AY2015-2016 Semester 1 Module Review

I am very grateful that I got over 30 MCs with results that isn't too far from my expectations. Actually, 30 MCs wasn't as bad as I thought especially after I submitted my thesis. Since I only have 15 MCs to do a review for, I shall try to be even more detailed this time round.

EC4103 Singapore Economy: Practice and Policy

I have much grievances over this module. It is nothing but a burden. Ask me to name anything I learnt from it and I won't even be able to think of a single thing. Probably how to follow instructions and carry out the commands in Stata? Right, so this module was introduced this semester as many employers have given feedback that NUS EC graduates can only regurgitate theory but aren't so well-versed when it comes to knowledge of the Singapore economy. Although this may be true to a certain extent, this module is definitely not gonna help much in that aspect. I honestly think the way the module is taught needs to undergo some serious revisions.

How does this module work? There are 5 lecturers and each of them assesses 20% of the course. Depending on the lecturer, there could be 2 or 3 reports to hand up over that 2 or 3 weeks. If not, presentations had to be made. Occasionally, presentation slides had to be submitted as well. This cycle continued and I think there were about 8 written assignments in total over the entire semester. Every assignment had to be presented and so on top of the additional presentations, there were a total of about 10 presentations. Initially, the module started out slow and steady with the report having a page limit of two sides. Then it became worse with each lecturer, with the last lecturer allowing a page limit of 5 to 7 pages. There were 5 themes in total. Aamir Hashmi took the first one and it was, in summary, on the macroeconomics of Singapore i.e. the characteristics of its economy etc. Danny Quah was next and took the part on growth if I didn't remember wrongly. Then came Ivan Png who taught Singapore productivity. Up next was Jessica Pan who taught income inequality. Last was Chia Ngee Choon who took the aspect of Singapore budget policies. Or was it taxation? I can't really remember but it was something along those lines. 

The bottomline is this: lectures are pretty much useless if you're talking about scoring for this module. Actually, even for the purposes of learning, the lectures still remain useless. The thing is the assignments had absolutely nothing to do with what was taught in lectures. The only thing that you need to know is how to surf the net and look for relevant information. So it wasn't surprising that the turnout for the lectures was just getting more and more pathetic by the week. I did not attend lectures at all but still managed to get away with a decent grade. The assignments by the first two lecturers started off as generic essay-based questions so you could say that it's pretty much a test of general knowledge. Then they became Stata-based with the next two lecturers. And the last lecturer's was simply basic calculations using Excel. Needless to say, the assignments of these three lecturers required students to obtain the correct results as well as to analyze the results. For Ivan Png's, all we had to do was simply to follow the step-by-step instructions in the assignment using Stata and then analyze the regression results. Jessica Pan's part was a lot harder in comparison as hers was not so straightforward so a lot of people had difficulties. But the tutor (Kelvin Seah) was always ready to help and you can actually check with him if the graphs and results you got were correct. And this was important as correctness is a major determinant of your score for Jessica Pan's segment as is the case for Ivan Png's as well as Chia Ngee Choon's parts though the other two lecturers weren't so flexible with the validation of answers.

This module consumed a lot of my time every week but really, I got nothing out of it. It came to a point that the workload was so heavy that I found the completion of assignments and preparation for presentations becoming increasingly burdensome. Among all the 5 themes, I picked up pretty much zero stuff. Before I took this module, I know so much about Singapore. After completing this module, I still know as much about Singapore. That's how helpful the module had been. By the way, this module is fully groupwork. After being assigned a tutorial group, you will be assigned to your groups. You don't get to choose your group members. So if you and your friends are in the same tutorial group but do not have different starting letters for your names, then you don't have to think of being in the same project group. Cos how they assigned the groups was a no-brainer. They simply went by alphabetical order and grouped say, ABCD together in one group, EFCG in another and so on. Anyway, this is pretty crucial. Your grade is highly determined by peer review as much as I thought it didn't play a big role. After submission of each report, your group members are supposed to rate you and not to worry, it's confidential. I gave high ratings for my group members but it ended up that two (out of three) of them got a grade lower than me.

Result: A-

I was surprised by this grade as it exceeded my prediction of a B+ or worse. I am really thankful to my group members for giving me good reviews (as they said). Of course, that comes with a price as I was doing a lot of the work. Then again, I thought we allocated the work quite well as everyone was doing what they're good at. This is not to say that I think A- was deserving of the work we had put in. Seriously, considering how much effort this module requires, I think I should have gotten an A in return. But this module is the sort that you put in 10 times more effort than what you get in return. Hopefully there will be some changes to this module for the next batch as I don't think the majority would like to experience what the Year 4s had just gone through.

EC4301 Microeconomic Analysis III

This is supposed to be a level 4000 module. It is also supposed to be a core module initially. Something wrong must have happened midway which caused it to become so unworthy of a level 4000 module in terms of both workload and content. Anyone who has gone through both EC4101 and EC4102 will definitely tell you that EC4101 is nothing compared to EC4102. And true enough, EC4301 is pretty much peanuts compared to EC4302. This module was taken by Chen Yi Chun this semester. And it's not that he can't teach difficult stuff but that he wants to tone down the difficulty due to past bad experiences. He's a pretty good lecturer and I think his lessons are surprisingly not mundane even though the content may be. The module started off hard as we were taught all the abstract stuff in consumer theory. Actually, abstract may be too strong a word for some. It won't actually be if you have been exposed to MA modules. Then when everyone thought they were done for for this module, the lecturer's announcement that midterms and finals weren't gonna test all these proofs came as a huge relief.

Topics
1.   Preference and Utility
2.   Utility-Maximizing Problem and Its Solution
3.   Utility-Maximizing Problem and Expenditure-Minimizing Problem
4.   Law of Demand, Exchange Economies, Pareto Efficiency
5.   Core and Competitive Equilibrium
6.   Welfare Theorems and Existence of Competitive Equilibrium
7.   Choice under Risk
8.   Externality
9.   Asymmetric Information
10. Modelling Strategic Behaviours I
11. Modelling Strategic Behaviours II
12. Incomplete Information and Efficient Mechanism

Weightage

Homework: 20%

Midterms: 30%

Finals: 50%

The homework was given out on a weekly basis and they were to be completed in groups of four or maximum, five. It wasn't graded based on correctness but rather, completeness. So I should expect that no one lost any marks from this component. There was also only one tutorial presentation per group. So the workload for this module was real light.

Midterms was tested up to Topic 5. Topic 6 was covered but not tested and its lecture was conducted during the recess week. Although this topic wasn't compulsory, it turned out to be useful for midterms. If you had attended the lecture or studied the notes on your own, it would help in scoring for your midterms. So take it with a pinch of salt when the lecturer says it's not tested. I disliked the topics after midterms especially Topics 8 and 9. They were way too simplistic for a level 4000 module and it wasn't value-adding in any way especially Asymmetric Information. Up till now, I still haven't been exposed to proper modelling of asymmetric information. All I understand are the implications of asymmetric information. Topics 10 and 11 are on game theory. Topic 12 was centered around mechanism design but its basis came from game theory. Mechanism design was a real interesting topic but too bad, it had to be so brief in this module. I scored 95 for my midterms. Average was 85? I can't recall exactly. The highest was 98 out of 100. I scored 95 probably cos I was pretty good at the first half of this module. Edgeworth Box was covered for Topics 4 and 5 but of course it wasn't as lame as what was taught in EC3101. Then again, I attribute the 95 I got mainly to the lecturer. I actually made many mistakes but he was amazingly lenient with his marking. As long as you showed some understanding of the concepts, he will give you credit. So keep this in mind if you're taking the module under Chen Yi Chun: do not leave anything blank. Actually, midterms was rather insignificant as it was upon 100 and when you convert the marks to 30%, it becomes negligible. The lecturer said it himself that people who scored well for midterms usually didn't score well eventually whereas those who didn't score well for midterms are the ones who fared well eventually. As much as there may be some truth to that statement, I personally think that midterms are such that you should get at least slightly above average if you are looking to get an A- or above. Nonetheless, I don't dispute the fact that finals is the determining factor and my grade is an affirmation of that as well. By the way, both midterms and finals were open-book though it wouldn't have helped much.

