomics. Warning: math is needed for this module. The first half of the syllabus consists of utility maximization problems (you can use lagrangian or the lecturer’s method), which is an individual’s intertemporal consumption-savings decision. For example, you have to determine how much a consumer should spend in the first time period, save for the second time period, and spend in the second time period, in a two period model. This includes interest rates on saving. A similar model also introduced in the first half of the syllabus will be the firm’s intertemporal problem. This means calculating how much the firm should spend on wages and investment in maximizing its profit in the long run (i.e. multiple time periods).

However, the second half of the syllabus has almost no math at all, consisting entirely of macroeconomic models. This is actually similar to the kind of models learnt in Junior College macroeconomics, except more complicated. Memory work is required, as all models simulate real world situations in some way, but not so in others. You will have to know all the market responses to different factors in different models (i.e. Classical or New Keynesian). The means of assessment for this half of the module is hence all essay writing and drawing of graphs.

The lectures for this module are taught by Dr. Serene Tan, whose name I must say, certainly describes her voice. I have dozed off in her lectures more than once due to her monotonous speech. However, other than this amazing sleep-inducing quality of hers, she is one of the clearest lecturers I have ever encountered. Lectures, unfortunately, are not webcast. The bright side though, is that it is possible to self-study through her lecture slides and the textbook. That being said, I still highly recommend attending lecture because the techniques you will need to answer tutorial and exam questions is taught in the way she conducts her lectures.

As for tutorials, student presentations are important, so prepare your answers well. Also, it seems most classes tend to be rather competitive, so you will definitely have to present multiple times to get ahead.

Assessment:

• 20%: Tutorial attendance and participation
• 30%: Midterm Exam
• 50%: Final Exam

The bell curve for this module is not as steep as EC2101 (Microeconomic Analysis I), but it is not that much better. As I mentioned previously, tutorial participation can be quite competitive. As for the Midterm and Final Exam, do note that doing well for one does not mean doing well for the other. The Midterm exam tests the first half of the syllabus, which is mostly Math, while the Final exam tests almost exclusively on the second half, which means essay writing. Therefore, to do well in this module, you will have to master both the manipulation of numbers and the ideas encoded in language. Also, you will almost certainly not have enough time to complete either paper if you write very slowly. Hence, the three skills you will need for this module is accuracy, clarity and speed.

Workload:

• 2-1-0-2-5 Workload
• Components : A-B-C-D-E
• A: no. of lecture hours per week
• B: no. of tutorial hours per week
• C: no. of lab hours per week
• D: no. of hours for projects, assignments, fieldwork etc per week
• E: no. of hours for preparatory work by a student per week

EC2303: Foundation for Econometrics
This is a core Economics module on statistics. It is a purely mathematics module and quite straightforward in my opinion. It covers descriptive statistics, random variables, probability distributions, sampling distributions, hypothesis testing, and linear regression. Distribution tables will be provided and only scientific calculators allowed for exams. However, for normal schoolwork, a Graphic Calculator will be useful to double check answers, especially for Binomial, Poisson and Normal Distributions. Some of the material taught in this module will have been covered in H2 Mathematics in Junior College.

The lectures for this module are really fun and I absolutely enjoyed them. Dr. Emily Beam is as cute as her name suggests. She makes the lectures really interactive and enjoyable. She is quite clear in her delivery and she is very open to questions from students. As for tutorials, I do not have much to comment, as they mainly consist of a quick overview of the week’s lecture, student presentations of answers, and tutor pointers and tips on answering the question.

Assessment:

• Online quizzes: 5%
• Tutorial participation: 5%
• Problem set: 15%
• Midterm: 30%
• Final exam: 45%

There are weekly online quizzes after every lecture which altogether will comprise of 5% of your total grade. There is no competition or pressure for these quizzes as you can attempt them as many times as you want before the quiz closes, which is right before the next week’s lecture begins. Also, there is no bell curve for this, as you simply get 1 point for every quiz in which you score more than 80% correct. If you complete all the quizzes, you get the full 5% of the grade. I actually really liked this system because it gives you an incentive to revise your material every week. The quiz itself should not take more than 20 minutes as there is usually only 10 MCQ questions. It tests concepts, so if you get a wrong answer, you know you were either careless or your understanding of the concepts are not clear.

Tutorial participation is relatively simple as you just need to attend the tutorials and present your answer to a question about two times throughout the semester to get the 5%. (Note that the 2 presentations is an estimate. The number of presentations you need will ultimately depend on the competitiveness of your cohort. Although, it is really unnecessary to waste so much time and effort for 5%.)

For problem sets, same as always, discuss with your friends and aim to score full marks on the assignments. You can even ask Dr. Beam for hints. The aim is to learn, not just score, so she will be more than happy to help you.

Lastly, Midterm and Final should not be a problem as long as you know your concepts and have done consistent practice. Your greatest enemy will be carelessness, especially since you will be using your calculator and referring to distribution tables. Try to write your numbers as legibly as possible to avoid mistakes.

Workload:

• 2-1-0-4-3 Workload
• Components : A-B-C-D-E
• A: no. of lecture hours per week
• B: no. of tutorial hours per week
• C: no. of lab hours per week
• D: no. of hours for projects, assignments, fieldwork etc per week
• E: no. of hours for preparatory work by a student per week

PL1101E: Introduction to Psychology

This module introduces the 7 major perspectives of psychology: evolutionary, social, cognitive, biological, developmental, clinical and personality. Meanwhile, topics covered include the biological bases of behaviours, developmental psychology, social psychology, cognitive psychology, and abnormal psychology (mental illnesses). This entire module is solely based on the textbook (Discovering Psychology: The Science of Mind) so it is easy to study for, but fairly heavy in terms of the effort required in swallowing said textbook. I personally did not like this module because of the rote learning required. However, it is also a “safe” module to fulfil a faculty requirement.

The lectures are largely boring in my opinion because they repeat almost everything from the textbook, with rare exceptions. The only saving grace of these lectures are the fact that they highlight the important bits of information from the mountain which is the textbook. Thankfully, the lectures are recorded so you do not have to actually sit through the entire thing if you have more pressing matters to attend to.

As for tutorials, they are in fact more like seminars. Syllabus content is taught during tutorials and simple activities are carried out for students to better understand theories and facts. Tutorial attendance and participation is not actually assessed for this module, but you cannot skip more than one tutorial out of five throughout the semester or you will receive a warning email from your lecturer. Thus, it is highly recommended you turn up for tutorials. Rest assured that tutorials are somewhat more engaging than the lectures.

Assessment:

Mid-Term Test: 50% (2hour, closed book, no negative marking)

• Section 1: 90 Multiple Choice Questions (25%)
• Section 2: 5 Short Questions (25%)

Final Exam 50% (2hour, closed book, no negative marking)

• Section 1: 90 Multiple Choice Questions (25%)
• Section 2: 5 Short Questions (25%)

Everything tested in this module is from the textbook, so just memorize all the theories and facts and all will be well. Beware though, because the MCQs may be tricky, so read all the questions carefully and think through your choices before answering.

For the Midterm, the short questions were conducted through IVLE this semester. The result was horrendous. Many students faced technical issues and needless to say there was a lot of stress and panic involved. Hopefully, this will be improved in future semesters. Other than that, the short questions are in fact open-book for the Midterm since it was online, so it was not too difficult. However, most questions are not straightforward so you still need to know what concepts they are testing to fully answer the question. This is especially since having an open-book exam does not mean you know where in the book the information is when you need it. The questions are 5 marks each and you have a total of 75 minutes to answer all the questions. This means that every mark on this test is equal to 1% of your grade. You do not want to do badly for this.

For the Final exam, the short answer questions were a mix of application and theory questions. There were two tricky questions out of the five, but most of the answers can be found in various parts of the textbook. However, this exam is strictly closed book, so you really need to study your textbook before the exam. About half a page of an answer is more than sufficient to answer one question. If all else fails – smoke.

