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.