|
|
In My Words "Don't ever lose faith in who you are, for that's what makes you different. Don't try to turn yourself into someone everyone else is, for if that happens, the world is a poorer place." - Sept 2005 Flying Fingers of
kelvin in london reading law bloody stressed Archives
I don't keep archives Currently Reading
Company Law - Gower and Davies in the mood for
Yi Lu Xiang Bei - Jay Chou Measure of a Man - Clay Aiken Public Airings The Straits Times Selection Singapore:To Me Elitism Musicianship Work/Study A Memory Stirs
The Highlights Joan Chan From the future Ninth Exco No Damn WMD July 7th My words My Story, Your Song Open Letter ISFJ Linked to
LivvyKassie Xf Dana Audrey Say Hi to me
kelvgoh@gmail.comI endorse
 the LSESUSS Disco 2005 zouked@the phoenix from you to me
free hit counter It Drives Me thanks to
Image: Yun
Photo GalleryDesign: Blogfrocks Powered: Blogger |
Wednesday, February 02, 2005
Mr Goh Wen Zhong
S8223371G 65 Cliffords Inn, Fetter Lane London EC4A 1BX United Kingdom Contact number : +44 777 553 7420 By Email : w.z.goh@lse.ac.uk The Editor The Straits Times Forum Page Via email : stforum@sph.com.sg Re : Response to article entitled “Meritocracy should be more than academic”, The Straits Times, 31st January 2005. I read with disappointment the above mentioned article by a fellow Singaporean youth and undergraduate. Like a great number of Singaporean youths, I was a product of the more “traditional” educational path, i.e. Primary School – Secondary School – Junior College, and was also one of the many scholarship aspirants after receiving my A Level results. However, like many, I was left disappointed when I received no replies to my numerous applications and blamed the academic focus of selection criteria for my missed opportunity. However, in pursuing further education abroad, I have had the opportunity to meet, to befriend and to live among many scholarship receipients from Singapore, from both Government and private-sector sponsors. While I will hesitate to say that all of them are perfect individuals, what I can say is that “morals, ethics and national pride” are not lacking in most of them. In fact, the scholars I meet are generally well-rounded individuals with an excellent academic, co-curricular and community service records. What I have also come to understand in my interaction with them is that scholarship selection processes, while limiting and restrictive, are justified, and I seek to explain my viewpoints below. 1) Academic Requirements It is undeniable that the academic requirements for a scholarship application is demanding, but what many youths fail to realize is that this purpose is there for a purpose beyond selecting brilliant academics. In a wider consideration of the nature of academics, one will able to see some key elements of the character of the individual reflected in the grades he or she achieves in school. A general consideration of grades will reflect the general effort of the student with regards to the subject. No student will be able to score well in an exam they fail to prepare adequately for. Now, it is important to consider what is “adequate”. To some of us, we have aims just to “pass”, but for some others, it is to achieve an “A” grade. For truly motivated people, the aim is to get an “A” in all the subjects they attempt and devote their attention and efforts towards achieving those grades. The effort they put into their studies are laudable and should be recognized as “Determination”, a key aspect of any successful individual, whether in a white-collared or a blue-collared environment. I dare not speak for Polytechnic graduates and students, for the system has indeed produced outstanding graduates, but not having experienced it does mean that I may not provide a correct analysis of the situation. But any “A” Level student will tell one that for all the talk about “fact retention” and “regurgitation”, the course is a mentally rigorous one which expects nothing less than an unrelenting effort to understand and to apply the knowledge one gains. A devotion to the task at hand is what can be implied from this facet of “A” level life. What keeps the concept of national examinations feasible is fact that one common, universal standard is applied to all candidates. Every year, some 5000 candidates sit for the “N” Level examinations, 30000 candidates sit for the “O” Level examinations, and 12000 candidates sit for the A level examinations, and the people who achieve the achieve the highest grades in each exam will tell one that they worked hard for it, and their teachers and peers will concur. But the “A” levels, and the scope of the syllabus, does in fact reflect its standing as an advanced state of study of rudimentary knowledge in professional life. But beyond that, it will also reflect the student’s ability to further their foundational knowledge of subject matter to intermediate situations (subjects like the sciences, mathematics, and the social sciences) or handling new, technical and complex subjects (such as Economics and computing) or taking natural grounding and abilities to the highest levels (S-papers, art, English literature, mother-tongues and third languages and theatre studies). Most A level students will take a combination of all these elements and it will be fair to say that students who excel in their examinations have been measured against others on a common benchmark and have out-performed them, both in grasping the core of the subject and the basic skills attributed to each of the subjects. Moreover, I would also like to point out that most scholarship requirements are overly strict. They do not say they require 4 “A” Level distinctions and 2 S-paper Distinctions, but instead suggest that they would expect the student to attempt at least 4 A Level subjects and 2 S-papers. Most sponsors also allow for a different criteria in judging candidates from an arts course. This is reasonably wide in my opinion, and I know of students whom managed to satisfied the basic requirements but not achieve perfect grades, and were still awarded the scholarship. If anything, this proves that the process is not limited to those who get perfect scores, but rather one which seeks to include as much of the cream of the crop as possible. 