Scholar system may become obsolete
-
so the PAP is still stuck with the maxim "if it ain't broken don't fix it".
Scholar system may become obsolete
Like China's imperial exam, Singapore's way of selecting top scholars will outlive its usefulness in a changed world.
By Seah Chiang Nee.
Nov 27, 2005
SINGAPORE'S early successes were built largely on the back of a scholarship system that - broadly speaking - followed imperial China as a way to recruit the 'best and brightest" to serve the country.
For 1,300 years of imperial examination history, China's emperors had selected 100,000 state-level and more than a million provincial scholars to administer the vast country.
Although the details differed, the objective of ancient China and 21st Century Singapore was similar - aimed at getting the best scholars who do well in education to help run the country.
But it worked well under their respective circumstances.
For China, however, the method became outdated and was ended in 1911 because the world had changed.
The imperial exam tested only literature, poetry and essays, but not science, math or any of today's modern studies that were needed by a changed world.
The question now is whether Singapore's scholarship system of selecting the best has also outlived its days in the 21st Century that needs entrepreneurial and innovative skills.
The government spends millions to provide some 200 to 250 university scholarships each year to the best students here based on examination results, out of 1,200 to 1,400 applications received by the Public Service Commission.
Competition, just like in ancient China, is strong and the successful are chosen for the crème de la crème schools. They are sent to the best universities abroad and given high-paying official positions.
The Chinese imperial system was a method to evaluate ability and select officials in dynastic China on the basis of merit rather than social position or political connections.
Similarly, Singapore leaders also advocate meritocracy. Lee Kuan Yew was an admirer of Confucian teachings, which formed a big subject in the imperial exam.
But both systems had unintended side effects. In China, the majority of those who sat for the exam were from the wealthy class.
In Singapore, a recent report said that 75% of scholarship winners lived in private condos or landed property, the rest in cheaper public housing estates. The rich continue to have an edge.
Lee, now Minister Mentor, admits that academic grades cannot determine the best intelligence or capabilities but until a better way is found, he said they remain the criteria.
But in the innovative world, can it continue to work when circumstances are changing so rapidly? Today private enterprise and human innovation, not knowledge of science and engineering, are the new gods needed for survival here.
Some Singaporeans believe that Lee's scholars' class may also become obsolete just as the imperial examination went out of fashion.
In fact, the Lee government had exceeded imperial China in recruitment.
Over the years, the large intake of scholars into the bureaucracy and military leadership was so heavy that it has created a hole in the economy. It has deprived the state of a rich source of potential entrepreneurs.
The brightest students are filtered into a secure, well-paid bureaucracy where they developed an ability to 'play safe' and avoid taking risks so that they can keep their jobs, the opposite of the new Singaporean we need.
Despite of - or because of - the scholar class, Singapore remains sadly behind its trade rivals in entrepreneurial spirit and capabilities.
It has led Lee to get the government to release up to half of its state-supported civil service scholars to move into starting enterprises, with questionable results.
For years scholars have been running state-owned enterprises, but it is not the same as taking risks with their own money and careers. Few are prepared to take personal risks to start their own companies.
Good grades may not make good businessmen and often have nothing to do with them.
Scholars may produce good bureaucrats and administrators but they do not necessarily have sound judgment, market ideas or profits, qualities needed in the new economy.
Dr Phua Kai Lit, a sociologist who received his PhD from Johns Hopkins, wrote that Singapore had become a country "increasingly ruled by economists, engineers, and other technocratic experts with First Class Honours undergraduate degrees, Oxbridge and Ivy League Master's degrees and PhDs."
"Whether this society truly fulfils (the Singaporean) dream and meets his expectations is a question worthy of debate," he said.
Another reason why it may not survive long is that it promotes an elitist class, which despite the leaders' best efforts, is growing more unpopular with the new generation.
Actually, offering high civil service jobs to scholars is not uncommon in many countries - but not in politics. The unique feature in Singapore lies in its use to select Cabinet ministers and members of Parliament in the ruling party.
In other democratic countries winning elections is a deciding factor, but the predominant strength of the People's Action Party virtually rules out this criterion.
R.K. Vasil wrote in 1992, "The PAP has established a unique system of recruitment of its top political leaders and Ministers.