It was claimed that finals is cumulative but trust him not. On the whole, finals was easy. I got screwed up thanks to the steep bell curve and mistakes I shouldn't have made at all. As the second part had three chapters on game theory, it was no surprise that there was one entire question dedicated to game theory in the finals. Even though having taken EC3312 may be a plus, it wasn't as much help as I thought. Basically, game theory in this module was a lot more simplistic than in EC3312. Anyway, as with EC2101 and EC3101, the questions in the finals are such that it carries an overly high weightage. For instance, I could be given 10 marks for just a three-liner solution so it was pretty hard to gauge what was required of me especially when certain questions were quite open-ended.

Result: A-

I don't know what to make of this grade. After midterms, I was aiming for an A. After finals, I was realistically expecting a B+. I guess knowing your concepts well is the key to scoring for this module.

EC4303 Econometrics III

First and foremost, this module isn't as difficult as most may imagine it to be. There was more breadth than depth. Honestly, I question the use of econometrics exams at times. Here's the thing. You don't actually have to know how to prove theorems. All you need to understand are the concepts and properties of the theorems as well as how to go about applying them. But unfortunately, and I don't blame the lecturer for this, econometrics exams usually involve quite senseless questions. Anyway, this module was taken by Tatsushi Oka and he takes the definition of politeness to the next level. The topics covered for this module were quite impromptu in the sense that the later topics were chosen only because some of us were doing on these topics for our term paper.

Topics
1.   Ordinary Least Squares Estimation
2.   Linear Probability Model / Maximum Likelihood Estimation
3.   Nonparametric Regression
4.   Quantile Regression
5.   ARMA model
6.   GARCH model
7.   LASSO
8.   Panel Data Models
9.   Program Evaluation I: DID Estimation
10. Program Evaluation II: IV Regression
11. Program Evaluation III: Regression Discontinuity
12. Classification and Regression Tree

Weightage

Problem Sets: 20%
Term Paper and Presentation: 20%
Book Presentation: 10%
Participation: 10%
Finals: 40%

There were 3 problem sets and all of them were easy. They were graded based on effort and correctness. Most people scored 100 or at worst, 99 so this component wasn't gonna make any distinction among the students.

The term paper was to be done in groups of 3. You get to choose your groups. Basically, you had to find an existing paper, replicate the results and extend the paper. There were 2 presentations for this component. The first one was a 5-minutes presentation and it only involved presenting about the existing paper as in the type of dataset etc., the results your group had replicated and lastly, an outline of the extensions. The second one was a 10-minutes presentation and you had to present on the extensions your group had come up with. The report was only limited to 3 pages excluding appendices and all so it was pretty slack. The draft was due sometime during the middle of the semester whereas the final one including probably the last one and a quarter page on extensions was due sometime in Week 12 or 13.

Book presentation. This is probably the one and only useless component of this module. First, we were assigned a textbook, Statistical Learning from a Regression Perspective by Richard Berk and this textbook is considered pretty advanced for undergraduates. All the equations inside weren't what you normally see in an econometrics textbook. Second, this textbook was taught with students making presentations in their groups so every week, there would be one presentation until all 8 presentations were done. The chapter that you present on was decided by drawing lots. So some got the earlier chapters which were easier while those who got the later ones might need to spend a bit of time understanding the earlier ones before they could do their presentation slides. The presentation was up to 25 minutes and all 3 group members would present a section. I think during this weekly presentation, everyone was just shutting off their ears and that included me. The thing is some presentations were so poor that you could tell they didn't really understand the content themselves which I perfectly understand why. I really question the use of this component as the presentations not only consumed time but also, the book chosen is a bit too advanced for self-studying as its content is very different from what you usually see in econometrics.

Don't worry about the component on participation. You can get it just by attending all the lessons.

I actually only realized finals is 40% as I typed the weightage. But finals is the determining factor to your grade for this module. Oka was very generous with the 60% CA component as he said that everyone would probably get full credit for it. Finals was open book and there were some questions that we could directly refer to assignment solutions or lecture notes to get the marks. Then again, I thought the differentiating factor came in in the last 2 questions which added up to a total of 16 marks. I probably screwed up more than half of that 16 marks but judging from my grade, I believe most people did as well.

Result: A
This grade came as a big surprise as I was expecting at most an A-. Even though this module was more of breadth and it was a lot less rigorous than I thought, I think it's pretty much a must-take if you're looking to go into specialized economics jobs. Anyway, knowing more econometrics models is always a good thing for someone studying economics. This is not to say that you should take it if you're afraid of screwing up your CAP. I think I just managed to scrape through an A as it was really competitive with the cohort size of 20.

Thoughts on level 4000 EC modules (Part 1)

Seeing that I'm a lot more free this week, I decided to do a post out of spontaneity. Before I go into the modules, I'd like to say that it's not really advisable to leave all the 8 level 4000 modules to your final year. Cos' in each semester, you'll be taking 4 level 4000 modules and they're mostly pretty heavy. Of course, depending on the modules, some might not be so heavy. But not to forget, EC4103 has been added as a new compulsory module and having gone through it, I think it would be good to clear at least 2 or better yet, 3 level-4000 modules in your penultimate year. Right, so for a start, let me talk about the level 4000 modules that I have already completed. For those that I am planning to take or others that I would have loved to take, I'll leave it to some other time. By the way, I'll skip EC4103 for now cos' it's a compulsory module and I don't care to talk too much about it but anyway, one word summarizes it: burden.

1. EC4301 Microeconomic Analysis III

And so I cleared this module last semester. Results aren't out yet so this will probably be more objective than the one I'm gonna have in my module review. Practical-wise, the bell curve is steep which yeah, is gonna screw me up. That aside, for people who don't really appreciate the theoretical side of EC, this module is not for you. You always hear friends or even random tutorial mates around you cursing how sucky it is to have to clear EC4101 and EC4102 when there's no use for it. And for them, the change of the module codes to EC4301 and EC4302 is definitely welcomed with open arms. Given that these are no longer compulsory modules, the cohort size especially for EC4302 has become real small. Personally, I am not a big fan of microeconomics. I hate to say this but I took the module just to fulfill the requirements of my specialization and not out of pure interest or whatsoever. But having taken the module, I have to say I really kinda like the part on consumer theory (that is the first part of the module) as well as the very last section on mechanism design. The only thing that I have issues with for the mechanism design part was that I wish the lecturer could have built up a lot more and skip some of the earlier chapters like the one which you calculate the utility of lottery and differentiate among risk-averse, risk-neutral and risk-loving consumers or the one on asymmetric information. Seriously, I dislike asymmetric information cos' they're just too simplistic at undergraduate level. It's realistic but simplistic. As ironic as that sounds, I mean the topic of asymmetric information is realistic because you really see it everywhere in reality. Yet the way it's taught is too simplistic. There's not even a model to begin with and all I learnt from this chapter is the implication of asymmetric information; the equilibrium is not Pareto-efficient. So the big question is, if the module wasn't part of the requirements for the specialization, would I have taken it? It's hard to say but it's the sort of module that I wouldn't have chosen right from the start but yet not regret after taking it regardless of my grade. 

2. EC4302 Macroeconomic Analysis III

I love this module. First, I love macroeconomics. Second, Prof Aamir just added on to my interest in this module. Third, I finally gained some insights into macroeconomic models. I remember as much as the difficulty of the midterms and finals was so "insane" that everyone thought they're gonna be screwed up by the really steep bell curve, I studied this module pretty religiously during my Y3S1. I always had questions out of the context of the textbook and lecture notes. That's how interested I was. But I have to say this is generally a module that you either love or hate. You're either completely immersed in it like I was (okay kinda exaggerated) or you're cursing every bit of it. Like the case for EC4301, if you can't appreciate theoretical EC, don't take this module. Halfway through or actually even before that, you will start questioning the usefulness of this highly theoretical module. And when that happens, chances are you're not gonna do so well for this module. More importantly, you're not gonna get anything out of this module.

