Scholar system may become obsolete
-
Read about it before. You failed missed by one grade only and cannot enter the course you want.............Originally posted by redstone:You won't want to know what happened to me...
Even if you have all the passion, strong interest, high grades, other awards/certs....
BUT you miss an entry requirement, everything is equal to zero.
-
Its an objective criteria and you need to draw the line somewhere. Everyone is given the same syllablus and same test.Originally posted by ndmmxiaomayi:Read about it before. You failed missed by one grade only and cannot enter the course you want.............
If somebody fails, it simply means he did not get himself ready for the exam given the opportunity.
If you want everybody to take whatever course he and she wants, where do you draw the line? If grades don't matter, who will study? -
You may be right about that he did not get himself ready for the exam.Originally posted by Salman:Its an objective criteria and you need to draw the line somewhere. Everyone is given the same syllablus and same test.
If somebody fails, it simply means he did not get himself ready for the exam given the opportunity.
If you want everybody to take whatever course he and she wants, where do you draw the line? If grades don't matter, who will study?
But what if he is very ready and due to some other factors which cause him to fail? Like anxiety? He can't concentrate well if he is anxious and will make a lot of mistakes.
I never say I want everybody to do whatever course they want. It will be chaotic. If 70% of the population wants to be doctors, 20% wants to be lawyers, 9% wants to be in the service sector and the 1% wants to hawkers, we will starve to death. Too little hawkers and too many people need to eat. -
What I'm trying to say is nothing can compensate for the 1 grade miss in requirement for one subject.
Even if all your other subjects are distinctions, even if those subjects have other excellence awards/certificates, not even if you appeal 3 times. Not even if you demostrate very strong talent, interest, passion and aptitude. -
You have a good point.Originally posted by redstone:What I'm trying to say is nothing can compensate for the 1 grade miss in requirement for one subject.
Even if all your other subjects are distinctions, even if those subjects have other excellence awards/certificates, not even if you appeal 3 times. Not even if you demostrate very strong talent, interest, passion and aptitude.
Our education policy is too narrow as it relies too much on overall scores to determine abilities or success. It seems to focus only on creaming off people with high IQ rather than to train students to be useful to contribute to specific area of excellence.
The past education system is too deeply entrenched in assessing overall grade, the higher is the overall scores the better will be the result.
Why should this be the case? Is examination about comparing IQ or is it about knowledge in any particular field. Common sense will tell us that when someone scores one subject extremely well, even though he might fail in most subject that does not automatically mean that he is poor in abilities.
He may well turn out to be the talent in the only one subject he passes well even if he does not do well in overall scores of all other subjects as a whole.
It is time to reexamine our overall grading policy to see if it has been over-killed. What a person in real life is to do well in one area or subject and focus in that one area he is good at rather than proving all his other areas of intelligence. How many people can be all rounder and even if there are, can all rounder apply or have opportunity to apply knowledge in all areas.
For example, if a student failed in most subject but scores extremely well in Art, he might well turn out to be a good artist. So why deny such a peson early in life and mark him down because educationists are too obsessed with overall score ?
In the final analysis, education is about applying knowledge and applying knowledge well in one area may be better than passing all subjects with distinctions and unable to focus in any particular area. -
Albert Einstien and Thomas Edison.Originally posted by robertteh:You have a good point.
Our education policy is too narrow as it relies too much on overall scores to determine abilities or success. It seems to focus only on creaming off people with high IQ rather than to train students to be useful to contribute to specific area of excellence.
The past education system is too deeply entrenched in assessing overall grade, the higher is the overall scores the better will be the result.
Why should this be the case? Is examination about comparing IQ or is it about knowledge in any particular field. Common sense will tell us that when someone scores one subject extremely well, even though he might fail in most subject that does not automatically mean that he is poor in abilities.
He may well turn out to be the talent in the only one subject he passes well even if he does not do well in overall scores of all other subjects as a whole.
It is time to reexamine our overall grading policy to see if it has been over-killed. What a person in real life is to do well in one area or subject and focus in that one area he is good at rather than proving all his other areas of intelligence. How many people can be all rounder and even if there are, can all rounder apply or have opportunity to apply knowledge in all areas.
For example, if a student failed in most subject but scores extremely well in Art, he might well turn out to be a good artist. So why deny such a peson early in life and mark him down because educationists are too obsessed with overall score ?
In the final analysis, education is about applying knowledge and applying knowledge well in one area may be better than passing all subjects with distinctions and unable to focus in any particular area.
Rejected by many schools in youth because they were considered 'stupid'.
In the end, they become world famous and respected for the one field they excel very well in. -
Also, judging students purely on results is just too blind and superficial.
The term "don't judge a book by it's cover" can't be a better word. -
There's too much focus on results. And this resulted in talented students going overseas because the emphasis there is not on results (although they still have entry requirement).Originally posted by redstone:Albert Einstien and Thomas Edison.
Rejected by many schools in youth because they were considered 'stupid'.
In the end, they become world famous and respected for the one field they excel very well in.
