ASNS1601 - Introduction to Asian Cultures (2013 S1)
Ease: 8/10 - If you went to just some of the lectures, wrote notes for the study questions you'll on your way to a credit easily. The questions for the final exam are literally given, aiding the ease of the course. They don't provide feedback or classes on how to write essays, so for those who are not familiar with writing a strong essay will struggle (as I did - but sitting on borderline C/D without much effort).
Lecturer: 10/10 + 1/10 - Matthew Stavros was AMAZING - he was the coordinator and the life and soul of the Japanese lectures (with other smatterings of India). If it weren't for him I would have dropped the subject. He is so engaging and a true story teller - I wish we had him for all the lectures. Eileen Walsh was 'ok' for China but her setting out of her powerpoints were terrible and so confusing, even if you had a copy beforehand. Mary Nasr, a PhD student for the Korea component read off slides and did nothing enriching. Adrian Vickers for South East Asia should not have a job at USYD. He degrades the entire Asian studies department and even the Arts faculty itself. He talked about irrelevant details, when the study questions focussed on the bigger picture, of which he would waft over saying: oh it happened but we don't know how... Rather he'd spend his time looking at statues of sandstone vaginas and other Buddhist monuments. I didn't turn up to 2/3 of his 2 hour lectures. Looking back - you really didn't need to attend lectures...just attend tutes (Dallas Peterson was a great tutor - went through things swiftly and was good at presenting it).
Interest: 10/10 + 1/10 (no, not 11/10, you know what I mean) - I was fully engaged in the Japan component (Matt Stavros), somewhat engaged in the China component, knew parts of the Korea component, and knew literally nothing of the South East Asia parts. I am so disappointed in the Asian studies department for serving up some of the worst teachers I've had. If the others could only be 1/2 of what Matt Stavros was, it would have been a fascinating course. I was looking forward to Asian culture and history, but many parts just became a series of memorisation acts and I didn't enjoy this.
Overall: Amazing + Biggestshitasticdisplayofteachingever. The bottom line is: there is only 1 good lecturer. The rest are so bad that it left an appalling impression of the Asian studies dept on me that I am discontinuing this subject (Not doing ASNS1602 - Modernity in Asia).
JPNS2621 - Japanese 5 (2013 S1)
Ease: 9/10 - If you did Japanese Cont. / Ext at high school, this will be a piece of cake. If you did Jap 3/4 and or are transferring from other backgrounds of Japanese, you may struggle. They didn't do screening of all individuals this year, so many people of lower standards crept into Japanese 5, making the cohort weaker and making it easier for competent students. The textbook is very accessible and if you even study 10 minutes a day you should be on your way to a D/HD. Kanji quizzes were all seen, so full marks was readily achieved. Other grammar and reading quizzes were simple, however there were some pedantic points the teachers marked people down on. The final exam is relatively easy, provided you revise all sentence structures in the text, including those that weren't covered.
Lecturers/Teachers: 3-4/10 - all classes were tutorials. We had Yasuko Claremont (old Japanese lady), Samantha Haley (Australian lady), Michael Lewis (American man). All teachers were below what I expected of a department so famous among arts departments in Australia. Claremont sensei was out of touch and couldn't properly express herself. We had her for 'communication' but usually all the communicating that was done was: Yes, no. Goodbye. End of lesson. Not good at all. She created strange assessments esp. for speaking and was just generally terrible. A sentence in the textbook sums it up: Not all Japanese people are good Japanese teachers. Samantha Haley was below par. I had other Australian Japanese teachers in the past and they were excellent, so I am not saying that just because she isn't Japanese, she is terrible. She is terrible because she is terrible. Her powerpoints were alright, but covered few grammar points. Her activities were basically for yr7-9 students, not a 2nd year adv. Japanese class. The large range of levels in the classes made it difficult for her, as well as the non-responsiveness of the class. Generally these classes were fruitless and I ended up going for attendance only. Despite living in Japan she had a thick gaikokujin accent which perturbed study. Perhaps the best out of the 3 was Michael Lewis. He had previously studied Chinese and taught Japanese now. He was very knowledgeable culturally as well as with respect to Japanese language. We had him for reading, and the low levels of kanji reading ability as well as general intonation issues made these classes also unbearable for those who were at the standard expected. Lewis sensei couldn't do much - it would have been helpful to have him for other glasses as well.
Generally, I was extremely disappointed in the quality of teaching of Japanese at USYD. I know it is not completely the fault of the teachers, but it was seriously below what I expected (coming from high school - my wonderful teacher *tear*)
Interest: declined from 8/10 to about 3/10 by the end of semester. I am passionate about Japanese, but the courses just put me off of it...so disappointing.
Overall: 5/10. Poor teaching coupled with students who needed to be in lower levels created a dead classroom environment. Assessments were easy and high grades could be achieved if you are at a certain level (that is expected - nothing above the level of the text).