3. EC4303 Econometrics III

I gotta say this module was a lot less than or probably different from what I had expected. In my imagination, it is hardcore theory: lots of matrix algebra, lots of derivations and lots of proving. But in the reality, it was zero matrix algebra, minimal vector algebra, almost no derivations and little proving. And doesn't help that it's likely to pull my CAP not upwards but downwards. All these aside, I do not regret taking this module. If given a choice, I would still have chosen this module despite it being entirely different from what I had expected. If you're gonna aspire to be an economist or do anything along the application of EC, you know damn well that econometrics is a must to know and not just know, you gotta be good at it. I'm not good at econometrics. I just took it out of pure interest to learn more about the various techniques and of course, applying them to software. What's econometrics if you can't use the appropriate software to apply the theories. So it's unavoidable that in any econometrics module be it EC3303, EC3304 or EC4303, there will for sure be some sort of Stata or R involved. Once you find yourself skipping those exercises in EC3303 and EC3304 not because you think they're lame and that you most definitely can handle such statistical software but because you can't be bothered, then by the same token, don't bother to take EC4303 as well. There are people in this class whom you can tell they're there just for the sake of the specialization and others who are truly passionate about learning econometrics. I gained quite a lot in terms of statistical methods plus the application side of them so no matter what grade I get eventually, I'm glad that I took this module.

4. EC4332 Money and Banking II / EC4331 Monetary Economics and Policy

And EC4331 just got removed again this coming semester. Such a shame. Honestly, I didn't really love this module when I was taking it. Maybe it was because EC4302 kinda diluted a bit of my interest. But I gotta say you can only truly appreciate the module once you start applying the stuff learnt. When you're going through it, you just find yourself doing algebra mindlessly and it is so theoretical that you wish you can drop the module without a blemish on your transcript. Like EC4302, there was no application side to it during my time. You can't blame Prof Martin for it cos' there's only so much he can go through in one semester. So if you aren't interested in how monetary policy is practised in reality, do not attempt this module. You will probably be bored to death or before you get bored to death, you might be worked to death. This is not a light module because of the homework. But in terms of studying, it gets lighter as the semester progresses on. Assuming the syllabus doesn't undergo drastic changes for EC4331, the heavy workload usually comes in during the first 5 weeks of the semester. One reason is because people taking it might not have adapted to the kinda learning techniques it requires. But the more tangible reason is that the first 5 weeks suck the time out of your weekend if you decide to commit yourself faithfully to completing the weekly homework. And you should complete the homework to the best you can every week. If you put in your utmost effort to do so, your grade will be more or less guaranteed. So should you or should you not take EC4331? Let's say the module finally returns in the next academic year, if you find an interest in monetary policy-making, then this module is definitely for you. Or actually if you like economic modelling in general, just take it. Personally, I took the module because I saw that it is pretty challenging and it's quite different from other level 4000 electives in the sense that it's a lot more quantitative. I didn't really know what I was in for when I took it but now that EC4331 is named as such, it's pretty obvious it's gonna be on monetary economics.

And that's all the level 4000 modules I've taken so far. Stay tuned for Part 2~

AY2015-2016 Semester 2 Modules

It's finally gonna be my last semester! Can't believe 7 semesters have gone in a flash. Anyway, MPE's coming up so it's time I decide on my modules. I won't be in school for most of this semester so I have to choose my modules appropriately to minimize my workload. By the way, I think I forgot to update my modules earlier but it was a last minute decision that I decided to take EC4301 Microeconomic Analysis III in place of EC4341 International Economics II. One reason was that I was afraid that in Semester 2, EC4301 will clash with EC4304 Economic and Financial Forecasting, another module to clear my specialization in Quantitative Economics. But a more important reason was that I decided EC4301 is much lighter than EC4341 which was just what I needed in such a hectic semester. I was glad I took EC4301 instead because EC4103 was unexpectedly a lot heavier than I imagined it to be. Right, so here are my modules for this semester. Oh and cos I overloaded last semester, this semester's really light but I deliberately planned it this way.

EC4304 Economic and Financial Forecasting

I am actually kinda looking forward to this module as much as I am reaching my threshold of dealing with Econometrics or Statistics for that matter. This module is based on time series forecasting, an area that I think will be very useful if one wishes to go into economics research-based sectors. You'll see an element of time series almost everywhere so it really helps to have a good understanding of it. Nonetheless, the focus of this module is on forecasting. But it is definitely interesting. Anyway, even though most of us have already gotten exposed to some sort of time series in EC3304, there was very little emphasis on how we can apply time series models in reality. And I think the application really comes in in the form of forecasting. In other words, this module is both interesting and useful. With my two criteria met on top of this being the remaining module to complete my specialization, this module is definitely a must-take.

EC4880 Topics in Macroeconomics

Two semesters ago, I wanted to take this module and decided to drop the idea. Now, two semesters later, I decided to take it again and this time for real. The reason why I chose this module is 99% because it is a night class which means I'll be able to make it to school in time for the lessons plus this module is pretty light. But the 1% remaining comes from the fact that I actually have quite a bit of interest in growth theories and this module seems like the best choice if I wanna learn more about that. Only thing that's holding me back is that it's an essay-based module and it's very qualitative. Then again, seeing that it's my last semester, I think it's fine. Hopefully this module is still fruitful to some extent.

GEH1019 Food and Health

Firstly, I am not too sure why the module code is changed. I think it has something to do with freshmen requirements. Secondly, this module is real light; just two projects and one finals. Thirdly, I actually just need one damn module to clear my Science GEM requirements. Lastly, it fits my timetable. Apart from these, there is no other reason for why I chose this module. Maybe I'll pick up something about diet nutrition?

End of hellish semester

And so I ended my second and last paper yesterday. Goodness, juggling thesis with three more modules on top of RA work has been quite a challenge though I must say it has been a really fulfilling one. I think the bulk of the work from the three modules came from EC4103. But I shall leave that discussion to my module review. Actually, life has been good past the thesis submission deadline. Cos I was suddenly left with just 10 MCs (EC4103 was over by Wk 13) which well, made me slack from Week 13 onwards all the way to exam week. I guess many Year 4s are quite unfazed by their results at this point in time cos' their CAP is somewhat fixed already.

Anyway on a lighter note, I see that there're still a lot of readers despite having taken a hiatus from blogging for 4 months. I'll reply to those who have commented asap. But I am resuming my RA work again so no promises! By the way, it seems interesting why so many people are asking for EC4332 notes. I'm no longer gonna make available my notes though as I don't think lecturers would like to have their materials circulated around. So people who are really interested should approach the lecturer for the notes. It will work as I have friends who do that.

Some thoughts on EC Specializations

So all this talk about specializations has been going on for quite some time. I guess it's something people would want to know if there are many others in the same batch doing so. And this is especially so for my batch as it's our last year and we have probably already cleared most of the modules and will thus be forced by circumstances either to specialize or not to specialize. I have my own thoughts on this as well so I decided to pen them down. The disclaimer is that this is in no way representative of the "right" thing to do and you should take it with just a pinch of salt.

