Dear Andrew,

Good thought provoking article ! The debate regarding meritocracy and affirmative action – is an old one. Indeed in Malaysia – it even has political and racial undertones !

But – yes – the rich are more privileged. The rich can afford expensive tuition, good but expensive books and the rich can also afford to provide a more conducive home environment.

Meritocracy has no meaning until you specify by what yardstick you use to decide what is worthy of merit !

Its NOT a level playing field. The rich have got it going for them………

Of course the educational system is tuned to favouring the elites. The basic aim of the education in Singapore is to produce a mostly or all-elite population, which is why much of the reproduction policies have been targeted at the higher educated class.

Victim of our own meritocracy? Ideally it should not happen. But that’s what happens when most of these people who decide policies belong to the elite themselves. Ideally it should all work out but it hasn’t and it won’t. The rich have it going for them, which is exactly what the Gahmen wants implicitly. You can see it in how they offer scholarships as well.

I only received a scholarship because i was deemed to be able to study something very useful to the organisation, namely a foreign language. Made it big? For me personally, perhaps. But you can bet that it is very slanted to the rich and elite.

Dr. Alwi, the word ‘meritocracy’ has been thrown around so much that it has become meaningless. Any word used in such a manner, which has universal usage, is a word with no content, especially since the criteria are not defined. Perhaps they don’t want us to know the true criteria…

The problem lies, in my opinion, with social mobility. The problem inherent in the Singapore system is this; social mobility is a luxury enjoyed by only a few. The rest of the people who are unable to achieve the results at an earlier stage of life find that they arent going to advance anywhere at a later stage. o

‘As the economic and political elite are rewarded with larger prizes, a vast and visible inequality of outcomes will replace the incentive effect with a sense of resentment, helplessness, social disengagement, and even envy among those who perceive themselves as systematically disadvantaged,’

Isn’t a vast number of people leaving, or wanting to leave, this country a testimony of an elitist and disenchanted culture here?

The obsession, just read your dailies, with a certain class of people and their successes ( please, don’t think we are saying this out of envy) has made your average folks, who are equally important in contributing to the survival of this country, looks insignificant as the mutt you see on the streets.

Everyday, they seem to reinforce the idea in people’s mind about so and so in society, of their achievements and the difference they had made blah blah…oh pls.

This religion of self glorification and constant justification of their ( elites) importance is so overboard that you just get the feeling of the extent of desperation in latching on to powers, more pay ,better treatment( especially the vip public servants) over the rests of the masses of average born losers blah blah blah.

i am sure the elites work hard for their successes, but please, everyone generally works hard to survive why the vast discrimination against the nave nots?

We have dealt with govt services and govt link bureaucratic corporations etc to know experience the bias services offered. There are many hindrances if you have grievances against some protected species in the hierarchy. Doesn’t matter which ministry, you will go up against a wall of tanks if you want to pick bones with any of their top crap.

We have seen enough to believe the social values elites preach are hypocritical. The only value that’s worth keeping is their own jobs at others expense.

Though there maybe a few genuine and heartfelt stories of truly humble self giving elites, the vast majority of the elitist breed are cocky, self seeking and indifferent.

We are a nation of educated pee-cocks who think the world( and universe ) revolve around us.

Allow me to illustrate with a real situation, of how a child that can afford tuition / enrichment centre / wide exposure, tends to benefit more.

Our primary school kids today need to write creatively for their composition. What is commonly known as creative writing. It is no longer enough to be able to write grammatically correct essays. The creative use of grammar / vocab / sentence structure and creative content is now the order of the day.

Personally, I feel this is a practical skill to have. In this age of globalization, it is no longer enough to be good at your work. You need to be able to market yourself so that others belief you are indeed better then others.

How are our kids being prepared and taught to write creatively? Throughout the bulk of their primary school English lessons, most schools emphasis on grammar like tenses, punctuations, nouns, adverbs, adjectives, etc. But creative writing is the “creative application” of all this. Are the kids taught how to creatively apply the grammar they have learnt? In other words, are they taught the process of creatively linking the various parts of grammar to form a creative piece of essay?

Allow me to illustrate with examples, of how creative use of language at the start of a composition, can intrigue a person to want to read on.

a) Using a Question
What possessed me to try to catch a skunk? I will never know.

b) A Sound Effect
“PSFST!” I smelled the skunk’s spray almost as soon as I heard it.

c) A Statement
It was a battle with nature. Nature won.

d) A Command
Never try to outsmart a skunk.

So is the above “process” taught in our schools? Based on children / friends feedback from 2 neighbourhood schools and 3 “branded” schools I personally talked to, only 1 “branded” school does. And 1 of the child said he actually learnt it from the enrichment centre he goes to, but not from his school!

So how are the other schools teaching this? “Oh, we are told to use more adjectives and adverbs and to read widely!” was the majority reply. Personally, at this age, I do think kids reading widely will at most allow them to have more “content”. But to be able to pick up the nuisances of the language and be able to apply it, is it too abstract to expect the kid to be able to do so just by reading widely, if he is not taught or exposed to it?

