Our Young best US Students, but fizzle out as Adults
-
ok, perhaps boot licking and pandering to the whims and fancies of the boss.Originally posted by ndmmxiaomayi:I agree with you.
But sucker doesn't seem like a very good word to use. -
survival of the fittest yes, except in our case fitness is very much about how well you pander to the interests of your boss and not about your creativity and ingenuity. so if fitness is judged primarily by the degree to which you conform, isn't this fitness a bit skewed? doesn't it favour the empty vessel who doesn't really contribute to society? if there's so much politics around how does true ingenuity and creativity surface? how does it help society as a whole?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 ?
it doesn't take a genius to understand the rules of the game and at the end of the day people do bend backwards. but it's like instead of bill gates working on his windows creation, we have bill gates joining some bureacratic organisation and thinking of how to boot lick and survive instead.
if you were in microsoft, you can argue with bill himself and still end up right. because of that, things often go right than wrong. here in order to survive, you end up doing what you're told when deep inside you know it's crap. -
Originally posted by robertteh:
Human mind like the computer has many parts i.e. memory, system inputs and output controls, coordinations, etc and CPU architectures.
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.
that is exactly what i feel is not the case. our education system isn't about memory and regurgitation. how can a memory chip compute complex mathematical problems? that obviously has to be performed by the CPU isn't it?
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.
theoretical yes, conceptual certainly. that's why little of what we learn in school can be applied in working life. but that does not mean it is rote learning or anything less rigorous. yes it is learning for learning's sake rather than acquiring skills that would someday provide for our livelihood but i think that's fine at the high school level.
you can try to teach entrepreneurship in schools but at the end of the day, bill and many entrepreneurs left school to become entrepreneurs.
teach creativity perhaps but what good is that if at the end of the day you have no place to show it? earlier someone mentioned and i agweed that art of survival is all about politics - not creativity. so while we emphasize teaching creativity yet we do not provide an avenue for creativity to be expressed later on in life. something's still amiss right? and it isn't in the schools. we don't have top notch institutions and corporations in which our talents and creativity can be expressed. many eventually do so only when they left for the states.
application of knowledge is well provided for in our polytechnics.
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.
emphasising on academics we have been but not memorising nor regurgitating. "promote knowledge applications" can already be found in our polytechnics. as such the only "fault" you might find in our school system is probably the 'A' level syllabus, which can perhaps be less theoretical and more hands on. even so, what we did not learn is not nearly as important as there is no place for us to put our talent to good use. what we didn't learn in school we can always learn later in life. but if there's no place for our creative energies to be put to good use, what can we do except to go to the states? -
I don't agree with teaching creativity. Creativity is something that belongs to you, not something that can be taught.Originally by snow leopard:theoretical yes, conceptual certainly. that's why little of what we learn in school can be applied in working life. but that does not mean it is rote learning or anything less rigorous. yes it is learning for learning's sake rather than acquiring skills that would someday provide for our livelihood but i think that's fine at the high school level.
you can try to teach entrepreneurship in schools but at the end of the day, bill and many entrepreneurs left school to become entrepreneurs.
teach creativity perhaps but what good is that if at the end of the day you have no place to show it? earlier someone mentioned and i agweed that art of survival is all about politics - not creativity. so while we emphasize teaching creativity yet we do not provide an avenue for creativity to be expressed later on in life. something's still amiss right? and it isn't in the schools. we don't have top notch institutions and corporations in which our talents and creativity can be expressed. many eventually do so only when they left for the states.
application of knowledge is well provided for in our polytechnics. -
Everybody has the capacity to innovate, no matter how small or large that capacity is. Although creativity cannot be taught, creativity can be fostered in an environment whereby a student is allowed to think out of a box. Sadly, the environment in our school today fails to foster creativity. Often, creativity manifests itself as challenging authority at an early stage before it can be developed into something substantial. In order to think out of the box, one must understand/know the boundary of the box. In order to understand/know the boundary of the box, is it not common sense to experiment with the boundary of the box? Challenge one's common sense, challenge what one's taught, to explore the cause-and-effect phenomena.Originally posted by ndmmxiaomayi:I don't agree with teaching creativity. Creativity is something that belongs to you, not something that can be taught.
