I'm so sorry this is so late, but here's the rundown:

FASS Modules

PL1101E - Introduction to Psychology

First things first: lectures for this module are completely useless. They almost exclusively cover textbook content, and even then they don't cover everything that will be tested. Your time would be much better spent actually reading the textbook than sitting through largely perfunctory lectures.

That being said, A/P Schirmer does try her best with the constraints she's been given. One time she brought her dog to class to illustrate classical and operant conditioning, which was really cool, and otherwise she's genuinely enthusiastic. The tutorials were also interesting on a whole. All in all, the reason why I didn't enjoy the module was because the assessment was terrible - eat the textbook and spit it out all over your paper, which is mostly MCQ and based solely on rote memorisation.

I like psychology, but the way the module was run just frustrated me too much to commit my best efforts. (Final Grade: A)

Difficulty: If you have a good memory, it shouldn't be a problem. I managed to mug for my exams a few days before each paper and scored in the top ten for the first one - I'll get back to you on the second, though. If you have problems remembering things, though, you might want to reconsider. There really is a lot. Oh, also, you'll have a significant advantage if you studied biology (specifically, neurology) in pre-u!
Workload: Besides the midterm and the final exam, you have one 600-word essay that you submit in the middle of the year. Yes, 600 words. On the first three chapters that you study. And that's it.
Assessment: Memorise everything. Like, everything. Or at least read the whole textbook. They'll test big concepts as short answers, but the MCQs can get very particular about specific experiments sometimes. (Still, if you're short on time and can't be bothered to remember those you should still be fine.)
Interest Value: I like psychology! I just wish I liked the module ):
Teaching Quality (Lecture): A/P Schirmer is a good lecturer, but the lectures themselves are quite useless. I stopped listening about halfway through, and skipped the last two to write my play for EN2271 (see below) u_u

EL1101E - The Nature of Language

The NUS English Language (i.e. linguistics) department is full of win. Dr Yosuke Sato is a great lecturer with a superb sense of humour - I ended up tweeting a lot of the things he said. My tutor, Jian Rong, is a very chill guy who tucks in his T-shirts who asks very intelligent questions. Other than that, the guest lecturer (Dr Hiramoto) was also great,and one of the tutors sounds like a radio DJ? Yeah.

Out of all the exposure modules I've taken, I think this one comes in second to Japanese Studies. As an introduction to linguistics, the material is novel enough to always be interesting, and that combined with engaging tutorials (each group takes charge of one tutorial to do a presentation) means that you really do learn things. Content covered includes micro-aspects of linguistics like the Int'l Phonetic Alphabet and phrase-structure rule formation, as well as more macro areas like Singlish and biolinguistics. I guess the most frustrating thing about this module was the group project, which is a <5000-word research paper based on some language datasets they give you, but that was just because of my group; the assignment itself was reasonable.

Exams are entirely MCQ, which is amazing. It makes them quite easy while not being entirely memory-based, because Dr Sato gives you actual linguistics problems to solve during the paper. As long as you have a good head on your shoulders and review the concepts before exams, you should be totally fine.

This module is a very good exposure choice if you're also taking PL1101E and NM1101E. They cover a lot of the same things - PL1101E has a chapter on language and learning, for instance. In any case, taking that particular combination made studying for the exams a lot easier for me. (Final Grade: A+)

Difficulty: Quite easy, as long as you're prepared to memorise jargon and phonetic alphabets!
Workload: Besides the exams, you only have that one group project and tutorial presentation. There isn't much actual content to review for the exams themselves either, especially when compared with psychology.
Assessment: I think the group project is entirely reasonable - you're given a few datasets and some investigation tasks to perform, after which you construct a coherent research paper around your analysis. So it's not just meaningless question-answering; it forces you to think originally and also trains your writing skills.
Interest Value: There's one point in the module where Dr Sato claims that linguistics is the centre of the universe, and it's a convincing argument.
Teaching Quality: I like this department a lot. 

