Anonymous (1) AY25/26 Sem 1

About the Instructor (Dr Chan Chi-Wang):

The professor was very approachable and willing to answer questions. However, I felt that he did not manage class time well and we frequently could not cover some class activities or we would miss out on class content. 

Content (Structure/Organization): 

I felt that the course was poorly structured. The first section where we covered measurements felt irrelevant compared to the rest of the course, and no connection was drawn to the second half about society. 

Manageability of Workload: 

Quite low workload. The assignments were well spaced out and not too taxing.

Ease/Difficulty of Attaining Grades:

I think an A- should be quite achievable as long as one puts in effort. The professor seems lenient with grading but not sure about final grade allocation. Not sure what is the standard for an A.

Learning Value/Recommendation: 

Not very useful

Anonymous (2) AY25/26 Sem 1

About the Instructor (Dr Sebastian Pohl):

Prof is enjoyable to listen to. He definitely knows A LOT. Extremely knowledgeable human being. Scientific discussions which he conducted were interesting. I think the course was relatively beginner friendly. He loves talking about ants. I think he is very fair in terms of grading.

Content (Structure/Organization): 

The course structure is alright, but the professor gives a lot of different assignments, so unless you have a S/U mentality, be alert of those assignments as sometimes they just pop up randomly (at least that's how I felt). Some of the topics are interesting such as what biodiversity is is as well as the social angle. I think a lot of students (including me) still unsure what the outcome of NSS is. Assignments were not too challenging, but some might take long hours. Prof is quite strict about references, where he will read everything and match the information in your assignments with the source.

Manageability of Workload: 

I found the workload very heavy. So many different assignments. I was really happy once the course was over. 

The Field Trip assignment was particularly difficult because it required you to gather your own data and compare it with existing research data. 

Ease/Difficulty of Attaining Grades:

No idea, but I think Prof is fair in grading.

Learning Value/Recommendation: 

NSS itself probably has lot more room to grow. I still don't fully understand the value-added by this course.

Anonymous AY24/25 Sem 2

About the Instructor (Dr Derek Ho)

(+) Prof Derek is a really nice and friendly professor. I never felt stress to approach him for consultations or just questions in general. He is generally a good prof and especially encouraging and understanding. This was really helpful during submissions period where we either needed more help or needed time extensions. He is a really flexible professor and would go the extra mile to offer us help or time extensions for our submissions. I do enjoy his classes although there are definitely room for improvements (refer below)

(-) Regarding his teaching style, I am not too sure if I am the only person to feel this way but he generally tend to be more awkward during his teaching. When I say awkward, it means that when he threw a question at us, he would only wait for like 1s for us to answer, and if we don’t answer it immediately, he will proceed to answer it himself. This is actually kinda hilarious and I found it really awkward and I feel bad for not answering his questions within that 1s sometimes HAHA. And because of this reason, there was not much interaction during class time as he always answers his own questions. He did not provide time for class discussions as well, which made his class really monotonous sometimes with a lack of energy. 

Content (Structure/Organization)

(+) The course was generally quite easy to understand, as I come from a science background. The case examples are what made the course interesting as I did not know any of them prior to the course. They mainly covered the history of science and some famous scientists, including the drafting of science policies and its processes. 

(-) There was not much interaction during the class and we did not have an out of classroom experience as compared to students who have taken it in semester 1. It would actually have been much more fun if we could like get some science tours or perform some cool outdoor science experiments during the course. The science experiment we were told to perform, albeit useful for fostering and enhancing the knowledge of science experiments, was pretty monotonous. As a science student, the report we needed to churn out was hella tedious, at least for me. I did not even do well for the report as I could not finish writing the report due to the number of math formulae I have to manually write out. 

Manageability of Workload

The workload, I’d say, is one of the lowest in comparison to all the NUSC classes that I’ve taken. This is because preparation before class is not compulsory, and professor derek made readings optional as well. 

On average, I spend 0 hours preparing for the class during days where there is no submission. 

(Time)There were three major submissions, the scientific report before recess week, the group poster during week 12 and the final essay during week 13. I spent about 10 hours on the scientific report from scratch all the way to completion (I did not manage to finish). I would recommend taking about 12 hours for it, including brainstorming and researching. For final essay, I spent a total of 4 days, roughly 22 hours, to complete. As for the group poster, I took us about 1.5 weeks to design and research. 

(Feedback) The feedback that Derek writes are always really helpful and specific. He gave feedback even for our final essay, which a lot of professors don’t. I really appreciate that. He also gave feedback on our group poster, which was really helpful and we got a pretty decent grade in the end too. 

