Singapore Education - Great Up to A Point
-
So we are all exam machines?
Education
Great up to a point
Singapore's students are brilliant in math-science tests; American kids test much worse but do better in the real world. Why? Fareed Zakaria, Newsweek
Jan 6, 2006
Last week India was hit by a terror attack that unsettled the country. A gunman entered the main conference hall of the Indian Institute of Science in Bangalore, tossed four grenades into the audience and, when the explosives failed, fired his AK-47 at the crowd.
One man, a retired professor of mathematics from one of the Indian Institutes of Technology, was killed. What has worried some about this attack is not its scope or planning or effect-all unimpressive-but the target.
The terrorists went after what is increasingly seen as India's core strategic asset for the 21st century: its scientific and technological brain trust. If that becomes insecure, what will become of India's future?
This small event says a lot about global competition. Travelling around Asia for most of the past month, I have been struck by the relentless focus on education.
It makes sense. Many of these countries have no natural resources, other than their people; making them smarter is the only path for development. China, as always, appears to be moving fastest.
When officials there talk about their plans for future growth, they point out that they have increased spending on colleges and universities almost ten-fold in the past 10 years.
Yale's president, Richard Levin, notes that Peking University's two state-of-the-art semiconductor fabrication lines-each employing a different technology-outshine anything in the United States.
East Asian countries top virtually every global ranking of students in science and mathematics.
But one thing puzzles me about these oft-made comparisons. I talked to Tharman Shanmugaratnam to understand it better. He's the minister of Education of Singapore, the country that is No. 1 in the global science and math rankings for schoolchildren.
I asked the minister how to explain the fact that even though Singapore's students do so brilliantly on these tests, when you look at these same students 10 or 20 years later, few of them are world-beaters any more.
Singapore has few truly top-ranked scientists, entrepreneurs, inventors, business executives or academics.
American kids, by contrast, test much worse in the fourth and eighth grades but seem to do better later in life and in the real world. Why?
"We both have meritocracies," Shanmugaratnam said. "Yours is a talent meritocracy, ours is an exam meritocracy. There are some parts of the intellect that we are not able to test well-like creativity, curiosity, a sense of adventure, ambition.
"Most of all, America has a culture of learning that challenges conventional wisdom, even if it means challenging authority. These are the areas where Singapore must learn from America."
Shanmugaratnam also pointed out that American universities are unrivalled globally-and are getting better.
"You have created a public-private partnership in tertiary education that is amazingly successful. The government provides massive funding, and private and public colleges compete, raising everyone's standards."
Shanmugaratnam highlighted in particular the role that American foundations play.
"Someone in society has to be focused on the long term, on maintaining excellence, on raising quality. You have this array of foundations-in fact, a whole tradition of civic-minded volunteerism-that fulfills this role.
"For example, you could not imagine American advances in biomedical sciences without the Howard Hughes Foundation."
Singapore is now emphasising factors other than raw testing skills when selecting its top students. But cultures are hard to change.
A Singaporean friend recently brought his children back from America and put them in his country's much-heralded schools. He described the difference.
"In the American school, when my son would speak up, he was applauded and encouraged. In Singapore, he's seen as pushy and weird. The culture of making learning something to love and engage in with gusto is totally absent.
"Here it is a chore. Work hard, memorize and test well." He took his child out of the Singapore state school and put him into a private, Western-style one.
Despite all the praise Shanmugaratnam showered on the States, he said that the US educational system "as a whole has failed."
"Unless you are comfortably middle class or richer," he explained, "you get an education that is truly second-rate by any standards. Apart from issues of fairness, what this means is that you never really access the talent of poor, bright kids.
"They don't go to good schools and, because of teaching methods that focus on bringing everyone along, the bright ones are never pushed. In Singapore we get the poor kid who is very bright and very hungry, and that's crucial to our success.
"From where I sit, it's not a flat world," Shanmugaratnam concluded.
"It's one of peaks and valleys. The good news for America is that the peaks are getting higher. But the valleys are getting deeper, and many of them are also in the United States."