The same goes for comprehension. Questions that expect the kid to infer the answers, not only from the passage, but also from personal exposure, are the most challenging for kids. Again, this is indeed a practical skill to have, to train our young to think instead of just regurgitating.

Needless to say, a less financially endowed child will have less personal exposure to infer from. And even if they are exposed, are the kids taught how to relate their exposure to what they learn?

Above are just observations by me, a parent. Do check with your child / niece / nephew / etc to see how true this is. And for ex / relief teachers reading this, do share with us if this observation is valid. With requirements changing ever so often, I suspect MOE has not caught up with the training of our teachers with such new teaching methods, to meet these new needs.

It would appear that there is a gap between how our schools are training our kids and what they are expected to know when being evaluated. And to be expected, the private sector (tuition / enrichment centres) has come in to plug that gap. But what about those that cannot afford the private sector solutions?

Very disappointed that his children educated not in NUS or NTU.
I mean I thought NTU or NUS would have been good enough for them.
But what to do? people can choose to go to better universities if they like.
Quite disappointed that NUS and NTU not better than MIT and the ivy leagues.
I think they should improve since we are 1st world now.

Dear secure chain,

Your observations are correct. The rich CAN afford all sorts of tuition and enrichment classes which benefits the child tremendously !

This happens not only for English – but also for all the other subjects.

Thus the rich gets richer and the poor – well – poorer !

Say hi to meritocratic, authoritarian capitalism !

Why the papers said mostly certain scholarships awarded to students who live in private properties and less from HDB?

I thought these people should have more financial capabilities?

Why not give the opportunity for others more in need and have a better chance of leveling the playing field?

AFAIK, Ong Teng Cheong’s son(s) studied in NUS.

For kishore n the like, they r kidding themselves….. walk the talk first, rather than talk the walk…..

Let’s be fair, Singapore’s education system is not bad. In many ways, it is quite good. However, I think we need to realise that the education system is not world class and it has a long way to go before it actually becomes so.

Let’s put it this way – if Singapore’s education system is so great – why does Singapore need foreign talent to take the jobs that the economy has produced in the last couple of years? Is it a case of Singaporeans not having the right skills? If it is……who is responsible?

Should study the educational system of USA and Finland. Finland has the most percentage of graduates and they learn not by what the teachers force them to accept or served on a silver platter – they learn by seeking the answers to academic questions, and do a lot of “pre-tests”.

In light of this discussion, allow me to alert us of an upcoming public forum:

“Universities and the Undergraduates: Designing Education for the 21st Century”

Date: 23rd August 2008 (Saturday)
Time: 2.00pm to 5.00pm (Registration from 1.40pm)
­­Venue: Ngee Ann Kongsi Auditorium
Level 2, School of Accountancy, Singapore Management University
Dress Code: Smart Casual

Register your name and affiliation to sociologyntu@yahoo.com.sg
Please visit http://ntuss.blogspot.com for more details.

Hope to see you guys there…

Thank You

Since this govt is adamant on winning at all cost, and after securing an Olympics silver thru’ the China B team, why not go further ? They should seriously look at using a similar method to purchase a Nobel prize. Buy a few every year and have the winners who are already Singapore citizens, attached to various universities. Kishore Mahbubani can then use his ball-licking skill to help this govt make claims to having the best education system in the world. It must be true because the Nobel prize winners are Singapore citizens ! LOL

“Since this govt is adamant on winning at all cost, and after securing an Olympics silver thru’ the China B team, why not go further ? They should seriously look at using a similar method to purchase a Nobel prize.”

They already did. Just look at the list of top-notched biotech foreign researchers but unfortunately for Singapore, these researcher didn’t buy in the bait and most of these people leave Singapore for greener pastures. Money can’t entice them because they already worth million on their own.

Are JiaWei and rest need money so desperately that they willing to do anything for Singapore? What if there is less reward price, will these so-called foreign talent still want to win for Singapore ?

Speaking for engineering in NUS, which I have been through, the level is not in the top 10 of the world. So, there is little wonder why people seek to go overseas for a better education. I think NUS should not rest on their comfort zones and claims that they are world-class. World-class is a GIVEN adjective, not a promoted one. What an university should just do is to promote good teachings (hinting on the lack of fundamentals), and encourage research. Simple and maybe not so simple.

Our secondary education is highly acclaimed, but why so much problems in varisties? The fundamentals are completely missing in the syllabus and courses are disjoint in content. Further, graduate students are funded (sometimes partially) for ONE conference in their entire PhD candidacy. In this age of networking, who the heck graduates with just one paper and going to one conference?

So, the simple conclusion is that NUS and NTU can either sit around and blow their own horns, or move on and be great. I know good people in NUS, but the environment should allow them to shine.

in light of globalisation and extensive marketing, parents as well as their children have choices. And the pasture is always greener at the opposite side. So if one has the means, it pays to go for a different learning experience. I am likely to send my kid/s overseas for their tertiary education;, not being the local universities are not good enough, but more for the experience to learn to be independent as well as integrate into a global enviornment. In Sgp, the kids tend to be in a protective environment, and if not managed well, will see more spoilt and inconsiderate brats. If CPF can be used for overseas education, more parents wld hv sent their kids out of Sgp, but then, the parents will be pressurised to do so….