(Difficulty) 

Midweek scientific report: 7/10

Finals: 5/10

Group poster: 6/10 

Final essay: 6/10

Ease/Difficulty of attaining grades

I got an A- although I did not do well for my midterm report (I got like the lowest in class iirc). However, I did really well for the finals and that probably saved my grades. I was also generally quite active in class, which may have contributed to some participation marks. My group poster did pretty well as well. Generally, as long as majority of ur assessable components are above median, you are on the route to A-. 

Learning Value/Recommendation

6/10. I do not find it useful although it was interesting. 

Additional Comments/Word of Advice

Can take it together with more difficult modules since the workload is low

Anonymous AY24/25 Sem 1

About the Instructor (Dr Lo Yi Ci)

My prof was Dr. Lo Yi Ci, who delivers the content in a very relatable way, and she tries her best to make it an engaging and interesting lesson. She also asks for feedback after every class, which I personally feel is pretty good, especially since she does try to act on the feedback.

Content (Structure/Organization)

I think it's not as bad as most people make it out to be, although I did feel like the links between the first and second half could be better (because right now they seem quite disjoint but I personally see opportunities to link them together). 

Manageability of Workload

Not exactly very heavy since some of the readings were lowkey optional (which I think is something they should address).

Ease/Difficulty of attaining grades

In general, if you pay attention and give yourself ample time to work on the course assignments, an A/A- should not be very out of reach.

Learning Value/Recommendation

I think I learnt some things, and in general it’s not as useless as most people make it out to be. Go in with an open mind! 

Additional Comments/Word of Advice

Honestly, I feel like the experience [doesn't] vary as much across the different profs/sections as much as NSW and NGN, so can just pick whatever fits your timetable the best

Gautham Kailash (@kailashgautham) AY23/24 Sem 1

About the Instructor (Dr Chan Chi-Wang)

I think that Prof Chan Chi-wang did his best in terms of covering the content, but the course content itself might have to be revised as I feel it is very superficial and does not cover much in depth. This might be common across all the classes and I don't think it is the fault of the professors that were given the content and told what to teach. 

Content (Structure/Organization)

I felt that this course was two distinct halves that were not cohesively stitched together to form one course. Particularly, there was an abrupt change from the 'Science' first half to the 'Society' second half, with the first part being an NST and the second being an NHS. Neither helped me appreciate or understand science or society more.

Manageability of Workload

The workload is relatively low for an NUSC course, especially when compared with courses like NGT, NTW and making connections courses. However, there are assignments almost every week and some people might find this quite hectic, especially if you are taking multiple courses with weekly submissions then it can get very overwhelming. Some assignments had pretty unclear instructions and most classes needed clarifications from the instructors. 

Ease/Difficulty of attaining grades

The grading seems pretty random, with some people getting better grades than others even though the overall grade is very similar. Also, the scores for some assignments are hidden so its hard to tell. You might need to save an S/U for this course as it seems pretty arbitrary grading-wise. 

Learning Value/Recommendation

Not very useful. I don't think I learnt too much, and the content is mostly stuff that you would have learnt by a quick read of the newspaper once a week or so, or a bit of general knowledge regarding climate change and energy sources. 

Anonymous (1) AY23/24 Sem 1

About the Instructor (Dr Chan Chi-Wang)

A good Prof may very well struggle given this curriculum. My less-than-pleasant experience with this course reflects more on the course's organisation and curriculum, which is not instructor-specific. This professor is not the most engaging of NUSC profs, but in all honesty there was probably the Prof could do with the cards he was given.

Prof conducted lessons pretty well, but the content is generally very scattered and the learning objectives seem quite unclear. This is not professor-specific but was the feedback across many classes. 

Content (Structure/Organization)

I think it's not as bad as most people make it out to be, although I did feel like the links between the first and second half could be better (because right now they seem quite disjoint but I personally see opportunities to link them together). 

Manageability of Workload

The workload is comparable to most NUSC courses; however, it was the content of the course that made whatever work daunting and mentally tiresome, even if light. 

Ease/Difficulty of attaining grades

Even after taking this course, I am no clearer to understanding how the grading for this course is like, and what it takes to do well. 

Learning Value/Recommendation

I did not learn anything that I would apply following this course.

Additional Comments/Word of Advice

This review is for the very first run of the course (AY23/24 Sem 1). Please check more recent reviews.

Anonymous (2) AY23/24 Sem 1

About the Instructor (Dr Chan Chi-Wang)

My Prof was Dr Chan Chi Wang and he was an all around incredibly pleasant lecturer. He encouraged discussion and really wanted to work with our responses, seamlessly tying it back to the objectives at hand. He was very open to getting us to respond based as students of our own academic disciplines, so his classroom I would say is very friendly to students of all majors (Humanities/SS included). He's pretty chill too so that is a plus point for people looking for a more relaxed prof.