I am actually on the road to declaring two specializations, that is Quantitative Econs and Monetary & Financial Econs. It just so happens the modules I took fulfill the requirements of these two specializations. In fact, I am just missing one module to be able to complete a specialization in Monetary & Financial Econs and this module can be either EC4333 Financial Economics or EC4334 Financial Market Microstructure. As for the Quantitative Econs specialization, I am missing EC4301 Microeconomic Analysis III, EC4303 Econometrics III and EC4304 Economic and Financial Forecasting. Out of these three modules, I had already intended to take two so I might as well just take the remaining EC4301 to fulfill the specialization. And I should also say that I am taking two more level 4000s than what's the common practice of 40 MCs. So that also means two less level 3000s. Nonetheless, I had already intended to do so from the start of Year 3. The more important reason for why I decided on EC4301 is also because I have this one extra EC module that I still haven't decided on for the next AY. And even though it can be either EC4333 or EC4334, I am not intending to declare a specialization in Monetary & Financial Econs as much as I could have taken one of them in place of EC4341 International Economics II this semester. Truth to be told, I was deciding so hard between EC4341 and EC4334 before I finally chose to stick with EC4341 one day ago. 

Now it seems kinda stupid for me to not declare a specialization in Monetary & Financial Econs. I have a few reasons for doing so. 

First, I am not the least interested in EC4334 much less EC4333. I know what the content for EC4334 is going to cover: the models, the kinda foundational knowledge you need (yes, it's EC3304 for anyone who intends to take) etc. And more importantly, I realized it's not a useful module. I would like to go into more technical fields like policy planning or research kinda line of work or at the very least making use of some level of Econs knowledge I had learnt. However, the models in EC4334 are strangely not mentioned in any research or at least if there is, I'm having a hard time finding it. Moreover, I feel that models in there are a bit too simple and arbitrary like what I had mentioned in my previous post. So it's neither useful nor interesting which means it satisfies none of the two criteria I am looking for in any module. Actually, EC4341 isn't very useful as well from what I see in existing literature. But the intuition from it is useful cos the same idea is applied in a lot of research. 

Second, what do you hope to show your employer with a specialization in Monetary & Financial Econs? I for one don't think it's worth shouting about cos I feel that with this specialization, it won't get you further into the banking industry or anything like that. No matter how specialized you may be in Financial Econs, it can't measure up to those that Financial Maths majors are doing. I guess one perk is that it can show the banking industry employers how keen you are on finance-related stuff. But on a more practical level, taking EC4333 (much less EC4334) won't really give you an edge over others in terms of the knowledge you're learning. This brings me to my next point of why I wanna declare a specialization in Quantitative Econs. Personally, Quantitative Econs is a field more unique to Econs itself. If you look at the modules covered, it's mostly gearing students up on Econs models as well as Econometrics. And like I said, I only have one more module remaining that I haven't chosen so yeah, it can be either EC4333 or EC4301 but I chose EC4301 despite how much I am against microeconomics. My mindset is since I've all along been doing the more theoretical side of Econs and very little of the applied side, I should just do it all the way. Anyway, the content for EC4301 is actually not so bad, kinda interesting in some sense. I hope it'll be better under Saturo in Sem 2. 

But all in all, and this might seem quite ironic, I don't think specializations add any value for EC if you're not intending to go into technical fields which is what I gather from most EC majors. There's also the problem of deciding between CAP and specialization as I believe for every specialization, there is this killer module that majority of students tend to avoid in order not to screw up their CAP. Then again, if your class of honours is already stable, go ahead by all means. I think for the next few batches, you'll probably have to declare a specialization seeing how it would possibly become a norm. Actually, I think even for my cohort, many people are attempting to declare specializations as it was a very unpleasant surprise that I didn't get allocated the most unexpected module, EC4303 and my friend didn't get allocated EC4333. 

In conclusion, there're a lot of pros and cons that come with doing specializations. I also took a lot of time to sit down and think bout it which made me flipped flopped back and forth between EC4341 and EC4334 before I finally decide that EC4341 is both more interesting and more useful. I guess everyone has their own reasons for doing what they do. Probably the most important thing to keep in mind is not to do a specialization just for the sake of doing so.

AY2015-2016 Semester 1 Modules

Now that MPE is coming up, many people should have finalized their choice of modules. I have as well and this semester will be without doubt the most gruelling one of all. 

1. EC4103 Singapore Economy: Practice and Policy

This is a compulsory module so there's nothing much to comment on it. Now that I think, as much as I don't like microeconomics, I think that EC4301 will be more interesting than EC4103. So I don't know if I actually welcome the change that no longer requires me to take EC4301. 

2. EC4303 Econometrics III

There's a new module this semester, EC4305 Applied Econometrics. I believe the department set EC4305 such that it'll avoid overlap with EC4303. So if you look at the content covered for EC4305, you might think "Hey, that's really kinda applied and that means it's gonna be useful." But you're not gonna see EC4305 in the list of my modules below. The reason being I am not into empirical research or anything along that line. If you're doing theoretical research,  EC4303 will definitely be more useful. But if you're looking to learn more, meaning breadth instead of depth, without any particular specialization in mind like whether you wanna go into the empirical or theoretical line, then I do think EC4305 is better cos EC4303 will mostly just be building onto the same topics that were covered in EC3303 and EC3304.

3. EC4341 International Economics II

I have mixed feelings towards this module before I decided on it. The part causing a lot of difficulties when I took EC3341 was HO-theory. So it made me concluded: ok, I am bad at anything to do with micro. And if you look at the syllabus for EC4341, it's just mostly micro stuff; not even anything on exchange rates. I think anyone who took EC3341 or even EC4341 knows what I mean. As much as International Econs sounds like a huge macro field, the concepts covered are actually pretty micro in nature. When I took EC3341 under Dr. Lu Yi, he made the same comment as well. In fact, and I forgot to mention this in my module review for that semester, I had to read this book that was recommended to me by Dr. Lu, Advanced International Trade: Theory and Evidence by Feenstra before I could fully understand theorems like the Stolper-Samuelson theorem before leading up to HO-theory. So why did I choose this module in the end? I think this field is a hot topic no matter where you go. That just means that it's good to know bout International Econs even if you're not specializing on it cos chances are you'll have to deal with it in one way or another at some point in time. And I mentioned before that if I were to take EC4341, I would take it under Davin Chor and not Gentile. Just compare their syllabus and you'll see what I mean. But anyway, Gentile's no longer taking EC4341, at least not for this AY.

4. EC4401 Honours Thesis

It seems a little weird that I'm taking HT despite having only a 2nd Upper. Why go through all that trouble since I'm not even anywhere near 1st Class? The usual practice is that those people with a CAP of 4.0 to 4.49 will simply take some more modules to clear their Honours requirements. Well, I have a few reasons for it. 

First, I wanna experience how doing research is like and there's no other avenue better than HT to get that experience. Second, there seems to be no end in reading up and knowing more. There's so much knowledge out there that you can learn and it's not possible to know every single thing. But there is one skill that is important and that is, applying what you've learnt and HT allows me to do that. There's one more little reason and it could be more of being practical. Although it seems like the Econs department has really expanded the list of level-4000 electives, many of them still don't appeal to my interests. So HT is a good choice if I wanna clear my requirements yet have nothing else to take. Then again, the very big drawback of HT is that it's all or nothing simply because of the amount of MCs attached to it (though I strongly believe it is over-weighted). 

Then why not take it in Semester 2? I would have loved to. Simply put, circumstances didn't permit me to. When I approached my supervisor, he told me he'll be available for the whole of this coming AY. But he told me at the end of last semester that he'll be away for the most part of Semester 2 of AY15/16. So that just means I have to do it in Semester 1. I actually think that taking HT in the last semester has its perks because you get the chance to broaden your knowledge base even more and also, for those who still haven't got an idea of what to do for your HT, Semester 1 of your fourth year is a very good buffer period to begin exploring your options cos it is highly likely that you'll be taking the most number of level-4000 modules in this semester as compared to the two semesters of your third year.

Modules that I had considered

1. EC4307 Issues in Macroeconomics

Can't deny that I wanted to take this module mainly because it was Aamir teaching it. I had such a good impression of him after 4102. But after looking at the syllabus covered, I decided against it. In fact, it was a big NO. Not only is it not interesting for me at all, it's a very content-based module without much quantitative stuff. I mean, my goodness, he's using the 3102 textbook; IS-LM when you're in Year 4?!

