Our Young best US Students, but fizzle out as Adults
-
In an interview with Fareed Zakaria of Newsweek, is the Singapore Education Minister speaking on a personal basis when commenting on the comparison of the Singapore Education System with that of the American System ?
Is he sincere with his views, or are his views qualified for certain audiences ?
Can Singapore Education System ever mould our Young Singaporean to excel in the World Economy and join the list of world famous achievers ?
If the Minister recognises the fact that Singaporean Young must learn to question CONVENTIONAL WISDOM and AUTHORITY, will he recommend change in the manner that the Singapore Government rule Singapore, and change the manner in which politics is played ?
We All Have a Lot to Learn
Singapore's students do brilliantly in math and science tests. American kids test much worse but do better in the real world. Why?
By Fareed Zakaria
Newsweek
Jan. 9, 2006 issue -
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. Traveling 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 tenfold 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 worldbeaters anymore. 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 unrivaled 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 emphasizing 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 U.S. 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."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10663340/site/newsweek/ -
Originally posted by Atobe:
In an interview with Fareed Zakaria of Newsweek, is the Singapore Education Minister speaking on a personal basis when commenting on the comparison of the Singapore Education System with that of the American System ?
Is he sincere with his views, or are his views qualified for certain audiences ?
Can Singapore Education System ever mould our Young Singaporean to excel in the World Economy and join the list of world famous achievers ?
If the Minister recognises the fact that [b]Singaporean Young must learn to question CONVENTIONAL WISDOM and AUTHORITY, will he recommend change in the manner that the Singapore Government rule Singapore, and change the manner in which politics is played ?
[quote]
I think he is sincere but neither he nor us can change the culture in Singapore, a nation where even adults find it difficult to question the wisdom and authority of the elite. It's not meritocracy that rules Singapore...it's elitism. -
You can get good result by either having the brain for it or by through hard work or combination of both. School certificate is only a piece of paper which just give us a better head start in the beginning but the rest will be based on our own ability in both mentalilty and intelligent to climb further up the corporate ladder. But Singapore are too "paper" oriented especially in the goverment sector simply because if you belong to the elite, your career path for the next 10-20 years is more or less determine when you just begin work.
Due to this trend, nowadays kids are so stress up due to parent and peer pressure to learn this and that and to do well in the school. This result in having the ability to study but not the ability to survive outside when competition from people in other countries came in. Note: There is some exception case also but generally it the "to be elite" system that causes this problem. Anyway this is just my two cent
-
elitism exists everywhere...singapore is smaller so the effects are greater.
-
Being a new Minister and a newly recruited participant in Singapore Politics, it is hoped that the Minister is speaking with some degree of INTELLECTUAL HONESTY, AND also some degree of INIDIVIDUAL FREEDOM.
The Ruling Party is well know in propagating MERITOCRACY to the extent of using it as an excuse to practise ELITISM to exclude almost everyone in the field where they intend to monopolise.
Meritocracy is laudable, but when its application is abused to exclude everyone else to claim their right to be 'on top of the pile' - it simply leads to a culture of UGLY ELITISM.
Even with the current effort to cultivate a new education system, where Young Singaporeans are 'encouraged' to think 'out of the box' .
With the Authorities occupying nearly all top seats of power in Singapore society, can they TOLERATE any serious challenge to their position ? -
To change the thinking of elitism is very hard now as currently many school are practising it and worst parents are leading the ways as in making their child take up different courses, tonnes of tuitions etc just to make sure their children are among the top.
With all this pressure, even if the goverment would like to implement thinking outside the box, it is very hard to attain success. And as we all know, in goverment sector, first thing that they look at is the academic result and only the top ppl will get short listed rather then giving all the ppl a chance and choose from among them one that is really good through different test such as thoughts and solution to some real life situation which they will encounter etc.
