my responce to Mr Blackstone on EG1471

thanks, blackstone. sometimes i think this class is a little boring so i want to make it more lively.

however u are a good teacher, but this module limit ur ability. i have a lot of complain about this module, useless, aimless, inane, and waste of time. we really have problems with our english and i do not see this module as that helpful to my english. we have problems with our writing, but the key weakness does not lie on the "strategy of writing". this module limit both the teachers' and the students' ability instead of extending it. i think what we really need is the english way of thinking and the lack of emerge in the english culture. we write in english while thinking in chinese. we speak the terrible accent while ignoring this problem. we know little about shakespear, wordsworth, byron or o henry and know nothing about the english history, tradition and customs while still wanting to write a good english essay.

this seems to be radiculous. I am not referring to u. as i mentioned, u are a good teacher and have a lot more for us to learn. but the so-called scope and the aim of thie module is totally radiculous, which limit ur ability to teach us. I don't know why the so-called english experts are so rigid that they set something they called scope. yes, we can study whithin this or that scope but can we speak english or write essay whithin these so-called scope, and at the end can we also think questions whithin these scopes? i admit a lesson should have its framework of teaching contents due to the limitation of time, but this framework cannot can specified into every class. the stuff that are teaching is just a waste of time, like the editing, like the conprehension, like the outline. these are for what, just for answering the questions in exams, don't u agree with me? who will care about strategy of writing when reading a news report? who will begin with the radiculous outline when writing a blog? some stuff are useful, like the apa style, but why waste the whole two weeks on it? i don't know how to describe a physical process. i don't know how to express my wishes at the english festival, i don't know the english customs. i don't know how to express sorrow and happiness, stress and depression in english. i don't know know the very common english jokes and humor. i don't know how to write a love poem to the girl i like. aren't they are more important communication problems? should they be taught to us in this twice a week module? why setting those rigid nonsense so-called scopes to limit the teacher's ability of teaching and student's ability of asking?

NUS's biggest weakness lies in the rigidness, of both the teachers and the students, which leading directly into the teacher's teaching whithin the scope and student's studying for high marks. University is the center of human knowlege, culture and spirit and it has some holy meaning. But now from what i see, NUS is merely the center of utilitarianism and mammonism, and students are too practical to have a big heart and a holy spirit. this is different from what i think a high-ranking university should be.

perhaps we can attribute this to singapore's cultural shallowness. we can say that singapore is the crossroad of both western and eastern culture but we can also say that singapore is an island without culture. fifty-year-old accumulation of life cannot be called a civilization and a mixture of tea and wine cannot represent either's flavour. since singapore abandon so much as a branch of chinese culture and get so little as a westernised region, it is really a cultural orphan. however, this can also be good for this island, too small to hold a cultural giant, but maybe also too small to hold a world-class university. if NUS really want to improve, my suggestion is not to be influenced by the shallowness of this country.

NUS is my home university. i love it so much, so i may blame it too much. this is my feeling about the first semester in NUS. really hope it can get better and everybody has a good university life.