There is an inherent assumption that the teacher must always lead the class in learning, and not the other way round. The education system in Singapore has been producing students to think within the box because all these year, what we were taught essentially, is the box. We were not given opportunities to challenge ourselves in the various "what-if" out-of-the-box scenarios. When students seek or create such opportunities, they are often ridiculed or scruntinised because these actions are not initiated by our teachers/lecturers. It all make it seems that only teachers should initiate any learning processes because the teacher is perceived to have the authority to do so, and not the student. Does this not agree with the MOE statement that creativity can be taught? This does not make our education system a meritocracy. It makes our education system a technocracy. -
Yes, I agree that environment factor is an important and critical factor which will make a difference to our chance of success in developing social and cultural vibrancy for innovations and application of knowledge.Originally posted by geodome:Everybody has the capacity to innovate, no matter how small or large that capacity is. Although creativity cannot be taught, creativity can be fostered in an environment whereby a student is allowed to think out of a box. Sadly, the environment in our school today fails to foster creativity. Often, creativity manifests itself as challenging authority at an early stage before it can be developed into something substantial. In order to think out of the box, one must understand/know the boundary of the box. In order to understand/know the boundary of the box, is it not common sense to experiment with the boundary of the box? Challenge one's common sense, challenge what one's taught, to explore the cause-and-effect phenomena.
There is an inherent assumption that the teacher must always lead the class in learning, and not the other way round. The education system in Singapore has been producing students to think within the box because all these year, what we were taught essentially, is the box. We were not given opportunities to challenge ourselves in the various "what-if" out-of-the-box scenarios. When students seek or create such opportunities, they are often ridiculed or scruntinised because these actions are not initiated by our teachers/lecturers. It all make it seems that only teachers should initiate any learning processes because the teacher is perceived to have the authority to do so, and not the student. Does this not agree with the MOE statement that creativity can be taught? This does not make our education system a meritocracy. It makes our education system a technocracy.
For example, if our supreme leader is a lawyer or accountant he may not go for technology application as he will not know enough about such areas to become passionate in wanting to excel in such areas.
The populations might not have as much motivation or opportunity for knowledge or technology application.
If the ministers are lawyers they will pay their attention on controls and regulations and might neglect areas concerning industrial upgrade and economic competitiveness.
Our leaders and their background knowledge will affect the environments and will to that extent determine whether we will become competitive or excellence in entrepreneurship or innovations.
They will affect the environments and make the difference to whether they apply enough energy and resources to motivate their subordinate to go for introduction of new technology and innovations.
Singapore has been led by lawyers, architects, engineers and generalists who so far did not impart such passions to the populations. Today, our schools still produce general academicians who do not have any particular ideas about the need to bring in new technology start-ups. -
yes and no. yes in the sense that some people are by nature full of ideas whereas others are more straight forward. each has its merits depending on purpose. no in the sense that we can all train our minds to be a bit more explorative, to push the boundaries of the box as mentioned by geodome.Originally posted by ndmmxiaomayi:I don't agree with teaching creativity. Creativity is something that belongs to you, not something that can be taught. -
yes good point. the character of a nation takes after the character of its leaders. a leader who is orderly, tidy and loves greenery will make sure that the nation is orderly, tidy and full of greenery. a leader who is most proud of his mastery of language will mould the nation towards perfection of that language. if he thinks that politics is the ultimate holy grail, then all our top brains get drafted into politics and military. who else is left to lead our technological breakthroughs?Originally posted by robertteh:Our leaders and their background knowledge will affect the environments and will to that extent determine whether we will become competitive or excellence in entrepreneurship or innovations. -
Yet, despite the importance of political leadership and controls, it is even more important if not more critical to achieve an advanced value-adding technology breakthrough.Originally posted by snow leopard:yes good point. the character of a nation takes on the character of its leaders. a leader who is orderly, tidy and loves greenery will make sure that the nation is orderly, tidy and full of greenery. a leader who is most proud of his mastery of language will mould the nation towards perfection of that language. if he thinks that politics is the ultimate holy grail, then all our top brains get drafted into politics and military. who else is left to lead our technological breakthroughs?
Leaders ought to understand that technology upgrade is the most overwhelming goal of all goals in order achieve the next level of economic competitiveness.
Since 1970s, there have been a lot of talk about upgrading the economy but there is very little achievement in this area.
