Scholar system may become obsolete
-
I don't support the govt for the sake of it. I just think a lot of criticisms are cheap.
Lotus 999 spinned the title of this article, thats why he does not want to show us the URL of the site.
Even if you make the cirriculum more hands on, there will still be schorlars. It will be a hands on schorlar scheme. So its back to square one. -
So you mean that students who can't catch up ought to be kicked out?Originally by SalmanThat inferior complex will develope when you cannot cope in a class that is so much faster.
Finally, something good from you. Have your own stand finally.Originally by SalmanIts not the principals' fault man.
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.
You are evil.Originally by SalmanNo choice, we are all different. You get this thing even in communists countries.
Why do we force kids who don't like or cannot study to do things they cannot do?
You finally leak out something that you don't want to say. Bureaucracy..........Originally by SalmanWell 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?
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?
Haven't you always say that Singapore is democratic? Looks like most forumers here are not wrong. -
Hands-on education as in really hands-on. Let's say you have three years of polytechnic education. One year is spent on theory and the other two in industries applying whatever you have learnt.Originally posted by Salman:I don't support the govt for the sake of it. I just think a lot of criticisms are cheap.
Lotus 999 spinned the title of this article, thats why he does not want to show us the URL of the site.
Even if you make the cirriculum more hands on, there will still be schorlars. It will be a hands on schorlar scheme. So its back to square one.
As for Lotus 999, whether or not he spinned the article, it describes the education scene in Singapore very vividly, and this is what we are facing now, which is the reality. Keep on supporting the government doesn't help us to improve the education system. I don't mean a total change in just one year, I mean gradual change. -
Did anyone say anything about kick out? Aren't we talking about streaming?
So you mean that students who can't catch up ought to be kicked out?
Truth is, I always have my own stand, unlike you who simply parrot others w/o knowing what you are talking abt.
Finally, something good from you. Have your own stand finally.
You are the evil one mister.
You are evil..
You want to force our kids to study even when they cannot study.
Er.. I think you have a problem in your vocabulary and comporehension.
You finally leak out something that you don't want to say. Bureaucracy..........
Haven't you always say that Singapore is democratic? Looks like most forumers here are not wrong.
Go check out the meaning of 'bureaucarcy' and 'democracy'. -
can i say the same thing about u?Originally posted by Salman:Er.. I think you have a problem in your vocabulary and comporehension.
Go check out the meaning of 'bureaucarcy' and 'democracy'.
-
Why don't you guys post the meanings of these two words from the dictionary and lets discuss on your comprehension right here.
I'll go all teh way with you.
cheers -
I think you mean a more technical rather than academic education. I must say I agree with that....Singapore does not need that many thinkers, nor can we really supply that many from a limitred population base. Most graduates will not be researchers or University lecturers....the majority will look for jobs in industry.Originally posted by ndmmxiaomayi:Hands-on education as in really hands-on. Let's say you have three years of polytechnic education. One year is spent on theory and the other two in industries applying whatever you have learnt.
Personally, I'll much prefer to employ a poly grad who can do the work, although not particularly good at the underlying theory; rather than a graduate who can talk about the theory but is unable to deliver. On top of that, the poly grad is cheaper to hire. -
Bureaucracy and democracy is different and I know that. But isn't that what you are trying to say? (in the previous post)
Er.. I think you have a problem in your vocabulary and comporehension.
Go check out the meaning of 'bureaucarcy' and 'democracy'. -
I am not evil. If they don't study something, how are they going to survive? This is a knowledge economy, not a labour-intensive economy. We are no longer in the 1950s to 1970s.
You are the evil one mister.
You want to force our kids to study even when they cannot study.
Or you want to them to go to China? China probably don't even want them. -
At least you realised your mistake of equating bureaucracy as anti democracy.
Please don't make such errors again.
As for studying, its not true that you cannot survive w/o studying. You can be a professional sportsman, an artist, a performer, a chef, bartender etc and still do well in a diverse economy. Ppl don't have to go thru O level and A level at all if they don't like to study. -
C'mon, professional sportsman? Artist?Originally posted by Salman:As for studying, its not true that you cannot survive w/o studying. You can be a professional sportsman, an artist, a performer, a chef, bartender etc and still do well in a diverse economy. Ppl don't have to go thru O level and A level at all if they don't like to study.
