Has government neglected practical broad-based education?
-
I(as posted in reply to SAE in www.findsingapore.net/forum on 13.4.2006)
If the uni graduates are all that good or any good they would be providing people with jobs.
If we go out to do a survey, we might well find that many poly graduates have become bosses after some time on their jobs.
The poly graduates might be the people who become entrepreneurs and bosses to provide jobs and not the uni graduates.
I do not mean that uni graduates are not creative or entrepreneurs. What I mean is that uni graduates are only good in studies and with their degrees usually they want to be employed in high positions and receive comfortable jobs without trying.
Who would be left trying? I would say that when a student is thrown into the university of life, because he has no education or lower education such as the poly graduates, these groups of people usually end up trying some endeavours or businesses which can give them better opportunities to do well.
For four years now, people have given feedbacks to the government about the narrowness of our past academic education system which over-promote uni education. I would say that if a person has one or two good skills or good passions he would do well if he can apply them to their works or businesses.
More entrepreneurs have come out of such uni of life than going to the formal academic education system. So much so that an average citizen is trying to go to the uni as if uni is the be-all end-all of life or education. I would say that applying what we have already learned and liked to do in life will get us further than more degrees and acquiring academic university education system which I consider was a big mistake.
I have asked for more practical education or broad-based education to be introduced since posting in Feedback Unit from 2002.
How many people are applying knowledge in science and technology to create new technology start-ups in Singapore? No wonder we are now losing out in technology and business entrepreneurship as compared with the average Chinese in mainland China or the Koreans.
The fault lies in our pro-academic education system and the way government has been promoting their top elites with high academic education as scholars to the neglect of normal entrepreneurship and broad-based knowledge-application practical education.
I have also pointed out that our EDB has been too narrow in only promoting scholars. They should holistically promote practical knowlege application by all in every field to create more knowledge workers and forget about all the hype about scholars.
If our elitist leaders have listened long ago to people's feedbacks they would not end up begging every body for investments. This is a heavy price our government pays for neglecting to promote their own people and only promote themselves or their own kind. -
actually, uni students or grads are catching up nowadays. i believe everybody has the potential to be their own bosses; its juz whether there is a need to risk and demand for new business.. and there is that need now.
-
Motivation is greater if one is an underdog. Underdog has a good chance to make it. Top dog will keep waiting to save face and want the plum job.Originally posted by Ito_^:actually, uni students or grads are catching up nowadays. i believe everybody has the potential to be their own bosses; its juz whether there is a need to risk and demand for new business.. and there is that need now.
Let's hope the new uni graduates are now practically trained to become knowledge workers in various fields and are differently motivated. They should change their mindset and go on to start businesses of their own as soon as possible rather than always waiting to be employed.
Broad-based practical knowledge application in the poly counts a lot in motivating students to start their own business.
Academic education equipping students with abstract ideas and concepts will prepare them mostly for general employment. -
you are refering to one of them here.. -
as the business expands these poly grads by hook or by crook have to go take a degree or even masters to run the business.
-
Sorry need lot of capital and also goes against cheap "foreigner talents" here.Originally posted by vito_corleone:as the business expands these poly grads by hook or by crook have to go take a degree or even masters to run the business. -
Why is it always the onus on the government to provide ? Not that I support PAP blindly .
Parents have a large part to play in educating their children about life lessons and that a decent job , no matter how lowly paid it is or unprestigious , is still a job. Not just teachers or the government.
It is up to the individual to decide how he wants to progress . I think Singaporeans are becoming too reliant on the government . Just because PAP makes the decisions , doesn't mean you can just rely on it. It is up to you to make your own decisions and plan your own future. If you think that just because you graduated from uni ,you get a job . Sorry wrong thinking.