2. EC4334 Financial Market Microstructure

This is actually quite a good module. It's literally about the workings of the financial market, like what happens after bidding, valuation etc. It's quite interesting. You don't really need EC3333 to do this module. In fact, EC4334 is more of EC3304 from what I see. But the problem is that the models seem very out of nowhere and I don't like it when models are like that cos they usually seem very arbitrary. So I decided no, this module isn't suitable for me.

So yup, 3 level-4000s and HT, that's 30MCs for me. I've already sent in an appeal to overload and it has been approved. All I gotta do is to send in another email after CORS ends. I hope there won't be any hiccups during that period. I sent in an email so early cos I was actually in a situation when I appealed during CORS and my appeal wasn't processed even until the time when I had to do the bidding.

So now you can see why it's gonna be my most gruelling sem. And coupled with work as an RA, this sem will inevitably be very tiring. Uh well, I've got my reason for doing so once again and unless my plans are confirmed, I'll not talk about it as of now.

AY2014-2015 Semester 2 Module Review

I finally have some time to sit down and start writing this. The reason being I've been given a lot of work from Dr. Song whom I've been working as a research assistant for for the past one year or so. And on top of that, I've been working out a general direction to my thesis with my supervisor. You're probably wondering why I'm starting so early. That's just cos' I'm intending to overload to 30 MCs next semester. So it helps to spread out the workload a bit. Now you think that all sounds good but the fact is I'm only in the preliminary stage of finalizing my scope.

Now, back on topic.

Basically, I did only average this semester. And until now, I'm still not sure where I have gone wrong for two out of my four core modules. So this time round, I'm gonna take a different approach to my module review instead of my usual practice of following alphabetical order and starting with EC.

I'll first talk about the most unimportant module and that is SSA2211, a module which I can literally count with my fingers the number of hours I've spent on it in the entire semester. Then I'll move on to talk about the two modules that I've screwed up and which I do not know the exact reasons for why I did. So the disclaimer is that what I will say might turn out to be quite subjective. Finally, of course comes the two remaining modules that I know why I've screwed up or done well.

To sum up, the order of my module review will be the following: SSA2211, ST3242, ST3247, ST3239, EC4332.

SSA2211 The Evolution of a Global-City State

I would say that if you are someone who likes to think of already-defined history from a different perspective, then this module is definitely one for you. Norm has it that Singapore's history begins with Raffles' arrival or ok, maybe Sang Nila Utama. But this module takes you back to the 14th century and tries to argue why Singapore's history should be defined from that period onwards. Or at least I felt that was for the most part of the module. Then subsequently, the module unfolded according to the timeline on Singapore, moving onto Singapore's interaction with the Malay world and then onto the modern history and so on.

Personally, I find that as much as I was not the least interested in this module, I must say that it's quite an avenue to invoke your thinking to some extent. It makes you think of things in a way that you wouldn't have thought of. It's not your straightforward SS module or what you might have expected it to be. So if you're really keen on this module, chances are you'll enjoy it.

Workload wise, it wasn't too heavy or maybe because I didn't put effort into it.

Weightage
Tutorial attendance and participation: 20%
CA1: 20%
CA2: 20%
Finals: 40%

As typical of all arts modules, the first component wouldn't be easy to secure if you hadn't participated in tutorials. I, for one, chose to take this module because I saw that we'll only have four tutorials in total and that one of them was e-learning. Moreover, I missed one of them as well though I had a valid MC. So it's like my goodness, the last tutorial was the second and also the last time I was meeting the class. And of course, I did not participate at all so I'm pretty sure I lost at least half of this component. On another note, I am making an objective viewpoint by saying the tutorials are useless. Really, I think that the debate on the IVLE forum made so much more intellectual sense than the tutorials. Or maybe it was because my tutorial group was a bit passive to begin with and my tutor didn't seem to have much experience which explains why there weren't any insightful points raised during class. I'm not saying I read what people wrote on the forum because the truth is I didn't. In fact, I only knew the forum is active because I subscribed to it. But I did scan through the first few lines of the post when I received the email from IVLE. This was sufficient enough to give me an idea of what the post was roughly about so I can safely say it's a lot better to engage in the online discussions rather than the tutorials.

The second component comprises of an MCQ component and two structured-questions component if I may put it in my own words. The former made up 20% while the latter, 80%. And the 20% is free. I do mean free. Because you get to have a total of two tries for that component and after the first try on IVLE, they'll actually point out your mistakes and tell you the right answers. Oh yes, I didn't type that wrong. It was stupid but I guess in some way meaningful because that 20% was there to help you for the 80%. You basically get a clearer direction as to how you should answer the two questions for the 80% with those answers you got from the MCQ.

I finished this task just before the deadline which was the Sunday of the week of CNY. So you had to complete this by 2359 before it turns Monday. And after a delighted week of slacking, I was rushing this damn thing and finished it under 3 hours when it was recommended that we start two weeks ago when the assessment was released. Right but that came with a price as I only got a mere 72 out of 100. Most people were in the 70s range by the way so that essentially put me in the B range already.

Then came the second component which was due on the Monday of Week 12 if I didn't remember wrongly. Oh did I mention that this module advocates short and sweet instead of long and "detailed"? This was an essay component where you had to choose to stand in the shoes of one of the following: a Peranakan trader or merchant I can't remember, someone from a... Ok forget it. I have the full question paper so for those who are interested, you can get it from me. So you had to make references and stuff and was limited to 500 words I think. Oh but heck, I once again rushed this on the night before. As to the grade I got, I never knew as I was too lazy to go back on the Week 13 Friday to collect this back. But I do know from my tutor that I did ok. So I guess it was average.

And finally, finals. I read the notes for 2 hours or less and went to sleep in preparation for my first exam of the semester but I didn't feel like my exams have started cos I knew I was sitting for a module that I'm gonna have to use my S/U for. You'll be given a timeline of events in the exam that briefly touches on what has happened over the many centuries. Well, it'll be useless if you hadn't studied cos you wouldn't be able to make much sense of it like what I experienced. So I was just staring at the questions and deciding which one I could recall the most information for.

Result: B- (S)
Disappointed. I expected a B. But B or B-, still an S eventually. All I have to say for anyone who wants to take this module is that it's no use doing rote learning. Besides familiarizing yourself with the facts, it is also equally, if not more, important to begin questioning yourself and thinking more deeply into the issues. And one tip is that there're always some questions at the start of each tutorial. I mean they're printed on the tutorial itself. So print them out and start answering them. They'll serve as a very good preparation for finals.

ST3242 Introduction to Survival Analysis

This module was taken by Anthony Kuk. And he has improved greatly from when I took ST3131. But that still didn't stop me from not attending lectures. Tutorials are combined with lectures. So instead of two 2-hour lectures each week, it went down to one 2-hour lecture plus one 1-hour lecture plus one 1-hour tutorial. That also means the tutorial was personally conducted by the lecturer. Lectures weren't webcast but I think his notes were detailed enough.

I really kinda like this module a lot as much as I'm disappointed with the final grade. If I were to draw a similarity to a foundational module, I would say this module is most like ST2132. ST2131 only came in in one of the last few chapters and in the form of moment-generating functions and iterated expectations so it was a very small part. But the thinking was most similar to ST2132. It involved MLE and all. There was a lot on MLE but it wasn't just MLE alone. When it got to the semiparametric Cox model, it was more of computation of rank likelihood. Basically, I guess you could say that this module focuses a lot on how you would model survival data. Maybe model is too strong a word for technical dudes. I guess you can say it touches mostly on regression, or along that line. The thinking is very similar. I mean when we do regression, we think of whether the assumptions of OLS, to take the simplest case, are satisfied and what the solutions are if they aren't. A similar thing is done in this module. For example, in applying Cox's model, we assume proportional hazards. But what do we do if the assumption is violated? Also, you sort of see the realism in this module where we separate out different groups of individuals into stratas and assign a unique characteristic to them before carrying out analysis in R. And talking about R, this module uses a lot of R such that you begin questioning the presence of certain topics with regards to examination purposes. Then again, that's what makes the module more realistic. You take the data to a software, look at the coefficients and begin thinking bout' its implications for your model. 