Unless goverment are willing to take the lead in changing the way they employ ppl, there no way that we can remove or reduce the current level of elitism in Singapore. And most importantly, acadamically smart people don't always equate to smart and competent people. -
there is a prior post for the same issue, wonder why the administrators do not consolidate them?
anyway, brilliant in school but no so successful later on in life does not mean that the demonstrated brilliance was fake or that the student had memorised his way to academic achievement.
the thing is, the criteria for excellence in academics is a world apart from the criteria for success in working life. academic achievement requires brilliance and little else and hence it shouldn't be doubted as a stamp of individual brilliance.
success in working life however depends very much on your ability and willingness to suck up. the best sucker gets promoted and he would expect to be sucked up as well. one generation of suckers begets another and soon the entire hierarchy is nothing but incompetent suckers.
under such an environment, how does a truly brilliant chap achieve success if success is defined not by the ingenuity of your ideas or the brilliance of your work but by how good you can make your boss feel good about you?
that i think is the essence of the problem here ... we may have good people who have proven themselves to be brilliant but who simply gets crushed beneath tons of bureacracy.
also, most of the companies here do second rate work compared to their counterparts in US. so the brilliance of our chaps become wasted in mediocre tasks that neither bring justice nor satisfaction to their gifts. -
He goes one round and shoots back at the US education system. So, do you think he is sincere about it?
-
I agree with you.Originally posted by snow leopard:there is a prior post for the same issue, wonder why the administrators do not consolidate them?
anyway, brilliant in school but no so successful later on in life does not mean that the demonstrated brilliance was fake or that the student had memorised his way to academic achievement.
the thing is, the criteria for excellence in academics is a world apart from the criteria for success in working life. academic achievement requires brilliance and little else and hence it shouldn't be doubted as a stamp of individual brilliance.
success in working life however depends very much on your ability and willingness to suck up. the best sucker gets promoted and he would expect to be sucked up as well. one generation of suckers begets another and soon the entire hierarchy is nothing but incompetent suckers.
under such an environment, how does a truly brilliant chap achieve success if success is defined not by the ingenuity of your ideas or the brilliance of your work but by how good you can make your boss feel good about you?
that i think is the essence of the problem here ... we may have good people who have proven themselves to be brilliant but who simply gets crushed beneath tons of bureacracy.
also, most of the companies here do second rate work compared to their counterparts in US. so the brilliance of our chaps become wasted in mediocre tasks that neither bring justice nor satisfaction to their gifts.
But sucker doesn't seem like a very good word to use. -
Originally posted by snow leopard:
Sucking up ? Do you seriously believe in this ?
there is a prior post for the same issue, wonder why the administrators do not consolidate them?
anyway, brilliant in school but no so successful later on in life does not mean that the demonstrated brilliance was fake or that the student had memorised his way to academic achievement.
the thing is, the criteria for excellence in academics is a world apart from the criteria for success in working life. academic achievement requires brilliance and little else and hence it shouldn't be doubted as a stamp of individual brilliance.
success in working life however depends very much on your ability and willingness to suck up. the best sucker gets promoted and he would expect to be sucked up as well. one generation of suckers begets another and soon the entire hierarchy is nothing but incompetent suckers.
under such an environment, how does a truly brilliant chap achieve success if success is defined not by the ingenuity of your ideas or the brilliance of your work but by how good you can make your boss feel good about you?
that i think is the essence of the problem here ... we may have good people who have proven themselves to be brilliant but who simply gets crushed beneath tons of bureacracy.
also, most of the companies here do second rate work compared to their counterparts in US. so the brilliance of our chaps become wasted in mediocre tasks that neither bring justice nor satisfaction to their gifts.
If it is true, then perhaps our education system should also include the "Art of Sucking Up" into our school curriculum - nothing like the Real World being introduced to the Young.
This will introduce them to the Law of the Jungle - Survival of the Fittest.
If our young is intelligent enough to handle maths problems when young, surely they will be smart enough to learn the "Art of Survival" - which is what life is all about : POLITICS.
The fact that our brilliant ones fizzle out is due very much to the crush of CONFORMITY IN ADULT BEHAVIOR that is demanded by a POLITICAL SYSTEM that is created out of FEAR and INSECURITY of the POLITICAL LEADERSHIP.
Our Political Leadership DO NOT TRUST those who are BRILLIANT and who are at the same time INDEPENDENT and OUT OF THEIR CIRCLE OF CONTROL.
Is this not the very reason for the Brain Drain that is on-going since the mid-1980S ? -
Human mind like the computer has many parts i.e. memory, system inputs and output controls, coordinations, etc and CPU architectures.Originally posted by Atobe:Sucking up ? Do you seriously believe in this ?