Content (Structure/Organization)

Since it's a pretty big class the organisation of the course is very clear and expectations are outlined from the start. Because it's so big the course tries to be broad and doesn't go into specific scientific topics in an overtly technical manner (also because the Profs have their varying fields of scientific interest).

Manageability of Workload

Not a heavy workload at all. Feels like 2MC, but with random little project and assessment deadlines popping up in the first half of the semester mostly.

Ease/Difficulty of attaining grades

Depends on your Prof. Dr Chan Chi Wang was quite generous with my class.

Learning Value/Recommendation

Glad I took it because it helped me clear another science requirement. Not very insightful though.

Anonymous (3) AY23/24 Sem 1

About the Instructor (Dr Chan Chi-Wang)

Prof is knowledgable and knows what he is talking about during lessons.

Content (Structure/Organization)

Content seems fairly random, and quite dry. Not too well organised either. The content covered during the first few weeks is extremely repetitive and monotonous, and is off-putting in a way that you don't really feel like listening in towards the end of the semester either.

Manageability of Workload

Workload is very light, in the sense that most assignments can be quickly completed. But there are too many small assignments, so it feels quite hectic in the sense that you have submissions almost every week. It's definitely the easiest NUSC module I've done so far.

Ease/Difficulty of attaining grades

No idea, honestly. Grading seems quite arbitrary.

Learning Value/Recommendation

1 out of 5 (hardly useful - not sure where I'd apply this or why NUSC feels the need to teach this course.)

Anonymous (4) AY23/24 Sem 1

About the Instructor (Dr Lo Yi Ci)

I would say Dr Lo is decent but not great. Many times she just reads off the slides, and there have also been instances where it seems like she does not understand the subject matter well. For example, when learning about Kuhn's theory of scientific revolutions, one of the most important concepts to be discussed is the notion of a "paradigm shift". However, when someone asked if a certain scientific development was considered a paradigm shift, Dr Lo simply responded by saying it was "not one of those given in the syllabus", and was also unable to give any other common examples that were not specifically mentioned in the slides.

Nevertheless, given the bizarre combination of topics included in the mod, I guess you can't really expect the instructor to be familiar with every single one of them, so I'm not sure if this is something that might happen with others too.

Given the way the mod is structured, I think the instructor's delivery can only do so much to enhance the learning experience, and I certainly won't fault Dr Lo for its inherent problems.

Content (Structure/Organization)

Where to start? Firstly, I don't understand why every aspect of the content has to be linked back to climate change. Climate change is an important issue, but if this course is really about science and society, then some of the issues we discuss are surely better explained with reference to other scientific principles. If it is actually supposed to be about climate change, then I think it does a woefully inadequate job of covering the issue in a comprehensive manner.

Secondly, the content is poorly structured. I expected the course to be about the history and philosophy of science, not... whatever this is. Why was the demarcation problem only discussed in the middle of the semester, instead of at the start? Instead, we started with the measurement topic, which frankly felt like primary school science. After that, it seemed like we were jumping around learning random things like UHI, science communication, nuclear, solar geoengineering etc. with little to no connection between weeks.

Manageability of Workload

There are too many assessments, and most of these are rather inane. 500 word reflections are not that long, but the problem is that some of the topics given are more suited for 2000 word essays, so compressing it into 500 words gives the added problem of having to squeeze all your thoughts within this limit. This is not helped by the frequency of them (seriously, every 2 weeks??). I also don't understand why the final assignment is a poster, which quite frankly is not the appropriate medium for consolidating whatever we've learnt through the course. I would give it a 1 if not for the fact that the content were so simple.

Ease/Difficulty of attaining grades

After the first few weeks, I decided that this mod was not worth my time and fully intended to S/U it. Of the 5 assignments with grades released (55% total weightage), I scored in the lower quartile for 3 of them, median for 1, and above upper quartile for 1. There were also a few other components (checkpoints for other assignments) which were only graded for completion, so almost everyone got full marks.

However, it appears that these stats were given with respect to all the sections, whereas we were told late in the sem that we would only be graded in comparison with our respective sections. As such, it's either that Dr Lo is a very strict marker compared to the other instructors, or the group poster and participation saved me, because I somehow got an A- instead of a B as I initially thought. I'm not too sure how this affected those who took under the other instructors though.