New leaders must therefore be found who have the passions to develop our talents to stay committed to whatever they are doing by applying knowledge in their respective fields or professions.
The Japanese have done after WWII and now the Koreans have done that too. Our own talents are being left stranded due to a certain lack of emphasis in promoting their practical knowledge application. Singapore has been overtaken by so many others.
This lagging in technology drive is partly the result of our leaders neglecting the importance of motivating their own home-grown talents and spending too much energy in politicking, controls, justifications and clinging on the remnants of their limited past success. -
Snowleopard answered my question in (1).Originally posted by snow leopard:
(1) the character of a nation takes after the character of its leaders.
(2) if he thinks that politics is the ultimate holy grail, then all our top brains get drafted into politics and military[/quote]
(1) Good point. Guess which character is our nation takes after, of our leaders?
(2) Politics is indeed the ultimate holy grail in Singapore. Who here doesn't envy a minister?
[quote]Originally posted by snow leopard: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.
Clearly the criteria of success in our education system is not the same as the criteria of success in our work culture. This discrepancy has to be addressed. Perhaps, this is where the USA education system had succeeded, and ours - failed.Originally posted by robertteh: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.
Originally posted by snow leopard:
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?
Good students have good academic results. Both brilliant students and brilliant workers are able to apply their skills effectively for their future employers, but brilliant students have good academic results.Originally posted by robertteh: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. -
Originally posted by snow leopard:
Empty vessels will soon expose themselves as nothing more then being loudly empty.
survival of the fittest yes, except in our case fitness is very much about how well you pander to the interests of your boss and not about your creativity and ingenuity. so if fitness is judged primarily by the degree to which you conform, isn't this fitness a bit skewed? doesn't it favour the empty vessel who doesn't really contribute to society? if there's so much politics around how does true ingenuity and creativity surface? how does it help society as a whole?
it doesn't take a genius to understand the rules of the game and at the end of the day people do bend backwards. but it's like instead of bill gates working on his windows creation, we have bill gates joining some bureacratic organisation and thinking of how to boot lick and survive instead.
if you were in microsoft, you can argue with bill himself and still end up right. because of that, things often go right than wrong. here in order to survive, you end up doing what you're told when deep inside you know it's crap.
Not all bosses will respond to being succoured - especially those who are successful will be able to differentiate those truly talented from those who are good at nothing but simply to put on a good show.
For the BOSS, at the end of the day, it is the bottom line that counts.
In your very unfortunate scenario that paint the boss who likes his boots being licked - I have seen quite a few of such bosses, and they are no better then being SENIOR EMPLOYEES - not truly THE BOSS of the Business.
Surely any owner of his own business - such as Bill Gates - will be adverse to anyone pandering up to him and licking his boots ?
Even in Communist China's Deng Siow Peng - with a closed and heirachical system of government - and in his late years, he was able to differentiate between the white cat and the black cat, and will not favor either one AS LONG AS THE MOUSE IS CAUGHT.
Good luck to the cat that cannot get the mouse. -
that should be the case, ideally speaking. however in reality and in our society, the bill gates kind of boss are few and far between. more prevalent are the ones who politicised themselves up and who would not be as discerning or as appreciative of real talent as bill would.Originally posted by Atobe:Empty vessels will soon expose themselves as nothing more then being loudly empty.
Not all bosses will respond to being succoured - especially those who are successful will be able to differentiate those truly talented from those who are good at nothing but simply to put on a good show.
For the BOSS, at the end of the day, it is the bottom line that counts.
In your very unfortunate scenario that paint the boss who likes his boots being licked - I have seen quite a few of such bosses, and they are no better then being SENIOR EMPLOYEES - not truly THE BOSS of the Business.
Surely any owner of his own business - such as Bill Gates - will be adverse to anyone pandering up to him and licking his boots ?
Even in Communist China's Deng Siow Peng - with a closed and heirachical system of government - and in his late years, he was able to differentiate between the white cat and the black cat, and will not favor either one AS LONG AS THE MOUSE IS CAUGHT.