EN2202 - Critical Reading

This class is highly sought-after by English Literature majors, especially if it's taught by Dr Susan Ang, and it's easy to see why. Carried out in small groups of about 20+, you sit in a circle and attack a poem/story/short novel for an hour, then repeat according to how much time you have. Basically, it's very hardcore close reading with graded class participation. My class was, according to Dr Ang, a "high-performing" group, and I found myself not being able to slack for an instant. It was like taking the eight most vocal members of my IB class, multiplying them by three, and grading them on how much they talked. Though I wasn't pressured as much by the grade as I was by keeping up with everyone else. It was super intense.

Dr Ang is probably the most respected teacher in the NUS English Literature department; if she isn't, I think she should be. For those in my previous school, she's like Mr Connor and Mrs Goh in one, combining astute responses and observations with a rapid-fire pace. She's very good at identifying students' individual tendencies and pointing them out so you know what to improve on. She has a reputation for being quite prescriptive about grammar, but try not to let that get you down too much; she's otherwise very good. She also has a reputation for only engaging with high-ability students, but since my whole class was apparently "high-ability", I don't know how to comment on that...

Oh, by the way, Dr Ang lets you type your final exam if your handwriting is bad enough! I think it saved my grade in the end. (Final Grade: A+)

Difficulty: It depends on how used you are to close reading, but Dr Ang does offer extra tutoring sessions in her office that a lot of students took up. I didn't, though, so I can't talk about them. Sorry ):
Workload: The classes themselves are intense, but the homework is very light. Two essays (two drafts for each, with opportunity for one-on-one consultation), and the one novel you have to read in the middle of the semester is very short.
Assessment: If you took IB, it's just a lot of Paper 1s. If you took the A-Levels, it's a lot of whatever unseen paper you had. The final paper is three hours long, but it's meant to be ample time. Snacks are provided at the back of the lecture theatre when you take it.
Interest Value: You're already a literature major, so there's no turning back now. But each class covers different material, which helps to keep things fresh.
Teaching Quality: Dr. Ang won the NUS Outstanding Educator Award for a reason.

EN2271 - Introduction to Playwriting

If you like creative writing, take this module - it's the only writing track available in the Literature Department right now. Do not believe the department's module list, which continues to include its prose and poetry writing courses even though they haven't offered it for years. It's somewhat difficult to get into this class (ten spots, application and writing portfolio required), but even if you've never tried playwriting before, I still suggest trying it out if you're interested.

The class is taught the way I think creative writing should be taught: plenty of writing with a lot of peer critique, along with analysis of existing works from a writer's perspective. For the first six weeks, you submit your 600-word essay on an assigned play before the three-hour class starts, and then everyone's scripts are read out by the class and critiqued one at a time. The workload, as a result, is no joke: you produce one essay and one short play every week of the first six; the latter starts off at three pages and climbs to ten by the middle of the semester. You then work on a one-act play during the second half, culminating in a marathon reading session that lasts one whole Saturday. It's tiring, and I definitely neglected all my other modules for the sake of this one, but I think it's worth it. I really felt like I was getting things done, and receiving invaluable feedback.

EN2271 is usually taught by Huzir Sulaiman and has been for years, but my class was headed by his former student Faith Ng, who turned out to be a great teacher in her own right. An accomplished young playwright herself, she is understanding, approachable, and committed to her students. With the eleven of us seated around an oval table, bent over scripts with cups of coffee and on occasion packets of food from the canteen, the classroom soon became a comfortable environment for sharing (and killing) our literary babies.

This module is very, very important to me, and I'm so glad I took it. However, bear in mind that the work will consume almost all of your time. Take it with lighter modules so you don't die. (Final Grade: A+)

Difficulty: You'll feel pressured for sure, because you're being graded for everything you write. Even so, if you get selected for this module, have faith in yourself. When the class asked Faith about this, she insisted that she and Huzir had chosen the best writers out of all that applied. You'll probably do fine. There's no bell curve, anyway.
Workload: Red alert red alert crisis mode press A press A. You will write a lot, and agonise over everything. But you'll care about the work you do, which is always so valuable.
Assessment: The only problem I really have with this module is that everything was graded, even the shit you write when you're first starting out and figuring out what to do. Faith takes improvement into account when she decides on the final grade, though, which deals with that somewhat.
Interest Value: You've probably taking this module because you're interested, and I don't think you'll be turned off by it.
Teaching Quality: You learn as much from the class as you do the teacher! Peer critique is very important and valuable here.
Special Note: Your play might get staged!! Whatever you write gets put into an archive which NUS Stage sometimes pulls from for their productions. So do your best!

