Our Young best US Students, but fizzle out as Adults
-
so the purpose of our great, world-beating education system is? produce unquestioning citizens who go on to achieve nothing in life?Originally posted by snow leopard:must i repeat myself? read for yourself next time ...
"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."
oh yes and fyi they did a survey most of the working adults in sg hardly know what photosynthesis is....and its supposedly taught in our great primary schools which place great emphasis on science. -
memory chips? i'm afraid i don't live in the world of The Matrix.Originally posted by snow leopard:your memory that bad? why don't you go change your memory chips instead? smart ass -
there are so many questions here and many more in the kopitiams. who says we aren't questioning? and not achieving anything in life is due to what we didn't learn in primary school rather than lack of opportunities in life? did they happen to interview the lau ah pecks in some old folks home who only knew the word "photo"?Originally posted by vito_corleone:so the purpose of our great, world-beating education system is? produce unquestioning citizens who go on to achieve nothing in life? oh yes and fyi they did a survey most of the working adults in sg hardly know what photosynthesis is....and its supposedly taught in our great primary schools which place great emphasis on science. -
then don't sound like oneOriginally posted by vito_corleone:memory chips? i'm afraid i don't live in the world of The Matrix. -
well pikamaster, i suppose it may not be an issue to me but since it is an issue to many people, it is an issue nonetheless.Originally posted by pikamaster:Your statement merely evades the issue.
a few issues:
1. ours is an exam meritocracy not a talent meritocracy. what it means is that unlike in the US, here the exam smart ones are the ones favoured, not necessarily the talented ones. it is true indeed that it is the school that identifies you to be smart or not (exam wise perhaps). but eventually who gets to decide that the exam smart ones are the ones who succeed eventually? is it the school? or is it the society or the govt?
we don't have to compare with a faraway country like america to see the difference between exam meritocracy and talent meritocracy. we only need to look at the difference between the multinationals here and our govt. in the multinationals, you can be just a poly grad but if you perform better than the graduate, you would be promoted over the grad. but in the govt, the poly grad will always remain second class citizen compared to his graduate counterpart.
so who is practising exam meritocracy at the end of the day? the school? no, the school just decides who are the smarter ones (exam wise maybe). at the end of the day, it is society or rather it is the govt that practises exam meritocracy to its extremes. in other words, schools are mere executioners of exam meritocracy. the real drivers of exam meritocracy are in fact the very people who governs this country.
what it also implies is this. we have generations upon generations of scholars that have risen on the basis of exam meritocracy and not talent meritocracy. in other words, there are many people up there today running our country who are not true talents but mere scholars. perhaps that's why so many top level initiatives like Suzhou failed. so should we blame some of our exam smart but not talented leaders for our current economic quandary or should we simply acknowledge that they are no talents and step down instead? -
of late we keep asking ourselves, how come we're not producing enough entrepreneurs? how come we've not seized business opportunities like skype? these are supply questions which doesn't address demand side considerations that are equally if not more important. demand drives supply more often than not. when we're not supplying the right kind of stuff, perhaps we don't have the right sort of demand?
what i mean is this. the american market is so huge, any bizarre new idea has a good chance of finding enough critical mass of enthusiasts for it to take off. that is why ideas come into fruition more often than not there as compared to here. here the demand is not only limited but also not as sophisticated. that's why very often, our own entrepreneurs (suppliers of new ideas, new products) only succeed when they took their products into the US. Mr Sim's idea may have been conceived here but it only took off when it was brought to the states. Same for the stix toy.
hence, it may not be that we're not good enough but simply that our stage is too small so that making it big means having to go straight into the world stage and missing that nurturing stage in our own backyard. -
I agree with you. It's like in China. Only top scholars who studied in China universities will be at the top post. Overseas Chinese top graduates are second class.Originally posted by snow leopard:well pikamaster, i suppose it may not be an issue to me but since it is an issue to many people, it is an issue nonetheless.
a few issues:
1. ours is an exam meritocracy not a talent meritocracy. what it means is that unlike in the US, here the exam smart ones are the ones favoured, not necessarily the talented ones. it is true indeed that it is the school that identifies you to be smart or not (exam wise perhaps). but eventually who gets to decide that the exam smart ones are the ones who succeed eventually? is it the school? or is it the society or the govt?
we don't have to compare with a faraway country like america to see the difference between exam meritocracy and talent meritocracy. we only need to look at the difference between the multinationals here and our govt. in the multinationals, you can be just a poly grad but if you perform better than the graduate, you would be promoted over the grad. but in the govt, the poly grad will always remain second class citizen compared to his graduate counterpart.
so who is practising exam meritocracy at the end of the day? the school? no, the school just decides who are the smarter ones (exam wise maybe). at the end of the day, it is society or rather it is the govt that practises exam meritocracy to its extremes. in other words, schools are mere executioners of exam meritocracy. the real drivers of exam meritocracy are in fact the very people who governs this country.
what it also implies is this. we have generations upon generations of scholars that have risen on the basis of exam meritocracy and not talent meritocracy. in other words, there are many people up there today running our country who are not true talents but mere scholars. perhaps that's why so many top level initiatives like Suzhou failed. so should we blame some of our exam smart but not talented leaders for our current economic quandary or should we simply acknowledge that they are no talents and step down instead?