"Talented individuals are 'spotted' and have to pass through a barrage of observations, interviews, attachment to a veteran MP and, allegedly, even psychological tests before being offered safe parliamentary seats to contest (under the PAP banner) in General Elections.
"After winning these safe seats, they may be offered responsibility as junior ministers and if they pass this test, they would then be offered higher level positions with greater responsibilities"
For the present, nothing much will change but, as the leaders themselves say, nothing remains the same for long in this fast-moving world. -
The lack of a testing trial in realpolitik is the main stumbling block to real leaders being groomed.
-
but their salaries remained.
-
What is a testing trial?Originally posted by LazerLordz:The lack of a testing trial in realpolitik is the main stumbling block to real leaders being groomed.
What kinda testing trial do you propose would work? -
Referendum in the instance of walkover.Originally posted by Salman:What is a testing trial?
What kinda testing trial do you propose would work? -
While you are right, some changes have been made to prevent our education system from becoming obsolete.
For example, the through-train program. Although they accept only top students, these students are able to study a variety of subjects which will be useful to them when they graduate.
But whether these changes will prevent our education system from becoming obsolete is still something for us to guess and debate about. -
Er... can we have the URL of the article on top.
The schorlar system itself was never wrong, it just needs tweaking. -
The very fact that the changes only accept "top students" show that they are only cosmetic changes.Originally posted by ndmmxiaomayi:While you are right, some changes have been made to prevent our education system from becoming obsolete.
For example, the through-train program. Although they accept only top students, these students are able to study a variety of subjects which will be useful to them when they graduate.
But whether these changes will prevent our education system from becoming obsolete is still something for us to guess and debate about. -
I don't think our system will change that quickly. The mentality that scholar=leader has been around for a long time, and will continue to be around.
-
maybe the day when the lee dynasty ends ba
-
This problem of over-producing graduates and academicians at the expense of entrepreneur and creative spirit in the economy could have been avoided if the leaders were not so over-confident of their pet assumptions.
It is very simple fact of life that the bests in every field are not necessarily top students or top academicians. There is a common saying: there is a mandarin in every profession.
Winston Churchull was never good in studies. Bill Gate was not a top student. Albert Einstein was never a scholar.
In our private sector, who were the creators of jobs or starters of business. More often than not, the bosses who gave jobs to scholars are seldom scholars.
So while we need scholars for certain positions in the public service, we do not need so many scholars in every field or department. It is a fallacy to build the country on scholars. If such a system is indeed the best, China could have become an advanced country after 1,300 years of trying out such a scholar system and employing so many scholars in civil service.
If the scholar system has worked well in Singapore, we would not be lagging the Asian tigers in entrepreneurial spirit and technology start-ups.
All these errors show that it is dangerous to rely on one man in running a country because his ideas and assumptions could be terribly wrong. Worse there may be no one to correct him.
It is a very simple fact that a country only needs a certain number of top scholars to do teaching and research works.
The rest of the population who are not so inclined in academics should be exposed to practical knowledge applications through broad-based education.
Citizens have given many such feedbacks a long time ago but the leaders failed to listen.
Now as a result, Singapore is lagging behind the Asian tigers in entrepreneurial spirit.
Our scholars have been unable to solve the persistent high cost and the 20 major policy errors as posted in this forum. In science and technology, we are lagging behind in many fields despite the large number of scholars we have produced.
We are lagging behind in technology start-ups but EDB is claiming success in so many ventures. They have to be honest with themselves and not be so complacent.
We are lagging behind in chip and computer designing capabilities, engineering excellence and high technology start-ups. This lack of technological competitiveness will make us lose out in economic competitiveness.
It will take many years to make good even if we start to send people to expose themselves in practical knowledge applications and even if our MOE reverse the academic streaming into practical knowledge application.
Tweaking of the present education system will not work unless there is major change and total commitment to reverse the past academic approach.
Train more people to teach practical applications and technology start-up within our education system and bring more educators into applying their knowlege in practical environment. -
Not in my books they aren't.Originally posted by ah_kwang:I don't think our system will change that quickly. The mentality that scholar=leader has been around for a long time, and will continue to be around.
