RSS Feed (xml)
It's that time of the year when you open your closet door and skeletons in your closets come tumbling out (I mulled hard whether this idiom made sense, esp after reading jy's post on idioms. Her insightful observation of idioMs and idioTs - one alpahet difference, worlds apart - is rather, well, insightful.). Admittedly (and thankfully), I think there weren't too many skeletons to worry about. After all, 2/3 of 2008 was spent at my aj stint, while the hectic uni sem took up all of the last 1/3. Not much time in between to accumulate skeletons.
But still, I find the end of the year a good time to review one's experience in the year. I suppose 2008 has been, indisputably (to me) far better than 2007. As for 2009, I believe, at least academically, it would be an even better experience than 2008. I think I'm going to dabble in some arcane and esoteric fields of study (for history). But more on that in future.
As for finances and fitness, I think I've gotta work harder for 2009. I have in mind my IPPT. erps. Think $$$ ! As for 'social life', I think I'll just let things flow along. I haven't been an enthusiastic organiser for certain things. A feeling of guilt rushes up to me as I realise I haven't actually organised a class gathering in ages. But I think I have been quite cooperative about 'showing my face', if and when someone else demands attendance. I'm afraid I cannot say the same for some of my friends, but I'm not complaining - after all, everyone has (and reserves their rights) changing and differing priorities. Perhaps my changed role suits me better.
Despite the prevalent feeling of doom and gloom, then, 2009 promises, paradoxically, to be a year heralding greater hopes. At least, to me.
Happy New Year to all!
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
modules, modules,
Just thought I should post something here... 2008 is coming to an end!
Anyway, I went to rethink my modules' choice for Sem 2 again. In the end, I actually dropped HY2241 (Why study History? The 20th century, 1914-1989).
Why?
I'm not too sure either. Somehow, it seems counter-intuitive. After all (given the title), it should be most relevant, either in preparation for a teaching career or in terms of professional development as a historian.
Yet, having seen the syllabus etc via IVLE, I'm not convinced. At least, that's how this particular lecturer(s) is going to do it, and I don't like it. I feel rather... cheated? Is that the right word? Suffice to say, I think the syllabus and the title does not match. It seems to place an over-emphasis on a particular region, although the title and past year papers (seem to) suggest something along the line of 20th century world history. Yet, after painstakingly downloading the readings for the module, I decided it was best to kiss it goodbye and wait for it to be re-offered (if they do) two sems down.
Of course, I think every lecturer has the right to structure the module in his own way, but here, it's like a case of... bad online shopping? Like you see this item, you buy it, and then you realise the goods don't match. Ok, maybe this isn't such an appropriate analogy. In any case, I'm not going to waste my precious module slots and then belatedly lament the fate of being cheated.
But this places me in a predicament. Apart from EU1101E (European studies exposure) and HY2255 (Islam in World history), I was thinking of doing a Singapore studies module, one Singapore history module, and currently I have a Singapore popular culture history module in my bag. I swear I'm going to be so sick of this area by the end of the day. Maybe it's time to go module hunting again.
(No, at this point I'm not thinking of venturing out of FASS yet)
Speaking of which, there is this rather interesting (or so I thought, initially) science GEM (General Education Module). It's called GEK1539 - A Brief History of Science. Now, I should not have been so hopeful, considering that the courses are offered by physicists. Hoping against hope, I went to check the module out (thankfully), and again, I was disappointed. The module description goes:
"Even Science students tend to be unaware of how modern concepts have arisen, what their impact was at the time and how they changed the world. This course is intended to explain the history and significance of scientific developments on societies and how perceptions of the world have changed as a result."
I was like Wow, you mean the Science people do this!. The exam paper turned out to be something like "[Fill in the date] - Law/discovery/invention," or "[Fill in the Law/discovery/invention] - [date]," or "Give [number] [examples/reason/consequence] why [...]". I think any amateur (not to mention serious) historian would fume with rage.
Another interesting-looking Sci GEM was GEK1506 - Heavenly Mathematics: Cultural Astronomy. It's description goes like this:
"After taking this course you will become conscious of the motion of the Sun and the Moon and notice and question things you have earlier taken for granted. You will appreciate mankind's struggle through the ages and throughout the world to understand the mathematics of the heavens."