JC graduates : top Chinese students from Chinese universities
Poly graduates : top Chinese students from overseas universities -
Whether our stage is too small, I can't decide.Originally posted by snow leopard:of late we keep asking ourselves, how come we're not producing enough entrepreneurs? how come we've not seized business opportunities like skype? these are supply questions which doesn't address demand side considerations that are equally if not more important. demand drives supply more often than not. when we're not supplying the right kind of stuff, perhaps we don't have the right sort of demand?
what i mean is this. the american market is so huge, any bizarre new idea has a good chance of finding enough critical mass of enthusiasts for it to take off. that is why ideas come into fruition more often than not there as compared to here. here the demand is not only limited but also not as sophisticated. that's why very often, our own entrepreneurs (suppliers of new ideas, new products) only succeed when they took their products into the US. Mr Sim's idea may have been conceived here but it only took off when it was brought to the states. Same for the stix toy.
hence, it may not be that we're not good enough but simply that our stage is too small so that making it big means having to go straight into the world stage and missing that nurturing stage in our own backyard.
The reason why our products have to go straight to overseas is because Singaporeans don't see a need. How many Singaporeans last time would want a good sound system? There's no demand here, that's why Mr Sim went overseas.
Another reason is because Singaporeans are brought up to be non risktakers. As you said, there is a good chance that entrepreneurs here will find critical mass support overseas or enthusiasts rather than here. If they want their business to succeed, where would they go? Logically, it would be to go overseas.
I remember my enterprise teacher said that for a product to sell, you have to create a need, whether or not the product is needed. Take for example Pilot pens. They are either ball point pens or ink pens. But why is that they keep coming up with different designs around the same thing yet managed to sell well? They could create a need. If you saw their advertisements, you would know what I mean. What Singaporeans entrepreneurs lack is they don't know how to create a need, so they go overseas where the need is already provided for them. -
Originally posted by ndmmxiaomayi:
The reason for Mr Sim bringing CREATIVE out of Singapore was that he could not get any Singapore Banker to provide him a loan to make his dream into a reality.
Whether our stage is too small, I can't decide.
The reason why our products have to go straight to overseas is because Singaporeans don't see a need. How many Singaporeans last time would want a good sound system? There's no demand here, that's why Mr Sim went overseas.
Another reason is because Singaporeans are brought up to be non risktakers. As you said, there is a good chance that entrepreneurs here will find critical mass support overseas or enthusiasts rather than here. If they want their business to succeed, where would they go? Logically, it would be to go overseas.
I remember my enterprise teacher said that for a product to sell, you have to create a need, whether or not the product is needed. Take for example Pilot pens. They are either ball point pens or ink pens. But why is that they keep coming up with different designs around the same thing yet managed to sell well? They could create a need. If you saw their advertisements, you would know what I mean. What Singaporeans entrepreneurs lack is they don't know how to create a need, so they go overseas where the need is already provided for them.
There were no Singaporean Bankers trained to be RISK TAKERS - much like a VENTURE CAPITALIST - they were more into the role of Shylock.
Mr Sim found a gold mine of Venture Capitalists in the USA, and managed to get listed into the NASDAQ, which became a role model that our Singapore Stock Exchange copied in forming our own SESDAQ.
Even with the creation of our own SESDAQ, and with more Venture Capitalists being licensed and encouraged to take up residency, many Singaporean entrepreneurs and inventors still continue to face an uphill tasks in getting any venture capital to get their dreams turned into reality.
Those Singapore Banks that are privately owned, are averse to step into the Venture Capitalist Role.
The Government owned bank will want the new venture to take on a GLC, or some approved Private Investor, to be a larger stake-holder partner, so as to spread the risk of the venture capital loan to this new enterprise. -
i agwee with most of what you say. the only thing i wish to add is that perhaps pilot pens could be so well marketable here is because it already is in japan? that is to say, the japanese love for all things nice, who demands the best pens there are in the world, is the need that drives the creation of the top notched pilot pens so when they come here, because there are no other pens with the same quality, they sweep our market off its feet ...Originally posted by ndmmxiaomayi:I remember my enterprise teacher said that for a product to sell, you have to create a need, whether or not the product is needed. Take for example Pilot pens. They are either ball point pens or ink pens. But why is that they keep coming up with different designs around the same thing yet managed to sell well? They could create a need. If you saw their advertisements, you would know what I mean. What Singaporeans entrepreneurs lack is they don't know how to create a need, so they go overseas where the need is already provided for them.