You're just throwing out ridiculous examples for the sake of it. In Singapore? Don't you know it's virtually impossible to earn a decent living going pro? or being an artist?
Look at our sports scene. Sprinters like Uk Shyam Poh Seng Song are not given anything other than a scholarship (short term and he bailed out on disagreements) and a pathetic allowance. Our so-called professional S-League players average 2-3K a month (star players earn up to 6K and only 1 per team) and they can only keep playing like this for 10 odd years. After that, what can they do? Not every player is as capable as our ex-national Goalie David Lim who turn businessman after he retired from soccer.
In fact i would say he is the only man who has managed his own life after sports. Sundram went into coaching (which flopped at Jurong FC) and Fandi had a business selling prata that winded up. So much for our millionaire football son and entrepreneurship spirit.
And our artists scene? Good grief... -
Why don't you tell us about Jing Jun Hong and Remy who made hundreds of thousands?
Why not artists and performers? Do you know how many live performers are there in Singapore? Why do you think TCS hire so many artistes? They probably make more than you.
As for footballers, what is there to stop a hardworking player from playing overseas other than themselves? If you can't manage your life, even if you make a million a year in your playing days, you will still end up a pauper.
What abt chefs and hawkers and taxi drivers, zookeepers? They make decent living too and raise families. -
Juz my 2cts.
Why are medal sportsmen/sportswomen winners like Ang Peng Siong, Junie Sng ending up in oblivion and not given jobs to develop our national sports while administrators, scholars and ministers with mediocre sports achievements (ahem zero medals and highly paid) are given jobs and leading sportsmen and sportswomen?
I'm just pissed to see "scholars" paid to be all over the place and sportsmen/sportswomen left to rot on their own.
-
Hanor, hanor.Originally posted by macjoe:Juz my 2cts.
Why are medal sportsmen/sportswomen winners like Ang Peng Siong, Junie Sng ending up in oblivion and not given jobs to develop our national sports while administrators, scholars and ministers with mediocre sports achievements (ahem zero medals and highly paid) are given jobs and leading sportsmen and sportswomen?
I'm just pissed to see "scholars" paid to be all over the place and sportsmen/sportswomen left to rot on their own.
You don't see sports ministers resigning or apologising when team Singapore does badly at say the SEA games or Asian games. It's the athletes fault that they lost or performed badly blah blah blah. But when the team does better than expected, the accolades and praises go to the ministers for their brilliant 2040 vision or support or what nots. -
What is wrong with being sports deveolpers? I think they love their jobs.Originally posted by macjoe:Juz my 2cts.
Why are medal sportsmen/sportswomen winners like Ang Peng Siong, Junie Sng ending up in oblivion and not given jobs to develop our national sports while administrators, scholars and ministers with mediocre sports achievements (ahem zero medals and highly paid) are given jobs and leading sportsmen and sportswomen?
I'm just pissed to see "scholars" paid to be all over the place and sportsmen/sportswomen left to rot on their own.
Is everyone in Singapore supposed to be a minister or civil servant? Can't people be taxi drivers, bus drivers and zoo keepers? What are you talking about? -
FYI, Remy Ong and Jing Jun Hong got their preceived thousands from winning medals at SEA games, Asian games and to a lesser extent, their performances at commonwealth and Olympics. And they are paid wages to a much lesser extent on contract basis, which does not amount to much because they are fully sponsored on their respective equipment.Originally posted by Salman:Why don't you tell us about Jing Jun Hong and Remy who made hundreds of thousands?
Why not artists and performers? Do you know how many live performers are there in Singapore? Why do you think TCS hire so many artistes? They probably make more than you.
As for footballers, what is there to stop a hardworking player from playing overseas other than themselves? If you can't manage your life, even if you make a million a year in your playing days, you will still end up a pauper.