Academic education is just a tool to get a person a job. The rest is up to how you want to make out of it. It is just not about qualifications, it is also about social networks , how to achieve results at work, and how you can use it to your best interests, it is also about practicalities of life and how you apply it. No one will teach you that. -
When a poly graduate makes good by applying his practical knowledge application and become a successful entrepreneur, I notice such a poly graduate will usually go to the uni to do his degree or master.Originally posted by vito_corleone:as the business expands these poly grads by hook or by crook have to go take a degree or even masters to run the business.
I notice that such a person usually further his study not because his continuing study in the uni will make him more effective but rather more successful in the eye of society. People have come to regard uni education as an end in itself without realizing what he might be losing out in other wothwhile endeavours.
If he stays on committed to pursue what he is good at and continue to practise and apply his field of excellence, he may be doing just as well. It does not follow that his continuing education will make him more effective but certainly in the eye of society he seems more accomplished having a uni education to cap his entrepreneur status.
This state of affair has I believe partly the result of our system of academic education which promote education for education sake degree for better recognition. Whether or not a uni graduate will be more useful to a person depends ultimately on his passion to apple his knowledge or his areas he is passionate in. -
well, is it the goverment, or our asian and rather confuscian society's mindset that prompts everyone to strive for higher education ? ... which parent or child would not want to be able to one day stand beside their offsprings wearing motar board and gown for photograph at a university lawn ? ... I don't think it's so much about the goverment promoting it, as the people wanting it, else there wouldn't be more polys and ITEs than Universities then, eh ? .... I don't mind telling you that to be able to take that set of pictures with my parents weaing a mortar board and gown is one of the key reasons I'm still a slave to books right now ... I have no illusions that a degree would get me a comfy life right now, in Singapore or anywhere else for that matter, degrees are 3 for $10 out on the job market now anyways, ... but still, wouldn't you like to see your children wearing the gown one day too ? ... I would.Originally posted by robertteh:I(as posted in reply to SAE in www.findsingapore.net/forum on 13.4.2006)
If the uni graduates are all that good or any good they would be providing people with jobs.
If we go out to do a survey, we might well find that many poly graduates have become bosses after some time on their jobs.
The poly graduates might be the people who become entrepreneurs and bosses to provide jobs and not the uni graduates.
I do not mean that uni graduates are not creative or entrepreneurs. What I mean is that uni graduates are only good in studies and with their degrees usually they want to be employed in high positions and receive comfortable jobs without trying.
Who would be left trying? I would say that when a student is thrown into the university of life, because he has no education or lower education such as the poly graduates, these groups of people usually end up trying some endeavours or businesses which can give them better opportunities to do well.
For four years now, people have given feedbacks to the government about the narrowness of our past academic education system which over-promote uni education. I would say that if a person has one or two good skills or good passions he would do well if he can apply them to their works or businesses.
More entrepreneurs have come out of such uni of life than going to the formal academic education system. So much so that an average citizen is trying to go to the uni as if uni is the be-all end-all of life or education. I would say that applying what we have already learned and liked to do in life will get us further than more degrees and acquiring academic university education system which I consider was a big mistake.
I have asked for more practical education or broad-based education to be introduced since posting in Feedback Unit from 2002.
How many people are applying knowledge in science and technology to create new technology start-ups in Singapore? No wonder we are now losing out in technology and business entrepreneurship as compared with the average Chinese in mainland China or the Koreans.
The fault lies in our pro-academic education system and the way government has been promoting their top elites with high academic education as scholars to the neglect of normal entrepreneurship and broad-based knowledge-application practical education.
I have also pointed out that our EDB has been too narrow in only promoting scholars. They should holistically promote practical knowlege application by all in every field to create more knowledge workers and forget about all the hype about scholars.
If our elitist leaders have listened long ago to people's feedbacks they would not end up begging every body for investments. This is a heavy price our government pays for neglecting to promote their own people and only promote themselves or their own kind.
