through train program
-
At first, they have through-train programs, skipping O Levels and taking A Levels. It doesn't affect me that much, because these are students from top schools and I assume that they can cope.
Now, they have through-train programs to polytechnics. Skipping O Levels and taking polytechnic diploma. I feel that it is evil. Why? That is because these are average students. What if they cannot cope in polytechnics? They will drop out. Before this, they still rely on their O Levels certificate and get some part-time jobs. Now, they only have PSLE certificates. What kind of jobs are they going to get? Cleaners?
For what I know now, most of the part-time and temporary jobs here require at least N Levels or O Levels. I wonder how these youngsters are going to survive in the future. -
With that, those polytechnic diplomas will really become worthless pieces of paper. Cos the students who wont do well will go... and in order to help them pass, standards will drop.
So then, U're either a degree holder or nothing. -
It also seems to me like keeping Singapore students. What I mean is that this idea will "force" a lot of students to study here. Because with just a PSLE certificate, you can hardly go overseas and continue your studies, unless you plan to migrate there.
-
xiao ma yi
you mean there is no option to take "O" level before going to Poly? If that's true, then it is really bad! -
Well, from what I read, I get the impression that it is. Anyway, it is only a matter before every school will have a through-train programme. I believe so. It is only a matter of time. This is my view. You can opposed my view.Originally posted by lotus999:xiao ma yi
you mean there is no option to take "O" level before going to Poly? If that's true, then it is really bad! -
i dont think they will alow all schools to have through train, not feasible,
in my opinion , through train is a calculated risk, i still think having O levels as an option to take is safer, some form of safety net -
My feelingsOriginally posted by confusedboi:i dont think they will alow all schools to have through train, not feasible,
in my opinion , through train is a calculated risk, i still think having O levels as an option to take is safer, some form of safety net -
There are evils in the old examination-smart system with examination being unable to help the citizens or economy to upgrade to technologically advanced economy.Originally posted by ndmmxiaomayi:At first, they have through-train programs, skipping O Levels and taking A Levels. It doesn't affect me that much, because these are students from top schools and I assume that they can cope.
Now, they have through-train programs to polytechnics. Skipping O Levels and taking polytechnic diploma. I feel that it is evil. Why? That is because these are average students. What if they cannot cope in polytechnics? They will drop out. Before this, they still rely on their O Levels certificate and get some part-time jobs. Now, they only have PSLE certificates. What kind of jobs are they going to get? Cleaners?
For what I know now, most of the part-time and temporary jobs here require at least N Levels or O Levels. I wonder how these youngsters are going to survive in the future.
Under the old examination-centred system, results of students at every stage represent only short-term regurgitation abilities and not many things like applications or entrepreneurship learning.
Even though a person scores well at "O" or "A" level, that person is still far from well trained and well educated as very often the results only represent the ability to regurgitate without thorough applications of practical knowledge.
Yet, by practising an examination-centred system, the rest are rejected or eliminated from pursuing systematic knowledge-based education. They are considered inferior by the public administrators for public service. They are considered inferior by employers for higher management jobs.
If 90% of our educated workforce miss out the chance to acquire systematic knowledge applications in various fields through ITEs, POLYs and Technological universities but are made into accountants, economists, lawyers, and generalists as we are producing now, Singapore cannot produce an entrepreneuria and technologically advanced knowledge-based economy.
Right now we need a big group of practical knowledge applicators from Sim Wong Hoo to Olivia Lum and Ron Sim rather than many "O" "A" mandarins which we already have in large numbers but who cannot do anything to start new ventures or technologies. -
Somehow, I wish here was Switzerland. I like their education system. After finishing secondary education, they like us can pursue what we call A Levels. They also can pursue what we call a diploma. But their diploma is different. They spend most of the time working and very little time for theory to understand how a company works. If we had an education like that, it would be better. There will be more people who have this practical knowledge rather than students who have just knowledge only.Originally posted by robertteh:There are evils in the old examination-smart system with examination being unable to help the citizens or economy to upgrade to technologically advanced economy.
Under the old examination-centred system, results of students at every stage represent only short-term regurgitation abilities and not many things like applications or entrepreneurship learning.
Even though a person scores well at "O" or "A" level, that person is still far from well trained and well educated as very often the results only represent the ability to regurgitate without thorough applications of practical knowledge.
Yet, by practising an examination-centred system, the rest are rejected or eliminated from pursuing systematic knowledge-based education. They are considered inferior by the public administrators for public service. They are considered inferior by employers for higher management jobs.
If 90% of our educated workforce miss out the chance to acquire systematic knowledge applications in various fields through ITEs, POLYs and Technological universities but are made into accountants, economists, lawyers, and generalists as we are producing now, Singapore cannot produce an entrepreneuria and technologically advanced knowledge-based economy.
Right now we need a big group of practical knowledge applicators from Sim Wong Hoo to Olivia Lum and Ron Sim rather than many "O" "A" mandarins which we already have in large numbers but who cannot do anything to start new ventures or technologies. -
my time where got such nonsense, either a levels, poly or ite.
-
Originally posted by ndmmxiaomayi:
You are absolutely right - "more people will have practical knowledge rather than just knowledge". Our leaders do not believe such thing as practical talents or practical knowledge. They generally call them as technical or middle management and treat them as lesser in importance. They now reap what they sow. MOE Tharman and Ex-DPM Dr. Tony Tan were the only ones who try to be different from elitism or conceptual leadership approach, but they were largely weak voices in the whole team. !!![/b]
Somehow, I wish here was Switzerland. I like their education system. After finishing secondary education, they like us can pursue what we call A Levels. They also can pursue what we call a diploma. But their diploma is different. They spend most of the time working and very little time for theory to understand how a company works. If we had an education like that, it would be better. There will be more people who have this practical knowledge rather than students who have just knowledge only. -
Originally posted by robertteh:
When they finally realized it, it is too late. Singaporeans are too used to it. It will probably be some time before Singaporeans accept it and therefore continue to grow.
You are absolutely right - "more people will have practical knowledge rather than just knowledge". Our leaders do not believe such thing as practical talents or practical knowledge. They generally call them as technical or middle management and treat them as lesser in importance. They now reap what they sow. MOE Tharman and Ex-DPM Dr. Tony Tan were the only ones who try to be different from elitism or conceptual leadership approach, but they were largely weak voices in the whole team. !!![/b]