-
my only question is : if our scholar system is sound, why do we need foreign talent at all? you mean we dont have enough scholars to fill those spaces?
-
the scholar and the FT system sorta.. contradicts each other.. shows that they don't trust anyone...
sadly, in my organisation, the scholars are mostly the ones who cause the most problems.. -
typical arrogance of dont give a rat ass about how the people feel
-
Our leaders are technocrats...not politiciansOriginally posted by LazerLordz:The lack of a testing trial in realpolitik is the main stumbling block to real leaders being groomed. -
the scholars are only book smart, they realised they needed street smarts and so came the ft. as for the rest, they are not smart....lol...the folks running the country are scholars who tended to look at tried and tested means for solutions. the spiralling living cost is basically due to land cost. for many damn years they've insisted on benchmarking it against opportunity cost and so they cleverly coined the phrase 'market subsidy' when in actual fact there's no subsidy. i think lky in some years back admitted he made the mistake of not curtailing the rising land cost.
it's about time folks begin to read or re-read the classic book of george orwell's animal farm, look out for the phrase 'some are more equal than others' . -
Selecting the top students for scholarship systems is a great way to weed out the hardworking students from the lazy ones. Talent is cultivated in our school systems and culture, and no unit of measure is able to determine it. If a student is good at studies, it gives promise that the student is mature and hardworking. It is also work while to spend more money to invest in their hardwork.
It is up to the scholars and their mentors, bosses, culture and singapore's society to shape these people into the leaders of the future. Forward thinking, initiative and vision comes with hard work, experience and the willingness to learn. Scholarships are still given to US citizens and every where else in the world. It helps to level the playing field between the poor and the rich and is an investment to cultivate talent.
People who did not do well in studies have a different path ahead of them. These people are in higher numbers and are allowed to take in more risks due to their social standings. In singapore's society, even though it is saturated and there is a lack of economies of scale, the government has equiped us with the wealth and knowledge to pursue our goals and financial sucess. For every trump, gates and every other millionaire, I can show you 1,000 more who are unsucessful or in poverty. In singapore, we are generally in the middle-class for the most part of our population, and our indivual debt has not exceed those of other countries. It is great to presue a future that you can retire by 35, but it is even better that a whole country has little poverty, low cost of living and lead lives that are considered in the middle class. It is good to dream, but it is just impossible to have 3 million millionaires in one small tiny island. But if everyone owns a house, eats well everyday, have a good lifestyle and can retire properly with a chance to be sucessful, compared to the REST OF THE WORLD, that is considered a remarkable accomplishment. -
In running a country, selectiong a few academically able and giving them scholarship is one way to level the rich and poor. If we groom the scholars and give them opportunities to rise up and achieve success for the community, that is something worth doing that can be supported by the masses.Originally posted by cavinkoh:Selecting the top students for scholarship systems is a great way to weed out the hardworking students from the lazy ones. Talent is cultivated in our school systems and culture, and no unit of measure is able to determine it. If a student is good at studies, it gives promise that the student is mature and hardworking. It is also work while to spend more money to invest in their hardwork.
So there is no disagreement with scholarship and the system of using the scholarship to help run the country.
The problem we need to examine in our case is not the pure belief in scholarship system for the reason as stated. It is that we might have become so totally obsessed with scholarship that there seems to be no other solutions to promote entrepreneurship and pro-business environment to grow the economy.
Figures were sufficiently given in the first post that we have spent huge amounts of our resources in grooming scholars thinking that they will lead to solving all the problems in our country.
One may ask: then what happens. Do we lose more or gain more. It may be immaterial as no one may be the wiser. However, one consequence does happen - we fail to recognize that succcess is not produced by these scholars in the running of the country.
There are many problems created by assumptions or concepts of all kinds in running the place. We have to contend with high costs due to a tax-and-recover system of running the country. There are 20 major poicy errors as posted in other thread. Like China, our scholar system of running the country has not made the country stronger or modernised.
What is wrong with such scholarship system? We have narrowly practised it to the extent that we neglected mass participation in knowledge application in every field.