Weightage

Assignments: 20%

Midterms: 20%

Finals: 60%

There were two assignments, one before recess week and one before reading week. The assignments were very easy to score. I got full marks for both of them along with some 95% of the cohort so that tells you a lot. 

Midterms was really easy too. I thought it was a test of time and accuracy rather than knowledge as everything was just straight from the notes. It also helps that it's open-book. I got 59/60 with 1 mark lost because I did not simplify something. But I think there was a total of 8 or 10 people who got 59 or 60. The median was around 43, very much to my surprise. I think a lot of it was due to carelessness.

The finals was also open-book but it was obviously a lot more challenging compared to the assignments and midterms. It required thinking and good understanding of concepts. There were altogether 5 questions and each was worth 20 marks. Only one of them was a blatant giveaway. 

Result: B+

I was extremely disappointed with this grade. I thought I did fairly well for the finals but apparently, I did not. It was weird because I could answer questions that others couldn't but I made mistakes in the last question which was probably the one that cost me my grade. Plus, maybe the proof that I gave in the first question wasn't foolproof enough. Well, so this is one of the modules I had no idea why I scored this way. Up till now, if you ask me, I still can't give an answer. I'm actually quite curious myself because I tend to reflect on why I did badly for a particular module and up until before this semester, I could always give myself the answer but this time round, I really can't. 

I guess maybe there were a whole lot of others who found the paper manageable or even easy. I can't say that this paper was hard but I definitely wouldn't say it was easy either. Before the results came out, I was realistically expecting an A- for this module but turns out it was even worse than what I thought.

But what I suggest is not to take the concepts at face value. Rather, try and look deeper and start appreciating them and their applications etc. All in all, I did not regret taking this module as it was interesting and for anyone intending to specialize in Biostatistics, taking ST3242 is sort of a must.

ST3247 Simulation

Once again, this is another module that I am truly disappointed with the final grade. It was taken by Vik Gopal. He's one hell of a good lecturer cos' he's always so patient and explains things very well. Probably the only issues with him are that he might be slower in replying emails and to me, it was as if he was rushing through some of the topics which I thought he might as well use the freed-up Week 13 so as to go slower on the earlier topics. Then again, it's probably because I'm very slow as it was only the weaker ones who weren't able to follow him. That said, I did not attend both lectures and tutorials for this module. Lectures were webcast so it's okay. If you do not attend lectures, watching the webcasts is a must as there may be quite a bit of important information passed down during lectures; things like how you should answer a certain question. And you could find yourself staring blankly at the notes without the explanations given during lectures.

I regretted not attending the tutorials. The reason being I was really so slack the past semester that I had trouble keeping up with the tutorials. So it became a snowball such that when the class could already be at say, tutorial 5 during Week 8 and I was only at tutorial 3 at most. It was really bad. To digress a bit, I think I owe my laziness to the lack of breaks from the start of last Semester 1 until the end of Semester 2. As I had to do an internship right after the end of finals of Semester 1 and only ended it before the start of Semester 2, I really lacked a break in between. To make things worse, Semester 1 was already pretty physically taxing on me as I often had to stay up late in order to finish up the work on my RA side. And I have neither the mental capability nor the discipline to pick up a pen and start doing work this semester. But really, the tutorials were useful in my opinion as there were some questions in which you really needed an explanation from the lecturer. Oh, I did attend the very first tutorial and Vik provides extra insights into the more challenging questions which makes you understand better. 

And again, if I were to draw a similarity between this module and a foundational module, it would most definitely be ST2131. If you're not good at ST2131 and do not want to screw up your CAP, then avoid this module. I was not good at ST2131 but I decided that this module was gonna be useful. It first started out with how one can simulate a random variable from discrete and continuous distributions. This part of the module was hard for me because I wasn't good at my foundations from ST2131 so most of the time, I find the methods that Vik's teaching very out of the blue. It's like I would never think of such hoo-ha methods. Then came monte carlo and after Week 7, it was my favourite and most challenging part of the module, discrete event simulations. So everything you learnt bout' simulating from distributions comes into play. You're given a real-life situation. For example, the classic one used in this module is that there's only a single server at say, a bank. So you had to find out the arrival time, waiting time and departure time of each customer. To take it to a more complex level, the customers would leave after a certain waiting time according to a distribution you have to simulate from as well. Nevertheless, all these are already very simplistic scenarios.

Weightage

Assignments: 20%

Midterms: 30%

Finals: 50%

There were 4 assignments in total. You had to submit two portions; one was the handwritten portion to be submitted to the office and another was the coding portion to be submitted on IVLE. The first two assignments had both portions. The third assignment had only the R coding portion while the last had only the handwritten portion. I got full marks for all the assignments but of course, that didn't help at all in pulling up my disastrous midterms. Nonetheless, try not to lose marks in the assignments even though the median is always not near the full mark. I mean the first two assignments were kinda hard but the last two were easy. Then again, all the assignments took up a lot of my time except for the last one on validation techniques.

Midterms was upon 40. And I can say I did not do well because I did not study hard enough. I do mean it. Because I went home to try the questions again and I easily scored above 30 instead of the mere 25 that I actually got. The median was 22. At that time, I slacked too much especially due to the festive CNY season. So I was rushing through all the tutorials before the midterms. I thought I understood them and I neglected non-homogeneous poisson process which so very well came out in the midterms. It was easy but I lost the marks due to complete ignorance of that concept. 

I was hoping finals will be hard with emphasis placed on discrete event simulations as I had practised quite a number of challenging questions from the textbook and was confident that this would be the topic which can pull my grade up. How dismayed was I when I saw that not only was the DES question easy, it was taken straight from the past-year paper as well. In fact, the paper was so easy that 1/3 of the cohort left before the one and a half hour mark.

Anyway, it's kinda strange; closed-book, no cheatsheets, no formula sheet. I mean there were really quite a lot of algorithms to remember coupled with its details. And that's just the part on algorithms. There were still some other formulas to remember for the later topics. Right, talking bout' algorithms, the emphasis of this module is on pseudo-code so you do not need to be well-versed in R in order to obtain a good grade. That said, if you wanna take it to reality, of course you gotta show a certain level of competency in R so as to make use of whatever you learnt in this module. Nonetheless, there's sufficient guidance from Vik to ensure that you can code whatever you were taught.

Result: B

I was expecting a B+ and I've got no other reason for why I got this grade except that the bell curve was too steep thanks to the finals. I can say this with certainty because Vik sent the review of the finals to us after he finished marking and I got everything that he pointed out as a common mistake right. I mean I really spent time to understand the concepts towards the end of the semester. But there was this question on alias method that I totally missed out a formula which cost me 4 marks and I believe that was the contributing factor to my grade on top of the mediocre performance for midterms. 

Even so, I do not regret having taken this module. I really enjoyed the part on DES and the flow was great because you could make sense of what was required given a real-life problem. You had to know how to simulate from distributions, apply it to discrete event problems then perform checks as to whether what you had assumed for the problems were right plus whether the results you got made sense in reality.

ST3239 Survey Methodology

This module was taken by Zhou Wang. You may have some difficulty understanding what he's saying due to his accent. For the record, I did not attend any lectures except for the first. Lectures weren't webcast. You might lose out a bit provided you can actually follow him during lectures. Anyway, he uploads the notes shown on the visualizer in lectures.

Different sampling methods such as simple random sampling, stratified random sampling and cluster sampling are among the topics that were covered. The only topics that may sound more foreign are ratio, regression and difference estimation as well as estimation of population size.

