Taught by: Dr Christine Tan
Content (Structure/Organization): 3
The course is structured similarly to NGN in that it introduces you to a range of disciplines; philosophy, psychology, anthropology, and more. You'll explore concepts like the hierarchy of human needs, religion, money, love, and technology. However, these topics are presented as distinct, standalone reflections rather than as part of a unified framework. There's no clear progression from one idea to the next, which can feel a bit fragmented at times.
The course doesn’t really have a set list of learning objectives, which can be good or bad depending on what you’re looking to gain. It’s one of the courses designed to get you thinking, not to give you clear answers. Like the title suggests, you go in wondering what the course is even about, and you come out with even more questions, but in a way that makes you reflect deeper.
The structure for each class is quite standard. It usually begins with student presentations on the assigned readings. After that, the professor gives her own talk and throws in a few open-ended discussion questions for everyone to think about.
Manageability of Workload: 4
The course load is quite similar to NGN, both in terms of structure and overall workload. I found it to be one of the more manageable modules. That said, most of the heavier work is concentrated in the second half of the semester.
There’s a four-week group project that runs mid-to-late semester, which typically requires about 2–3 hours of work each week. There’s one student presentation during the semester, a short speech toward the end, and a final individual project that’s quite similar in format to the NGN final project.
Ease/Difficulty of Attaining Grades:
Getting a good grade in this course is definitely achievable, but it requires more than just producing well-crafted work. While the grading is generally fair, the professor is quite particular about how directly your work engages with the central theme of the course: the meaning of life. Because this theme is so broad and abstract, it’s easy to unintentionally drift off-topic. So while well-written work is certainly important, I feel that in this course what really sets apart higher-scoring submissions is how clearly and thoughtfully they tie back to that central question. In some cases, it can feel a bit like a hit-or-miss—if your ideas align with the direction the professor had in mind, you’re likely to do well; if not, even strong presentations or writing might not receive top marks. In that sense, the real challenge lies in not just the quality of your work, but in how well you frame it within the philosophical scope the course is aiming for.
Learning Value/Recommendation: 3
The main value of this course is that it really makes you think and reflect. You come across a lot of interesting ideas, even though sometimes the topics don’t feel fully connected. It’s pretty abstract and open-ended, but that lets you explore things in your own way. Like most NUSC courses, how much you get out of it depends on how much effort you put in and how comfortable you are with not having clear answers.
About the Instructor:
The prof understands the material well and is good at helping students grasp the main ideas. Her teaching style mixes short lectures with class discussions. The lectures mostly help to explain and give context to the readings. However, the deeper exploration of ideas usually comes through the class discussions that follow, which the prof takes on a more facilitative role, asking questions that guide the conversation.