Subject: ENGL30002 Critical Debates
3 Comments on ENGL30002 Critical Debates
Joe Hughes is the only reason this subject is tolerable. His lectures made the readings (and there are a lot of readings - think 100+ pages a week) at least somewhat interesting and engaging. The same goes, perhaps to a slightly lesser extent, for James Jiang. While I felt that I learnt a lot of really valuable ideas and concepts in this subject, there is no denying that it is a slog and not a particularly enjoyable one at that. The assessments are frustrating and mind-numbingly boring, but at the end of the day, you do learn a lot, and hopefully that makes it all semi-worth-it.
The content is quite heavy and at times really difficult to grasp. The assignments are different to any previous lit essays I'd written so I found them really challenging. I suppose it was a necessary way to tie the English major together though, and I appreciated the opportunity to focus solely on the topics that interested me in the assignments. I guess it's just another capstone that you gotta get through.
I really liked this subject! There was a lot of content and ideas each week and the tutorials didn't always give us the chance to unpack everything, they could even have been longer I felt. James Jiang was a lovely tutor who tried his best to provoke engagement and stimulating discussion even though we had to study online. Would have been nice to have some of the critical ideas introduced earlier (and admittedly there were weeks I fully did not grasp), but also think this sudden shift is less the fault of the subject and more just the degree being hard to structure.