Taken AY2014/2015 Semester 1
PS1101E/GEK1003: Introduction to Politics
I’m very sure that every review on PS1101E that you come across will end up extolling the virtues of Prof Yoshi, who has won the Teaching Excellence Award for many years in a row. He is extremely clear in conveying the concepts, and he even repeats them sometimes in order to help you remember. I think part of the reason why his teaching style is so effective is because he is very systematic in explaining the flow of the theories and the concepts; he even puts funny pictures and speech bubbles, as well as ridiculous analogies, in order to make things more understandable. He is most possibly the best lecturer in Political Science (according to some seniors), and he is widely known by even the non-PS students as well for being a great lecturer.
I found the content for PS1101E very interesting for the most part, and the readings as well were difficult but I liked reading them (with the exception of some). However, I think trying to cram the content into my head in a few days before the exam was really difficult and it didn’t help that I didn’t start earlier as well. I would say that it is a relatively content-heavy mod, but it’s worth it because the concepts that he teaches you are valuable in interpreting the world’s politics around you.
Prof Yoshi only uploads his slides after the lecture, and there isn’t any webcast. Furthermore, you should really attend his lectures because occasionally, he gives a random hint of what to study. You should definitely not miss his final revision lecture, in which he basically tells you the 35 identification terms that may come out in finals (out of ten given, you pick five) as well as the possible topics that may be tested for the long essay. Studying the 35 terms is the most difficult part during preparation, but during the finals, it is most certainly the long essay that proves the greatest challenge.
Assessment: Tutorial participation makes up 20% of the grade, and the essay assignment and finals both take 40% weightage each. This means that you won’t be very busy during midterms for this mod, but that doesn’t mean you should be negligent in your readings, either. Not all the readings are important, but it is really hard to know which one will be important later for your essay assignment. Even though Prof Yoshi says that it is a think-piece and that only two references are required, it really depends on your tutor’s marking style, and thus I think it’s better to include more references (maybe five would be a safe number) – although referencing doesn’t guarantee a good score. It probably would be best to read Fukuyama’s The End of History, Samuel Huntington’s Clash of Civilisations and Political Decay, and all the Asian values debate readings (Mahbubani and Aung-Thwin, who happens to be the father of the Burmese HY1101E lecturer) at the very least. It’s also very important how you choose your essay question for both the assignment and the finals – I chose the right question for my assignment and did well, but for my finals, I picked a trickier question and ended up going off point midway.
Workload: In terms of workload, the readings are quite heavy. There’s usually one or two per week, and while you don’t need to read them all, you have to read some of them, or you’ll be left rushing the readings the week before the assignment (like me). Still, it’s good that there is very few assessments for this mod, because it minimises the time spent trying to study or write another essay. Of course, that could also be a downside because it is, to some extent, an ‘all or nothing’ situation. I think that PS1101E is generally hard to score in, but it is definitely worth the effort and the pain, and I would definitely take it if it was under Prof Yoshi.
Source
Showing posts with label ps. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ps. Show all posts
Module review for PS2258: Introduction to Political Theory
Taken AY2014/2015 Semester 2
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.
Source
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.
Source
Module review for PS2237: Introduction to International Relations
Taken AY2014/2015 Semester 2
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.
Source
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.
Source
Module review for PS2258: Introduction to Political Theory
Taken AY2014/2015 Semester 2
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.
Source
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.
Source
Module review for PS2237: Introduction to International Relations
Taken AY2014/2015 Semester 2
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.
Source
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.
Source
Module review for PS2245: Southeast Asia Politics
Taken AY2014/2015 Semester 2
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.
Source
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.
Source
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)