NM2104 - Qualitative Communications Research Methods

I like communications research. A lot. I like how in some contexts it's basically close reading applied to everyday media, and I've always been fond of squeezing water from apparent rocks. I also really like qualitative research, which focuses on rich, individual responses and description rather than statistical aggregation and analysis. Qualitative communications research involves things like interviews, focus groups, and even observation of and/or immersion into communities and cultural scenes. It reminds me a lot of journalism (which I did before university) and creative nonfiction (which I did after taking this module, in Yale), but tempered with academic validity and accountability. If I went into academia, I'd do research like this.

Hence this module succeeded in terms of getting me interested in the subject matter, but unfortunately I was almost as frustrated with how this module worked as I was with Introduction to Psychology. Lectures were dry and theoretical, and a lot of it was reading off slides. Tutorials were always more interesting, partially due to my engaging and enthusiastic tutor (Ms Shobha Vadrevu) but largely due to the real-life examples and practice that went on during the class. I ended up skipping quite a few lectures and reviewing the textbook and lecture slides later; as it turned out, I didn't miss much.

My main frustration, however, was the group project. The group project is a killer. Qualitative research was not meant to be done in a group, and the requirements feel contrived to ensure equal participation from everyone. For instance, you only can choose one research method (interviews OR focus groups OR participant observation) because each group member has to meet a minimum quota of hours for each. Choosing a topic that engages every member equally is also very hard; I was the relative expert on my group's chosen subject area, and therefore ended up with most of the project on my shoulders. Time management is absolutely crucial, and something my group failed at. After weeks of research and participant observation, my group ended up rushing the whole 6000-word research paper in a single night.  Do not do this. It sucks.

This is a pre-requisite module for all NM majors, so I can't exactly recommend or not recommend this module. I'm also pretty sure that the group project will change next semester, since we were the pioneering batch for it. Just... all the best, I guess. (Final Grade: A+)

Difficulty: The content isn't difficult to master, and mostly comprises theoretical frameworks for investigation and analysis. A lot of jargon, so you have to study, but you don't have to study that much. Cover the textbook readings at least once, then study the lecture slides.
Workload: One midterm exam, one final exam, and one 6000-word group research project. The last one may or may not slay you. The other two are okay.
Assessment: The exams are mostly MCQ with some short answer questions that focus on big concepts, so they should be fine. The group project has a peer evaluation form requirement, so if you end up shouldering a lot more work than you should, there's a way to reflect that in your grade.
Interest Value: I ended up loving communications research, but others I talked to found it quite dry and uninteresting. I guess it depends on personal inclination.
Teaching Quality (Lecture): bluh
Teaching Quality (Tutorial): A lot more interesting than the lectures for sure. Ms Shobha really goes the extra mile for you if you need it, and always hangs around after class for group consultations. One time she went through my field notes in Google Drive and added comments everywhere even though I didn't know if I was even going to use it in the final project. She's great.
Special Note: Like all group projects, some groups are better than others. Just pray you get a good one, because you can't choose.

USP Modules

University Scholars Seminar

The second part of a year-long module which significantly improves on the first part, which was just a series of lectures that absolutely no one listened to. This time, you have to draft and complete a mock research proposal according to NUS guidelines. Over the course of the semester, you submit a few drafts to an assigned supervisor who you meet twice for consultations, followed by the final deadline in Week 12.

This was a lot more useful and a lot more enjoyable than the previous semester. Mainly because it forces you to actually do something, rather than just sit there and fall asleep continuously. It also won't take up too much time; my supervisor (Dr Leung) actually reminded me outright that the module was pass/fail, advising me not to attempt anything too ambitious. One huge plus point about this project is that you can use it to think about what you want to do for your Independent Study Modules (i.e. research projects) and honours thesis. Even if you don't, it's still really valuable to familiarise yourself with the proper protocol.