Good luck to the cat that cannot get the mouse.
ideally too, bottom line should count at the end of the day. but we know in the public sector which forms a sizeable portion of our economy, bottom line doesn't count as much as politics. how can bottom line count when they're not even earning a single cent but are in fact spending billions of dollars? being protected, the GLCs aren't much better. it's like the bottom line has already been drawn for them so they can sit back, shake leg or politicise their way up.
yes there are a lot of these useless senior employees around. i'm not saying all senior employees are useless. in fact, there are many well experienced senior employees who are surprisingly innovative and dedicated. but these are usually the working class. because like you yourself admitted, it is not innovation or dedication that propels you up but politics. so at the end of the day, the decision makers are those who know next to nothing except politicking and self-protection.
also, there are so many layers of senior employees, even if we have a good boss, how does he get to know the good work of the cat who caught the mouse? by the time word filtered up to him, it would've been "the senior cat taught the junior cat to catch the mouse" or "the mouse was actually caught by the senior cat who by srength of his vocal powers propelled the junior cat towards the right moves in the right direction with the right results".
you don't have to wish the useless cat good luck ... she has nine lives and a long way to go still ... -
Office politics will always exist. Compared to those who see the 'black' and the white' and function accordingly, these scum of the earth prefer to deal in backstabbing and bootlicking. Prima Donna facets of human nature.Originally posted by snow leopard:yes there are a lot of these useless senior employees around. i'm not saying all senior employees are useless. in fact, there are many well experienced senior employees who are surprisingly innovative and dedicated. but these are usually the working class. because like you yourself admitted, it is not innovation or dedication that propels you up but politics. so at the end of the day, the decision makers are those who know next to nothing except politicking and self-protection.
also, there are so many layers of senior employees, even if we have a good boss, how does he get to know the good work of the cat who caught the mouse? by the time word filtered up to him, it would've been "the senior cat taught the junior cat to catch the mouse" or "the mouse was actually caught by the senior cat who by srength of his vocal powers propelled the junior cat towards the right moves in the right direction with the right results".
In GLCs, where multi-layered hierachies exists to create the facade of regular promotion, many private and lean companies operate by REMOVING inefficient management levels; Former CEO of GE Jack Welsh coined the term 'downsizing' by retrenching numerous SUPLUS 'managers' during his tenure, re-inventing the term LEAN and was famously quoted: 'managing less is managing more'. This ensured that both the workforce and directive remained focused and streamlined, preventing the top down message from getting warped or lost along the way.
He was also renowned for having a sharp eye and recognizing talents and efficient staff WITHOUT the need for aides to point them out.
A typically astute leader need not require assistants to sing genuine praises of certain talented and capable individuals. It is more than likely that they get noticed by such people.
The same may not be said of GLC Managers who may be overly-sheltered if they have not felt the hard and tumble of the merciless economy. -
On what criteria do u judge the USA education system to be inferior to us on the whole? And actually, what do u define as "on the whole"?Originally posted by snow leopard: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. -
don't argue with ignoramuses like him...its like trying to reason with a baboon.Originally posted by pikamaster:On what criteria do u judge the USA education system to be inferior to us on the whole? And actually, what do u define as "on the whole"?
-
results. we do better on international tests. they're even adopting our text books. many of us who got into their ivy leagues do better as well. going by results, our basic education is on the whole better. but i suppose we can do with better universities, that's where we lose out.Originally posted by pikamaster:On what criteria do u judge the USA education system to be inferior to us on the whole? And actually, what do u define as "on the whole"?
we've been harping on education time and time again. everytime we come out short in the real world, we always go back and ask ourselves is there something wrong with our education. time and time we have tinkered with it and the results are still the same. perhaps its time we asked ourselves is it more than just education? is there something else, somewhere else that needs improvement? hey that's thinking out of the box isn't it? why do we keep thinking within the education box? -
why, you couldn't out argue me last time so you resort to calling names? you have good vocabulary, but it doesn't cover up for your lack of reasoning ability.Originally posted by vito_corleone:don't argue with ignoramuses like him...its like trying to reason with a baboon. -
Originally posted by BillyBong:
yeah it would be good for the nation if we can have more jack welshes than jack asses
In GLCs, where multi-layered hierachies exists to create the facade of regular promotion, many private and lean companies operate by REMOVING inefficient management levels; Former CEO of GE Jack Welsh coined the term 'downsizing' by retrenching numerous SUPLUS 'managers' during his tenure, re-inventing the term LEAN and was famously quoted: [b]'managing less is managing more'. This ensured that both the workforce and directive remained focused and streamlined, preventing the top down message from getting warped or lost along the way.