2) The perpetual debate between the choice of an “A” Level Course and a polytechnic course. This is a long running debate which unfortunately, among Singaporean youths, still hinge on which is more prestigious than the other. What youths should instead see is the purpose of having 2 options for O level graduates. The polytechnic course aims to equip the candidate for a career in the industry-focus of the course. The course seeks to impart vocational skills and knowledge, and develop specific aspects of the individual to suit the industry he or she is about to enter. Following the course, if he or she chooses, the candidate will enter the industry at a level which befits the amount of exposure to the context of the industry. The “A” level course is a preparatory course for students seeking admission into university, while seeking to develop the student’s study, analytical, critical and applicatory skills in various contexts in preparation for the similarly short but intensive degree courses in university. If one were to see it this way, the two educational paths produce a different product: the polytechnic path an adequately equipped specialist with practical skills in the course matter, and the A level path, a student equipped with the skills for furthering his/her education in the intense tertiary environment of university. One would be able to put this dichotomy in context when one compares a student who successfully completed a diploma course with one who barely passed the A levels and could not go on to university. The A level student is not regarded to have any advantage at all over the diploma student. However, the consideration is different when one compares an “A” level student with the highest marks possible and a diploma-with-distinction holder. The diploma holder will be one who has shown great practical competence and will be in demand in the working sector, and may be best deployed in that capacity. However, the A level student, for all his distinctions, is someone with no professionally recognized qualifications whatsoever, but with a finely developed set of skills ready to be applied to highly complex or advanced subject matters in the universities. For the fact that these students are not immediately employable in professional environments, I feel that these students are fairly the target focus of a number of scholarship boards. However, polytechnic graduates with high honours are given similar treatment, but in a different way. They are employed first, and sent for development courses and further education by their employers later. These development schemes may not have the “prestige” of a scholarship but people should look beyond the glitz and glitter of the term “scholarship” and realize that the schemes are fundamentally similar. 3) Purposes of scholarships Many scholarships awarded come with a bond requirement. This should be read as an intention to require the scholar to work for the body which sponsored his/her education. In broader terms, it should be seen as an attempt to retain the skills and services of this individual for the sponsoring body once the scholar has completed his/her education. The fact that most of these sponsor bodies are Singaporean firms implicitly mean that the scholar will have to repay the bond by contributing to the Singaporean economy, and for the general economic well-being of the country. Every scholarship awardee is well-aware of this fact, and most are fully prepared and committed towards that cause. The great majority of them are students who do not have a shortage of prestigious opportunities in the private sector when they graduate, but they take up the scholarship in the knowledge and full appreciation of the fact that they are giving up that opportunity. And more often than not, the reason they are willing to do this is a desire to work for Singapore, and contribute to the place they call Home. It is undeniable that there are renegades from this cause in the form of bond-breakers, but the penalties for breaking this bond is severe and is considerably more than the total cost of the scholar’s education and living expenses. The potential bond-breaker has to consider all these factors before going ahead to do it, and it must also be considered that many private sector firms will think twice about hiring a bond-breaker beyond the consideration of the individual’s academic capability. The character blot on the act of bond-breaking is a dark one and will not go unnoticed. It is difficult for a scholarship body to determine who is a bond-breaker and who will not be during the course of a selection process, but they are weighed between the choice of letting such an obvious talent out of their, and perhaps the nation’s grasp, and keeping the person in their hold under a continual assessment process. Most bodies choose the latter, with the huge monetary penalty to serve as a deterrent. It is probably calculated risk hedging with the occasional failure, but a very large number do return to serve out their bonds. 