Y3S2 | AY2016-7 | Module Review: SC2204, SC4882B, LAK3202

I've decided on a request format for modular reviews instead. If you want me to review any of the modules listed in the header, please leave me a message and I'll get to work.

I know potential requests (if any at all) would most likely come nearer to bidding seasons, but my memory ain't that great so... I'm gonna have to cap the request deadline to somewhere within this year (i.e. 2017).

Hope everyone is doing well!

[edit 28/2/20: I will not be entertaining any more requests for notes.]

SC4882B: Citizenship, Nation & Globalization

(Prof. Anne Raffin)

SC4882B is the very first Honors module, and I'm glad I got a decent grade, because god knows my GPA needs saving. Because the subject at hand (i.e. of citizenship, of nation, of globalization) is very broad-based to begin with, it can get hazy pinpointing the main focus in each seminar as concepts and content overlap throughout. Therefore, the onus is up to you to be able to draw links and extract information across this module.

Assigned readings play a central role in this module, and essentially make up its entire content. The lack of a more rigid structure to this module is also because of this, as it is difficult to align content across varied readings unlike that of a standardized textbook or lecture-style content. Most of the readings have been recycled time and again in this module, and all readings are conveniently uploaded in the workbin. The workload is very manageable in terms of assigned readings each week. Though a small portion of readings can be slightly dry, most are solid works based on cultural analysis of different facets of citizenship and nationhood in the era of globalization. The IVLE descriptor is quite accurate in covering the scope of this module. Prof also likes to screen films during seminars.

Each week, every group presents on the assigned readings of the week, and the class breaks up into smaller groups after for discussion. Prof isn't fussed about how long each group takes to present—some groups presented for forty minutes, others slightly longer. But that is unavoidable, as Prof's tendency to interrupt with her input every few slides tends to prolong the presentation time. Seminar slides are basically summaries + analyses of assigned readings, and critical questions to evoke thinking and discussion in class. Tip: these questions got me thinking about issues I've never pondered on before, and were helpful in preparing for the final.

In my opinion, this module is worth taking, simply because it covers social issues that are playing out right now around the world. Just remember, no matter the presentation, the class discussions (no CA for class participation) or the final, as long as you have a reasonable opinion that can be backed up and know your readings, you'll do okay for this module. The only issue I have is that Prof can sometimes spew out racism-laced comments (consciously or unconsciously, I can't really tell) that make me roll my eyes and grimace in mental pain. Other than that, I'm cool with her.  

Term paper (~3000 words): 35% - A-

Project presentation: 25%

Final: 40%

Final grade: A-

---

SC2204: Social Inequalities: Who Gets Ahead?
(Prof. Tan Ern Ser; Tutor Yip Shao Ren)

SC2204 did not turn out the way I expected it to be. Mostly because I was expecting a broader study of social inequalities across society, but this module has a fixation on CLASS and its consequential inequalities. To be fair, the content is applicable in today's society, as class is one of the root of social inequality. The bulk of this module stems from various theories debating and conceptualizing class + measurement of class and its inequalities. Only at the end were the social issues of gender, race and global inequalities introduced briefly.

Lectures are unavoidably dry as a result of its content, though you can clearly see Prof's passion in teaching about the subject. Prof helpfully goes through the important aspects of each theory + analysis of the readings in each lecture, and is really welcoming of anyone who needs further clarification. Tutorials are for small group discussions on biweekly sets of questions. Edgell's work (the course text) is boring but very important as it contains all the theories and arguments tested. Tip: to score well, you really need to understand each theory well, including their pros and cons, whether they complement other theories (or not), and how to apply them to real-life societies and class situations.
 
Class participation: 10%
Term paper (800-1000 words): 15% - A+
Midterm: 25% - A
Final: 50%

Final grade: B+
---

LAK3202: Korean 4
(Ms Cho Jin-Hee)

I was so happy to have Ms Cho (it's so weird addressing her in english lol) as my teacher again because that's when I know I'm in good hands. As always, her patient guidance and friendliness made Korean class so much more enjoyable. ^^

Once again, CLS made adjustments—the difficulty level was reduced, probably after seeing the abysmal results from the previous Korean 3 batch (the very same ones that took Korean 4 this semester). As such, the content per se was quite manageable, be it vocabulary (a more diverse list), grammar, syntax, jondaemal/banmal. Even midterm was a breeze. There was no oral component; I think that was included in the skit itself.

What was more challenging were the videos and skit. We had to work on two videos, one on self-introduction and another on food. The self-introduction video was easy to clear, because I'm used to vlogging, and we were required to do it in one-take, so I didn't have to edit. It was the video on food that was annoying, because script-writing and filming were quite a hassle. I roped mom in to help, and basically just filmed her making bibimbap while explaining whatever she was doing. Not very exciting, but I just wanted to be done with it (and we happened to have gochujang in the fridge). For the skit (two in one team), scripts had to be memorized and presented live in class. Background slides were mostly utilized as enhancements. One dedicated team even parodied 도깨비- it was H-I-L-A-R-I-O-U-S. Votes received from the audience for best performing team then translated to extra brownie points towards the final grade.

Unfortunately, I've already recycled my syllabus sheet so I can't provide the grade breakdown for each CA component.

Video: Self Introduction
Video: Food
Written assignment
Project skit
Midterm
Final
Class participation: 5%
E-learning: 5%

Final grade: B+
---

- fee.