Newsweek (Jan. 9, 2006 issue) -
i try to sum up what the issue is: that because our education system is very much about rote-learning, our creativity and critical thinking abilities become neglected and under developed so that when we step into the real world, we are not as creative or successful as our american counterparts.
we have heard this many times. even before we critically examine the logic of this thinking, we are already embarking on all kinds of programmes to nurture creativity and entreprenerial spirit in schools.
i don't think that is the crux of the issue. i don't think the main problem lies with our education system. i think the problem lies with our society in general and the way things are run here.
brilliance in schools ends with completion of basic education, therefore what we teach in schools must necessarily be wrong? i beg to differ. i see it this way: brilliance in schools ends upon getting your school certificate because that is the point in our lives when our entire future will be decided upon. in other words for the scholars, the rat race ends there. yes, you still fight tough battles with your fellow scholars but that pool of coveted positions are yours to sort out, yours exclusively. you may not end up being the scholar of the scholar but you would still be well taken care of. henceforth where is the motivation to strive harder? if our very best become protected right at the beginning of their working career, then certainly that's when their struggle and brilliance will end, won't it?
the other problem i see is that our society is not rewarding correctly. techies here are not as well respected as those in the states. engineers here are glorified technicians if there's such a phrase. so where is the motivation to innovate and create when we're all stuck in second rate jobs?
who are the ones who rise to the top at the end of the day? who makes the decisions and steers the country? the engineers? throughout our bureaucracy, the ones with more bullshit, more hot air rise faster than those who are more adept at making things work rather than making themselves heard. with technical expertise glaringly lacking at most management levels, how would the brilliance of the engineers be appreciated, rewarded and encouraged?
look at microsoft. bill gates is a top notch techie himself. there's no way someone's gonna rise in his company on a hot air balloon. everyone must have substance. he'll make sure of that.
if no matter how we nurture our kids, they step into companies that smother their creativity or talent, how much good would that be? -
Our system is always a trial and error thing - and we're like guinea pigs.
I mean look at everything else, there are so many U-turns!
Our government are supposedly great thinkers, why couldn't they think ahead??? Instead of all the LPPL U-turns? -
If the education system is so good here, how come so many kids from the elites are sent overseas for studies?Originally posted by ShutterBug:Our system is always a trial and error thing - and we're like guinea pigs.
I mean look at everything else, there are so many U-turns!
Our government are supposedly great thinkers, why couldn't they think ahead??? Instead of all the LPPL U-turns?
-
snow leopard,Originally posted by snow leopard:i try to sum up what the issue is: that because our education system is very much about rote-learning, our creativity and critical thinking abilities become neglected and under developed so that when we step into the real world, we are not as creative or successful as our american counterparts.
we have heard this many times. even before we critically examine the logic of this thinking, we are already embarking on all kinds of programmes to nurture creativity and entreprenerial spirit in schools.
i don't think that is the crux of the issue. i don't think the main problem lies with our education system. i think the problem lies with our society in general and the way things are run here.
brilliance in schools ends with completion of basic education, therefore what we teach in schools must necessarily be wrong? i beg to differ. i see it this way: brilliance in schools ends upon getting your school certificate because that is the point in our lives when our entire future will be decided upon. in other words for the scholars, the rat race ends there. yes, you still fight tough battles with your fellow scholars but that pool of coveted positions are yours to sort out, yours exclusively. you may not end up being the scholar of the scholar but you would still be well taken care of. henceforth where is the motivation to strive harder? if our very best become protected right at the beginning of their working career, then certainly that's when their struggle and brilliance will end, won't it?
the other problem i see is that our society is not rewarding correctly. techies here are not as well respected as those in the states. engineers here are glorified technicians if there's such a phrase. so where is the motivation to innovate and create when we're all stuck in second rate jobs?
who are the ones who rise to the top at the end of the day? who makes the decisions and steers the country? the engineers? throughout our bureaucracy, the ones with more bullshit, more hot air rise faster than those who are more adept at making things work rather than making themselves heard. with technical expertise glaringly lacking at most management levels, how would the brilliance of the engineers be appreciated, rewarded and encouraged?
look at microsoft. bill gates is a top notch techie himself. there's no way someone's gonna rise in his company on a hot air balloon. everyone must have substance. he'll make sure of that.
if no matter how we nurture our kids, they step into companies that smother their creativity or talent, how much good would that be?