And Singapore keep emphasizing that humans are our only resource, yet keeping the talent pool as small as possible. -
Reminds me of Salazar Slytherin's emphasis on taking in only pure-blooded students into Hogwarts, when the tiny community of wizards would have died out if Muggles were not accepted.Originally posted by ndmmxiaomayi:And Singapore keep emphasizing that humans are our only resource, yet keeping the talent pool as small as possible.
-
Never watch Harry Potter, so don't know. But I guess so.Originally posted by iveco:Reminds me of Salazar Slytherin's emphasis on taking in only pure-blooded students into Hogwarts, when the tiny community of wizards would have died out if Muggles were not accepted. -
The sheer contradiction!Originally posted by ndmmxiaomayi:There's too much focus on results. And this resulted in talented students going overseas because the emphasis there is not on results (although they still have entry requirement).
And Singapore keep emphasizing that humans are our only resource, yet keeping the talent pool as small as possible.
Over-emphasism on results is smothering talent.
In direct contradiction of govt's emphasis on young talent.
How many true all rounders are there?
Not many. Not many have all distinctions for results, and have talent.
So govt's been overlooking the majority of students.
Most people excel well only in one area, or fail in only one area.
Those talents promoted and recognised in secondary school are practically useless in poly/jc admissions.
Govt's been missing out on the big picture. -
But at least there is improvement for the sports school. When sports school first started, you need to be in express stream before you can get in.Originally posted by redstone:The sheer contradiction!
Over-emphasism on results is smothering talent.
In direct contradiction of govt's emphasis on young talent.
How many true all rounders are there?
Not many. Not many have all distinctions for results, and have talent.
So govt's been overlooking the majority of students.
Most people excel well only in one area, or fail in only one area.
Those talents promoted and recognised in secondary school are practically useless in poly/jc admissions.
Govt's been missing out on the big picture.
After one year the sports school started, academic requirements become second, no longer the first criteria to enter sports school. Talent in sports become the first requirement.
When will other schools do that? -
Now that should be the case!Originally posted by ndmmxiaomayi:But at least there is improvement for the sports school. When sports school first started, you need to be in express stream before you can get in.
After one year the sports school started, academic requirements become second, no longer the first criteria to enter sports school. Talent in sports become the first requirement.
When will other schools do that?
Talent (and other achievements) needs to have the same standing as results. They should compliment each other, rather then over emphasism on official exam results. -
That is the only change that make me shut up about Singapore's education system and talent system. The rest, I am still waiting for changes, but I will have graduated by then.Originally posted by redstone:Now that should be the case!
Talent (and other achievements) needs to have the same standing as results. They should compliment each other, rather then over emphasism on official exam results. -
Should had changed long long time ago!
-
Think of this:
A very talented student in art was rejected from Arts course because his math did not make entry requirement.
Govt promoting something it doesn't recognise? -
Maths has no relationship with art. Pass Maths to get into an Arts course for what?Originally posted by redstone:Think of this:
A very talented student in art was rejected from Arts course because his math did not make entry requirement.
Govt promoting something it doesn't recognise?
Make use of Maths to an art piece like what La-Salle college student did. -
Government does not change its narrow elitist and tax-and-recover policies for so many years now because the citizens have generally no views or opinions.
Many would just agree with what government is doing. Even scholars readily accept the government's past policies. New MPs are quiet in parliament hardly raising any issues concerning high costs or anti-business GLC practices or laws.
That is the reason why today we still see the government believing in their past narrow academic or elitist education and civil service recruitment systems.
Many citizens are brainwashed into believing that the government knows what to do and will do the right things. Worse they believe that whatever the government it will always be the same or other government can be worse. So there is nothing for now the citizens can do to change the government?
The educated young who cannot find jobs after graduations will be the first group of people feeling the pinch. They may be the ones to react in the ballot. -
Something like that happened to me.Originally posted by ndmmxiaomayi:Maths has no relationship with art. Pass Maths to get into an Arts course for what?
Make use of Maths to an art piece like what La-Salle college student did. 
But the example is slightly exaggerated to show the rigidity. -
Imagine promoting talent, but not recognising it!
-
Government is like the consumers. When salesman promote something to us, we will say consider buying, but actually we won't buy.Originally posted by redstone:Imagine promoting talent, but not recognising it!
The same thing applies. Government promotes talent but will not recognize it unless you are as good as the foreign talent. Best if you can offer rates as low as the foreign talent. -
Talent. Promoted.Originally posted by ndmmxiaomayi:Government is like the consumers. When salesman promote something to us, we will say consider buying, but actually we won't buy.
The same thing applies. Government promotes talent but will not recognize it unless you are as good as the foreign talent. Best if you can offer rates as low as the foreign talent.
When the talented student(s) goes back to govt, the 'talent' isn't recognised. -
I think you people are just lousy losers who cannot compete anywhere.
The govt pampered you too much. -
I doubt so. If we are really that bad, how can so many poly students study overseas and come back with a degree that many employers recognize?Originally posted by Salman:I think you people are just lousy losers who cannot compete anywhere.
The govt pampered you too much.
While the government has pampered us a lot, but we are still left on our own to compete. -
Now now.... play nice pleaseOriginally posted by Salman:I think you people are just lousy losers who cannot compete anywhere.
The govt pampered you too much.
if you shoot the messenger you are just gonna get less mail
Regards