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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
Honestly, the main thing I learnt from taking this module was to listen to what your seniors tell you. I'd heard bad things about my professor (A/P Chua, from the psych department), but I decided to stick with it because the subject matter seemed interesting to me. But the quality of your teacher really will determine whether your experience in the module is good or bad overall. Try and find out as much as you can about your professor and their teaching style before making your decision. (Final Grade: A+... somehow.)
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
I'm horrible and I can't sleep so I'm just gonna do this review before I forget everything that happened this year:
FASS Modules
NM1101E - Communications, New Media, and Society
Content is very easy to grasp, but can get very dry. Much of it it's very relevant to daily life, even if you're not planning to major in this module - but its life relevance can also make it what many describe as "commonsensical"; i.e., you feel like you're learning what you already know and the explanations they give simply seem jargonised and ultimately useless. For instance, one section of the communications textbook is devoted to mapping the trajectory of a friendship, and another to a romantic relationship. The module also covers communication design and communication management to some extent, though, which may be more interesting.
Professor Mohan Dutta isn't the best lecturer in FASS. In fact, he's probably the worst lecturer I had this semester. He talks in a way that is riddled with redundancies (he'll rattle off three consecutive sentences all saying the same thing) and spends so much time futilely trying to make lectures interactive that he almost never finishes his PowerPoint slides. However, he isn't a
bad lecturer per se, and you shouldn't have much trouble understanding what he's saying - you'll just wish that more of what he's saying isn't already in the textbook.
The exams are mindbogglingly simple (though you may be disappointed with the quality of the questions; they were badly proofread and at times quite unclear), and are likely to be entirely multiple-choice because everyone complained about the midterm short-answer questions so they took those out. You will need to study, since there's a lot of jargon to familiarise yourself with, but as long as you read everything you'll be fine. Coursework consists of three 500-700 word assignments, covering research, design, and campaign management respectively, and as long as you have a decent reference list and follow instructions it should be very easy to score well.
Overall, this is probably the easiest social sciences exposure module in FASS, and I'm saying this without having taken any of the others. You won't be blown away with what you learn, but if you're like me and you're interested in media and/or like overanalysing ordinary things, you probably won't be bored to death either.
Difficulty: very easy, unless you're allergic to jargon. even then, the jargon isn't the worst out there, and should be easy to remember
Workload: shouldn't be a problem
Assessment: shouldn't be a problem as long as you can write in coherent sentences
Interest Value: quite relevant to life, but sometimes so relevant you wonder why you're studying it. I was the most frustrated with this module's content out of all the modules I took this semester
Teaching Quality (Lecture): could have been better, but it didn't really matter for this module because the content was so easy to grasp
Special Note: very, very receptive to feedback; they'll ask for it and make changes the following week, so take it seriously!!
JS1101E - Introduction to Japanese Studies
My favourite FASS module, hands down. I'm very, very impressed with the NUS Japanese Studies department, and I'm so glad I dropped the English Language exposure module to take up this one.
I think this module is one of the easiest Asian Studies exposure modules in FASS to handle. Firstly, you're only studying one country, which should make things easier to remember in your head and seem more focused in general. Secondly, the final exam is multiple-choice, and will be very easy if you study your lecture notes and at least finish all the readings (60 pages a week, but they're interesting and varied readings). The most stressful thing about the module (besides, well, panicking about content, but trust me it's not actually that much) will likely be the coursework, which consists of a 3000-5000-word research paper done in a group, and a 600-word forum post that provides an overview of anything Japan-related. These will require a lot of effort, but will also be very fun - if you try hard enough, you should be able to tailor at least one of these to your specific interests.
I'm not sure how people who aren't interested in Japan at all would take to this module, but for a casual mainstream animanga consumer like me, it was thoroughly enjoyable. The department makes sure that the subject matter covered is digestible for the uninitiated - they frame the content in terms of disciplines of study (what is history? what is material culture? why do we use art to analyse society?) and they keep larger concepts in mind while delving into minute details and anecdotes they find interesting. It also helps that the lecturers are clearly passionate about what they do and want to share their knowledge - the passion becomes contagious at times.
Dr Chris McMorran and Dr Scott Hislop are the best lecturers I had this semester. In fact, I was in one of Dr McMorran's tutorial groups, and he's probably the best FASS teacher I've had overall. They speak very well, are very coherent, and almost invariably finish their lectures on time. They're also very human, for lack of a better word. Dr McMorran remembers each student by name, every year. Dr Hislop talks about his nightmares about the Nara Daibutsu (big Buddha) and his experiences in Zen Buddhist training. They come across as people, which is so important when you're teaching.
So yeah, very good, best module, everyone should take it.
Difficulty: content-wise, just study; for the rest, depends on how good you are at research.