Again, hopes were dashed. Simply put, if I took the course, I would definitely struggle, because it's a Mathematics paper. Something like "Oh it's Jan, the Sun moves so many degrees, how long would it take for the moon to yadayada". Of course, I definitely would understand the mathematics at the end of the day, but certainly would be as ignorant as I was before taking the course with regards to the cultural dimensions of it.
Thus ends my first Science-GEM hunting :( No wonder they're called GEMs - you've really gotta sift out the gems.
Anyway, I went to rethink my modules' choice for Sem 2 again. In the end, I actually dropped HY2241 (Why study History? The 20th century, 1914-1989).
Why?
I'm not too sure either. Somehow, it seems counter-intuitive. After all (given the title), it should be most relevant, either in preparation for a teaching career or in terms of professional development as a historian.
Yet, having seen the syllabus etc via IVLE, I'm not convinced. At least, that's how this particular lecturer(s) is going to do it, and I don't like it. I feel rather... cheated? Is that the right word? Suffice to say, I think the syllabus and the title does not match. It seems to place an over-emphasis on a particular region, although the title and past year papers (seem to) suggest something along the line of 20th century world history. Yet, after painstakingly downloading the readings for the module, I decided it was best to kiss it goodbye and wait for it to be re-offered (if they do) two sems down.
Of course, I think every lecturer has the right to structure the module in his own way, but here, it's like a case of... bad online shopping? Like you see this item, you buy it, and then you realise the goods don't match. Ok, maybe this isn't such an appropriate analogy. In any case, I'm not going to waste my precious module slots and then belatedly lament the fate of being cheated.
But this places me in a predicament. Apart from EU1101E (European studies exposure) and HY2255 (Islam in World history), I was thinking of doing a Singapore studies module, one Singapore history module, and currently I have a Singapore popular culture history module in my bag. I swear I'm going to be so sick of this area by the end of the day. Maybe it's time to go module hunting again.
(No, at this point I'm not thinking of venturing out of FASS yet)
Speaking of which, there is this rather interesting (or so I thought, initially) science GEM (General Education Module). It's called GEK1539 - A Brief History of Science. Now, I should not have been so hopeful, considering that the courses are offered by physicists. Hoping against hope, I went to check the module out (thankfully), and again, I was disappointed. The module description goes:
"Even Science students tend to be unaware of how modern concepts have arisen, what their impact was at the time and how they changed the world. This course is intended to explain the history and significance of scientific developments on societies and how perceptions of the world have changed as a result."
I was like Wow, you mean the Science people do this!. The exam paper turned out to be something like "[Fill in the date] - Law/discovery/invention," or "[Fill in the Law/discovery/invention] - [date]," or "Give [number] [examples/reason/consequence] why [...]". I think any amateur (not to mention serious) historian would fume with rage.
Another interesting-looking Sci GEM was GEK1506 - Heavenly Mathematics: Cultural Astronomy. It's description goes like this:
"After taking this course you will become conscious of the motion of the Sun and the Moon and notice and question things you have earlier taken for granted. You will appreciate mankind's struggle through the ages and throughout the world to understand the mathematics of the heavens."
Again, hopes were dashed. Simply put, if I took the course, I would definitely struggle, because it's a Mathematics paper. Something like "Oh it's Jan, the Sun moves so many degrees, how long would it take for the moon to yadayada". Of course, I definitely would understand the mathematics at the end of the day, but certainly would be as ignorant as I was before taking the course with regards to the cultural dimensions of it.
Thus ends my first Science-GEM hunting :( No wonder they're called GEMs - you've really gotta sift out the gems.
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
results!
I'm not sure if this is 'good', but IMHO it's certainly not great, and its bordering on the 'bad' already.
On CH2243 (it's in Chinese!): Well, I might as well keep it since the impact is only a 0.05. Use as my U/E (so I can't S/U it either). Hopefully that gives me a slack-ier Honours semester. (BTW, I did this module in 2004/05 Semester 2)
On EN1101E: My literature. Oh. I should be thankful that the B- did not appear under this module, considering what I wrote on my script. 'nuff said.