He was also renowned for having a sharp eye and recognizing talents and efficient staff WITHOUT the need for aides to point them out.
A typically astute leader need not require assistants to sing genuine praises of certain talented and capable individuals. It is more than likely that they get noticed by such people.
The same may not be said of GLC Managers who may be overly-sheltered if they have not felt the hard and tumble of the merciless economy. [/b] -
snow leopard,Originally posted by snow leopard:results. we do better on international tests. they're even adopting our text books. many of us who got into their ivy leagues do better as well. going by results, our basic education is on the whole better. but i suppose we can do with better universities, that's where we lose out.
we've been harping on education time and time again. everytime we come out short in the real world, we always go back and ask ourselves is there something wrong with our education. time and time we have tinkered with it and the results are still the same. perhaps its time we asked ourselves is it more than just education? is there something else, somewhere else that needs improvement? hey that's thinking out of the box isn't it? why do we keep thinking within the education box?
I think the question is: what have we been harping on in education? You practically answered that question yourself: results. There is too much focus on academic results. Academic results is the box within education that our students (me included) are placed in. Education is meant to prepare children for tehir adult life, not to train them to attain top grades in academic competitions, unless attending maths and science olympiads is going to be their furture career. Although I don't agree that schools should teach students how to suck up to superiors - for one, that's immoral; for another many students already do that pretty well without being taught how to do so - I do believe more desirable social skills such as communication skills or conflict resolution skills need to be taught in schools. "Social Skills" has somehow become limited to learning how to fine-dine and dress like Victorian (not referring to VJC or VS) courtesans. So what if students can do all that? Social skills doesn't just involve how to appear properly formal and cultured; that can be a showy pretence after all. Social skills include how to resolve arguments, deal with bullies, communciate one's intentions, opinions and ideas etc. All these are NOT covered within any part of the current curriculum.
the pikamaster (who thirsts after education reform) -
Isn't that too short-sighted? Results play a small part whether or not we will be successful in life work. You can be the better student, but if you can't apply it to the real world, it is as good as wasting your time and money to study.Originally posted by snow leopard:results. we do better on international tests. they're even adopting our text books. many of us who got into their ivy leagues do better as well. going by results, our basic education is on the whole better. but i suppose we can do with better universities, that's where we lose out.
we've been harping on education time and time again. everytime we come out short in the real world, we always go back and ask ourselves is there something wrong with our education. time and time we have tinkered with it and the results are still the same. perhaps its time we asked ourselves is it more than just education? is there something else, somewhere else that needs improvement? hey that's thinking out of the box isn't it? why do we keep thinking within the education box?
The education system here can be improved, but the thing is can we accept it? ITE was a technical school which was popular with students when Singapore just gained independence because we needed a lot of technicians. As time passes by, we find technical education getting lesser and lesser important. It is still regarded to be second class education, despite reforms.
Singapore says she wants to a tech hub, science hub and financial hub. Let's just say we concentrate on science hub. Science is not just theory alone. You need to conduct experiments. We spend more than half our time memorizing facts from textbook. We don't really spend a lot of time conducting experiments. How could we produce good scientists and even establish a science hub? -
Agreed.Originally posted by pikamaster:snow leopard,
I think the question is: what have we been harping on in education? You practically answered that question yourself: results. There is too much focus on academic results. Academic results is the box within education that our students (me included) are placed in. Education is meant to prepare children for tehir adult life, not to train them to attain top grades in academic competitions, unless attending maths and science olympiads is going to be their furture career. Although I don't agree that schools should teach students how to suck up to superiors - for one, that's immoral; for another many students already do that pretty well without being taught how to do so - I do believe more desirable social skills such as communication skills or conflict resolution skills need to be taught in schools. "Social Skills" has somehow become limited to learning how to fine-dine and dress like Victorian (not referring to VJC or VS) courtesans. So what if students can do all that? Social skills doesn't just involve how to appear properly formal and cultured; that can be a showy pretence after all. Social skills include how to resolve arguments, deal with bullies, communciate one's intentions, opinions and ideas etc. All these are NOT covered within any part of the current curriculum.
the pikamaster (who thirsts after education reform) -
In USA or SOME other countries, students are encounraged to speak up during class, challenge the status quo and really "learn".