Workload:

• 2-1-0-0-7 Workload
• Components : A-B-C-D-E
• A: no. of lecture hours per week
• B: no. of tutorial hours per week
• C: no. of lab hours per week
• D: no. of hours for projects, assignments, fieldwork etc per week
• E: no. of hours for preparatory work by a student per week

One thing not mentioned in the workload is that as part of the module you are required to participate in psychology experiments (aka research). This might sound exciting, but most experiments tend to be quite boring when you are a participant. They mostly involve filling in long tedious quizzes about yourself or your reaction to supposed scenarios. However, there are some interactive ones, which are more fun. For this module, you will need to accumulate 12 points. Every 30 minutes of your time is equal to one point. Most experiments only require about 15 to 20 minutes, but you still get the full point. Luckily, you have the whole semester to attain all the points, so plan your time well to avoid last minute rush. This is especially since all psychology students need to gain a certain number of points. Thus, it might be difficult to sign-up for experiments later in the semester.

AY2014/2015 Semester 2: SE1101E, PS2237, PS2258, PH2202

SE1101E: Southeast Asia: A Changing Region

It has often been said that out of all the modules in the Asian Studies basket, SE1101E is the most interesting and manageable. However, there were huge changes made to the module for this semester, because of complaints received through the module feedback that the module was too “easy” and “light”. Because of that, the lecturers decided to up the ante, adding fieldwork to this module for the very first time, and making finals more complicated and difficult to boot. Many of us found the new workload startling and cumbersome, given that we were expecting something easier.

While both lecturers were funny and engaging, the topics taught were extremely broad and there was very little depth covered, with most concepts being dealt with at a touch-and-go basis. As a result, the mod came across as very fluffy and insubstantial, with students not really discerning any patterns in the content and therefore not knowing how to study for it. It felt like the module did not really come together as a whole as well as it should have.

The fieldwork was difficult, as we were required to go to a location in Singapore, make observations and conduct interviews in order to find more about a certain theme. It is possible to get a theme in which you’re absolutely lost on how to approach the question, and it’s all randomized, so you don’t have the luxury of choice in this regard. You will have to write an essay and do a presentation on your findings as well, to top it off, which makes the workload pretty heavy, in my opinion.

I had been looking forward to this module, as I like SEA as a region and I find it interesting, but the module wasn’t as interesting as I’d hoped it would be. If you’re looking for an Asian Studies module that is easy to score in, this may not be the module for you, although I think it’s possible to do well if you know what to look out for, especially for the finals.

Assessment: It consists of tutorial participation (10%), field work that comprises the group essay (25%) and a group presentation (25%), and finals (40%).

For fieldwork, the lecturers specified that we would be unable to form our own groups or choose our own locations, although my tutor allowed us to form our own groups. The standards for these group projects varied depending on the group, and a lot of people put a surprising amount of effort into it, resulting in a very polished performance. If you came into this module expecting that a lot of people were hoping to SU it, you may be disappointed.

For finals, the lecturers decided to make an MCQ section, short answer section and an essay section to boot – all of which you had no options to choose from. There was a collective groan when the lecturers announced this. The MCQ section consists of testing the map, and the content of the readings, which was unfortunate, given that I had barely read any of the readings as I was under the impression that I could escape. I only studied the locations of each SEA country; however, you must be sure to study the key terms that they provide under the syllabus, because I didn’t, and they actually tested the locations of the rivers and the seas and what not, upon which I died. The short essay section was a torture, requiring you to list out four things that would demonstrate a certain phenomena, and it was hard enough to think of one example, let alone four. The essay section was on a specific topic, and although they told us repeatedly that we’d all have to put in effort for the group project (as a way to disincentivise slackers) because that content would come in handy for the essay, it most certainly did not. In fact, if you were unlucky to have not studied a certain topic by trying to spot, you might have been faced with the prospect of not knowing what to write at all. As much as I hate to say this for a level 1000 module, you’d be much safer studying everything, unless you get lucky somehow.

Workload: The workload was heavy, and my friend and I spent a really long time slaving over the group essay and trying to do a good job on it. My tutor happened to be fairly lenient, which was wonderful, but it was still very time-consuming and required a lot of preparation. I’m not sure if I would opt to take this module again if I could rewind back the time, and may have taken another Asian Studies module instead.

PS2237: Introduction to International Relations

I’d already had misgivings regarding IR before taking this module, but I heard that the lecturer was a world-famous constructivist and therefore I took this module. I came to regret it, however, because I struggled with understanding the content and the copious amount of long readings that we had to digest.

The lecturer is very smart and funny, and is a generally cool guy. However, lectures felt like they were pitched at a higher level, and seemed to miss out important information that we were probably assumed to already know and understand. I was left feeling lost for a good part of the semester, and the readings themselves were difficult to get through and often difficult to understand or internalize. However, for this module, the readings are imperative to your understanding and foundation of IR, especially if you can’t follow the lectures. Let it not be said that the lecturer is not a flexible guy, though – he asked for our feedback, and decided that he would provide slides next time so that students would be able to follow his lectures better, and he even removed the readings that we feedbacked were boring and/or terrible.

He’s also a really nice guy, because he provides possible exam questions for both the midterms and finals, about 10-11 questions each. This allows you some time to prepare, and it is very advisable to split up the workload with some friends and prepare your answers together. He would also come up with very difficult questions as part of that question list, only to actually give the easier questions on the day itself. This saved my grade immensely, because I had no idea what was going on for topics such as the global commons, nuclear deterrence and the list goes on (I’m actually shocked at how little of the content I’m able to process). To be fair, I did understand somewhat, but it was next to impossible to write a decent essay on it, especially when the essay in question was so hard! Thankfully, those questions didn’t come out for the exams.

Assessment: There is tutorial participation (10%), midterms (20%), two 900-word essays (15% each) and finals (40%). This is really a lot of components for assessment.

We were required to do two 900-word essays out of four, over the span of the semester. He would provide this list of four at the very start, and provide deadlines for each so that the work would be more evenly spaced out. With that said, these essays were very closely linked to the readings, and you definitely need to do the relevant readings in order to make a decent attempt at writing these essays. It was extremely difficult to be so succinct, since 900 words isn’t actually a lot.

For midterms, he gave us the entire lecture slot to do one essay, which was great because that was more than enough time. I find that there is a tendency to do better for midterms if one writes more pages – if that means you write more actual, legit content (not fluffing). One must be careful to identify what the question is asking for though (for example, whether it’s talking about realism, liberalism, or both) because it’s easy to lose many marks in this area.

Workload: The workload was definitely heavy, and it’s impossible to read all the readings (although I think some ambitious students managed that). The earlier readings are quite foundational, however, and usually they’re discussed during tutorials, so you would do well to read them. This module was very torturous for me, because I strongly disliked IR, but on a whole, I must say that it eventually turned out okay.

PS2258: Introduction to Political Theory

This module was a good foundational module for any student considering specialisation in PT. However, it was very broad and had a huge amount of content, which made it more difficult to study for and remember details for.

The lecturer is quite good, although he is new to the school. Unfortunately, he did not provide his lecture slides, and went very fast, so it was sometimes difficult to catch what he was saying. With that said, he was passionate and enthusiastic about the subject, and more than willing to help students with consultations or email queries, and he was understandable as well.

The number of readings for this module was out of this world – PT readings tend to be of another nature altogether, being more difficult to understand due to the writing style, so reading them took ages. It seems fairly unsustainable to be reading every single reading each week, although it is definitely advised when you’re doing your essays (you need to cite, obviously) and the lecturer actually tests specific things that may not be covered in enough depth within the lecture itself.

Assessment: There was tutorial participation (20%), one 1,000 word essay (10%), one 2,000 word essay (20%), and finals (50%). Tutorial participation includes a presentation on one of the readings, and tutorials consist of presentation after presentation by students (who can choose to present alone or in a pair). Usually, this leaves very little time for discussion during tutorials, and presentations take up most of tutorial time. After a while, it’s possible to start zoning out due to the overload of information, although you should take down some notes as it might be helpful later on.