We overlook the importance to grow and entrepreneurial spirit among the masses to succeed. We fail to bring about innovations or practical broad-based education but keep producing more and more scholars and give them higher jobs and higher pays presumably so that the scholars will lead us to some kinds of nirvana or success. This obsession is the myth we should remove.It is up to the scholars and their mentors, bosses, culture and singapore's society to shape these people into the leaders of the future. Forward thinking, initiative and vision comes with hard work, experience and the willingness to learn. Scholarships are still given to US citizens and every where else in the world. It helps to level the playing field between the poor and the rich and is an investment to cultivate talent.
I believe in our system, we have already tried to groom scholars to take over the running of the country. After 40 years we are now looking for results to see if we have based on scholars running the country we indeed have done well. Is it true that our scholars have helped us to produce a more competitive economy or are we only producing scholars to give them good jobs and higher rewards.
People who did not do well in studies have a different path ahead of them. These people are in higher numbers and are allowed to take in more risks due to their social standings. In singapore's society, even though it is saturated and there is a lack of economies of scale, the government has equiped us with the wealth and knowledge to pursue our goals and financial sucess. For every trump, gates and every other millionaire, I can show you 1,000 more who are unsucessful or in poverty. In singapore, we are generally in the middle-class for the most part of our population, and our indivual debt has not exceed those of other countries. It is great to presue a future that you can retire by 35, but it is even better that a whole country has little poverty, low cost of living and lead lives that are considered in the middle class. It is good to dream, but it is just impossible to have 3 million millionaires in one small tiny island. But if everyone owns a house, eats well everyday, have a good lifestyle and can retire properly with a chance to be sucessful, compared to the REST OF THE WORLD, that is considered a remarkable accomplishment.
[/b]
We must look at our policies to see if they are right or wrong as practised by the scholars. We must examine our entrepreneurial spirit and creativity. We must look at our economic competitiveness whether they are produced in some way that enable us to grow and succeed in the next level of growth. -
The roots of this decay may have originated from our education system. With the introduction of the Normal, Express, Special and GEP streams in secondary schools and at the insistance of our scholarly leaders, we have developed a kind of warped education in-breeding programme; by sieving the wheat from the chauff and nurturing only the cream, they have in fact created a system that benefits themselves and ensures the continuation of the 'scholarly line'.
What happens to those who 'cannot make it'? Darwin's theory is conveniently applied and these 2nd-raters must be left behind. In truth, the difference between a potential scholar and one who is bright but not brilliant is really miniscule.
What widens this gaps is the condencending knowledge that at so young an age, our leaders segregate youths into thinking others are their betters, thereby infusing an inferiority complex that remains with them until adulthood. If the youth is unable to break out of this perverted aura, he will forever 'kowtow' to these self-professed geniuses and remain an intermediate in the wider scheme of things. -
Originally posted by BillyBong:
If you think thru the streaming process carefully, it is actually a good one.
The roots of this decay may have originated from our education system. With the introduction of the Normal, Express, Special and GEP streams in secondary schools and at the insistance of our scholarly leaders, we have developed a kind of warped education in-breeding programme; by sieving the wheat from the chauff and nurturing only the cream, they have in fact created a system that benefits themselves and ensures the continuation of the 'scholarly line'.
There are indeed some who can excel and some who either do not like to study and cannot study.
You put the brilliant one in a normal program, he doesn't get to fulfill his potential.
You put a slow learner in normal class, he will struggle.
Let everyone study at his own pace. I think that is the best.
There is no such thing as cannot make it. They just get channeled into somthing they can do. Why force them to do things they don't want to do?
What happens to those who 'cannot make it'? Darwin's theory is conveniently applied and these 2nd-raters must be left behind. In truth, the difference between a potential scholar and one who is bright but not brilliant is really miniscule.
Many ITE grads do very well in life. Open your eyes and see my friend.
Don't be naive, young people will know whether they excel or underachieve with or without streaming.
What widens this gaps is the condencending knowledge that at so young an age, our leaders segregate youths into thinking others are their betters, thereby infusing an inferiority complex that remains with them until adulthood. If the youth is unable to break out of this perverted aura, he will forever 'kowtow' to these self-professed geniuses and remain an intermediate in the wider scheme of things.
We have to recognise reality and not force people who don't like to study to go thru the A levels track. -
Evidently you fail to understand my post yet again...Originally posted by Salman:Don't be naive, young people will know whether they excel or underachieve with or without streaming.