What abt chefs and hawkers and taxi drivers, zookeepers? They make decent living too and raise families.
Can the same be said for every sport? Does it apply to Soccer? Basketball? Netball? Swimming? These are some of our core sports that receive outstanding incentives from the SSC and the SNOC annually.
How they manage their subsequent finances is irrelevant. Save Fandi, has any other footballer made it big?
What is the potential for locals to go abroad and play? Nevermind willing, are they capable first? Do you even have any idea what it takes to compete at that level before you blurt out the term 'abroad'? You think hard work is sufficient?
Do you begin to understand just how difficult it is to live life as a sportsman? Look at Tan Howe Liang and C Kunalan. Champions in their respective fields but glorified instructors now, earning a mere pittance. -
Look Salman,Originally posted by Salman:What is wrong with being sports deveolpers? I think they love their jobs.
Is everyone in Singapore supposed to be a minister or civil servant? Can't people be taxi drivers, bus drivers and zoo keepers? What are you talking about?
If you have zero idea what he meant, why post and embarrass yourself?
Macjoe clearly stated that it is the scholars and non-sportsmen who were given cushion jobs administrating and providing direction for national sports when it SHOULD BE the proven sportsmen/women themselves who should be extended this role.
We should ask you what YOU are talking abt. -
i reckon it boils down to many other factors. i've 2 close friends. one was a tennis state player for malaysia, the other was a S'pore national squash player. they have both retired from competitive sports but are earning heaps from their coaching/ trainer jobs.Originally posted by BillyBong:FYI, Remy Ong and Jing Jun Hong got their preceived thousands from winning medals at SEA games, Asian games and to a lesser extent, their performances at commonwealth and Olympics. And they are paid wages to a much lesser extent on contract basis, which does not amount to much because they are fully sponsored on their respective equipment.
Can the same be said for every sport? Does it apply to Soccer? Basketball? Netball? Swimming? These are some of our core sports that receive outstanding incentives from the SSC and the SNOC annually.
How they manage their subsequent finances is irrelevant. Save Fandi, has any other footballer made it big?
What is the potential for locals to go abroad and play? Nevermind willing, are they capable first? Do you even have any idea what it takes to compete at that level before you blurt out the term 'abroad'? You think hard work is sufficient?
Do you begin to understand just how difficult it is to live life as a sportsman? Look at Tan Howe Liang and C Kunalan. Champions in their respective fields but glorified instructors now, earning a mere pittance.
but for sports like soccer. maybe the prospects would be pretty bleak. ironic, given the popularity of the sport. -
Yes, and if everyone took up coaching as the only future for ex-sportsmen/women, there would be an excess of coaching talents and subsequent ones will be crowded out in a congested and competitive market.
But that is indeed one option to sustain the careers of sportspeople. With Ang Peng Siong's self-made Aquatic Performance School and David Lim's Swimfast, our swimming future can only look brighter.
Ok we're deviating from the original threadline. -
We don't need ex sportsmen to coach the future generation already.
We can always import athletes from other countries.
Isn't that what we are doing right now?
Regardless of what profession or career you are in now, you can always be replaced by someone bigger, better and cheaper than you. -
Do you think Singapore can ever have its equivalent of the Bobby Charlton School to nurture young footballers? Not in this lifetime. The high cost of living has made the BA an end-all in life. The reason is that degree holders tend to earn more than non-graduates. What can a football star do when his playing days are up? Not everyone is cut out to be a coach. The rest fade into oblivion and live the rest of their lives in penury as they struggle to make a living as a blue-collar worker.
-
Judging students purely by results and nothing else is being blindly and superfcially meritocractic.
-
Experts are saying IQ academically-made scholars made leaders make poor, not good leaders.
-
Awarding scholarships based 100% purely on results....
Admitting students to schools based 100% on results....
Yet the sheer irony is that government had been "recognising, developing and promoting" young talent.
-
just look at some of e successful businessman. those entr who r mostly self-made man w/o wealthy family or education outnumbed educated.Originally posted by Salman:What is a testing trial?
What kinda testing trial do you propose would work?
let see the scholar do it w/o garment backing....