The essays require you to cite from readings that you pick in order to bolster your argument on a chosen topic. You would do well to read them in detail and try to use other topics when necessary, to show that you’ve a good command of the content and of the readings. The questions tend to be fairly interesting, and it is very important to have a strong opening thesis statement, and arguments, as well as to consider the arguments of philosophers who counter your point. One must show that they have credible counter-arguments in order to do well for this essay component.

For finals, there were ID terms tested, with students being required to choose 7 out of 10. Warning: The ID terms will not all be easy; terms like positive liberty, for example, did not make the cut. Most terms were of the more obscure nature, and even the easier terms often were named in such a way that made you stop to think what it was, before you finally realised what it is was testing. If you were to spot, you could be in serious trouble, and it is ill-advised to drop too many topics. Perhaps at max you can only safely drop 1-2 topics. There was also an essay section, and all the essays were difficult, much more dififcult than I expected. They were also topic-specific (the first was on Citizenship, the second was on Equality and the third was on Toleration), and if you did not study those particular topics in depth, you could be well and truly screwed. Unfortunately, even if you did study them, it is highly possible that you still may not quite know how to approach the question, and I was thrown off guard by the questions. It also did not help that I did not have the time to read the readings during my exam prep for the topic I eventually chose to do during the exam itself.

Workload: This module is heavy, as I suspect all Intro modules are; but I liked the readings and most of the content seemed fairly interesting, although some topics were boring. I would take this module again if I were given the chance to, but I would also be more mentally prepared regarding finals and what I had to do to prepare.

PH2202: Major Political Philosophers

This module was a great one, which owed its greatness, clarity and interesting content to the professor teaching this module. However, it is his last semester teaching in NUS, which is a pity, because he is very well-liked by the students for being an engaging and witty lecturer.

The content was difficult, although the lecturer made it as clear as possible, and it was also very interesting. It touched on utilitarianism, Rawls and Nozick, and provided a good foundation to them. There is really nothing much that I can comment on, save for how great the module was.

Assessment: There is tutorial participation (10%), one 2,000 word essay (30%), and finals (60%). This is by far the module with the least assessment criteria ever, although the content is difficult to master. The essay took much work, and studying for finals made me realise just how much content there was to actually remember. The professor often gives manageable and fair questions for finals, however, and if you study, you should be alright.

Workload: The workload is manageable enough, and the readings aren’t too many that you’d keel over, although reading a short piece can take almost forever, with the amount of brain cells you must put to it. This is the only module, it feels, that you can get away just doing one essay for asssessment criteria, which is more than a welcome change.

Unfortunately, the professor (who has been awarded the title of Emeritus Professor) will be retiring after the end of this sem. However, his module was a great module and I’m certain that all the students (judging from the farewell card that was written and passed around) feel much the same.

AY2014/2015 Semester 1: JS1101E, EC1101E, HY1101E, PS1101E, SC1101E

JS1101E: Introduction to Japanese Studies

As someone interested in all things Japan, I looked forward to this module, which certainly did not disappoint in terms of content. From the Tokugawa era through to contemporary times, it offers a broad, chronological insight into Japan. The topics covered range from history (samurai, WWII) to society (population, class, ethnicity) to economy (miracle, stagnation) — if you’re the kind who fancies a multidisciplinary approach to things, this is the module for you. A/P Tim Amos, who takes charge of the history portions, is organized and provides a good deal of information in his lectures. On the other hand, Dr Chris McMorran, who teaches social issues, is more laidback and you can expect to have a good laugh in his lectures. However, the content in his slides is very much condensed, so be sure to pay attention to what he says and take down notes. Despite differences in their approach, both lecturers have great passion for Japan which they effectively bring into their teaching. They also frequently share their personal experiences in Japan, which makes lectures all the more engaging.

This semester, the JS department was also able to organize two special lectures. The first, by a professor of International Politics from the University of Tokyo, provided new perspectives on Japan’s foreign policy. The second, by a Kabuki Onnagata, was especially interesting given that I knew nothing about kabuki (a form of traditional Japanese theater). The guest lectures were on the whole enjoyable, and I appreciate the department’s efforts to value-add.

Assessment:
Tutorial attendance and participation: 10%
IVLE discussion forum: 10%
Group paper: 30%
Finals (MCQ): 50%

Unfortunately, my initial enthusiasm was completely sapped by the end of the module. I was given a fail for tutorial participation, although I faithfully attended every single tutorial, and tried to speak up at least once or twice. I was left wondering if my tutor was actually able to correctly match my face to my name in order to take the proper attendance. Also, the tutorials weren’t particularly useful in helping you to understand the content. Most sessions comprised of small group discussions where we flip through readings and lecture slides to answer questions. Complete your readings on time if you want to contribute effectively to discussions.

For the IVLE discussion forum, you’re to post a 750 word essay (excluding references) on the topic of your choice, and then respond to the posts from other students. This was too much work for only 10%: it was time-consuming as quite a bit of research was needed for both the individual essay and response posts.
Then there was the group paper on any topic of your choice. A four member group would have to adhere to a 4000 word limit (five members: 5000 words), including bibliography, so it wasn’t hard to fulfill the word count. We spent a huge amount of time and effort on this, and produced a decent essay (albeit in my biased opinion), but received an extremely unfair grade. Ultimately, I felt that the whole assessment was pointless and a complete waste of time for just 30%. The only advice I can give is: choose your group members wisely. It’s even better to take the module with a friend whom you can count on to share the workload. Also, pick a topic that’s already been widely researched on because you’re expected to reference from a minimum of 12 (or 15) academic sources.

Lastly, finals were made up of only MCQ questions. But don’t relax just yet, because it tests the most minute of details from the readings and lectures. As such, make sure to complete your readings every week. It’s not fun to have to squeeze all the information from the thick stack into your head one or two days before the exam.

Workload:
The workload for this module is definitely heavy, and it’s even more so if you’re only taking this to fulfill your Asian Studies requirement, as I did. Take this module only if you’re willing to shoulder the massive workload, and are genuinely interested in Japanese history and various other issues.

EC1101E: Introduction to Economic Analysis

Although many other reviews speak of this module as relatively easy and similar to JC H2 Economics, I beg to differ. The content is split into 2 halves: micro and macro, with 6 lectures each. Each lecture lasts for 3 painful hours, so if you’re someone who can’t sit still, you might want to consider the webcast.

In my opinion, even though the micro content was generally identical to the JC syllabus, the approach seemed to be slightly different. While we were required to demonstrate understanding by writing long, extended essays in JC, this module sought answers based on (simple) mathematical calculations— something which I wasn’t very accustomed to and took a longer time to grasp.

The macro section consisted of mostly new material (banking system, finance), and this is where the textbook really comes in handy. You can’t expect to understand everything from the lectures alone, so the textbook (in 800 pages, no less!) is useful as it offers in-depth explanations which the lecturers tend to gloss over. I only realized this just before finals, and hugely regretted it. Try to read the textbook before lecture every week.

Assessment:
10%: tutorial attendance and participation
30%: midterms (all micro)
60%: finals (25% micro, 75% macro)

Tutorial participation here is easy to score as long as you attend them and sometimes volunteer to answer questions on the board. Some tutors (like mine) would randomly call on people to answer, so you must most definitely do your work (it doesn’t matter whether you get the answers correct or wrong).

The midterms and finals consist of MCQs and short answer questions. The main concern here is the time constraint. Don’t dwell on a single question for too long, and plan your time wisely.

Workload:
The workload for this module is light. I wouldn’t say that it’s an easy module, although you should be fine if you take the time to study and fully understand the content. However, the bell curve for this module is very steep, so you’ll have to put in a lot more effort if you’re looking to score well.

HY1101E: Asia and the Modern World

This module takes an extremely broad approach to Asian history: it spans from ancient times (yes, we’re talking about 2000 BC here) to the modern era, with a focus on China, Japan, India and Southeast Asia. The content was neatly divided into East Asia and South + Southeast Asia, taught by two different lecturers— both of whom interestingly (or like duh) hails from the respective region they were in charge of.