.

to 13 ) buy to win
We are already importing foreign talent to improve on our research and science hub.
We are buying potential Nobel prize – you just don’t know how much has been spent

I have mentioned before that education is no more a level playing field. Players involved will not make the necessary substituition, it becames a country club with the same board members. One look at the Pri school syllabus and you know that any parents with ‘A’ levels n below will have problems understanding it, much less the students. The main question is sending their kids to premium tuition or mass tuition, it is a huge gap in quality. Schools tend to focus on the 2 extremes of students, those at the top n bottom, the in -between tend to be left on their own. If schools are doing a good job, is there a need for students going to private tuition? With the money spent, maybe it would be a better idea for home schooling, engage a very good tuitor, do away with CCA, school hours/transport/travelling time. Time to think out of the box.

Singapore, one country, two systems!

Its really funny that local universities like to claim they are amongst the best, but our best scholars are sent overseas. While “B” grade foreigners are accepted here.

And its even more funny that a local “A” student may find it tough to get into the course they want in local universities, but when they graduate, MNC employers tend to prefer to hire overseas grads even from 2nd tier universities, these are people may have been the “B” grade students who couldn’t get in (but got rich enough father, mother).

They are truly world-class in terms of negative value-add.

i have a relevant post on this.
http://flaneurose.blogspot.com/2008/07/income-inequality-and-social-mobility.html

[...] Re Education – TOC: Danger in our education system [...]

Does anyone know how many scholarship receivers live in private homes compared to those living in a flat? What is the selection criteria for scholarship?
If slanted one side, why ?
Equal opportunity.

@ 14 and @ 17,

We will end up spending billions on research and have nothing to show for it. Prickly Yeo will quote the oldfart and claim that it will take about 30 years to make a break through. My point is whether the potential Nobel prize winners have taken up Singapore citizenship, so that this govt can claim they represent the country, just like what they did with our women’s table tennis team.
So does that mean we are a country that produces Nobel prize winners with our education sysytem ? Ball-licking expert such as Kishore Mahbubani will help this govt spin a nice story that indeed we do. LOL

>>> Quoted by BuyToWin: My point is whether the potential Nobel prize winners have taken up Singapore citizenship, so that this govt can claim they represent the country, just like what they did with our women’s table tennis team.

SPM Lee is the only Singaporean Nobel Prize Winner so far. Even he was educated overseas. Most of our resources are “imported”. I don’t see how Singapore can boasts of its own supremacy in education….not JUST yet.

We are ‘proud Singaporeans’ but we also must remember to be humble. Better to be humble and learn from others who are ‘ahead of us’ first before we can implement better policies and see if there’s any good results out of it.

Of course the education system is skewed towards the elite. Branded schools have class sizes of 25 and the neighbourhood schools cramp 40 students in 1 class. And 40 of the slower Normal Academic stream too! Yet MOE gives the lie that it is trying to make teaching a good job or streamlining processes etc etc. How to teach creatively when teachers in most schools have nearly 40 students and many students from middle income and lower income household!? Time is spent just chasing students to sit down and behave. No wonder the enrichment centres can provide creative teaching! They have a max of 10 students per class! Forget all the fancily worded financial incentives for teachers… reduce all class sizes in all schools to a maximum of 25…now that will be the best incentive for most teachers in Singapore. More people will be attracted to teaching if they know that they would not be facing 40 students/class day in day out.

Ironically, on the same topic on Australia, that country’s own University education system is becoming more of a joke day by day. So much so, it’s already been investigated by their news media: http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2005/s1401933.htm. Be warned, maybe Kishore has some inside knowledge on this issue

But seriously, NUS and NTU suffers from taking everyone under the sun and they choose and pick wrongly too. Ivy League, Oxbridge and top US Public University take in the best and ONLY the best. It is why they are in the band of “World Class Universities.” NUS can reject outright a Polytechnic Graduate who has done well enough to go to MIT and take in an A level student with 3 Cs and a mere pass for GP. Think about it. In terms of intake based on our students’ grades, it’s more of a Leeds Metropolitian than a Columbia.

KM thinks it’s good for the middle class family who cannot afford to send their children overseas to better places. But KM is not middle-class.

Our education system does start the split of students at a very young age, and it’s more of the elite schools vs the non-elite ones. needless to say, elite schools get more attention that the others in funding (no brainer) and recognition, and ultimately the better teaching standards. Which is why parents desperately want to send their children to the best PRIMARY schools. Upwards from there, it looks better. It’s always going to happen anywhere in the world. The non-elite school kid has got a lot to overcome to get to a top University, but in England/US/Australia the range of Universities are wider so you don’t mix all the crap with cream (good students go to good universities, the rest take in the not so good ones BUT they still have a better shot at a tertiary education, unlike Singapore).

ok basically is like this: many parents their mind still not change, everytime think oversea university mean better than sg nus & ntu. Actually nus & ntu is already world famous & alot other country peoples like come here study our university since after finnish graduate, they become qualify & respect by all pte & gov sectors, so they can easy get job & take home high pay.