Learning Value/Recommendation

This is easily the worst mod I've taken in both NUSC and NUS. Much of the content is interesting in itself, but there simply isn't enough time to delve into all of it by combining everything into a single mod with one topic per week. I also think that a clearer direction needs to be given to this mod, because if it's really supposed to be about "science" and "society", I would expect a much more rigorous treatment of both the history and philosophy of science, in the same way that NGN, NSW, and NGT cover some of the important facets of the humanities and social sciences.

Additional Comments/Word of Advice

Unfortunately this is a core mod, so I guess my only piece of advice would be to make of this mod what you will, and perhaps save an S/U for it in case things go south. I really hope this mod is overhauled in future sems, such that this review is rendered obsolete :)

Ng Shang Wen (@shangwenn) AY23/24 Sem 1

About the Instructor (Dr Yunus Prasetya)

Prof is quite knowledgeable on Philosophy of Science — you can tell that he was very comfortable when teaching the weeks on the nature of science, and science and values. If you’re interested to find out more about this aspect, you can consider taking his course. 

Yunus comes from a Philosophy of Science background, so I suppose it was no surprise that he tended to spend more time on the philosophical aspects of the course. For example, he would focus on the ethical and normative aspects of science, such as how one might reasonably perform a cost-benefit analysis of whether to build a nuclear plant. But the corollary of this is that he sometimes skims over the actual science-y bits, such as the chemical reactions that occur in a nuclear reactor.

I personally was comfortable with this, however, I think many people in the class, especially those from a non-FASS background; were not the most comfortable with this.

This could have contributed to an overall lack of engagement. Yunus does try to engage the class by asking questions, but sometimes, his question is too complex/long and the class is just stumped at how to answer, or doesn’t know what he is asking.

Towards the end of the course, class participation was at a minimum and was heavily reliant on a few individuals who were ironically class parting the most while playing Bridge in class.

Content (Structure/Organization)

The course was loosely organised around the theme of climate change. Some weeks looked at more general topics in science - such as defining science (vs non-science and pseudo-science), as well as errors and measurements, while using climate-related examples. Other weeks looked at climate-specific topics, including new responses to climate change such as geoengineering.

I personally found the course very disorganised. It was very clear that each prof was responsible for one or two topics - you can see this from (1) the different slide designs, (2) the very different styles of engagement (we had a debate randomly in Week 9), (3) the disjoint nature of the topics (we went from modelling to suddenly Philosophy of Science). The course could probably benefit from a more coherent narrative that ties the different topics together.

Manageability of Workload

Each assignment’s workload tends to be light but the overall workload is consistent. I believe we had multiple 500-word reflection essays (10% each) to write throughout the semester. There are also small “checkpoints” which are each 5% and are pass/fail. I guess you can complete most assignments quite quickly but you do have to keep up with the weekly content so that you can complete the regular assignments — I believe there was almost one every week or two.

Ease/Difficulty of attaining grades

I think the issue is not achieving a good grade per se but rather not knowing how well you are performing. The Canvas grade shows you the quartiles across the cohort, but in reality, the mod is curved within the class and not across sections. I know Profs who gave many 10s for assignments but people in their class ended up not doing well.

Given the varied backgrounds of the Profs (some are arts and some are pure sciences), I suspect the marking will differ quite significantly across the Profs, because they will look out for different things. So I suppose how easy it is to score really depends on how well you can adapt to your Prof’s feedback.

Learning Value/Recommendation

Not very useful. The course felt somewhat amateurish at times — for example, the Urban Heat Island project involved us taking temperatures at different locations all around UTown, and writing a report on how we conducted our measurements and analysing them. While I understand that it is a way to simply bring across the scientific method, it brought back secondary school memories and it just didn’t feel particularly useful.

I personally liked the philosophy bits, and also liked that I learnt more about new responses to climate change. But the course probably has to relook what it’s trying to be and overcome its identity crisis — is it applying general principles of science to climate change, or teaching us more about climate change?

Anonymous (1) AY23/24 Sem 1

About the Instructor (Dr Yunus Prasetya)

I believe that the professor did an adequate job considering that his specialty is the philosophy of science. While more knowledgeable on some aspects than others, he often tried to lighten the mood via icebreakers at the start of each lesson and opening the floor for questions.

I think a valiant attempt was made to engage the class, but the course material made it hard for students to truly enjoy lessons due to the it feeling directionless.