On SE1101E: Hmmm I though I could get an 'A'. But still, at least it's decent.
On my History (my major) modules: That HY2250 is definitely a sucker. baaah. I'm avoiding the lecturer at all costs now. On the other hand, I should be rather happy about my HY1101E and HY2246. hmmmm.
***
In any case, it's goodbye to UNC for now. In fact, it's probable I'll never get there. Only CAP=4.8++ need apply. Even TWO consecutive semesters of perfect score can't get me there (that'll be 4.71). So bye-bye Obamaland. Not going there after all. But that opens up my options to go SEP still. hmmmm. But with such crap results, I'll still need to work harder.
***
For now, it's X'mas. But I still can't seem to get into the festive mood.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Champs, Chance, Choice and Case
(the title's a pretty cool alliteration, right?)
Apart from lots of catching up with folks, I've also been doing quite a fair bit of reading too (not readings' reading, like during Term time). I'm quite satisfied considering that a fair amount is fiction, and in Mandarin too. muahaha. Also managed to finish The Bone Garden by Tess Gerritsen too. A pretty cool book too.
But here, I'll like to share two other (non-fiction) books:
Both books actually come under the Business / Human Resource Management section, and to put it briefly, talks about the issue of (innate) talent. I thought it might actually turn out to be two similar (if not identical) books, but they weren't. In fact, it felt like readings two parts of one book. I would recommend reading Colvin and then Gladwell (back-to-back). By the way, Colvin's articles appear in Fortune (he's the senior editor there) and Gladwell has two other books, The Tipping Point (which is a good read, similar in style to Outliers too) and Blink (which I haven't read, but I think it should be pretty good too).
Anyway, I'll leave all you out there to read them (if you're interested), but let me select parts of these books out that I found rather instructive.
You'll find this excerpt coming from the last paragraph of Talent is Overrated. Suffice to say, the main thrust of Colvin's book is on the concept of 'deliberate practice' and the myth of 'innate talent' (I know this is not doing justice to the breadth of the book, but it'll suffice for now):
"The evidence offers no easy assurances. It shows that the price of top-level achievement is extraordinarily high. Perhaps it's inevitable that not many people will choose to pay it. But the evidence shows also that by understanding how a few become great, anyone can become better. Above all, what the evidence shouts most loudly is striking, liberating news: that great performance is not reserved for a preordained few. It is available to you and to everyone."
- Geoff Colvin, Talent is Overrated: What Really Separates World-Class Performers from Everybody Else (New York: Portfolio, 2008), p. 206.
The other excerpt comes from my second recommendation, Outliers, by Malcolm Gladwell. A word of caution though. If you're someone who has an attention span of less than fifteen minutes, you're not going to enjoy his book, because every chapter begins with stuff that seems to be totally unrelated. In GP terms, his 'topic sentence' is simply not there. the 'point' comes out only later. But if you can plough through it, you'll find his prose rather amazing. Here's the excerpt:
"It is not easy to be so honest about where we're from. It would be simpler... to portray success as a straightforward triumph over victimhood... [or] individual achievement. ... Superstar lawyers and math whizzes and software entrepreneurs appear at first to blush to lie outside ordinary experience. But they don't. They are products of hsitory and community, of opportunity and legacy. Their success is not exceptional or mysterious. It is grounded in a web of advantages and inheritances, some deserved, some not, some earned, some plain lucky - but all critical to making who they are. The outlier, in the end, is not an outlier at all.
- Malcolm Gladwell, Outliers: The Story of Success (London: Allen Lane, 2008), p. 284-285.
I think both books have been amazing. They don't sound at all 'preachy' - 'you should do this, change that, not do that' - they just lay out the facts, give you their analysis, and leave you thinking. If you have time this Christmas, think about picking these great reads up!
***
p.s. If you actually buy Geoff Colvin's Talent is Overrated, here's a tip from me: get the hardcover version. Reason? Well, the hardcover version costs only $4.30 more after a 20% discount (think Kinokuniya) or even just $4 more after a 25% discount (think Harris). Hardcovers are simply far more classy. Period. Besides, the purplelish-maroon colour of the Paperback is kind of ugly (not the colour itself, but the shade) - in fact, it's downright awful.
