Information
I am a Sociology student and happen to come across this post. I don't know if this post is still useful to you, seeing that the enquiry was posted a year ago. I suppose this information should be useful for aspiring Sociology students who stumble upon this post (which is likely seeing that this is one of the rare threads discussing Sociology major).
Indeed, when students consider social science education, most will consider NUS first. Not only it has a presumably 'better arts and social sciences education', NUS is also not located at the far end of Singapore, surrounded by thick foliage and wild animals. It is true that those who get rejected from NUS subsequently place their hopes on NTU. Well at least quite a handful of them.
I am now offering information without bias for aspiring sociology students to make an informed decision
In Singapore, there is little bias between NTU and NUS Sociology graduates. If the individual intends to go overseas for postgraduate education (or probably find a job) then yes, there is a preference for NUS over NTU HSS students due to the ranking. It is like SMU as compared to NTU or NUS for business. In Singapore, graduates from all three schools are equally sought after. Overseas, SMU students (the bulk of them, not the cream of the crop) have higher difficulty.
But what are the odds of majority of the Sociology graduates venturing beyond the shores of Singapore to work/further studies?
There are differences in NUS and NTU (sociology) thus allowing both graudates to be desired in the job market. Should there be no distinction between the two school in terms of course ciriculum, nature and structure, there would be even greater competition between Sociology graduates from both schools. In addition, the diverging focus of both schools affects the decision of post graduate studies should a sociology graduate wish to further his/her studies in Singapore.
Let me elaborate further.
The first distinction that I assume everybody knows is that NUS is a three years course while NTU is 4 years with direct honours. The first year in NUS is general studies of modules from 3 majors while NTU plunges straight in.
NUS focuses on qualitative research while NTU concentrates on quantitative research (well it is Nanyang Technological University for a reason). As such, for post graduate studies (Masters), NUS accepts students who specialises in qualitative while NTU welcomes those with quantitative research abilities. This means that for instance, should a sociology student, specialising in qualitative research, graduates from NTU(you can choose to specialise in either one or both) and wish to further his/her studies, that individual has to apply to NUS and vice versa.
As a side note, quantitative research is more practical in the real world but majority of the sociology students choose humanities education for a reason - we general suck at math. Thats why, subscription in qualitative research is always higher than quatitative.
This distinction of qualitative and quantitative preference also affects the makeup of professors. NTU give preference to professors who have quantitative background and for those professors, your readings will tend to be more statistical/ not as deep (that is briefly speaking( as compared to professors specialising in qualitative. However, that being said, the majority of the professors in NTU still possess qualitative background. There is only a small handful of professors who are otherwise.
Both Universities house sociology professors of 'legendary'status, which means to say that they are well known in the world of sociology. Of the many, NUS has Chua Beng Huat while NTU has Geoffery Benjamin (though he is leaving to be a guest professor at some other University, having taught at NTU for a number of years).
It is unfair to say that NTU sociology education is less rigorous than NUS due to reasons like NTU accepts 'rejects'from NUS or their professors are lousy/mark more leniently etc. Grading is not standardized across the board, it is the same in NUS/NTU. Professors have their own marking criteria and requirements. A student who scored A in a module may score B- in another due to the different writing styles/content/style of analysis required of another professor. There are modules where students can score easily. This modules are probably taught by professors who just entered the university and are not accustomed to the marking scheme in the university, or they hold steadfast in the belief that Sociology, as a academic subject, is subjective, open to debate and thus there is no right or wrong answer. So long as the student writes something that makes sense, that student's answer would be accepted. There are also cases where the professors do not use the bell curve as it is against the spirit of academia (of course, over time the University will ensure that these professors stick to the grading requirement).
To claim that a school's grading standard is more inferior to it's counterpart through statements like 'I know a few friends who...'or 'my friend says...' is fallacious. (this is not to offend anybody). This is because, very simply, that these handful friends do not represent the population. One might be taking an easier module than the other etc. Besides, grading depends on the batch's strength and intellectual capabilities. My juniors are having a very tough time fighting it out as the batches are high in intellectual capability and very, very competitive.
And I wish to shed light on the Universities' selection process, though I have to say that this selection process was a couple of years back.
- NUS selects ppl into their Arts and Social Science faculty through their combined A level grades, which means to say that your H2 subjects (my time it was still called A level subjects) has to score well to boost the University score.
-NTU focuses on General Paper grades (of course, H2 results should not be THAT shoddy)
But given the recent raised standards, I think this selection process is somewhat revamped though the essense stays the same.
Lastly, Sociology Professors, according to my observations, falls into several categories:
1)Micro: Detail oriented and emphasizes memory work
2) Macro: Emphasizes on extensive, in depth knowledge
3)Macro/Abstract: Liberal. Focuses on over-arching concepts that requires analysis and thinking but does not expect details. (Professors from this module generally teach the 'difficult'modules that are undersubscribed)
4) Structured/ Straightforward: Require little analysis.
5)General: Likable prof to the majority of the population due to clear explanations and not so abstract concepts
6)Abstract: Anal like hell and you generally have no idea what the heck he/she wants
I like options (2) and (3) while I really hate (1) and (6). For aspiring Sociology students, you will soon have your favourite/hated categories of professors in time to come.
As a concluding statement: some may argue that whatever I am saying is wrong cause his/her friend had like well... all Cs including Cs in GP and was still accepted. THere are exceptions you noe. They probably occupy the last few vacancies or sth.
Haha...
as for doing well, you need to be able to read, write and argue