I can say without hesitation that ST3239 is definitely one module that I regretted taking. I gave bulk of my bid points to it in the hope that I would score well due to its similarity to ST2132. But not only did I not score well, it was not the least useful to me unlike ST3247. And I didn't find it interesting like ST3242. If there is one word that I need to use to summarize the content from this module, it would be "proofs". Lots and lots of proofs were provided. But it wasn't the focus of this module I guess. You know the thing is that most people do not follow theory when they do sampling. I don't know if it's because they're unaware of the implications of not doing so or whether the implications of not doing so are too blown up thanks to advocators of sampling methods. I'm saying this because I recently had to code block randomization in Stata as a task given by my RA Prof. And I tried to argue with him that doing the way he told me to would result in biased estimates. But the answer he gave was that as long as we perform a t-test and the p-value is high, it wouldn't matter much for a large sample. In fact, before I took this module, I will not think that I would ever have to use the knowledge I'll be getting out of this module in years to come. I mean I'm not gonna go into something that requires empirical work, not even for my thesis. And even if I do, it seems like EC people are kinda too, if I may put it bluntly, ignorant to even know about the existence of such theoretically-validated methods. Even so, it might not come to me as a surprise if anyone who has taken this module realizes that it's sorta unrealistic. But to be fair, for anyone who would like to work in fields related to empirical research, it's probably good to take this module.

Weightage
Tutorial attendance: 10%
Assignment: 30%
Finals: 60%

I've to say the workload of this module is really light. You just have to attend a total of 5 tutorials in the span of the entire semester to get full credit for the first component. As for the second component, it was actually meant to be a midterms but for some reason or another, it was decided that the midterms be changed to an assignment. The assignment was extremely easy which resulted in the median being 94 out of 100. I got 96 which was only at most a B+ grade. The finals was, as I mentioned in my previous post, extremely easy. Basically, this module was mostly just applying formulas from the notes. Nothing fanciful at all. In fact, everyone found it to be one of the easiest level 3000 electives.

Result: B+
I attribute the grade I got to the 20 marks I lost on the question in the finals which actually only required clear-cut copying from the notes. So if you had copied the proof one-for-one onto your cheatsheet, you'll be able to get full credit for that question. Besides, the lecturer did mention that the paper was found to be easy for most people but of course, it wasn't as well done as the assignment due to carelessness but it still doesn't change the fact that the bell curve will be really very steep. Nonetheless, the lecturer also said that there wasn't sufficient understanding of the notes so this may serve as a tip for anyone who wishes to take this module under Zhou Wang.

EC4332 Money and Banking II

I think the title "Money and Banking" isn't reflective of the content covered for this module if Martin Bodenstein is the one taking it. Instead, he geared the module towards monetary policy such that there wasn't much of banking at all. Nonetheless, he has very good understanding of the material he's teaching. I guess this is because of his work experience. You can look up his CV for what I mean. By the way, he's all good and well face-to-face but not when it comes to emails. He replies to an email once in a blue moon so most of the time, he doesn't. Anyway, if you find yourself interested in what I'm gonna say below, take EC4331 Monetary Economics and Policy next semester. According to him, it's because the EC department wants to move EC4332 back to the more qualitative line of content such that it'll be more of a build-up from EC3332 so they decided to create a separate module that focuses on monetary policy. And, for anyone who wants to specialize in monetary economics, this module is a must-take. I find myself reading papers on monetary policy with ease now as compared to when I first started back in Feb whereby there was nothing then that I could understand.

The New Keynesian Model is one of the most widely used models in analyses of monetary policies. And even if the papers you're reading happen to not be using NKM, chances are that once you study NKM, you'll find yourself equipped with the ability to understand most of the other models as well because the current trend is that most models are built on microfoundations just like the NKM. You can get a little bit of the NKM from EC4102 under Aamir Hashmi. But of course, it's not as full-blown as this. Speaking of EC4102, it'll be highly advantageous to have taken EC4102 before you take EC4331. Although EC4102 is a co-requisite for EC4331, I do think the relevance to EC4331 comes in only at the last bit of EC4102. This means it'll be better to have taken EC4102 before you take EC4331.

This module starts out difficult due to the sheer amount of so-called algebra such that you begin seeing stars in the third homework or something. But in the lecturer's own words, all the algebra you do in this module are trivial. What's more important is that you get the intuition of why a particular shock will change the economy in the way it did. In fact, that is also the most difficult part of the module for me: intuition. Until now, if you ask me, I may not be able to give a very satisfactory answer to some of the qualitative questions covered in this module. The lecturer probably recognized that and set the finals such that it focused a lot on qualitative understanding rather than quantitative understanding like in the midterms. And halfway through the semester, I started spending much less time on this module as there was really nothing much you can study. Well, but I guess the homework helps to keep up consistency.

Weightage
Tutorial attendance and participation: 10%
Homework: 20%
Midterms: 35%
Finals 35%

I do not know why the first component even exists in the first place cos' even if there were people who went up to present during tutorials, their names weren't taken down. But the lecturer did mention that everyone will probably get full credit for this component.

Each person was allocated 4 homework in total. How it works is that there were altogether 10 homework. And everyone would be assigned 2 among the first five and the remaining 2 among the last five. Of course, this once again comes with some sort of bias. I got allocated the more computationally intensive ones which seemingly, a lot of people had difficulty with. The last 5 homework were all fairly easy whereas the earlier ones were very time-consuming; I can spend up to 4 or 5 hours just to get them done. I got full marks for only one assignment whereas the others were all 9.5 out of 10. I guess it was already somewhat disadvantageous as some got full marks for all. Nonetheless, I don't think it matters much as long as you didn't get like 6 or something.

Midterms was quantitative in nature. There were 3 questions in total. It wasn't a test of difficulty but time. The first question was algebraically intensive and that took away 55 minutes out of the two hours we had but even past the one-hour mark, there were still a lot of people struggling to finish the first question. I got 95 out of 120. The median was 82.

And lastly, the killer finals. I must say, and I said this to the lecturer himself, this is without doubt the hardest EC paper I have sat for by far and I hope it'll be the hardest one already. Apparently, he said that he deliberately phrased the questions in a way such that if you do not know your concepts well, you wouldn't know what he's asking for. Basically, the finals was a test of conceptual understanding. There were two questions and I could do the first one with confidence. But I lost it halfway through the second one because there came up some weird variance which I've never seen before in the entire semester. And by the time I figured out what the variance meant, I could only do the 5 marks proving and not the 10 marks one. Most people around me either gave up or were panicking as well. It doesn't help that this is not the kind of paper whereby you could just move on to the next part if you did not know how to do the previous because it was a snowball which summed up to some 30 marks out of 120.

Result: A+
I was very pleasantly surprised by the result. Never in my wildest dreams did I expect to get even an A-, much less an A+. I've no idea how and why I got this grade. Seriously, I don't think I deserve the grade at all because in absolute terms, I actually didn't do well for the paper especially for the second question. I guess I got the grade only because I did well relative to others. In fact, the lecturer did mention in his email to us after grading the finals that our performance for the finals was a little worse than what he expected. This reminds me, many people have said that level 4000 modules have no bell curve. But I'm pretty damn sure that this module has and this on top of the small cohort size of 34 students just goes to show how intense the competition had been. With so many factors in play, it really got me wondering how I got this grade but I never figured out, not until I met the lecturer sometime later...

So he told me it's because I demonstrated very good understanding of my concepts in the finals. And there was apparently a very huge gap between me and the second best scorer; I do believe that the second best scorer was probably the one who got 102 for the midterms and 102 was the highest mark for the midterms. In fact, the 95 I got was only around the 75th percentile benchmark which essentially put me in the A- range already. I guess for anyone who wants to take EC4331, be prepared for a challenging finals though I highly doubt the finals will be as hard as this semester's from what I was told. However, if you know your concepts well, chances are you'll be able to do well for this module as the lecturer also mentioned that most people can follow the notes and keep blindly applying the method of undetermined coefficients, but then how many of them actually understand what they're doing? And before I forget, do not attempt to write long-winded solutions for the qualitative questions. I did so for one of the homework and I was deducted half a mark for that. It's preferable that the answers be short and straight to the point. Probably that was one of the contributing factors to my grade for finals.