Basically is all because people mind cant change even the world and time already change. If sg want survive, parents & kids must start change their mind thinking & find out more how good our sg nus & ntu. Go australia study must pay alot money & sometime not recognise degree. If choose nus & ntu, everything cheap & sure after finnish study, sure can get good job.

“k basically is like this: many parents their mind still not change, everytime think oversea university mean better than sg nus & ntu. Actually nus & ntu is already world famous & alot other country peoples like come here study our university since after finnish graduate, they become qualify & respect by all pte & gov sectors, so they can easy get job & take home high pay.

Basically is all because people mind cant change even the world and time already change. If sg want survive, parents & kids must start change their mind thinking & find out more how good our sg nus & ntu. Go australia study must pay alot money & sometime not recognise degree. If choose nus & ntu, everything cheap & sure after finnish study, sure can get good job.”

I think this is complete rubbish. I know of people who decide to move to Australia to pursue post secondary school, and they include both the very best and average students.

By your logic, Singapore will survive if everyone decided to got to NUS and NTU? Let me quick you a quick fact – Every year, many Polytechnic high flyers, not the very best, but still among the best, are denied entrance to our local universities. All is going on while “FT”s are making up the bulks of many course.

I may be a bit more fortune that my course does not require me to have a degree for a rice bowl, I myself has decided not to pursue a degree unless it is overseas. While I am able to such an option, what about the others? If they need a degree, but they can’t into NUS or NTU, what’s going to happen to them? And don’t forget, we’re talking about some of the high flyers.

Something for you to think about. And why people goes overseas.

Dear KS,

Thank you for the facts.

It is also an issue of choice – local unis are like production lines – like taps – how many engineers do you want ? how many doctors and lawyers ?
Shortage – invite FTs!
So what choice but to spend a bomb overseas if rejected for the course of one’s choice.
The other important thing is setting the right example –
“write or say the politically right things but do the otherwise” policy does not work anymore; people like government no stupid from day one but people like to give face first , but perhaps increasingly not now anymore.

I don’t think local unis are better than foreign unis. Foreign unis have much longer history than us be it in physics and maths. Just look at how many nobel prizes are from which american or european unis.

the education system here is good — they produce people who follow order and think little. thanks to our educational planners. our country need robot. cheap ones especially. So by sending our kids overseas, it is better, at least they must think and know when to speak up.

awesome post !

the benefits of the rich is definitely far superior than the discipline the poorer people have. i used to wonder how some of my friends were able to understand topics so fast ! i found out they had some form of tuition given which covered the topics which would then be taught in school so school would already be “revision”. i dare say it’s very obvious that the majority of people tend to be the poor ones because they have no other choice to excel like having tuition to depend on.

rich people never have to worry if their a levels aren’t good because they have enough money to go to overseas IF the public education system don’t recognise them and allow them to repeat.

that being said. life will never settle and equality, opportunities appear out of nowhere right ? so strive hard and hope for the best i say !

This is all totally slanted. I begun reading the article in the hope that some mention about results, examination results, would be made. I found none. In my humble opinion, scholarships are to be given not to those who stay in public property or in private property but to those who have attained the best academic results. Now, of course some might say those who stay in private property are likely to have a more conducive environment for study outside of school, thus giving them a competitive edge, but the responsibility of keeping the environment conducive for study lies also on those staying in public property. It’s their own fault if they don’t get the best results or scholarships they are competing for.

I’d like to share my views on the issue of whether students from more well-to-do family backgrounds necessarily have an advantage over those from less well-to-do backgrounds.

Let’s assume, for the sake of comparison, that the ‘poorer’ student’s family is not in dire straits, i.e. he/she doesn’t have to work late after school in order to supplement the family income. What ‘advantages’ could money possibly confer on the ‘richer’ student here? Tuition? Books, and other educational materials? A home environment that’s ‘more conducive to studying’?

For the record, the only tuition I ever attended throughout all my years in school was for Chinese, during my secondary school years. And this was not because I was doing well in my other subjects; in fact I was short of breath at times. But in the end, I pulled through with my own effort. Now my intention here is not to claim that, oh, nobody needs tuition if you work hard enough. But surely we should question the premise that tuition definitely gives a boost to the student. We’re all too aware of the ‘kiasu-ness’ of Singaporean parents these days, and how much extra lessons they impose on their children. Surely this trend is not restricted to just the well-to-do families! Just because some students did well with tuition, does not necessarily mean that they wouldn’t have done equally well (or more) on their own. We should consider the pros and cons, before making the assumption that tuition is necessarily a good thing for the child.

Assuming that the student does not come from a so-called ‘dysfunctional’ family (i.e., parents are not the in-and-out-of-jail type, and do show the love and concern that is reasonably expected of them), then how does family wealth in any way make a home environment more ‘conducive for studying’? So, what, having a maid to serve you snacks while you’re mugging away helps you remember stuff better? Or does landed property have a natural ‘ambience’ that stimulates one’s mental faculties?

Thus in my humble opinion, barring severe handicaps such as a dysfunctional family, or having to contribute to the family income, or other forms of dire POVERTY, each student’s level of achievement is entirely within his/her own hands. At most, the school can only be expected to provide support and facilitate learning, but it is no fault of the system if the student can’t be bothered.