Content (Structure/Organization)

I would say that this curriculum of this course is unimpressive. Having done the IB in the past, the philosophy of science portions feel very similar to parts of the Theory of Knowledge curriculum while the scientific aspects are reminiscent of a secondary or junior college level lesson. Overarchingly, I feel that there was attempt to unify the course using climate change as a topic. While functional, the mishmash of topics while not difficult to follow feel disjointed. Perhaps it might be good to label the first half of the course pre-recess week as measurement and modelling while the second half as the evolution of science and it's impact on society. I think clearer representation of what the course is needs to be made to manage expectations. Personally it feels as if requirements needed to be met at a higher level and content was shoehorned to fit it.

Assessment was a pain point. It consisted of multiple 500 word reflection essays on topics discussed as well as 2 projects: 1. on urban heat island effect via observation and modelling via a written report and 2. a research poster on an aspect of climate change (e.g. a policy, technology etc.). This totaled to 9 submissions over the semester, the most for any of my modules. This issue seems to stem partially from the broadness of the topics covered, but also seems unnecessary. I believe that the key issue here is the research poster project which feels out of place and inserted simply on the whims of higher management. Something which can be a reflection essay of 500 words (or if needed expanded to a higher word count) is somehow now a grand "SNS Poster Session" which nobody but the presenters attend. To make matters worse each poster needs to be printed on a large A0 sheet of paper, adding to the issue of climate change which we are harking about. This whole affair feels ostentatious and showy, showing a lack of self-awareness and thoughtfulness, something unbecoming of a program which holds the status of being a honours college.

Manageability of Workload

While workload of the course was not overly intellectually challenging, the need for 9 submissions makes the course a slight chore due to many deadlines crowding the semester.

Ease/Difficulty of attaining grades

A good grade should be achievable if one pays attention, participates in class discussions and has a decent group who are on board with performing.

Learning Value/Recommendation

While I have learnt more about climate change, I do not feel that I have a more in-depth understanding of the interactions between science and society (however I may be an outlier as I have previously done theory of knowledge in the IB).

Anonymous (2) AY23/24 Sem 1

About the Instructor (Dr Yunus Prasetya)

Prof likes to start off the class with a mini ice-breaker where he poses a question (eg your favourite cuisine) and choose students to answer randomly (by throwing a ball) which is sometimes funny. 

Our prof was very clearly more comfortable with facilitating the course in the second half of the semester (the topics more related to "Society"), which is understandable given his Philo in Science background. In such instances, he was able to probe further or add his own insights for the responses to the discussion questions, enhancing the depth of the response. However, as a Science student, it was also pretty clear to me that there were times where he did not really understand the scientific concepts presented in the slides (which suggested that the SnS team might have been working on their content separately...), and in these cases I would say he faltered when it comes to bringing across the content to the class. 

Content (Structure/Organization)

While the course was designed to have climate change as an overarching theme, I felt that at times the topics were not closely related to the theme, and in such cases the tying back to climate change felt forced and redundant. There is also no clear relation among content across different lessons, which could have been understandable given how the course is designed to be about breadth. However, given how the course is about "Science and Society," I expected the content to be more interdisciplinary, exemplifying how the two concepts are intertwined. Instead, it felt as if there was a separation, where the first half of the course focused more on the "Science" aspect (which honestly felt too trivial), and the second half focused on the "Society" aspect. This issue was less pronounced when the topics were not thematic, for example the week where we used green energies as examples to discuss how its societal implications can vary even though the science is the same. 

Manageability of Workload

I wouldn't say the assessments are challenging, but they occur in a high frequency (every one or two weeks) which makes it tedious to complete. 

Ease/Difficulty of attaining grades

There isn't a clear criteria for how the profs grade, and from what I've heard the grading differs greatly across classes. However, eventually the grades are being moderated within classes, so regardless of whether the prof tends to give high or low marks for assignments, it is not indicative of your final grades. With this, the main issue is that we do not actually get a sense of where we stand even though we receive our grades for most of the assignments, as the distribution on canvas is for the entire cohort and tends to be clustered by classes (because the range of marks given by the same prof is often smaller than across profs), so we would never know if we are doing fine in the course. 

Learning Value/Recommendation

In general I didn't take away much from this course. For the first half of the course, which was supposed to be more about the scientific method, it felt way too trivial (even non-STEM students have said it's too basic).

For the second half of the course, the philosophical content felt too technical - as a Science student, I couldn't really see the purpose in debating whether this philospher or the other philosopher is more accurate, since our prof did not relate the debate to any real-life applications (eg, for the demarcation problem, I would have appreciated the content much better if I could see how the classification mattered in our lives). As for the topics centred around climate change (such as green energy and geoengineering), they were more relevant and covers what is actually going on around the world right now, though it did not value-add much for me as I was already familiar with the topic.

Additional Comments/Word of Advice

well it's a core course, but you can consider our prof if you prefer to skip some technical details about the sciences.