Workload: 60 pages a week, but manageable IMO
Assessment: the best Asian Studies exam ever (MCQ), but research essays can be a challenge depending on how good you are at essays. also group project
Interest Value: will probably cover at least one Japan-related thing you're interested in; if it doesn't, you have the excuse to research it yourself for one of the assessments
Teaching Quality: ace. literally ace.
EN1101E - Introduction to Literary Studies
I really don't have much to say about this module, but here goes:
Very boring, but it's not the module's fault. It's just that if you've taken literature for six years straight, you'll feel like you've gone back to Sec 1. This module is pitched at students of all levels of experience and analytical skill, and it shows. As a prospective literature major it was honestly hard to stay awake in this class. It really goes back to basics.
Texts include a buttload of poems, two plays, and two novels. About half will be classical, so you'll need to spend more time on those. Otherwise it should be manageable, though it'll still be a leap from four ("A"s) /fifteen (IB) texts in two years. The texts aren't difficult, and neither is the analysis. Lectures should be quite interesting if you listen, though you'll be expected to go beyond the content presented in your own work. Dr Barnard Turner is an interesting guy, but very prone to digression. Exams should be fairly easy if you've taken literature as an examinable subject before, and if you haven't, you'll usually have guiding questions to help you along. Tutorial quality depends heavily on the tutor you get; at one point mine (Dr Rebecca Raglon) made us spend three quarters of one tutorial reading parts of the play aloud. I've heard that others were better, though.
Overall, this is a pretty good exposure module, but if you're already been sufficiently exposed, you're likely to be quite bored.
Difficulty: if you've taken literature at O/A/IB level before, you should breeze through this. if not, should still be ok? I don't know anyone who took this without prior experience
Workload: depends on how quickly you read, but there's only one take-home 1500-word essay, so I'd say pretty light
Assessment: as literature exams go, these ones are pretty fair. everything is an essay. if you can't write essays, don't take this
Interest Value: I honestly don't know if anyone not interested in studying literature would be any more interested after taking this module, but I kinda doubt it
Teaching Quality: meh. I hear the other literature modules are miles better
NM2220 - Introduction to Media Writing
I consider this the real Communications & New Media exposure module, in terms of real-world relevance. This, not NM1101E, is what persuaded me to double-major in CNM. It's everything you could ask for in a module like this - it covers all sorts of writing from journalism to games, and is almost entirely practical-based. Readings are very light, but the tutorials are twice as long as your average FASS module for good reason. You will write
a lot. Also, all tutorials are taught by former/current media practitioners, and Dr Fran Nathan (the lecturer) used to work at The Straits Times. You'll always feel like you're learning something that will be useful to you later on, if you're considering this as a career.
That being said, I'm not very sure if this module succeeds at teaching you to be a good writer. It will teach you a lot of things about effective writing (backed up by research, too) but if you're not confident in your current writing skill, I wouldn't recommend you take this module. Good writing is often as instinctual as it is theoretical. I have classmates who struggled a lot, and one semester doesn't get you very far; in the end you'll only have five writing tasks (two being the final exam) to improve, which isn't a lot. If grades are important to you, and you can't S/U (pass/fail) this module, remember that studying won't be enough to guarantee good results.
Difficulty: depends on how good a writer you are. if you're good, it's a breeze. if you've had experience in the media industry, even better. if you're not, well...
Workload: very light. you will only be given one week per assignment, because deadlines are even tighter in the real world. I didn't spend much time on this module at all
Assessment: entirely practical-based. even if you don't study you can probably get by if you've got mad enough writing skills, but studying is always useful
Interest Value: if you're considering this as a career,
definitely take it. if not, it's interesting, but you might get frustrated because you're being graded on how you write
Teaching Quality: I had Fran Nathan as both my lecturer and tutor, and she's great on both counts
USP Modules
University Scholars Seminar
A series of seminars covering different areas of study. Our seniors told us to bring something to keep us occupied for the first seminar, so almost no one listened to any of these. The parts I actually listened to were interesting, but whether you listen or not will not affect you very much. It's a pass/fail module, and you only need to know the content of, like, one of the PowerPoint slides to complete the response paper assignment at the end of the semester.
Difficulty: lol
Workload: lol
Assessment: lol
Interest Value: lol
Teaching Quality: lol
UWC2101V - Language, Culture and Natives
This module is the reason why I'm staying in USP. Meaning, it's convinced me that the academic offerings by USP are solid enough for me to stay. It's the hardest module I took this semester, and the only one I'm not confident of ace-ing, but is also my favourite NUS module so far. Seminar-style modules are always refreshing in a university that runs primarily on a lecture-tutorial system. Difficult, and stressful for those with performance anxiety, but refreshing.