Both my parents grew up in 3-room HDB flats, which they shared with extended family (up to even ten or so people, in my mother’s case). Life was simple and tough, but they put in the time and effort, worked hard, and did well enough that I was born into a family with a healthy financial foundation, and today I live in a modest condominium. So yes, some may classify my family as one of the ‘rich’ ones. But my parents are a classic example of social mobility. Why? Simply, because THEY GAVE A DAMN. How many students today can honestly say that money is the SOLE reason why they are not doing as well as their peers?

Now on the other hand, I agree that much can be done to improve the quality of education here, especially at the so-called ‘neighbourhood’ schools. While it can be beneficial to society on the whole to cultivate the ‘cream of the crop’, it is criminal to do so at the expense of the less-academically-inclined students, who probably need more attention in the first place. This includes baseline issues such as class sizes, since a smaller student : teacher ratio undoubtedly facilitates better learning. Also, I personally believe that we should work hard to shed this unnecessary tag of ‘neighbourhood schools’, together with all the connotations that come with it. The use of such tags encourages stereotyping, both from within and without. Students from the ‘weaker’ schools should be encouraged to strive towards whatever goals they want for themselves, and such labels only serve to chip away at their belief and self-confidence. Perhaps this obsession with school rankings and ‘prestige’ is part of our Asian cultural heritage? Regardless, we should aim to remove such stigma from society.

the scholarship system has degenerated into a game that only the elite can play well. Lets be honest – if the brightest path is a path of a president scholar, the elites will try to game the system by raising their children in the manner that will fit the various criteria of a President scholar. If one of the criteria for selection is the ability to walk with your hands, their young will be trained by professionals to do that – and hence be able to game the sysytem better that the HDB dwellers (whose parents are usually clueless about the crieteria as well as the means to met it).

Hence we have a country run by people who thrive when the rules of the game are set up properly and clearly. But alas, sometimes in real world the rules change or you have to figure out what the rule is – not a situation that someone who rose to the top echelon by “gaming the rules” can do well. Notice the sheer number of scholars – but no nobel prize winner, no entrepreneur, no world beater from these people.

failed psle:

Then kindly put forth your own idea of a better scholarship system. Once there is a system and associated criteria, it is inevitable that some individuals will take steps to get an advantage based on those criteria. In politics, how many politicians choose the unpopular policies that are better for the nation, but are likely to cost them votes, compared to those who go with the flow and are slaves to popular sentiment? Some things are important for self-development and one’s CV, regardless of whether one is gunning for scholarships. Things like CIP do not require justification, be it mercenary or not, and it does not take a particular smart person to realise this. So. If you were chairman of PSC today, how would you select your president scholars?

And also. Enough of this HDB versus private property or whatever nonsense. It doesn’t take a genius to figure some things out, and I think you are insulting a great number of HDB dwellers, whose intellectual capacity far exceeds the levels assumed by shallow individuals who associate the size of a person’s house with his/her ability and intelligence. You are implying that HDB dwellers consist entirely of ‘coffeeshop uncles and aunties’ of a generation past, who are closed to the world aroud them, and I find this to be extremely denigrating. I have friends whose families could easily afford to ‘upgrade’ to a condominium, etc, but choose to live in a comfortable HDB flat; could easily afford a car but choose to take public transport. By itself, what type of house you live in says nothing about who you are, or what you are capable of.

Your reply indicates that you have probably benefited tremendously from this system, and may not be able to see outside this system.

Negative feedback improves the system, prevents the system from making egregious mistakes. As much as it irks the bishop,” the power that be”, and his cardinals ( perhaps someone like you), criticism does not necessitate a better solution. Just like science, your work is put up for all to criticize, to expose its inconsistency and flaws. through the process, we are able to move from one flawed idea to hopefully, a better but still flawed idea. You need to read some Karl Popper, and move away from SM Goh’s idea that “if you can’t do better you must shut-up”.

Secondly, your ask for a better scholarship system and how would you select your president scholar. You are thinking within the system yourself. Why do you need to keep this scholarship system, as suggested by Dr Tony Tan, is the real question!!!

Yes I can identify myself with the 2 writers in today’s ST – it is the local University which decide my child’s application and perhaps fate. It is like a processing machine tapping out graduates THEY want.
So what does one do – beg, borrow or steal to help one child go overseas to get the vocation the child wants to train in; and then there are talks of opening up to foreign doctors, lawyers, etc – FT so to speak; is not the system defeating itself ? Creating more unhappiness?
There is a basic lesson in life – take care of your own and the harvests will come to you. So the potential loss of Singaporeans to others is really seeded by the same Government systems and yet the Ministers often wonder why ?
It may not be too late with a new Minister for Education; however NUS professor who are in ivory tower and talk nonsense to keep contributing to the great divide should shut up once and for all, and enjoy retirement instead.

failed psle:

I guarantee you that I am not being blindly supportive of the current state of how we do things. I recognise that the system is inherently imperfect in several ways, such as the risk of identifying scholars at such a young age based only on projected potential, as well as the danger of hypocrisy, i.e. individuals who do things such as community service with the hope of being awarded a scholarship in mind.