If it is true, then perhaps our education system should also include the "Art of Sucking Up" into our school curriculum - nothing like the Real World being introduced to the Young.
This will introduce them to the Law of the Jungle - Survival of the Fittest.
If our young is intelligent enough to handle maths problems when young, surely they will be smart enough to learn the "Art of Survival" - which is what life is all about : POLITICS.
The fact that our brilliant ones fizzle out is due very much to the crush of CONFORMITY IN ADULT BEHAVIOR that is demanded by a POLITICAL SYSTEM that is created out of FEAR and INSECURITY of the POLITICAL LEADERSHIP.
Our Political Leadership DO NOT TRUST those who are BRILLIANT and who are at the same time INDEPENDENT and OUT OF THEIR CIRCLE OF CONTROL.
Is this not the very reason for the Brain Drain that is on-going since the mid-1980S ?
Obviously our system of education aims at only emphasising on one compartment e.g. memory, regurgitation of facts or data, but seldom on applications of knowledge, coordinations, systems or CPU architectures.
For many years, our leaders in order to prove their own leadership to the world have conveniently and pragmatically tried to promote their own brand of leadership based on imbibing the academics.
They have in their haste to promote mirror image of themselves forgotten that a system based on academics are theoretical and conceptual and does not necessary lead to final results - entrepreneurship, creativity, applications of knowledge, and social and cultural vibrancy of the whole people needed to bring about a competitiven society.
So if you ask : why are our students doing less well in adulthood, the answers are clearly found in our leaders' narrrow-tracked education system - over-emphasising on academics, memory and regurgitation ability while not enough was being done to promote knowledge applications and overall system architectures and social and cultural development. -
We All Have a Lot to Learn
That is because US people are overly-rated! Everyone thought they were good and capable, but not all is so!
Singapore's students do brilliantly in math and science tests. American kids test much worse but do better in the real world. Why?
By Fareed Zakaria
Newsweek
Jan. 9, 2006 issue -
You see all the CEO's, managers, chief engineers etc, all from US, why? because everyone has the mentality that they are good!
Cuz companies never give chance to locals or asians for these post, so that why US so successful.
-
We have not addressed the fundamentals of education to embrace applications of knowledge by the masses as the integral part of education process. Even now we have the whole system skewed to show favor to academic grades and results forgetting to nurture and develop broad-based applications of critical knowledge in all relevant fields.Originally posted by nightzip:That is because US people are overly-rated! Everyone thought they were good and capable, but not all is so!
You see all the CEO's, managers, chief engineers etc, all from US, why? because everyone has the mentality that they are good!
Cuz companies never give chance to locals or asians for these post, so that why US so successful.
So when a student goes into the big wide world he is lost and does not know what to give to society of what he has learned except the grades he had scored in the colleges and universities.
Good students are not those with good academic results but those who are ready to start a project or produce something or apply some skills for his future employers. -
I think to do well in the real world, you must be flexible and ready to adapt to any change in circumstances. This is one area of training where the Singapore educational institutions don't stack up against many western universities and schools. Where schools here put emphasis on the grade and final mark, overseas schools put emphasis on the journey at which you arrived at your result. Personally I think it's the journey, and not the destination that counts in preparing you for the real life.
-
it all boils down to the decisions you make and the experience you have to judge a decision
-
In other societies, gifted persons are proven like scientists getting accredited by their peers or institutes .
The Nobel Prize winners are the ultimate of all proofs of excellence.
The number of successful entrepreneurs we produce who give us jobs and new technology start-ups are real measures of our gifted persons.
In our society gifted persons are labels created by politicians for the purpose of political control or ease of rule. Our leaders have politicized scholars and gifted persons as persons who have passed certain academic tests without yet producing results.
It is about time as we mature as a society and avoid empty slogans mouthing too much concepts and assumptions which lead to emptiness, hypocrisy and boastfulness.
Let us all give up assumptions and go for real stuff of giftedness - actual implementation of economic master plans to create new technology start-ups and testing of these so-called gifted persons through successful executions and results before giving them all the labels. -
i still think we should give more chances to locals in terms of senior positions, etc so as to let them have a chance to develop and prove their skills, not let some foreigner steal the show.