In sg, students are told to shut up in class and memorize everything the teacher teaches.
You may think that the sg system allows sg students to score well in all our exams but think again, are they being taught to "learn"? Do locals learn to "learn"? Do we question what we have and ask, "how can I make it better?"
I am studying a IT related course in a major university in sg. In year 1, most of my friends have a passion for a certain aspect of IT. Some love programming, others enjoy electronics. Many like to assemble computers or set up really good wireless networks.
By the time they graduate, most do not want to enter the IT line because they are so sick of computers and IT! Some hate IT with a passion!
Is this the kind of passino for learning sg gives its students? Is this the quality of professionals that are being churned out by the local education system?
While I'm not slamming the local educational system as I feel a lot of effort and brilliance have gone into setting up the system, I am questioning, are the authorities serious about producing quality, highly skilled populace who can innovate (I think that might include questioning the norm) and give sg her competitive edge? Or are we happier churning out robots who can do nothing other than following orders and recite rules and regulations?
While the govt blames the peasents (the category that I fall into) for being too stupid to get a head and too reliant on the govt (expecting a nanny state), the ppl blame the govt for doing nothing even though they are paid million dollar salary...
The children of ministars are being sent overseas for education where SOME of them eventually become quitters.
If sg education is so flawless, why do ministars send their children overseas for education? -
pikamaster,Originally posted by pikamaster:snow leopard,
I think the question is: what have we been harping on in education? You practically answered that question yourself: results. There is too much focus on academic results. Academic results is the box within education that our students (me included) are placed in. Education is meant to prepare children for tehir adult life, not to train them to attain top grades in academic competitions, unless attending maths and science olympiads is going to be their furture career. Although I don't agree that schools should teach students how to suck up to superiors - for one, that's immoral; for another many students already do that pretty well without being taught how to do so - I do believe more desirable social skills such as communication skills or conflict resolution skills need to be taught in schools. "Social Skills" has somehow become limited to learning how to fine-dine and dress like Victorian (not referring to VJC or VS) courtesans. So what if students can do all that? Social skills doesn't just involve how to appear properly formal and cultured; that can be a showy pretence after all. Social skills include how to resolve arguments, deal with bullies, communciate one's intentions, opinions and ideas etc. All these are NOT covered within any part of the current curriculum.
the pikamaster (who thirsts after education reform)
yes it's true that over emphasis on grades can lead to neglect in other parts of human development. but if that were the whole truth and nothing more, then shouldn't the japanese, koreans and taiwanese who like us also place great emphasis on grades have faltered as well in producing world beating technologies and entrepreneurs? instead we find japanese firms amongst the world's best, koreans are beginning to make their presence felt and the taiwanese have aces like acer. did these countries de-emphasised grades?
i think it's more of the character of the nation. how the nation regards its engineers and scientists compared to say army scholars and politicians. of the sort of opportunities that exist for one to explore one's potentials. even if we give our students all the freedom to pursue the interests they desire, what good would that amount to if at the end of the day they step out into society only to realise that the best opportunities in this country belong to the select few and in select fields remotely connected to their passions and interests? or that the only way they can make a living is to join one of those industries our leaders have envisioned to be the hope for our future? what else except to go overseas to pursue dreams which many have done?
look at microsoft. the engineers can come to work as and when they like, dress in any fashion they desire, even stay at home when they don't feel like coming to work or challenge the boss without trepidation or repercussions and still at the end of the day produce the best results any boss would be proud of. we don't need these "how to resolve arguments", "how to communicate" crap. we need engineers with passion to lead engineers with passion. that's all. -
Originally posted by ndmmxiaomayi:
Isn't that too short-sighted?
so what should we do? postphone judgement of our education until we're 40 years old? evaluate the success of our education by how successful we are at 40? bill gates's success can be attributed to the quality of education he received at elementary or even high school? never mind that the rest of his class didn't make it as far as he did, his success means their education has been good?
from the time you complete your basic education to the time you make that world astonishing discovery, you would have crossed many hurdles. each of those hurdles can make or break your career. so how much of what you've learnt when you were 15 do you attribute to your success at 45?
i think it's appropriate to judge the outcome of our education on its intended purpose. is it the purpose of our education, particularly at the primary and secondary level, to nuture the next bill gates? a bit far fetched isn't it? the way i see it, basic education is about literacy, basic values, competency in fundamental subjects and if we excel at them we should give ourselves a pat on the back.