We have to recognise reality and not force people who don't like to study to go thru the A levels track.
Did i suggest forcing youths to sit thru A levels let alone compete openly with potential scholars?
The crux is based on the inferiority complex developed at a young age and not addressed by the education system, thereby creating the scholar in a 'godly' image and non-scholars as average joes.
Streaming may have been done with the best intentions but the message was lost along the way.
We now have principals who care more abt collecting school incentives and accolytes than face 'reality' : that the streaming system is creating, at too early an age, a psychological gap which grows into a barrier for a youth.
By dividing school kids into their so-called catagories, you already designate one group as top notch, another as so-so and the last as 'if-pass-happy-already'. Kids, already pressured left and right by their parents and teachers, now face equally daunting peer pressure and the moment they are ranked, their fate is literally sealed. Does that comfort you?
Is the PSLE a good gauge for streaming? Does it truly tests the potential of a student, and at the age of 12? And based solely on this PSLE socre, does a youth deserve to be rubber-stamped with approval into a good-average-sucks catagory?
Was that ever the ultimate goal? To screen the best of the best to perpetuate batch after batch of new scholars to replace the aging old guard one day?
Because if that is the overall goal, then we are truly shortsighted indeed. -
Originally posted by BillyBong:
That inferior complex will develope when you cannot cope in a class that is so much faster.
The crux is based on the inferiority complex developed at a young age and not addressed by the education system, thereby creating the scholar in a 'godly' image and non-scholars as average joes.
I'm glad you realise the good intentions.
Streaming may have been done with the best intentions but the message was lost along the way.
Its not the principals' fault man.
We now have principals who care more abt collecting school incentives and accolytes than face 'reality' : that the streaming system is creating, at too early an age, a psychological gap which grows into a barrier for a youth.
I think what would help is smaller classes for weak students with the best teachers. Some schools do that exactly because the principal wants to get good grades for the school.
No choice, we are all different. You get this thing even in communists countries.
By dividing school kids into their so-called catagories, you already designate one group as top notch, another as so-so and the last as 'if-pass-happy-already'. Kids, already pressured left and right by their parents and teachers, now face equally daunting peer pressure and the moment they are ranked, their fate is literally sealed. Does that comfort you?
Why do we force kids who don't like or cannot study to do things they cannot do?
There is the direct entry scheme.
Is the PSLE a good gauge for streaming? Does it truly tests the potential of a student, and at the age of 12? And based solely on this PSLE socre, does a youth deserve to be rubber-stamped with approval into a good-average-sucks catagory?
Is PSLE is good gauge? Pretty much.
But do you have a better system that is objective and able to diffrenetiate the good from the not so good? Come up with suggestions please.
Well why not? Its takes diligence, character and drive to succeed. You don't want a lazy bum with no brains to run the country and economy do you? What are you talking about?
Was that ever the ultimate goal? To screen the best of the best to perpetuate batch after batch of new scholars to replace the aging old guard one day?
Because if that is the overall goal, then we are truly shortsighted indeed.
Do you really know how the bureaucracy groom leaders? Its not as easy as you think you know? Do you honestly think it is based solely on grades alone? -
But it is only still in trial stage. It is no wonder that they accept top students. However, if they still accept only top students after the trial stage, I would prefer to tell the government that it is equals to no change. We might as well go overseas and study.Originally posted by pikamaster:The very fact that the changes only accept "top students" show that they are only cosmetic changes. -
Somehow, you seems to be supporting the government. If something really needs changes and total change, I would say it. For education, it not only needs tweaking, it also needs a total change. I will not want the scholar system. I will want the education system to be more hands on than theories. It is through experiences that we grow up and learn from our mistakes. If we just study theory, and anything that goes against theory will be wrong. That is really obsolete. However, if your experiments go against theories, you can redo and find out what is wrong. If there is still no wrong and despite repeated experiments and you get the same results, then question the theory. Remember, a theory is not obsolete. It will change with time. Just like the theory that Earth is the centre, not Sun. Not Sun is the centre, who knows in future it will be some other stars or planets that is the centre of solar system?Originally posted by Salman:Er... can we have the URL of the article on top.
The schorlar system itself was never wrong, it just needs tweaking.