Despite her accent, the lecturer for East Asia was well-organized and clear in her lectures. Through the use of proper headings, she broke the truckload of content down into easy-to-understand, chronological chunks of information. This made studying a lot easier.

On the contrary, the lecturer for South Asia + SEA conducted lessons in a rather haphazard and random way. He didn’t do a very good job of organizing the lecture content— the headings didn’t make much sense, and he tended to dwell on introductions, leaving him with little time and no choice but to bulldoze through the important parts. He also liked to talk about ‘broad trends’, but neglected to go into in-depth explanations of them.

If you’re thinking that having a background in H2 History would help you to ace this module, think again. JC content only comes in for a select few topics, such as SEA nationalism and Cold War. Much of the material is completely new, especially for Chinese and Indian history.

Assessment:
20%: online tutorial participation (4 sessions, 5% each)
50%: 2 lecture tests, 25% each
30%: finals

The online tutorial sessions were a pain in the neck (I have to restrain myself from using the alternative, more vulgar form of the phrase). Students were placed into online tutorial groups of ten— you can choose to join with your friends, or join a random one with strangers, whichever suits you. For each session, we were given a history source to analyze and answer 2 or 3 questions on the online forum. We were supposed to engage in active discussion, so it involves responding to others’ posts as well.

Unfortunately, what initially seemed to be a simple tutorial activity turned into an essay writing competition. People became pressured to write more, especially after seeing the long model posts (or should I say essays). Longer posts also meant that points were exhausted and those who joined the discussion later had nothing more to say. We also had to check back continually to see if anyone else had replied, and as a result, a lot of time was spent on this.

My advice for this is to play nice and to write just 2-3 good posts. You can craft a longer response, but please leave some points for others to talk about and don’t hog the entire discussion.

The lecture tests and finals are of the same format: 1 section for identification of terms and 1 essay. For the ID, you’re expected to provide information on the term (a historical event, ideology etc— it could actually be anything) and explain its relevance to Asian history. The latter requirement is iffy and I never knew how to explain it (neither did the lecturers explain it to us, not really). Your best bet is to feign intelligence and link the term to some broad idea/thingy.

For the essays, I got the impression that the lecturers don’t want you to write a long answer. For the lecture tests, they actually limit your answer to 2 sides of a blank A4 paper. As such, I don’t think there is any need to memorize copious amounts of nitty-gritty historical information for this module. You should know the major historical events like the back of your hand, but what’s more important is to be able to draw connections and properly link your ideas/argument to the question.

Workload:
The workload for this module is rather heavy, thanks mainly to the online tutorials. For the tests and finals, it would be best to start studying early so that you won’t be overwhelmed by the content at the last minute.

PS1101E: Introduction to Politics

Like everyone else, I guess I’ll start this off with praise for Professor Yoshi. His lecture slides are one of the best I’ve ever come across: clear, informative, organized and complete with pictures of Doraemon to entertain. Also, he does not upload the slides before lectures, which is good, because then you’ll have the incentive to pay attention and take down notes.

The content for this module is very interesting, and it really invites you to look at politics in a whole new light, with topics ranging from ideologies to international relations to globalization. That being said, this module and the discipline of political science as a whole focuses greatly on theories and concepts, so if you absolutely hate that kind of stuff, you might want to give this module a miss.

While the lectures are fun and the content relatively manageable, the readings are killer (or so I’ve heard). Most of them are really long, and some of them in convoluted language that takes you double the effort to be able to understand them. I hate to admit it, but I gave up on the readings after looking at the first 2 pages of Fukuyama (oops, my bad). Thankfully, Prof Yoshi does a fantastic job of condensing the readings and exposing you to the critical ideas, so you’re not really at a disadvantage (at least, I think I wasn’t). However, I’m sure the readings help in reinforcing understanding, and you (and I myself, in the future) should really try to read them.

Assessment:
20%: tutorial participation
40%: individual written assignment
40%: finals

Tutorials are probably different depending on your tutor, but you should try to read up on the lecture content beforehand so you can contribute to discussion. Participation is 20% of the grade, so it’s no joke. Lucky for me, my tutor tended to call on students to answer his questions, and everyone gets a chance, so there was no competition/ struggle to be heard.

The written assignment is a 1,500-2000 words essay. You have 20 questions to choose from, and roughly 3 weeks from the time the questions are released to the deadline. Although no major research is needed, and only 2 academic sources are required, you should still try to cite a moderate amount. I cited only the minimum, and was probably marked down for lack of adequate referencing. You should get a decent grade for this paper if you understand the theories and apply them correctly to form your arguments.

The finals consist of an ID section and an essay. Like the history module, the ID section requires you to explain the broad significance of the term as well. Again, try to link it to the broader picture/impact/other events.

Workload:
The workload for this module is moderate. You only start feeling the heat when the paper questions are released, but once that’s over, all that’s left are the finals to worry about. There is quite a lot to remember, but not as much as HY1101E.

SC1101E: Making Sense of Society

This module consists of many topics— being sociology, it naturally covers all aspects of society and is very broad and general, which is why some people consider it GP, sociologically explained. There were two lecturers; one of them made better slides and explained issues in greater depth, while the other was more relaxed, focused less on the details and gave more room for you to explore and form your own interpretations. Both of them were clear, so no complains there.

The module might start off dry and boring, given that the first 2 lectures were devoted to introducing various sociologists and understanding the art of conducting sociological experiments and collecting reliable data. The content became more interesting thereafter, with topics such as gender, family, culture, deviance, to name a few.

The amount of content might seem heavy at first, but it’s not. The major sociological theories/perspectives used to explain each topic were generally the same, and should not be a problem as long as you understand them. Although empirical examples are a must when writing essays, I would say that there’s not much point memorizing them. What’s most important is that you can apply those theories to your personal observations, and perhaps invent your own examples.

The textbook (A Sociological Compass, by Brym and Lie) is rather informative, but contains of mostly American case studies (which I don’t know, might not be so applicable). However, the readings provided aren’t very useful. They seemed to cover the not-so-important (I could be wrong) stuff and I didn’t read most of them. That being said, the readings are still enjoyable, especially if you have a taste for intriguing and sometimes quirky/weird happenings around the world, like body rituals.

Assessment:
10%: tutorial attendance and participation (5% attendance, 5% participation)
15%: short assignment
25%: midterms
50%: finals

The tutorials consist of small group discussions, and questions are given out beforehand, so be sure to read up and attempt them if you want to contribute.
The short assignment required us to apply the ‘sociological imagination’ to a phenomenon we observe in our society. There was a word limit of 500 words, and shouldn’t be too difficult, as long as you can apply the basic theories.

For the midterms, we had to write 1 essay in an hour, and for the finals, 2 essays in 2 hours. There should be sufficient time for you to write a decent essay— just make sure to provide clear and concise explanations, and link your arguments to the theories, and most importantly, the question itself.

Workload:
The workload for this module is moderate. The short assignment shouldn’t take too much time, and all you have to do is study for the midterms and finals.

(Intended major: Political Science)

AY2014/2015 Semester 1: EC1101E, EC2104, GEK1900, SPH2101, TS1101E

EC1101E: Introduction to Economic Analysis

This course introduces students to some of the basic concepts, methods, and models in economics to equip the students to think economically. These tools will enable students to understand current economic issues and appreciate economics in their everyday lives.

Assessment: The content of this module is quite straightforward. Those who have taken Economics at the JC level will find most of the material for Microeconomics repeated in this course. However, Macroeconomics introduces a much broader range of content, including basic banking and finance concepts. Readings are not entirely necessary but highly recommended, especially for Macroeconomics as some concepts are alluded to but not entirely explained in the lecture notes. Generally, the workload estimates given are accurate except for the no. of hours of preparatory work required, which is definitely less than 4 hours.

Workload: 3-1-0-2-4

EC2104: Quantitative Methods for Economic Analysis

This module seeks to enable students to integrate relevant basic mathematical knowhow with economic analysis. The main objective is to develop in the students the process skills for formulating and solving economic problems mathematically. Topics include equilibrium analysis, understanding and use of matrix algebra and differential and integral calculus in formulating and solving economic problems, comparative-static analysis, and selected optimization problems in economics.