Results play a small part whether or not we will be successful in life work. You can be the better student, but if you can't apply it to the real world, it is as good as wasting your time and money to study.
yes and no. yes in the sense that results or for that matter education in general does not determine why we aren't the next bill gates. bill gates is where he is, not because of results, neither is it because of education. he is where he is because he is basically smart. education does not change that. in addition, i would say he was at the right place at the right time in a social environment with the critical mass to adopt his innovation. there is definitely more to that and you're right, results or for that matter education is the least of those factors.
no in the sense that whoever we are, education paves the road for our attainment of our next level. in every step of the way, education can be the key to opening up doors never mind it isn't the only determining factor.
please do not think it is a waste of time, money or energy to study at the primary or secondary levels. very little of what you learn at this stage will be applicable eventually in later life but that doesn't mean what you've learnt would go to waste. basic mastery of all the cumulative discoveries and learnings of our time brings us up-to-date with civilisation. otherwise we would be no different from our forefathers a 100 years ago wouldn't we? in addition, it serves as a foundation with which to go farther.
Singapore says she wants to a tech hub, science hub and financial hub. Let's just say we concentrate on science hub. Science is not just theory alone. You need to conduct experiments. We spend more than half our time memorizing facts from textbook. We don't really spend a lot of time conducting experiments. How could we produce good scientists and even establish a science hub?
if you're spending half your time memorising facts from textbooks you're learning the wrong way. you need to understand the theories and concepts. only when they make sense to you do they become second nature to you. only then would learning be an inspiration as opposed to an exasperation.
you're right in the sense that some people must see the results for themselves to appreciate what is being taught. that is ok. otherwise, you can try and reason it out and it should make equal sense. einstein understood many things simply by thinking about them and through thought experiments. he left the actual experiments to other scientists. -
i can understand your frustrations with our university education. i went through it and fully appreciate its futility.Originally posted by SilverPal:In USA or SOME other countries, students are encounraged to speak up during class, challenge the status quo and really "learn".
In sg, students are told to shut up in class and memorize everything the teacher teaches.
You may think that the sg system allows sg students to score well in all our exams but think again, are they being taught to "learn"? Do locals learn to "learn"? Do we question what we have and ask, "how can I make it better?"
I am studying a IT related course in a major university in sg. In year 1, most of my friends have a passion for a certain aspect of IT. Some love programming, others enjoy electronics. Many like to assemble computers or set up really good wireless networks.
By the time they graduate, most do not want to enter the IT line because they are so sick of computers and IT! Some hate IT with a passion!
Is this the kind of passino for learning sg gives its students? Is this the quality of professionals that are being churned out by the local education system?
While I'm not slamming the local educational system as I feel a lot of effort and brilliance have gone into setting up the system, I am questioning, are the authorities serious about producing quality, highly skilled populace who can innovate (I think that might include questioning the norm) and give sg her competitive edge? Or are we happier churning out robots who can do nothing other than following orders and recite rules and regulations?
While the govt blames the peasents (the category that I fall into) for being too stupid to get a head and too reliant on the govt (expecting a nanny state), the ppl blame the govt for doing nothing even though they are paid million dollar salary...
The children of ministars are being sent overseas for education where SOME of them eventually become quitters.
If sg education is so flawless, why do ministars send their children overseas for education?
i accept that we need to learn basic theories and concepts at primary or secondary levels but by the time we reach university, when we're preparing for the workforce, the least we're interested in are theories. number 1 we need skills that would make us marketable, that would give us jobs. number 2 we want to play around with things a bit more, tinker with more sophisticated toys or work on meaningful projects that can bring out our ingenuity. perhaps this is where we lag behind ...
as for speaking up, it depends on context. imprecise subjects like humanities, business or economics yes there's a lot of room for debate and exchange but for scientific concepts or engineering principles there isn't a lot to argue over. yes we can have discussions to probe deeper into the subject matter but there isn't as much room for judgement.