And as a science student, I agree perfectly with your point about how criticism is crucial to progress in any field. The improvement of an imperfect system to a slightly better but still nonetheless imperfect system is analogous to the evolution of complex organs (e.g. 50% of an eye is still better than 49%, which is in turn better than 48%). While I disagree that naysayers should ’shut up’, criticism by itself is also nonconstructive unless somebody else can put forth a suggestion for improvement.

BUT you have indeed raised a very interesting point, which is that is there truly a need for such scholarships (and hence such a system)? Perhaps one reason for it would be to attract ‘the best’ to the civil service; something that can lure them away from the lucrative private sector. Actually, I think that the existence of SOME number of scholarships is inevitable and necessary, but only to a limited extent, and certainly not to the level of fuss and ‘prestige’ accorded to them these days. And yes, it is true that an overly-rigid system of selection may produce ‘cookie-cutter’ individuals who might not be able to face the uncertainties in the real world.

Finally, I do not think that the ‘where are all the Nobel prizes’ argument holds water, at least for now. Just taking the example of A*STAR, the inaugural batch of scholarships was awarded in 2001. That means that the first scholars have barely even completed their PhD training, let alone gone out into the field. The same goes for many other statutory board scholarships (FIREFLY only started in 2002, for example). So the Nobel Prize part has to immediately discount all the science-related awards (Medicine, Physics and Chemistry). So that leaves Economics, Literature and Peace… which doesn’t really link back to the civil service. Of course my objective here is not to be defensive, but merely pointing out the errors in this argument, which has been brought up before in numerous forms.

yes i agree on the statement that
“our education system slanted towards favouring the elite class”

but the other qn to ponder on is that
if our universities are so called top in the world
why arent our scholars being sent to study there?

a qn which should answered by our elites who sent their children overseas.
why do they do that? why cant they sent them to local universites?

failed PSLE is an idiot. how can the president’s scholars be nobel laureates (if they are CIVIL SERVANTS) and nobel laureates are RESEARCHERS or entrepreneurs when they are in the public sector due to the bond, in SAF, SPF, the various ministries..only non scholars who are unbonded are in (if they want and can) private sector be ‘entreprenuers’.

You are so stupid you don’t even know it. Thats the sad part. You remind me of those loser cabbies who rant and whine but have NO clue at all about your subject matter.

Isn’t the COMMON KNOWLEDGE among all Singaporeans that a common complaint levelled on PSC is that it takes in the cream of the society to public sector leaving private sector with none. Anyway since you’re so stupid I’m unsurprised you failed your PSLE.

Why don’t you just go kill yourself? You have no future in any place in this world.

wyx, PSC scholars become civil servants. How to be researchers?! to win nobel prize you have to be researcher. At least you don’t sound as stupid as failed PSLE. Such dumb people like him should leave Singapore and stop polluting this country with their retarded speech and single digit IQ.

BTW scholarships come in different grades and ranks.

Astar is a well known lelong bargain. it practically begs people to entertain it.

“but the other qn to ponder on is that
if our universities are so called top in the world
why arent our scholars being sent to study there?

a qn which should answered by our elites who sent their children overseas.
why do they do that? why cant they sent them to local universites?”

Cos no local university can be compared with 2nd tier US and UK universities, eg LSE, IC, Chicago, let alone 1st tier top US/UK universities. If you force top scholars eg PSC to go to local universities, NONE of them would apply. The only people you will find applying are the losers who take up local university bursaries/study awards.

The posting has sparked several tertiary related topics to be written and talked about the last few weeks. It is very good to read the establishment ’s three responses in the ST ( they are not dramatic or attention seeking unlike the NUS professor who gets his photo in the ST for every comment he made).

What is lacking is still the hard statistics to be shown – then it can be really shown that the local universities and the selection process really take into consideration placing aspiring students into studies of their chosen field of vocation, This is the first step to address the costly exodus of Singaporeans students including a large number of polytechnic graduates) to overseas universities. Although any redress now would not help me personally as a parent who has to borrow much to help realise my child’s dream to do a course she was not admitted here, it may augur well for others similarly caught by the subjectivities of university places and human selection.
Education is close to parents’ hearts and the emotions generated impact both family and state. It goes beyond simpleton comments like ” lowering standards” or showing now and then a picture in the ST of Singaporeans receiving scholarships.

Thank you.

> if our universities are so called top in the world
> why arent our scholars being sent to study there?

It’s a failure of our education system. It’s a failure of our education to have someone say this.

What the government obviously mean is not that our universities are the best in the world, but that they are among the top-tier in the world. The latter statement is true to some extent, and the overall value considering the cost is still quite worthwhile. The reason why scholars are sent overseas is because there are obviously better universities elsewhere, and also because there are also other intangible benefits, like networking and learning about the rest of the world.

Our education system is undoubtedly imperfect, but poking at the government that “if you think you are smart, why aren’t your universities the best in the world” is off topic.

IC, LSE, Chicago are not 2nd tier universities. They are comparable to the Ivy Leagues and Oxbridge. Oxbridge may be well-established, but their ancient legacy means they cannot offer a vibrant cosmopolitan life available in London.