And that's it for my module review this semester. By the way, I did not give a list of topics covered for each module this time round. But I do have the full set of lecture notes, assignments etc. for all my 4 core modules. However, I'm no longer gonna upload my stuff and I've my own reasons for doing so. So if you would like to get access to my course materials, drop a comment along with your email address and I'll try to respond asap.

Update on AY2014-15 Semester 2 Module Review

Sorry to disappoint but my module review this time round won't be up so soon. 

Then again, it's summer holidays so fret not as you guys won't have to decide on your modules anytime soon. Nonetheless, I should think that it'll be up before FASS starts MPE. The reason is because I have been and will be very occupied this week and many more weeks to come. 

And due to some surprises, both good and bad, about my results, it's gonna be quite difficult to write my module review objectively. So simply put, I need more time to do up a good one for this semester.

But in case there are readers out there who's very eager to know what any of the modules I've taken last semester is about, feel free to leave a comment in the chatbox and I'll reply you asap.

Semester 6's over!

And another semester just flew by. By the way, I just ended my last finals on Friday so this post is quite timely. 

In all honesty, this semester was a lot less enjoyable than I thought it would be. Let's just cut away the SS module as I can count with my fingers the number of hours I spent on it in the entire semester. Oh damn, EC4332 was so much less interesting than I had imagined, not to mention that killer finals. I felt that studying for it wouldn't help much. So this module isn't looking too optimistic along with the small cohort size. 

Right, but nothing beats ST3239. The finals was so dumb. I do mean, dumb. Probably the dumbest finals I ever had in my 3 years of candidature. And that's because there was one question in the finals which was taken directly from the notes. So even for those who did not understand the proof (which should be the case for most people from what I heard), they could just conveniently copy it from their cheatsheet. And I was one of the unlucky ones who did not copy it onto my cheatsheet so that's an instant 20 marks gone. It also doesn't help that the bell curve for this module is going to be extremely steep which means I should very well brace myself for the result of this module.

In fact, the only two modules that I really enjoyed are ST3242 and ST3247. Unfortunately, ST3247 finals was so easy that I think everyone could obtain close to, if not, full marks. To make things worse, I did not do very well for the midterms and the differentiator will most likely be the midterms. It kinda feels a bit like my ST2137 except that I did not do as badly for the midterms though at the same time, the cohort size got reduced by more than half. And ST3242 is probably the only module that I see hope for an A. 

Well, I guess it'll help to get mentally prepared before results day. And more details to come in my module review later on.

Oh right, in case you're wondering, I'm not doing an internship this summer but I do have some plans on my mind. I haven't been given the green light for those plans though so I'll not reveal them as of now. Meanwhile, it's just work from my Prof on the RA side and I'm kinda looking forward to starting a new research paper with him this holidays.

AY2014-2015 Semester 2 Modules

And the much delayed post is finally here. I have been resting for the past three weeks of school as I did not manage to have a proper break last winter. Of course that comes with a price; I'm already lagging behind for several modules.

But anyway, it was really hard deciding on my modules this semester. One reason was that I had wanted to take two level-4000 EC modules but unfortunately, the modules offered this time round aren't exactly interesting. So the initial plan was two EC, two ST, SS and my last GEM. However, due to unforeseen circumstances, it has become one EC, three ST and one SS which also means I have cleared the requirements for my second major. Well, I shall go into the details of my module selection now.

1. EC4332 Money and Banking II

For some reason, having taken EC4102 makes this module slightly less interesting than I had imagined it to be. Nonetheless, this was one of the must-take modules for me. Probably it's just that the content now is somewhat similar to that covered in EC4102 so I'm feeling a little "unsurprised". This is not to say that the module is easy. In fact, I think if anyone finds EC4102 hard, the next thing he or she should be doing is to avoid this module at all costs, or at least if it's taken by Martin Bodenstein. Apparently, EC4332 under Park Jungjae is peanuts which thus explains the excessive demand last semester. On the other hand, the same module is definitely under-enrolled when Martin Bodenstein takes it, like in this semester. Anyway, as predicted, EC3332 is of zero help to EC4332 and I mean zero. But I really like it how this module can provide me with the insights to the models used by monetary authorities and how monetary policy plays a role within the general equilibrium theory so I am really looking forward to the topics after Week 7.

By the way, I had wanted to take EC4880 but thank goodness I realized that the finals is qualitative-based and that's a big no-no. 

2. ST3239 Survey Methodology

This was one module that I had only decided to take at the eleventh hour. By that, I really mean one day before Round 1A starts or something. And I spent a freaking 1.4k on this module, the most I have ever spent. Oh well, but what's the use of keeping so much points anyway. 

So it was between this or ST3241 Categorical Data Analysis I. I have looked through the content for both modules repeatedly and I finally decided to prioritize my interest and grades a little bit more than usefulness. I mean I am not going to conduct surveys ever in my life or at least few professions require knowledge in this field whereas on the other hand, ST3241 is more applicable in the sense that categorical data is quite commonly seen in databases, research papers, etc. But, looking at the difficulty of ST3241 tells me it's not gonna be a wise choice in addition to the extremely steep bell curve.

If not for the lack of EC modules to choose from, I would have waited till Year 4 Sem 1 to take ST3233 Applied Time Series Analysis instead of ST3239 as ST3233 is only offered in Semester 1. But I have to say that the way this course is conducted is in many ways similar to ST2132 so I am sort of gradually leaning towards this module.

3. ST3242 Introduction to Survival Analysis

Again, this was another module that I decided ok maybe not at the eleventh hour but "seventh hour"? And it was largely due to the difficulty level of this module. Or rather for my standards, this module will prove to be a challenge. However, I came to realize the usefulness of this module and how it can be applied to many situations and hence, I decided not to have so many reservations and just do it. 

4. ST3247 Simulation

This is definitely a module that I foresee myself having a lot of difficulties with but it's also the module that I have firmly decided on from the very beginning. In fact, if I hadn't chosen this module, there will be many GEM for me to choose from as this module is the one causing all the clashes. But this is really one useful module so I placed it plus EC4332 on top of my list and so modules that clash with these two just have to give way.

I had actually intended to take ST3244 Demographic Methods but obviously ST3247 is a better choice.

5. SSA2211 The Evolution of a Global-City State

Can I just skip this? Basically, I took this module firstly because yes, I need to fulfill the university requirements and secondly because I can S/U it. Simple as that. Oh and right, it fits into my timetable.

6. GEM1536 Darwin and Evolution
And so I dropped this module in Week 2 despite spending a bomb on it. Reason is very simple: reality did not meet expectations. I thought this module was gonna be a bit more scientific but heck, the questions include stuff like "Which university did Darwin attend?" and that is enough to put me off apart from the fact that it is apparently a must to attend lectures in order to take down all the important notes which will be tested for exams. All I can think of are my two remaining S/U options. And so asking me to attend lectures for a module that I am intending to S/U is nuts. I mean how do you expect me to attend lectures for a GEM when I don't even attend the lectures for my core modules?

And that's all for the updates.

Anyway, it does appear that my workload is a lot lighter compared to last semester. But really, it isn't any much lighter. Although it was reduced from 6 to 4 core modules, there isn't actually much of a difference. First, the core modules this semester are a lot harder. Second, they're also more time-consuming probably because there are assignments to be submitted every now and then for three out of the four modules. In addition, my RA prof has been assigning me with new tasks every week and most importantly, I will get started on my thesis preparation this semester as it's quite likely that I'll be doing it next semester instead of my last semester.

Coming up: AY2014-2015 Semester 2 Modules

Earlier on, I thought I have decided on the modules that I'll be taking in the upcoming semester. However, due to some reason or another, there have been drastic revisions to my module selection.

I'll be putting up my final choice of modules very soon.