Assessment: The entire module consists of mathematics. The formulas learnt will definitely be linked to economic concepts. However, understanding of these concepts and derivation of formulas is not required for examinations. Half of the material covered in the module will be familiar, such as functions, derivation, integration and matrices. Therefore, a strong foundation in these concepts will be useful for further understanding of added theories based on these basic concepts. Generally, this module is very manageable especially with frequent practice of problem sets from the textbook or past year papers. The workload of the module itself is also relatively light. 4 hours to complete a problem set per week is a generous estimate.

Workload: 2-1-0-4-3

GEK1900: Public Health in Action

Public health is in the news every day, from schools closing due to hand, foot and mouth disease to the banning of trans-fats in an entire city. But what is public health? Whereas doctors treat individual patients, public health is about the health of a whole population. Despite its importance, public health seems obscure and mysterious. This module uses a population-based perspective to understand the broad forces behind development of disease and ill-health. Employing the evidence-based framework, expert lecturers will share experiences, discuss current issues and debate ethical dilemmas from cancer to pandemics, from AIDS to diabetes, from diet to disasters.

Assessment: This module covers a large range of healthcare topics that really broadens students’ perspectives. I would highly recommend it to anyone interested in healthcare. It does not require any prior knowledge of medical terms or concepts. There is no final examination. The module is 100% continuous assessment. The module format consists of 3 hour sessions every week with a lecture in the first hour, group work in the second (immediately after which a written report has to be submitted on ivle) and a group discussion and debrief by the lecturer. Each week’s session is based on a different topic and is taught by different lecturers.

This module can be used to fulfill GEM requirements as it is classified as both an Art and a Science GEM.

Workload: 0-3-0-3-4

SPH2101: Public Health and Epidemiology

Epidemiology is the study of the patterns, causes, and effects of health and disease conditions in defined human populations. It is the cornerstone of public health, with potential impact on both personal decisions about our lives, and also public policy decisions. Epidemiology is relevant for the prevention of human diseases to modern systems science with inputs from many disciplines, like biology, physiology, computer science, engineering and social science. This module uses a lecture plus case-study based approach to introduce fundamental concepts of epidemiology, such as disease frequency, association, causation, confounding, bias, screening and surveillance.

Assessment: This module essentially introduces the basic concepts of epidemiology and how to interpret and understand epidemiological studies. This includes simple calculations and statistics (I.e. Percentages). Module content can be rather dry but it is generally straightforward and easy to understand.

Workload: 2-1-0-3-4

TS1101E / GEK1900: Introduction to Theatre and Performance

This module will provide students with foundational knowledge of the different aspects of, approaches and discursive contexts relating to the study and praxis of theatre and performance. The module will also introduce students to the various forms of classical and contemporary performance practices and their attendant modes of analyses: combining play analysis, theatre history & theory. Using complementary content-centered lectures and practice laboratory, the module creates an environment where students simultaneously engage with module content while investigating its relations to the creation of theatre and performance.

Assessment: This is a one of the most fun and entertaining modules in FASS. Content covered on the history, theories and application of theatre and performance is interesting and easy to understand. However, lecture attendance is crucial for the understanding of the course. Lectures are not webcast. Module assessment includes a play review and acting performances, but grading is relatively lenient. The main drawback of this module is the time spent rehearsing for graded performances which varies for each group. Thus, personal time management should be a point of consideration when taking this module.

Workload: 1-1-2-4-2

(Intended major: Economics; intended minor: Public Health)

AY2014/2015 Semester 1: EC1101E, NM1101E, EU1101E, HY1101E, IT1004

EC1101E: Introduction to Economics

This is a compulsory module for anyone interested to major in Economics, and it is best to take it in semester 1. The module is quite easy, as long as consistent effort is made to answer the tutorial questions. Those who have taken H2 Econs in JC will definitely have an advantage, though not by much as >80% of the cohort have H2 Econs. Tutorial attendance is compulsory and counts towards the final grade, so DO NOT skip any. Class participation is also counted in the final grade, so do volunteer to answer questions at least 2x during the entire semester. Lectures are 3h long, so be prepared to make sure you fully focus. Webcasts are available, meaning that you CAN skip lectures, though they may change it from year to year.

I chose to attend all lectures, simply because I doubt I would have the will to study if I stayed home. That being said, I still found it difficult to concentrate at times, since 3 hours of econs can be very draining. The lecturers were not bad, and clearly very experienced in their respective fields. The lecture series are split into Micro and Macro, with significantly more new content for Macro, so do take note and make sure you don’t burn out near the end.

There is no group project for this module, which is a godsend since not everyone is on the same page. Personally, I felt that the pace of the tutorials was too slow since the tutors had to cater to everyone, including slackers and those who did not even bother to read up on the topic. I only attended the tutorials since they are compulsory; the answers for the tutorial questions will be uploaded so do not worry if you didn’t catch everything/were zoning out.

Assessment
Tutorial (attendance + class participation): 10%
Exam type: MCQ + open-ended qns
Mid terms (only micro): 30%
Finals (micro + macro): 60%

As stated above, consistent attendance for tutorials is important, and as long as you volunteer to answer at least 2x, you will easily get your 10%. The mid terms are purely micro, and extremely easy with no challenging questions at all. Most people score very well for this, so you should try to aim for full marks/close to full marks. As long as you practice your tutorial questions and revise the lecture notes, the mid terms should be a breeze. The lecturers and tutors have kept insisting that it is very important to read the textbook, and that is true to a certain extent. If you knowledge of H2 Econs is shaky after the long break since the end of JC, it is essential that you read the textbook. I actually did not read the textbook, but I definitely will for future economics modules.

For the finals, do try to revise in advance, since the content is considerably more. Although they said that greater emphasis will be on macro, do not forget about your micro, as it may come out for the open-ended questions. The time for both the mid terms and the finals is very limited, due to the sheer volume of MCQ questions. Hence, it is important to divide your time wisely. I chose to start on the open-ended qns first, before moving on to MCQ. This ensured that I would have sufficient time to finish all the questions.

Workload
The workload for this module is VERY LIGHT. No group work, nothing. Just tutorials and lectures, the latter which u can skip. However, consistent effort is important, so just take out 2h/week to do your tutorial qns + review the lecture notes.

NM1101E: Communications, New Media and Society

This is a compulsory module for all those looking to major in New Media and Mass Communications. Although the module was super boring, some of the content was actually quite interesting, and contains much intrinsic value that would serve you well into the future. It provided me with the proper vocabulary to interpret the mass media of today, as well as assess the effectiveness of design in our world.

The content is very manageable, and there isn’t anything too difficult to understand. The lecturer tends to veer off course at times, and can be quite boring after a while. However, he once took over our tutorial as our tutor was unavailable, and I would say that he is a much better tutor than lecturer. Do not skip any lectures, as around 50% of the content comes from what the lecturer says. The e-textbook is more like a scam, and it would be better to request the official chapter summaries (that can be downloaded from the e book platform) from your seniors.

In general, this would be a good module to take if you want to balance out more intensive core modules. However, it is difficult to score well, as the module is quite easy so the bell curve may be screwed. Also, it is quite hard to ascertain the requirements and expectations of this module, so the writing assignments tend to be rather frustrating.

Assessment
Tutorial participation: 10%
Mid terms: 15%
Writing assignments (1 indiv, 2 group): 10% each
Finals: 45%

The tutorials are a breeze and require little to no preparation. You can try to prepare in advance, depending on the strictness of your tutor and if you’re just super hardworking. Attendance is taken, so you cannot skip any tutorials. 80% of the time in tutorial is spent on small group discussions, which honestly doesn’t help much in terms of aiding your knowledge on New Media and Mass Communications. Go forward with the mentality that the tutorials are just opportunities for you to chat with your classmates and nothing more.