I am an undergraduate from Imperial College and I must say a lot of opportunities opens up to you when you are here. Singaporeans who did their undergraduate studies or post-graduate masters at Imperial are particularly well-sought for by the college to embark PhD studies. The PhD Study is not only sponsored, but also a decent stipend will be provided. All this is made available without signing away 3-6 years of one’s life upon completion of the PhD. How prestigious can a typical Singapore graduate scholarship (e.g ASTAR) be in the face many bond-free PhD sponsorship opportunities?

Unlike Singapore, London is not only an international centre for finance, but also technology and politics. There are plenty of opportunities for strategic thinking, investment banking and technology management. Scientists and engineers, especially graduates from the top universities, are well in demand for positions in the fields I had mentioned. Moreover, Singaporeans who study science and engineering in the UK are allowed to stay in UK to work without the need for work permit upon graduation. People who go to UK to further their studies are getting more than a certificate – a window to work in the UK, which means there is always Singapore to fall back on.

Student life abroad means more freedom. More freedom measn more responsibility. As an overseas student, you have to manage your own expenditure, housing and utility bills. Signing and managing a lease of a 3-bedroom flat can be daunting legally and financially. There is no better time to pick up all these life’s skill other than when you are a student. At Imperial College, you get to meet people from all over the world – from Kenya to Tunisia, from UK to Russia, from Malaysia to South Korea, from Brazil to Canada. You will learn to appreciate a myriad of cultures and also become more tolerant to oddities and cultural differences. Do you know how nice it is to plan a globe-trotting trip when you have friends all over the world to visit?

The nice thing about enrolling at a top university is that because admission is selective, there is no need for the bell curve grading system. A bell curve grading system somewhat forces students to over-focus on grades, whereas a university education should also facilitate a well-rounded development. At Imperial College, the professors’ open door policy means I can walk into my professor’s office and discuss interesting topics that arise from my curriculum. I can also freely engage other professors not from my department to discus inter-disciplinary topics. The best thing I like about being at Imperial College is when someone has a really good idea, you will find that the person’s peers, tutors and professors are more than willing to seat down with him to refine his idea and further develop the technicality of the idea, just because it is intellectually stimulating (or fun). I recall enjoying long afternoons at my favourite professor’s office discussing quantum mechanics although it has nothing to do with my degree. He wasn’t even from my department. No bell-curve grading system gives me more incentive to pursue my interests without undue stress for my exams.

There are also many platforms for you to engage your interest outside academia. You could join Amnesty International to learn about the atrocities committed by human rights violators and take a pro-active step in campaigning for the uphold of human rights worldwide, or participate in Model United Nations to gain an insight into dynamic human interaction of international trade negotiation and UN-level policy making (despite that Imperial doesn’t have a politics department). The college even has an undergraduate-run racing green project whereby undergraduates across the Faculty of Engineering are tasked to build a racing vehicle running on a fuel cell. The car is completely designed by undergraduates. The only thing you need to join the project is personal interest. There is no need for academic vetting to join the project. There are also other student-run projects at Imperial College. One particular project involved a wind turbine designed by Imperial College undergraduates. The wind turbine technology is made available free to third world countries for rural electrification. Undergraduates in the project either contribute in further improving the wind turbine or actually going to third world countries to install the wind turbines and train the locals. Through Imperial College, I was involved in a hydropower planning project in Nepal, advising the locals on physical and financial constraints and fund-raising strategies. I enjoyed the experience thoroughly and gave me an insight into the challenges of infrastructure development faced by developing countries.

Student life at Imperial College whether academically or socially provides many avenue for individual fulfilment. I am not sure if our local universities in Singapore can actually match up despite being highly ranked internationally. It is impossible to foster genuine interest, innovation and creativity in an over-competitive environment that overtly focuses on grades. Moreover, university admission in Singapore tends to reflect our government’s manpower policy. Singaporeans are nudged by mass media do life science degrees when the government was promoting life science as “the next big thing” and IT degrees during the dot-com boom respectively. Singaporeans are told to shun their personal interest one side because they have to give priority to “the next big thing”. University admission policy centres on distributing all the smart people across all degrees offered at NUS/NTU/SMU and not letting individuals to pursue their academic interest. What is even more disheartening is that academic passion is substantially less valued than academic competence in Singapore! Despite being well ranked internationally, Singapore universities are still not well-positioned to offer an all-rounded education and personal development to its students than its lower-ranked peers.

Donaldson Tan- “IC, LSE, Chicago are not 2nd tier universities. They are comparable to the Ivy Leagues and Oxbridge.”

I couldn’t agree more whole-heartedly. While I could be accused of biasness
(I will be attending the UofC next fall), I truly find all the hype about the ‘Ivy League’ to be worrisome. I am certain that the significant proportion of Singaporean applicants to the so-called “top-tier” schools know next to nothing about what their unique strengths and cultures of these schools are, and are merely applying for the brand name recognition. So often does one encounter the term “HYPSM” (Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, MIT) bandied about in online discussion forums, that it makes one wonder whether these students have any idea what they’re even aiming for in the first place, given that each of these five schools (undoubtedly top schools, of course) are strong in their own different fields.