Difficulty: Not too bad. Depends on how good you are at writing essays. Also, it's pass/fail, so you shouldn't have to worry too much about it.
Workload: I spent about 2-3 hours on each draft, tops, and I only had three submissions. You will have to do quite a bit of background research, since all academic research builds on previous literature (I was reminded of this multiple times), but Google Scholar is always your friend. Thinking of a viable topic might take some time, but again, it's pass/fail so it doesn't matter too much.
Assessment: Your supervisor marks your final draft on a pass/fail basis, which is great because s/he will spend up to 40 minutes with you beforehand going through exactly what they want. It shouldn't be too hard to pass.
Interest Value: Very relevant to USP students especially, since they'll be doing a lot of these proposals in the future.
Teaching Quality: Dr Leung, my supervisor, gives very targeted advice and isn't long-winded in the slightest; my last consultation took all of five minutes. She's also very understanding, and often reminded me that I only needed to aim for a pass, hehe.

UQF2101B - Mental Events

In USP, you have to take two foundation modules: Writing and Critical Thining (WCT) for academic writing, and Quantitative Reasoning (QR) for... academic data-crunching. Last semester, I called my WCT module the reason why I was staying in USP. Well, this QR module is the reason why I'm thinking of leaving. There were just... far too many problems with the way this module was run. Here's how it went down:

1. Content is not very interesting, especially compared to other Quantitative Reasoning modules. Some modules focus a lot on their subject matter (which is chosen based on its seemingly immeasurable nature, e.g. War and Democracy), with their readings and sessions centred around the issue itself and data crunching skills used as a backdrop. This module, however, is basically baby statistics with "mental events" (i.e. psychology) thrown in as hypothetical examples. Lessons are based on statistical concepts which range from mindnumbingly easy (mean, median and mode) to mindbendingly abstract ("If p(e | ho) < a, we reject the null hypothesis"). The readings are sometimes interesting but mostly far too mathematical to be useful, and since the prof covered most of the content in his slides anyway I just stopped reading them.
2. Also, the assessment can be extremely frustrating. All QR modules have group projects, though most will be presentations on the issues in their subject readings. As mentioned before, Mental Events doesn't really have anything new content-wise to offer, so instead, we do a full psychology experiment. Which is... time-consuming to say the least. My final paper was 40 pages long. We also do individual lab reports on computer-based experiments we participate in ourselves. Overall, I just found it annoying because our professor tends to be very unclear on requirements and deadlines, and his emails aren't exactly the clearest things in the world.
3. This module is technically a seminar-style module, but it was anything but. Most lessons functioned like a lecture, where we all just sat facing the teacher while he went through his very long powerpoint presentations. The only exceptions were presentation sessions and the times where we fiddled with Excel files. Needless to say, it was very hard to pay attention.

Difficulty: Tedious, mostly. Some statistical concepts can be hard to grasp, especially if you don't have prior experience, but if there's one good thing I can say about Prof Chua is that he's willing to spend as much time as you need to make sure you get it. Just make sure you ask him face-to-face, not through email.
Workload: Quite forgiving until you get to the lab reports and final group project, which become very demanding.
Assessment: One midterm test (fairly easy, and open-book based on the readings and notes you take in class), three individual lab reports (which he goes through in class, so as long as you listen you should be fine), and a final group project. My partner was incredible, so my project went pretty okay despite our extremely time-consuming experimental procedure. I would recommend you make things easier for yourself and do something that doesn't take an hour per research subject. Heh.
Interest Value: You need to have a pre-existing interest in "mental events" (i.e. cognitive psychology); the module probably won't make you more interested.
Teaching Quality: I wouldn't recommend A/P Prof Chua for a number of reasons (doesn't provide clear guidelines till the last minute, confusing emails, largely boring powerpoint slides), but he does know his stuff. Asking him questions face-to-face, especially about things that aren't entirely related to the subject matter, is always very interesting.

Labels: module review