The writing assignments are difficult to score well in, as you simply don’t know what exactly they want/are looking for. They’re only 10% each, but the amount of effort required for the assignment is disproportional to the weightage. It is easy to complain about the assignments, but generally the module requires very little effort.

In fact, the mid terms and finals are ALL MCQs, which requires little preparation. Just make sure you understand the concepts and definitions of key terms, and most of it is just common sense. If only all exams can be like this…

Workload
The workload for this module is LIGHT, as the content is not too heavy and the exams are relatively stress-free. The assignments may take up more of your time, but they are comparatively less strenuous than those of other modules.

EU1101E: Making of Modern Europe

This is a compulsory module for anyone looking to major in European studies. If you are simply trying to fulfil your FASS requirements, do NOT choose this. There is 1 lecture/week, and a 2h tutorial every odd week. However, do not be fooled though, as the workload is ridiculously heavy, and the tutorials do nothing in helping you understand the content better. Although I found the content to be intellectually engaging, the way in which it was taught was awful.

The lecturer, although a very nice and friendly lady, is unfortunately terrible at conducting lectures. Her ppt slides offer mere slivers of information, so >90% of the content comes directly from what she says during lecture. She tends to narrate instead of analysing the events/issues, so if you are weak in history, good luck to you. There is very little organisation of information, and I would compare her lectures to reading a Wikipedia page, except reading Wikipedia might actually do you more good than her lectures. Also, it is difficult to catch everything she says, as she rarely takes any pauses so the entire lecture is just a cacophony of laptop keyboards clicking away, where people desperately try to note down all the info. As such, DO NOT skip any lectures, as there are no webcasts.

The content spans from the Ancien Regime all the way to the Russian Revolution, and covers notable topics such as the Enlightenment, the Industrial Revolution and The French Revolution. Too ambitious, if you ask me. Most topics are just taught at the surface level, but as I’ve said, you never know what’s important and what’s not, since there is no organisation of info. To be honest, I wish I had taken another module, as this was an utter waste of my time and totally not worth the effort.

Assessment
Tutorial participation: 20%
Mid terms: 20%
Group project: 20%
Finals: 40%

For tutorials, do not skip any, as there aren’t that many sessions to begin with. Do try to participate, and it’s totally ok to be wrong, as most people just try to bullshit anyway. On top of that, there are a significant number of arrogant snobs with inflated egos, so do not be intimidated by them either, since most of them have no idea what they are talking about.

The mid terms involve MCQs, Identification questions, and Chronology questions. It’s really a hit-or-miss, as they tested really random facts. I didn’t study at all for it, and ended up with a less than ideal grade (deservedly).

The group project usually involves a conference centered around a particular historical events, and your group gets to act as a stakeholder. I would compare it to the style of Model United Nations, except a lot less organised and based on historical events rather than current affairs. The group portion involves a short write up, which should be no problem. Choosing your group mates is obviously very important. Luckily, I had 2 members who were interested in majoring in History/European studies, and hence were very active and enthusiastic about it. However, for the actual conference, you will be judged individually, so do speak up. Be ruthless, its a dog eat dog world out there. Most have very weak arguments, so it is easy to exploit that.

The finals take up 40%, so try to revise in advance if you’re keen on getting a good grade. I chose to revise on the day itself, which is obviously not ideal. However, one thing that I’ve noticed is that with these content based essays, it is actually better to study less (less being relative…), as it forces you to focus on the quality of your argument. Studying too much may backfire, as you may be tempted to vomit out all your facts during your essay. That being said, consistent studying is still required, as with any other module.

Workload
The workload for this module is VERY HEAVY due to the spread of the content. The group work is manageable, depending on your group mates of course. The content is taught in a haphazard manner, so be wary of that. Only choose this module if you want to major in European Studies, or if you have masochistic tendencies.

HY1101E: Asia and the Modern World

This is a compulsory module for anyone interested in majoring in History. However, I took this module with the intention of fulfilling my FASS requirements. Those who have taken H2 History in JC will have an advantage, but only in the sense that they are more accustomed to the demands of history essays, but as long as you have a strong command of language + argumentative skills, you should be fine. Looking back, I really regret my decision to choose this module, and you’ll soon come to know why. Generally, I found this module to be very taxing (for an introduction module at least), in terms of workload and content. If you are truly interested in History, you’ll have a great time I suppose, but my warning to those who are merely looking to fulfil FASS requirements: do not choose this.

The module consists of 2 lectures per week (2h each), with no tutorials. However, do not rejoice just yet. There are “online tutorials”, aka internet forum discussions hosted on IVLE. These online discussions actually took up way more of my time than a normal real-life tutorial session would, which really sucked. As for the lectures, there are no webcasts, so try not to skip any. Solely relying on the lecture notes would be insufficient, as a significant amount of what the lecturer says is not included in the slides. The lectures are split into East Asia + South Asia and South East Asia. Personally, I preferred the lecturer for East Asia, as despite her accent, she was able to deliver her lectures in a clear and concise manner. The other lecturer for South Asia and South East Asia was more long winded, and a lot more less concise.

Assessment
Internet discussion: 20%
Exam type: 1 essay + 4 identification qns
2 tri-term tests: 25% each
Finals: 30%

As stated above, the internet discussions require a SIGNIFICANT amount of effort. Depending on your group, people might take it very seriously. Unfortunately, my group was full of those kind of people. The term “discussion” might bring to mind a collection of short responses, but that is not the case at all. At least for my group, people posted essay-length responses, which was very frightening and stressful. In order to prepare for the discussion, I had to spend at least 2-3h to craft my “response” (read: essay), especially when others have written infinitely long essays that appeared to have covered all grounds already. As such, I suggest that you start preparing immediately when the discussion questions are released, before the forum has opened. This way, you can be the first to post, which would reduce a lot of the headache. Also, try to post at least TWICE for each discussion. Be prepared to spend way more than the usual 1h for this “tutorial”.

There are two tri-term tests instead of midterms (tr-iterm in the sense that 2 “midterms” + 1 finals). Study hard for these as they are 25% each so that you will be less stressed for finals, and make proper study notes so that you can simply refer to your notes for finals preparation. I suggest spending 1h on the essay and 1h on the identification questions (for the identification qn: explain the given historical event/term/person, a brief explanation of who what when where why, plus historical significance of that event/term/person).

For the finals, do try to at least make study notes in advance, as the content is consistently heavy for the entire module i.e. last day cramming will not work. That being said, you don’t have to worry too much for finals if you’ve done consistently ok for the previous two trii-terms.

Workload
The workload for this module is VERY HEAVY. Ridiculously burdensome online discussions, two “midterms” instead of one, and two lectures a week. The content, although interesting, is super heavy. Take this module only if you’re looking to major in history, or if you enjoy a serious challenge.

IT1004: Introduction to Electronic Commerce

This is a cross faculty module hosted by the School of Computing. However, this module is highly business in nature, so I feel that it is more appropriate to be classified under “Business”. Personally, I would not recommend this module to anyone, as I felt that the time spent on this module does not justify the gains. The content is very general, mainly focusing on the business model of e-commerce firms. Hence, there is very little to be learnt from this module, with most of the content being based on common sense / a google search away.

The lecturer does little in value-adding her lectures, so you CAN skip all the lectures, like I did. All the slides are on IVLE anyway, and if you read the textbook it’ll be more than enough. Tutorials, however, cannot be skipped since attendance is counted into your grades. Although there are no mid terms, the group work component is very taxing.

Assessment
Tutorial attendance + participation: 10%
Case presentation (group): 10%
Group project: 30%
Finals: 50%

As stated above, tutorial attendance is counted towards your grades, so try not to skip any. Also, it’s important to take down notes during case discussions, which is something I regret not doing. As for participation, all the biz students in the tutorial will be clamouring to answer questions, so just be thick-skinned and volunteer. It doesn’t matter if your answer is wrong, most people spout bullshit anyways, plus no one will remember what you’ve said.