Apart from lots of catching up with folks, I've also been doing quite a fair bit of reading too (not readings' reading, like during Term time). I'm quite satisfied considering that a fair amount is fiction, and in Mandarin too. muahaha. Also managed to finish The Bone Garden by Tess Gerritsen too. A pretty cool book too.
But here, I'll like to share two other (non-fiction) books:
Both books actually come under the Business / Human Resource Management section, and to put it briefly, talks about the issue of (innate) talent. I thought it might actually turn out to be two similar (if not identical) books, but they weren't. In fact, it felt like readings two parts of one book. I would recommend reading Colvin and then Gladwell (back-to-back). By the way, Colvin's articles appear in Fortune (he's the senior editor there) and Gladwell has two other books, The Tipping Point (which is a good read, similar in style to Outliers too) and Blink (which I haven't read, but I think it should be pretty good too).
Anyway, I'll leave all you out there to read them (if you're interested), but let me select parts of these books out that I found rather instructive.
You'll find this excerpt coming from the last paragraph of Talent is Overrated. Suffice to say, the main thrust of Colvin's book is on the concept of 'deliberate practice' and the myth of 'innate talent' (I know this is not doing justice to the breadth of the book, but it'll suffice for now):
"The evidence offers no easy assurances. It shows that the price of top-level achievement is extraordinarily high. Perhaps it's inevitable that not many people will choose to pay it. But the evidence shows also that by understanding how a few become great, anyone can become better. Above all, what the evidence shouts most loudly is striking, liberating news: that great performance is not reserved for a preordained few. It is available to you and to everyone."
- Geoff Colvin, Talent is Overrated: What Really Separates World-Class Performers from Everybody Else (New York: Portfolio, 2008), p. 206.
The other excerpt comes from my second recommendation, Outliers, by Malcolm Gladwell. A word of caution though. If you're someone who has an attention span of less than fifteen minutes, you're not going to enjoy his book, because every chapter begins with stuff that seems to be totally unrelated. In GP terms, his 'topic sentence' is simply not there. the 'point' comes out only later. But if you can plough through it, you'll find his prose rather amazing. Here's the excerpt:
"It is not easy to be so honest about where we're from. It would be simpler... to portray success as a straightforward triumph over victimhood... [or] individual achievement. ... Superstar lawyers and math whizzes and software entrepreneurs appear at first to blush to lie outside ordinary experience. But they don't. They are products of hsitory and community, of opportunity and legacy. Their success is not exceptional or mysterious. It is grounded in a web of advantages and inheritances, some deserved, some not, some earned, some plain lucky - but all critical to making who they are. The outlier, in the end, is not an outlier at all.
- Malcolm Gladwell, Outliers: The Story of Success (London: Allen Lane, 2008), p. 284-285.
I think both books have been amazing. They don't sound at all 'preachy' - 'you should do this, change that, not do that' - they just lay out the facts, give you their analysis, and leave you thinking. If you have time this Christmas, think about picking these great reads up!
***
p.s. If you actually buy Geoff Colvin's Talent is Overrated, here's a tip from me: get the hardcover version. Reason? Well, the hardcover version costs only $4.30 more after a 20% discount (think Kinokuniya) or even just $4 more after a 25% discount (think Harris). Hardcovers are simply far more classy. Period. Besides, the purplelish-maroon colour of the Paperback is kind of ugly (not the colour itself, but the shade) - in fact, it's downright awful.
Monday, December 01, 2008
module preference exercise
so its my first module preference exercise!
Im thinking of doing these:
Though I think I might drop something in favour of a Singapore Studies module. Liking history is one thing, but FIVE? hmmm. I shall have to think about it again. In any case, it's only ONE bid point, so let me get them first and decide. Then again, one point can be important (read: http://eejun.blogspot.com/2008/08/update.html)
Oh well. Going back to school now to settle some stuff.
Im thinking of doing these:
Though I think I might drop something in favour of a Singapore Studies module. Liking history is one thing, but FIVE? hmmm. I shall have to think about it again. In any case, it's only ONE bid point, so let me get them first and decide. Then again, one point can be important (read: http://eejun.blogspot.com/2008/08/update.html)
Oh well. Going back to school now to settle some stuff.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)