Skip to main content

Ja Young Kim

Title: Lecturer

Department: Public Administration

College: College of Health and Public Service

Curriculum Vitae

Curriculum Vitae Link

Education

  • PhD, University of Utah, 2023
    Major: Metropolitan Planning, Policy & Design
  • MCP, University of California-Berkeley, 2013
    Major: City and Metro Planning
  • BArch, Hanyang University, 2009
    Major: Architecture

Current Scheduled Teaching

PADM 2000.001Discover the City: Placemaking in the WorldSpring 2025 Syllabus
PADM 2120.001Introduction to Urban and Regional PlanningSpring 2025 Syllabus
PADM 4170.001Methods in Urban Planning Research and AnalysisSpring 2025 Syllabus
Texas Education Code 51.974 (HB 2504) requires each institution of higher education to make available to the public, a syllabus for undergraduate lecture courses offered for credit by the institution.

Previous Scheduled Teaching

PADM 5300.001Introduction to Urban PlanningFall 2024 SPOT
PADM 4170.001Methods in Urban Planning Research and AnalysisFall 2024 Syllabus SPOT
PADM 5700.008Seminar in Public AdministrationFall 2024 SPOT
PADM 6710.004Seminar in Public Administration and ManagementFall 2024 SPOT
PADM 6710.008Seminar in Public Administration and ManagementFall 2024 SPOT
Texas Education Code 51.974 (HB 2504) requires each institution of higher education to make available to the public, a syllabus for undergraduate lecture courses offered for credit by the institution.
,
Overall
Summative Rating		 Challenge and
Engagement Index		 Response Rate

out of 5
out of 7		 %
of
students responded
  • Overall Summative Rating (median):
    This rating represents the combined responses of students to the four global summative items and is presented to provide an overall index of the class’s quality. Overall summative statements include the following (response options include a Likert scale ranging from 5 = Excellent, 3 = Good, and 1= Very poor):
    • The course as a whole was
    • The course content was
    • The instructor’s contribution to the course was
    • The instructor’s effectiveness in teaching the subject matter was
  • Challenge and Engagement Index:
    This rating combines student responses to several SPOT items relating to how academically challenging students found the course to be and how engaged they were. Challenge and Engagement Index items include the following (response options include a Likert scale ranging from 7 = Much higher, 4 = Average, and 1 = Much lower):
    • Do you expect your grade in this course to be
    • The intellectual challenge presented was
    • The amount of effort you put into this course was
    • The amount of effort to succeed in this course was
    • Your involvement in course (doing assignments, attending classes, etc.) was
CLOSE