Finding the right group is very important, as 40% of the grade is based on group work. Sadly, my group of 4 had a major slacker who was totally useless and actually more of a burden, so this left us with only 3 active members. The case presentation is only 10%, but the standards for presentation are set very high due to the large no. of biz students taking this module. Be prepared to wear your suit and tie to present, and definitely do not use any cue cards. Once again, choosing the right group mates are important, as two of my members were so bad at presenting, it’s as if they have never presented before in their lives.

The group project requires you to come up with a business pitch for your own e-commerce company, and it involves a written report and presentation. The report has a much higher weightage, so do not focus too much on the pitch. Also, not everyone has to present, so you can cut the deadweight (i.e. only get those who are actually good at presenting to present). It is important to communicate well with your members and allocate work efficiently, since the amount of work required is very high, for a relatively paltry 30%. If you have any slackers in your group, just be thick-skinned and report it to your tutor. It’s not worth enduring all the trouble since the workload is really very high. I really regret not reporting, as it meant more work for the rest of us while the slacker gets to coast along.

The finals include MCQs and short answer questions. To prepare, revise your tutorial case studies, which will help a lot. Also, if you’re a truly hardworking student striving for the A, then go ahead and read the textbook as well. As for me, I basically printed and read through the slides on the morning of the exam. Very bad example, but then again I’m planning to S/U this module.

Workload
The workload for this module is HEAVY due to the group work component, while the tutorials require little to no effort. Content-wise, this module focuses heavily on the business aspect of e-commerce, and the lecturer seems ill-equipped at that, given that she is a computer science lecturer. Choose your groups wisely, and if you’re looking to score well then read the textbook. For those looking to use this module to fulfil their breadth requirements: if you’re a seasoned biz student then go ahead, if not please turn away immediately.

(Intended major: Economics)

AY2014/2015 Semester 1: SC1101E, PS1101E, HY1101E, EN1101E

This marks the end of Year 1 Sem 1, and I have to say that it was really difficult to get through – maybe because it was hard to adjust to the pace of uni life, and the continual assessment nature of the grading system. For most of the mods in FASS, they require you to do consistent work (i.e. doing your readings diligently, for the most part, and paying attention during lectures and tutorials). Which is not to say that you won’t be able to catch up if you slack in the first few weeks, but then the stress starts to build up over time and things start to get out of control by the time you hit Week 4 or so… Therefore, not quite a good idea to slack off in the early part of the semester.

Here is a review of the modules I took this sem:

SC1101E: Introduction to Sociology

When I first started out, I really didn’t enjoy Soci at all, and I didn’t keep up with my readings or the textbook. I honestly had no idea what was going on, and it showed in my assignment, which I didn’t do too well in (I did it in one night). Afterwards, for the midterm test, I decided to work harder by reading the textbook and the readings, and my results jumped by two whole grades – a testament to the power of the textbook, and actually trying to understand what you’re studying. In fact, the more I studied Soci, the more I had a grudging appreciation for it, because it really does make sense when applied to the world around us, and it wasn’t as nonsensical and ‘fluffy’ as I initially thought it was.

Most of the time I don’t go for Soci lectures, but I do the webcast afterwards. I feel that the webcast really helps much more than going for lecture, because I can take things slow and pause to scribble down something the lecturer said. Of course, if you’re someone who doesn’t like to listen to a video recording for 1 h and 35 min straight, or you’re easily distracted, then chances are you will be better off in the lecture, and you can still use the webcast to catch on specific slides of content you missed out.

The readings (to me) are absolutely useless, at the least the ones for the first few weeks, although I read them to try and catch up for the midterms. After that, however, I just didn’t bother to keep up with them because they were quite random and the amount of time I took to extract anything useful was disproportionate to the time I spent reading the whole thing. Seniors tell me that you do need to read the Soci readings in order to get your examples, but I feel that the textbook has sufficient examples (in fact, maybe a tad too many) for you already. If you’re really passionate about Soci, or you enjoy doing the readings (although I really didn’t like them at all), then you’ll probably look at the readings, but if you’re not that interested, then I think it’s alright to skip out on it.

Assessment: There’s normally an assignment (15%), a midterm (25%) and finals (50%), as well as class participation (10%). I really regretted not speaking up in class more, because it appears that the teachers actually do know who you are, roughly, and they do keep watch to see who’s been talking (sense) and who’s been keeping quiet. For the assignment, you should probably go with the basic theories (Marx, Durkheim, Weber and Merton) – I tried Parks’ Ecological Theory based on one day’s worth of rushing and it didn’t end up well. For the midterms and finals, they have a tendency of combining two or even three topics, so it is best not to spot too much. Usually, power features heavily in both exams, and deviance always comes out for finals (whether or not the question is doable, however, depends on your year). I find that culture is my pet topic, but I still studied everything for the finals except Aging/Elderly, and did Class and Stratification as quickly as I could. Whether it’s easy to score in, I think once you get the hang of the Soci style, it’s much easier to churn out a decent essay. Basically, come up with some broad points that answer the question, GP-style, but then follow up with these thesis statements by using theories to analyse the phenomenon that you have raised, so that you’ll avoid sinking into the trap of writing a wholly GP-ish essay.

Workload: Generally, it’s not actually that bad. You definitely have to be very sure about what’s going on during the lectures, particularly the theories, and you really should follow the textbook. But I won’t say that Soci is a particularly heavy mod, especially not in comparison to others. As for whether I’d take Soci again, I probably would say yes, but I’ll also have started earlier and made sure that I knew what was going on in the first few lectures so that I wouldn’t have been so lost for the essay assignment.

PS1101E/GEK1003: Introduction to Politics

I’m very sure that every review on PS1101E that you come across will end up extolling the virtues of Prof Yoshi, who has won the Teaching Excellence Award for many years in a row. He is extremely clear in conveying the concepts, and he even repeats them sometimes in order to help you remember. I think part of the reason why his teaching style is so effective is because he is very systematic in explaining the flow of the theories and the concepts; he even puts funny pictures and speech bubbles, as well as ridiculous analogies, in order to make things more understandable. He is most possibly the best lecturer in Political Science (according to some seniors), and he is widely known by even the non-PS students as well for being a great lecturer.

I found the content for PS1101E very interesting for the most part, and the readings as well were difficult but I liked reading them (with the exception of some). However, I think trying to cram the content into my head in a few days before the exam was really difficult and it didn’t help that I didn’t start earlier as well. I would say that it is a relatively content-heavy mod, but it’s worth it because the concepts that he teaches you are valuable in interpreting the world’s politics around you.

Prof Yoshi only uploads his slides after the lecture, and there isn’t any webcast. Furthermore, you should really attend his lectures because occasionally, he gives a random hint of what to study. You should definitely not miss his final revision lecture, in which he basically tells you the 35 identification terms that may come out in finals (out of ten given, you pick five) as well as the possible topics that may be tested for the long essay. Studying the 35 terms is the most difficult part during preparation, but during the finals, it is most certainly the long essay that proves the greatest challenge.

Assessment: Tutorial participation makes up 20% of the grade, and the essay assignment and finals both take 40% weightage each. This means that you won’t be very busy during midterms for this mod, but that doesn’t mean you should be negligent in your readings, either. Not all the readings are important, but it is really hard to know which one will be important later for your essay assignment. Even though Prof Yoshi says that it is a think-piece and that only two references are required, it really depends on your tutor’s marking style, and thus I think it’s better to include more references (maybe five would be a safe number) – although referencing doesn’t guarantee a good score. It probably would be best to read Fukuyama’s The End of History, Samuel Huntington’s Clash of Civilisations and Political Decay, and all the Asian values debate readings (Mahbubani and Aung-Thwin, who happens to be the father of the Burmese HY1101E lecturer) at the very least. It’s also very important how you choose your essay question for both the assignment and the finals – I chose the right question for my assignment and did well, but for my finals, I picked a trickier question and ended up going off point midway.

Workload: In terms of workload, the readings are quite heavy. There’s usually one or two per week, and while you don’t need to read them all, you have to read some of them, or you’ll be left rushing the readings the week before the assignment (like me). Still, it’s good that there is very few assessments for this mod, because it minimises the time spent trying to study or write another essay. Of course, that could also be a downside because it is, to some extent, an ‘all or nothing’ situation. I think that PS1101E is generally hard to score in, but it is definitely worth the effort and the pain, and I would definitely take it if it was under Prof Yoshi.