4) Character development of scholars The writer says that morals, ethics and national pride is sacrificed in the pursuit of paper qualifications, but he has probably not have had the chance to meet some of the premier scholars Singapore sends overseas every year. It is apparent that the very best scholars every year are sent overseas, and it is this group of people that should be the subject of a study of whether the board got it right or wrong. A majority of them do not lack morals and ethics, but even if they do, it should not be regarded as a sign of a failure of a scholarship board. The reason why I say this is that these very qualities which the writer points out are inherent in many, many youths and if anything, are fallibilities of youth and ignorance rather than that of the board’s scrutiny powers. But is the board going to take the chance to let the candidate go? In view that this candidate has the potential to generate huge benefits for the nation or the company as a whole during his/her bond is likely to persuade the board to give the candidate a second look. Morals, ethics and maybe national pride, among many other qualities, are developed as people mature. These scholars are young people and should not be condemned or denied the chance to develop these qualities, or learn these lessons in life the way other ordinary people do just because they are scholars. The argument that these character flaws render these candidates unsuitable is well argued, but one cannot deny the fact that it does indeed make good sense to keep this person’s talent, and to put people who are less academically qualified but with significantly better inherent qualities around him/her and to form a winning team. No single man makes a workforce, and it takes a hybrid mass of people with differing qualities to form a successful team. 5) The returns of it all It costs a princely sum to sponsor someone’s education, and an even greater sum to send a scholar overseas. The government is answerable to taxpayers, and private bodies answerable to shareholders, for the expenditure of this money. Thus, it only fair that the potential candidate be judged according to his/her ability to make the most returns on the initial outlay on them. The entire concept cannot be pegged to an “ideal” standard, for it is a very real fact of accountability that the sponsor body has to take into consideration. Perhaps it is fairer to say that the very best candidates with stellar grades and a well-rounded character will not be denied a scholarship, and are often given the most prestigious scholarships available. But in the absence of such people, the sponsor bodies have the right to consider who else they deem suitable and in appreciation of the reality of the situation, they are entitled to choose the best for themselves. But one fact remains clear, that is if one feels that he/she has a strong case for a scholarship, apply for it. No one is stopping you and if the boards feel that you have a genuine case, I am sure that they will consider your case on its subjective merits. But it is important not to criticize procedures and supposed “barriers” if one does even try or attempt to cross it. Take the analogy of this scenario. If one sees a pub that says “26 and above only”, and if one does not try to go in (for there is no legal basis behind that rule), one would not be able to see if the establishment throws you out. If the pub is relatively empty, and you spend money at the till, I would dare say that the pub would be happy to serve you. But that would only happen if you make the initial attempt to go in. but on the other hand, if there is no such restriction, the pub would be filled with people younger than their target crowd of patrons and brings a different feel of the place, which may not be what the management wishes. As what our ministers have been telling us youths in recent times, dare to speak up, dare to try. But I think it should also be borne in mind that if we try and are found wanting, we should not sit back and wail and moan about being denied an opportunity without understanding the entire situation. In this case, I personally feel that there is nothing wrong with the present scholarship criteria of many boards, and if we fail to be considered for a scholarship, or a job, or a university course, we must stop and look back to understand why we did not make the grade. A scholarship is like a door with multiple filters, and the beauty of this door is you can see a pit of barbs immediately after it, but a bright and beautiful future beyond the pit. But this door chooses to let in only those whom it is sure can survive what it takes to cross the pit of bards and walk through towards the beautiful future, if we fail to attempt to enter the door, we would not know what it might hold. If we attempt to go through the door and find ourselves being held back, we must see why we failed. But we cannot do is ask the door to be so much wider that it lets in so many people that many of them perish in the pit. The bottomline is that a scholarship is not a charity, and youths must not start expecting to achieve certain standards and automatically think the world of themselves, without realizing that there are so many other people equally, if not more deserving of the opportunity. Being a scholar is a priviledge, not an entitlement, and youths have to appreciate that. But if we fail to make the mark to attain the priviledge, and start blaming every thing else, from the system to the establishment, but not ourselves, that is what I feel is a character failing in itself. Scholarships aim to select the very best people who are deserving of the opportunity to further their individual development in the best way possible for them, without cost being a restrictive factor, and to return to help contribute to the sponsor body for helping him/her realize his/her dreams. We should not regard them as outcasts and leave them to learn on their own, but should regard them as people whom we can learn from, and whom we can teach as well, and every scholar should recognize the fact that they have their own shortcomings as well, and should be willing to learn and right that shortcoming. That is the hallmark of a true scholar in every sense of the word, to learn. Goh Wen Zhong 2nd Year Law undergraduate London School of Economics London United Kingdom kelvin was inspired at 8:47 PM |
|
Webset Copyright © Blogfrocks Sunset Image Copyright © Yun Photo Gallery |
