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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

BTW scholarships come in different grades and ranks.

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

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.

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?

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.

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!!!

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.

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.

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 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 !