HY1101E: Asia and the Modern World

I thought I liked History when I did it at the A Levels, and I loved SEA especially (I still do). But this mod just didn’t do it for me – it was too broad, spanning from the dynastic period to modern history, and it was mostly ‘touch and go’ for each of the different time periods. There was a vastness of regions covered – South Asia (India and Pakistan), East Asia (China, Japan and occasionally Korea/Taiwan), and Southeast Asia (Thailand, Philippines, Burma and Vietnam, mostly). It was too much for me, and I felt that the content wasn’t really organised in an understandable way. The patterns, while there, were not readily apparent, and it was very difficult to track the developments and continuities across so many regions.

I read other module reviews that said if we have taken A Level History before, this module would be not much of a problem. I have to disagree. While it is convenient to have some background information on SEA nationalism, decolonisation, political structures and economic development, as well as a knowledge of the Cold War, the module content organised these topics in a different way. That’s not to say I didn’t enjoy the recap, especially for the SEA region which I love, but other than that, it was all new information and I struggled with synthesising it and using it in my arguments. I really didn’t enjoy this module, but I know of a sizeable amount of people who remained ambivalent or even stayed interested throughout, and to hear my opinion regarding this subject only would be therefore quite an unrepresentative summary of what this mod is about.

Assessment: There were two midterms, each one 25%, and online forum participation was 20% (one forum session was 5%). The finals was 30%, which was a great relief because it didn’t have as high a weightage as the other mods’ finals. However, having two midterms was taxing (even though we would get the Fri lecture off in lieu of this torture) and having to remember so much information without a discernable, identifiable pattern really killed me. The forum participation is something that is required in Sem 1 – if I’m not wrong, Sem 2 may not have this component. It was amusing, if not a bit disturbing, to see everyone duking it out online with their tremendously long posts and taking up all the available points anyone could possibly conceive for a particular question. My advice to you is to start early and beat the crowd, but play fair at the same time – you can write a long post, but try to limit yourself to at most 2 points so that you’ll reserve some space for the rest to write as well. As for the finals, I wanted to die – partly because I left all the memorising to the day before the exam, which was the stupidest thing I’d done this year. The finals test all the semester’s worth of work, but I spotted identification terms from Theme 1 and 2, and thankfully was able to scribble some half-hearted words for them when they came out.

Workload: The forum participation was a pain, really – it required checking to see if anyone replied, and typing another short ‘essay’ in response to someone’s rebuttal, or adding on to their point. It took up even more time than a tutorial would have. There are readings every week, but I gave up very early on in the semester, and only read whenever it would help with the online forum post (I cited some readings for my points). I think the lectures, if you pay attention and diligently take notes, will stand you in much better stead for the exams than the readings. The content, however, is massive, and it’s hard to tell what is permissible to skip. Still, the saving grace of this mod is that they have a tendency to keep the questions at a somewhat doable level (although I would say it’s still hard) and you are probably bound to recognise a few of the ID terms that you have to do if you put in enough effort into at least scoping out the topic in general. I think, though, I would have been better off not taking this mod, especially with my poor time management and inability to memorise copious amounts of information in a short amount of time.

EN1101E/GEK1000: Introduction to Literary Studies

I felt that this module could have been done much better. As someone who loves Lit, I felt that this module really emphasised a lot on the more technical aspects during the lectures, which took away the joy of Lit. Of course, I understand the necessity of understanding literary technique, and I’m all for the terminology, but I think the way that it was taught was rather dry and unfocused for the most part. I suppose it has something to do with the fact that I wasn’t used to the idea of spending only 2 weeks on each Lit text, and focusing so much on poetry for the first five weeks or so. For a person who enjoys novels and plays much more than poetry, this came as a discomfort and a disappointment. My familiarity of the texts were also lacking, and I only read most of them (A Raisin in the Sun and Northanger Abbey) twice, Volpone once and Breakfast at Tiffany’s thrice (if only because I did my assignment on this book).

I think the saving grace of the module were the books – I grew to love Breakfast at Tiffany’s over time, even though I disliked it during my first reading. As for A Raisin in the Sun and Northanger Abbey, I have absolutely no objections regarding them; they are pleasant reads. Northanger is a bit long though, and I read it quite slowly because I was unaccustomed to Austen’s way of writing. I have never been a fan of Austen, but Northanger was alright and I didn’t mind it much. Volpone, however, was another story altogether. I really hated reading it, because it was written in Shakespearean style (more or less, I’m not very specific about the timeline), but the language had much less grace and elegance, and was crude when it was intended to be funny. I had difficulty understanding what was going on, and what’s worse, wasn’t very motivated to understand either. As with all books, though, everyone will definitely have their own opinions regarding a text, and each person responds to a text differently, and forms different kinds of attachments. I know someone who found Volpone rather humorous, and while I failed to see the humour, I trust her ability and taste, so each to their own.

Assessment: There is a midterm test (20%), an essay assignment (25%), tutorial participation (15%) and finals (40%). My tutor was very strict in her marking, and decimated the whole class; I did slightly above average, but not particularly outstandingly well or anything like that. The midterm test is on poetry, and I think that it would be good practice to use more poetic devices in your analysis, because that was the comment across the board given to us – that we used too little of them. (Unfortunately, having used a few, I’m not sure how much more I could have found in the poem to be analysed.) Finals is based on four sections, and you have to do three – that leaves you with only 40 min for each section, which is really terrible if you had to change your question at the last minute, like I did. There is “no repeat of material” allowed, and so you must choose your questions carefully. While it is not a must for you to study all four texts in great detail, perhaps it would be wise to at least scan through the fourth book. I didn’t do Volpone (gee, what a surprise) and I managed to escape doing it during the finals itself.

Workload: The workload is generally light. Apart from reading the texts over and over again, and reading through the lecture notes and the occasional reading, I would say that the workload is really much more comfortable than any of the other modules. However, I would caution against the mindset that taking A Level Lit is a straight guarantee for an A, because I don’t think that’s true. The cohort is generally quite good, being made up of A Level Lit students, and it may be difficult to stand out among all the good students. Still, I would definitely take this mod again, if only for the fact that I did enjoy three out of the four texts, even if it was mostly self-study.

UTCP Junior Seminar

My last module is a UTCP junior seminar. I am unable to speak for all UTCP seminars, seeing as I only took my first one this sem, but I believe that they are generally challenging in their interdisciplinary approach, and make you think harder beyond the surface. However, I think it is well worth the effort, and it also features a small class size (about 10-15 people), which allows you to bond better with your class, whom you will see twice a week. The workload varies across all UTCP modules, but all of them do not have finals, which is really fantastic.

(Intended major: Political Science)

 

In general, I think some tips I would give to an incoming freshman would be:

1. You have the S/U option, so use it wisely. Maybe it would be good to focus on some mods more, because it is hard to spread out your effort for everything, especially in the first sem when you’re still getting your bearings.

2. Start early. Don’t slack off on your readings in the first two weeks of just lectures, because it will eventually come back to hurt you for sure.

3. Get your friends to proof-read your work, and vice versa, if you find that your essay feels rather problematic. Help them as well in their work if they need it.

4. Enjoy uni life – maybe get a cca and try to make some friends, or talk to the person sitting next to you during lecture or tutorial. Most of them will just be cursory, ‘hi bye’ friends, but you never know whether you might find one good friend.

5. As for the freshmen camps, I have to say that it isn’t necessary to go for them. Many of us really worry if we will be unable to find anyone to hang out with in uni, but I think it is an exaggerated concern, and it is not at all ‘social suicide’ to sit alone in lectures or even tutorials. To the seniors, it is the norm, and it is acceptable and no one even bats an eyelash at it. Go for a camp or two if you would like to make friends, but let yourself not be motivated by worry.

That’s about it for this semester – here’s hoping the next semester will bring more interesting mods :)