Professor
Sung-deuk Oak
2 of 3
AD
Most Helpful Review
Winter 2019 - Very interesting content, the professor makes it this class easy, one 2 pages journal per week, one final exam open book just write as much as you can then you get an A. Final was gonna be the same thing but the campus got suspended so he made it 2 papers just like the weekly journal.
Winter 2019 - Very interesting content, the professor makes it this class easy, one 2 pages journal per week, one final exam open book just write as much as you can then you get an A. Final was gonna be the same thing but the campus got suspended so he made it 2 papers just like the weekly journal.
AD
Most Helpful Review
This is a review for K172, Christianity in Korea. There were so many times I would catch myself almost calling him “Pastor” instead of “Professor”... He really does give off this pastorly vibe. I can’t explain it. Professor Oak (what a rad name, right) is a meh-level lecturer. His powerpoint slides make no sense and are riddled with tons of tiny and unimportant details. If you miss class and look at his slides later, you won’t understand much of it. If you go to class, try to write notes, and look at the slides later, you probably still won’t get it. His lectures don’t wander or go off on tangents, but 75% of what he talks about seems to have no real practical importance, especially since you won’t get tested on anything until the final (no midterm!), and quizzes are based on the readings and thankfully not his lectures. Which is not to say that the readings make much sense, either. Some of them were clearly written with a target audience, one that has much more background knowledge of the material than you do, and so you'll slog through it without getting much out of it. And Prof Oak won't always explain those obscure terms during class, nor will Google always be of much help. I think the quizzes seemed to have gotten more difficult over time - they went from more general to “list the five main points of the 1988 doctrine,” and I think a few times he tested us on secondary readings rather than the primary ones (which are the ones we’re supposed to be tested on). He does mumble a lot, and sometimes his accent gets in the way. (Once, he said that “Christians will be ruptured” -- he meant “Christians will be raptured.”) He emphasizes a lot of the theological points, which won’t make that much sense to you unless you’ve studied Christian apologetics or Biblical hermeneutics in depth, and like I said before, the more historical points are just full of unnecessary, complicated details. He seems to prefer these over broad themes and general points. He also has a lot of slides of scans of Korean documents, so if you can't read it, it goes completely over your head. There was no midterm, but there were three reflection papers, and you could opt out of the final by writing a 10-12 page research paper. The reflection papers are easy because they come with such a strict, elementary format. The intro HAS to start with your thesis, you have to have sections marked off as “summary” and “reflection/comparison,” and your conclusion HAS to start with a thesis, summarize your main arguments in the body, and then again end with the thesis. Honestly, you’d be better off cutting out the summaries and just doing straight analysis, but whatever, it’s simple enough even though it’s a pain. As for the regular final, though, he supplies you with a bunch of questions beforehand, and he picks a few that you have to write on for the test. Not too bad. It’s clear that he really wants you to do well by dumbing things down for everyone. I do get the sense that he does have favorites, like the other reviewers mentioned below. Toward the end I stopped caring, and my quiz grades dipped because I was always studying for another class and only skimmed the readings the night before, and I was constantly on my phone ignoring lecture. But I made efforts to write my paper early and went in to get his feedback often in office hours, and I got an A in the class. He also spams you with emails to complete the instructor evaluation at the of the quarter, which is pretty unusual for a professor. It means he cares about improving the class, but who knows if he's completely aware of how best to actually do that.
This is a review for K172, Christianity in Korea. There were so many times I would catch myself almost calling him “Pastor” instead of “Professor”... He really does give off this pastorly vibe. I can’t explain it. Professor Oak (what a rad name, right) is a meh-level lecturer. His powerpoint slides make no sense and are riddled with tons of tiny and unimportant details. If you miss class and look at his slides later, you won’t understand much of it. If you go to class, try to write notes, and look at the slides later, you probably still won’t get it. His lectures don’t wander or go off on tangents, but 75% of what he talks about seems to have no real practical importance, especially since you won’t get tested on anything until the final (no midterm!), and quizzes are based on the readings and thankfully not his lectures. Which is not to say that the readings make much sense, either. Some of them were clearly written with a target audience, one that has much more background knowledge of the material than you do, and so you'll slog through it without getting much out of it. And Prof Oak won't always explain those obscure terms during class, nor will Google always be of much help. I think the quizzes seemed to have gotten more difficult over time - they went from more general to “list the five main points of the 1988 doctrine,” and I think a few times he tested us on secondary readings rather than the primary ones (which are the ones we’re supposed to be tested on). He does mumble a lot, and sometimes his accent gets in the way. (Once, he said that “Christians will be ruptured” -- he meant “Christians will be raptured.”) He emphasizes a lot of the theological points, which won’t make that much sense to you unless you’ve studied Christian apologetics or Biblical hermeneutics in depth, and like I said before, the more historical points are just full of unnecessary, complicated details. He seems to prefer these over broad themes and general points. He also has a lot of slides of scans of Korean documents, so if you can't read it, it goes completely over your head. There was no midterm, but there were three reflection papers, and you could opt out of the final by writing a 10-12 page research paper. The reflection papers are easy because they come with such a strict, elementary format. The intro HAS to start with your thesis, you have to have sections marked off as “summary” and “reflection/comparison,” and your conclusion HAS to start with a thesis, summarize your main arguments in the body, and then again end with the thesis. Honestly, you’d be better off cutting out the summaries and just doing straight analysis, but whatever, it’s simple enough even though it’s a pain. As for the regular final, though, he supplies you with a bunch of questions beforehand, and he picks a few that you have to write on for the test. Not too bad. It’s clear that he really wants you to do well by dumbing things down for everyone. I do get the sense that he does have favorites, like the other reviewers mentioned below. Toward the end I stopped caring, and my quiz grades dipped because I was always studying for another class and only skimmed the readings the night before, and I was constantly on my phone ignoring lecture. But I made efforts to write my paper early and went in to get his feedback often in office hours, and I got an A in the class. He also spams you with emails to complete the instructor evaluation at the of the quarter, which is pretty unusual for a professor. It means he cares about improving the class, but who knows if he's completely aware of how best to actually do that.
2 of 3