On the other hand, schools like Stanford, UofC and Caltech are also globally acknowledged as trailblazers in fields such as the sciences and economics . Yet one does not hear these names mentioned that much in the same breath as the more “prestigious” ones. Reputation amongst professionals in their respective fields and Prestige are not always the same thing, and it would do many individuals much good to realise this. The Ivy League originated as an inter-collegiate athletics conference. While almost all of these schools are definitely amongst the best in the world, many people fail to recognise that non-Ivy schools such as MIT, Stanford, Caltech and Chicago are right up there at the top as well (without having to resort to rankings, though– food for thought: http://blog.beerkens.info/index.php/thes-qs-world-university-rankings-2007-top-100-universities/). It is folly to think that the Ivy League as a brand name means anything to those working professionals out in the various fields, who are the ones who ultimately decide who is more influential than who. Same goes for LSC and Imperial (bet you didn’t know Imperial’s medicine programme is No1 IN THE WORLD). To label all these institutions as “2nd tier” is clearly a mark of shallowness on the part of the individual.

> Despite being well ranked internationally, Singapore universities are still not well-positioned to offer an all-rounded education and personal development to its students than its lower-ranked peers.
> To label all these institutions as “2nd tier” is clearly a mark of shallowness on the part of the individual.

The above very informative personal accounts open up some interesting discussion points:

1. Using rankings is a superficial but yet useful way to make rough and quick comparisons, especially for people not inside the area of specialty. How should such general information (i.e. the rankings) be handled?

2. Networking at the global level is one aspect of a well-rounded education. But yet the recent surge of foreigners have produced a xenophobic reaction from locals. How can the transition be managed to improve the standards of local universities?

Actually, my statement “To label all these institutions as “2nd tier” is clearly a mark of shallowness on the part of the individual” was in reference to US universities such as Caltech, Chicago, etc which some people view as ‘below’ the more household names such as Harvard and Princeton. Thus, I was not actually referring to Singapore’s universities with this remark.

Nonetheless, I wonder if there is truly a need for NUS, NTU and SMU to participate in this ‘rat race’ to rise in the international rankings of universities. While it is clear that they should set high and respectable standards for themselves, it may not be practical to try and ‘compete’ with other more renowned institutions from US, UK, etc. The constant echoing defence of “We are a world-class university” can become unpalatable if repeated ad nauseum. One factor that contributes significantly to the quality of the top universities elsewhere is that they have managed to attract the top talent from countries all over the world, which directly improves the strength of the student body. In a way, this is what our local universities are trying to emulate, by dangling carrots to foreign students from ASEAN countries and China, amongst others.

However, Singapore has to tread the fine line of attracting top tier talent from other countries, without depriving deserving Singaporeans of places at the same time. This is a major concern that US universities (for example) do not have to worry about, because there are more than enough institutions of higher education to accommodate their own local students. Thus, I believe that there is a limit as to how “high” a place our universities can attain in the international arena. It is not that I am belittling their efforts to become even better, nor am I being disrespectful to our local student population, whose mean (average) ability is definitely one of the strongest in the world. But the reality is that since there are only three universities (soon to be four) to provide higher education for the vast majority of qualified Singaporean students (anyone who doesn’t have scholarship / family financial backing), there will always be a ‘glass ceiling’. Much as it is a noble pursuit to try and attain even higher standards for ourselves, we must be realistic that it is nigh impossible to ever reach THAT level seen in other bigger countries. This is through no fault of our own, but an inevitable result of our small size.

Of course our local institutions should continue to strive to improve, and we should give them our support. But perhaps if they stopped (NUS in particular) trying to keep playing the defensive card and claiming that they are of a standard they may not necessarily be at, our local populace would not be so quick to criticise and put down their laudable efforts.

> However, Singapore has to tread the fine line of attracting top tier talent from other
> countries, without depriving deserving Singaporeans of places at the same time.
> This is a major concern that US universities (for example) do not have to worry
> about, because there are more than enough institutions of higher education to
> accommodate their own local students.

This is something I haven’t figured out but will nevertheless give offer some speculation.

I don’t think building more universities so that more citizens can become university graduates will ease the dissatisfaction. One reason, I believe, is that Singaporeans need to have a higher comparative standing in a very narrow sense to feel good.

Although there are more universities in the US, there are still rankings which tier universities in various aspects. Yet, I feel that the Americans can handle rankings (and therefore social gaps) better Singaporeans. Also, in schools generally believed to be top-tier, foreign students make up quite a large part of the cohort. Yet, people in general are less grumpy.

I suspect why it makes them so is because the people dare to accept a broader definition of success and contentment, and therefore the society has a greater tolerance towards individuals with different values and strengths. And this is made possible by possessing greater individual responsibility.

In Singapore, people generally expect the government to look after their interests and comparatively possess less individual responsibility. The result is that the people take on the government values and priorities (such as sustaining economic growth, scouting and grooming civil servants).

One may say that self-contentment is after all self-hypnosis. But then it begs the question if the dissatisfaction due to a lower comparative standing is a psychological one.

[...] quibbling between the three(or four) universities locally is actually redundant. This post, “Danger in Our Education System, houses several opinions about the state of education locally.You know, instead of forcing [...]