The subject matter covered here isn't evident from the title itself, but it basically concerns itself with the deconstruction of "native" stereotypes. How we think about "native" peoples, how this shows in media portrayals and colonial rhetoric, and how this impacts real indigenous populations and society as a whole. It's really cool. There's a lot of close reading involved, especially in terms of visual media, which I'd been wanting to do for a long time. I managed to write all three of my essays as visual analyses of popular media; they're among the most enjoyable essays I've ever written.
I hear the Writing and Critical Thinking component of the USP curriculum is going to change significantly next year, so I'm not sure how helpful it would be for me to elaborate much more about the module content, but I will say this - Dr Peter Vail is amazing. He prioritises clarity and is intelligent in a way that is comprehensible (unlike, say, Prof Dutta), which are essential for an academic writing module. He also can be hilarious, and as I said about the Japanese Studies professors earlier, is very human. He's very understanding about the plights of being a student (he once told us that it was completely okay to restrict the time you spend on an assignment, and that it often helps rather than hinders writing), and makes things reasonable. Along with Dr McMorran, he's become one of my favourite teachers ever.
I'm not sure what Dr Vail's next WCT iteration will look like, but he said it might focus more on language and linguistics than the deconstruction of "native" stereotypes that we did, so look out for that.
Difficulty: the most difficult module I took this semester, but all WCT modules are stressful in general, so there's no escape
Workload: pretty heavy - two seminars per week, and three essays with draft consultations. I spent more time on this module than all my other modules
Assessment: even if Dr Vail thinks your essay is well-written, a single significant mistake can still end up costing you your A. one thing I found frustrating about this was that he'd point out problems in my final submission that he entirely OKed in the previous draft. I guess this sort of thing is unavoidable, but it might help to get more than one draft in
Interest Value: who doesn't have stereotypes? it's always fun to see how stereotypes are evident everywhere you look
Teaching Quality: ace. so ace. Dr Vail is cool and has an adorable baby and has yellow-tinted spectacles
Labels: module review
[In lieu of NaNoWriMo, which I will once again not be participating in due to November being hell month in NUS, I'm going to force myself to write a blog post every day. NaBloWriMo, if you will.]
Last night I dressed up for Halloween for the first time ever, for no particular reason at all.
Well, I had a reason, technically. I was manning a fundraising booth for USP Productions and they wanted everyone at the booth to dress up, by virtue of it being
Productions, i.e. a theatre group. But that wasn't really a reason - most people had a cowboy hat or a long cape and that was it. I didn't have any friends to dress up with either; I don't have a lot of friends in the residential college, and those I do aren't the type to even show up at events like these, let alone wear a costume to them. I wasn't even intending to attend the themed dinner at all - the idea just made me uncomfortable, though people told me I should go and show off.
I didn't have expectations to meet, friends to match, best-dressed awards to win. But I still did it. Put everything on, sat at the booth for a few hours, took a few pictures with those who asked, and left. Felt faintly idiotic at how far over the top I'd gone, even. Went back to my room. Took everything off. Nothing but a few Instagram selfies for myself. Counted the money we'd made that night and fretted about losing a few coins.
So why
did I do it?
I've been wearing makeup for slightly less than a year, on and off, and I still don't know what my deal with it is. Do I just want to look pretty? Maybe. For a few weeks in February, I put on makeup for work every day because I knew it made me look better. More mature, even, which was good for a kid journalist. But every time I sat down and slathered BB cream and eyeliner for half an hour in the mornings, I hated myself every night trying to get it off. It didn't take me long to stop altogether. I just didn't see the point.
No, whenever I put on makeup, it's got to be drastic. It's got to be for something really special, and it's got to
be special itself. Perfecting a five-minute routine that does nothing but hide pimples and make my eyes look a little bigger (and
give me pimples, too) doesn't make any sense to me. Ok, sometimes it does, but I never end up doing it. I'd rather spend an hour doing something completely insane. Preferably, completely amazing. Sometimes, completely ridiculous. But always completely
different.
Maybe it's that I want to be unrecognisable. No, that doesn't really explain things. But I do get tired of my own face. That's why I act, I suppose, and why I write. Even in those things I have a reputation for being a little out there. I mean, my ideal typecast is scream queen.
Or maybe that's all it is. Being
out there. That's probably it. I like being ridiculous. I
want to be ridiculous. I'm almost cripplingly tentative about most things in life, but when I do a thing I want it to be a big, ridiculous, amazing thing. It's very satisfying, and also very, very fun. A bold line above the eye is like the thumping beat of an EDM track, like kicking down a door.
I've got a flair for the dramatic, I guess. A flair for extremes and beauty and bold flourishes. I hope it doesn't eat me alive one day.