-
totally agree. zinks only memorize memorize memorize never think cannot tink oso coz got no brains wat. eyes small oso. neber mind got ugly face tamade.
ever wonder why no democracy press freedom in zinky lands?
govt will screw your @rse the moment you criticize them lah. same goes for all zinks nations hence no creativity hence not so good in real life.
zinks only good at carrying out orders from superiors, be they your parents, bosses or teachers.
therefore they make unusually good slaves, subordinates or children but not truthful loyal or independent. just another slave. truth hurts. -
We can all start by rejecting these hyped up labels about our national scholar system, which is designed to produce like-minded people as the selection, a perpetual waste of money and effort, in an order to create leaders who will not deviate from the hallowed path.
-
Originally posted by nightzip:
Everyone thought that scholars are overly-rated; and everyone thought they were good and capable too, but unfortunately, some never made the grade.
That is because US people are overly-rated! Everyone thought they were good and capable, but not all is so!
One Singaporean was given a shot at being a Minister, but after one term was pushed to be the Secretary-General of the NTUC, made a mess in his personal relationship with the Union, and left to be a CEO of a GLC.
Simple answer to your question - those " CEO's, managers, chief engineers etc, all from US" is due to the fact that these companies are US Companies.
You see all the CEO's, managers, chief engineers etc, all from US, why? because everyone has the mentality that they are good!
Comparing the US Companies with European Companies, I would think that the US Companies are more willing and open to employing non-US Citizens to head US Companies - so long as they are qualified.
There are a few instances of US Companies based in Singapore that prefer to employ Singaporeans, or any other nationals who are qualified.
This is quite unlike the European Companies, who are more biased and have a greater tendency to employ persons from their own countries to head their own Companies that are based in Singapore.
How do you mean by "locals or asians" - and are you referring to these 'companies' as being located in the USA or in Singapore ?
Cuz companies never give chance to locals or asians for these post, so that why US so successful.
If you are referring to 'companies' located in the USA, you will be surprised to see that some of the CEO and Senior Executives of US based Companies are foreign nationals - (forget about the color of the skin).
If you are referring to 'companies' located in Singapore that are foreign owned, you will also be surprised that comparing US and European Companies - it will be the US Companies that are more willing to employ locals or non-US Citizens to head their operation in this Region.
If you are referring to Singaporean Companies owned by Singaporeans and based in Singapoe, the bet is 50-50, and if the foreign talent is more qualified and has a track record, chances are the foreign talent will get the job over a Singaporean. It is all about the interest of the Company and its shareholders - forget about national pride or giving Singaporeans an equal opportunity.
If the Company belongs to you, you will probably have to decide in the interest of your Company. -
tharman is famous for going around in circles and changing the topic.Originally posted by ndmmxiaomayi:He goes one round and shoots back at the US education system. So, do you think he is sincere about it? -
Really?Originally posted by vito_corleone:tharman is famous for going around in circles and changing the topic.
No wonder the education system is now going in circles.
In the end, it is still a "scholar trumps all" system. -
Originally posted by vito_corleone:
Thanks for the reminder, and come to think about this - it seems to be the same characteristic of the LHL too, and that of the Ruling Party.
tharman is famous for going around in circles and changing the topic.
Always polite up front, and talk a great deal about non-essentials of any subject but only later to come back to hold on strongly to their original position, defending it and pushing it.
Even if change is accepted, a small tweak is made, but the original form remains stubbornly there.
Remember the famous LHL speech - in 2002 - of slaughtering all 'Holy Cows' to bring Singapore out of the recession and make Singapore into a more vibrant and open society, able to withstand future shocks with greater flexibility ?
It is 2006, many of the aged 'Holy Cow' policies remain intact, unchanged for the last forty years, making Singapore as politically stifling and cramped as it has been for forty years. -
Gimme some beef burgers..i'm terribly hungry
-
i think he is just saying what he feels. what i feel is that the US education system is on the whole inferior compared to ours. yet more of their citizens succeed in later life. it goes to show that it takes more than education to succeed in life, that the conditions for success lie very much in the social fabric itself and the availability of opportunities rather than what we did or did not learn.Originally posted by ndmmxiaomayi:He goes one round and shoots back at the US education system. So, do you think he is sincere about it?