3) Any cultured/intelligent/civilized/advanced society is built around an educaiton system, whatever form it may take. In the pre-industrial/ pre-colonial era, the centre of a peasant's life was the particular religious institution, such as a Church or Mosque or Temple. Universities were eventually founded around these institutions. It is through these primitive education systems that social-building knowledge was transmitted from generation to generation. So any problem inherent in the manner in which society is run is demonstrative of an issue with public mindset moulded by thte educaiton system of that particular society.
4) I agree, with a slight twist: the protection of our best begins not at the beginning of their working career, but in the middle of their schoolyears. Whatever MOE may say, any student would know that some opportunities are *reserved* for the "best", and denied to the rest. Instead of an atmosphere of adversity, therefore, the "best" are cushioned from their time in secondary school onwards.
5) agreed.
6) Indeed, indeed. But nonetheless, an engineer's expertise is not in political leadership.
7) Bill Gates is kinda retired, my friend.
Strangely enough, the companies are looking to harness such creative talent, but they can't seem to find it among the locals.
the pikamaster -
Originally posted by pikamaster:
3) Any cultured/intelligent/civilized/advanced society is built around an educaiton system, whatever form it may take. In the pre-industrial/ pre-colonial era, the centre of a peasant's life was the particular religious institution, such as a Church or Mosque or Temple. Universities were eventually founded around these institutions. It is through these primitive education systems that social-building knowledge was transmitted from generation to generation. So any problem inherent in the manner in which society is run is demonstrative of an issue with public mindset moulded by thte educaiton system of that particular society.
i'm not saying education is unimportant. on the contrary i think it is important in inculcating basic values, literacy and survival skills. but what is our issue here? that new economy entrepreneurs are made in schools. i don't think so. bill gates left school to become the entrepreneur he is today. his success has very little to do with what he learnt in school. if the ang moh style of eduation is the key to america's current entreprenuerial achievement, then how come australia, an equally ang moh society isn't as renowned for its innovativeness? on the other hand, if exam-centred education is the root of our failure, how come japan, an equally exam-centred society does so well in its techonological pursuits?
education may play a part but i don't think it holds the key to entrepreneurial success. other factors peculiar to a country are more important.
6) Indeed, indeed. But nonetheless, an engineer's expertise is not in political leadership.
but they don't even lead engineering firms like IBM singapore (headed by business people) and many GLCs (headed by ex-army honchos).
7) Bill Gates is kinda retired, my friend.
retired perhaps but the culture that he establishes in microsoft certainly does not favour the empty vessel who makes the most noise.
Strangely enough, the companies are looking to harness such creative talent, but they can't seem to find it among the locals.
depends on how you define creative talent. if you define creative talent as say designing computer graphics then that is really more dependent on acquiring of skills which is function of demand as schools churn out digits to meet numbers set by some planners on top. -
this point, is only valid in the sphere of influence within our small little island.many who were not the "best" as dictated by MOE, have gone on to be much more successful elsewhere than the endorsed chaps.Pity many Singaporeans cannot see beyond our own shores.Originally posted by pikamaster:snow leopard,
4) I agree, with a slight twist: the protection of our best begins not at the beginning of their working career, but in the middle of their schoolyears. Whatever MOE may say, any student would know that some opportunities are *reserved* for the "best", and denied to the rest. Instead of an atmosphere of adversity, therefore, the "best" are cushioned from their time in secondary school onwards.
the pikamaster -
Singapore does have a lot of talents in all field. But many of our talented fellow country men are overseas. Sg has always failed to recognise our our talents, alot of talents are labelled as rebellious brats in the schools who do not stick to the uniformist education system in Sg.
A good example is Mr Sim from Creative. Other than that, we have some reports on a ITE student who was working now in Oxford Phsyics Lab working on improving the efficenct of the optical fibre network. If not wrong, he has managed to break the light transfer speed physical barrier.
Other than that, we do not have many advanced labs as in overseas good reputable university. I never had the opporunities to go into a cleanroom for my semiconductor classes in NTU (1997-2000)... -
this actually ties in with what pikamaster says, only by venturing beyond our shores can one find fresh opportunities instead of being subjected to a lifetime of condemnation when one isn't amongst the chosen ones.Originally posted by LazerLordz:this point, is only valid in the sphere of influence within our small little island.many who were not the "best" as dictated by MOE, have gone on to be much more successful elsewhere than the endorsed chaps.Pity many Singaporeans cannot see beyond our own shores.