I agree on the broad based bit, but not the practical bit, I'm an SP alumni myself, and one of the greatest dangers of an overly technical education is skill obsolescence ... even though I was in a relatively static field of study (mech eng), practical stuff like drafting programs and CAD/CAM skills get eroded very fast, practical education in this present age should be an oxymoron, cos what's really worthwhile would be the academic fundamentals that underpins every technical field, knowing more about calculus, mechanics, etc, would be more valuable I think, than learning to manipulate sophisticated machines or programs ... these knowledge sets transcends what ever current technology there is. The onus is on the individuals to upgrade, update, and keep up, cos there's only so much that can be picked up in a classroom ... heck, I wished there were more on thermodynamics and higher calculus in the curriculum ! ...
And of course, there are certain skillsets that simply cannot be taught in the classroom, be it practical, broadbased, or academic education. I started up a little import/export business while in my final year in poly, and got ripped off big time, people were taking my goods and refusing to pay left right and center, of course, classrooms can never teach you to tell a cheat from an honest chap ... for those who wants to take the entreprenuerial leap, the MBA from the univerisity of life is a requisite eh ? ... I think this is a truism in any society.
The broadbased education I have in mind encompasses a lot more things, three chief points being the cultivation of a stronger moral compass in the people, and graciousness in the people. Ethics and Moral compasses are contentious points of course, businessmen here may snigger at this of course, perhaps it stemmed from my awful experience during my business foray, so let's leave that aside eh, but graciousness and the civic mind are important things that makes Singapore bearable ... like it or not, we live in a pressure cooker, pigeon coops are a fact of life for our society, we don't have wide open spaces, nor can we gurantee everyone enough privacy or living space for everyone, but what would make it bearable, and indeed, liveable would be the courtesy and consideration that we show for each other, I am so comfortable where I am now, despite the run-ins with a few racists and rednecks now and then, and I can tell you it's not the cost of living (heck, higher than Singapore's anyways), it's not the wide open spaces, nor the price of owning a car, nor the pace of life, but people's general attititude towards one another, holding doors open for the person behind you, saying sorry when you bump into someone, driving with consideration, knowing not to litter in parks, being sensitive to each other's cultures and religions, generally being courteous and considerate to each other as human beings, this is what really makes a society a desirable place to call home. Okay, I got carried away there, but this is something that has to be urgently addressed, I feel, as more and more people gets crammed onto this little island. How to do that ? ... social engineering ? goverment campaigns of yesteryears ? ... I think, rather, it's up to you and I, and everyone else, to do something about that, not depend on the goverment for action. If we think the goverment doesn't have all the answers, why should we be looking towards them for solutions anyways ? ....
last point about the education system, we have got to get rid of the pathological benchmarking tendency in our society, yes you're right, marks isn't everything. Even though it is, and always will be, without a doubt, one of the best, if not often the only way to gauge one's ability, we as a society has forgotten that benchmarking is a means to an end, not an end in itself, something is wrong when we have a veritable industry built around forecasting questions and exam techniques for major exams. This mentality manifests itself in the way many statutory boards and govermet organizations operate too, every one of them are keen on ISO certification, everything is a statistic to be counted, measured, and benchmarked. Why would ISO certification make Tekong training school produce better soldiers for example, or the amount of money collected by a military unit for the yearly army half marathon be a performance benchmark ? ... you know it's a pathological condition when students ask how many points they would get towards their ethics modules. -
Those with high moral standards shouldn't even be doing business, if u feel guilty from ripping people off. Like u selling something for $100 when u only pay $10.
-
doing that is one thing ..... not paying for them is another .... (ironically, I ran into a few of my debtors during NS afterwards ... two of them were officers coming back for their reservist stint, and i ran into them at a CPX .... chaps didn't even have to face to acknowledge me then ... aren't officers supposed to be pillars of integrity ? .... )Originally posted by Ole:Those with high moral standards shouldn't even be doing business, if u feel guilty from ripping people off. Like u selling something for $100 when u only pay $10.
there is a difference between being a smart businessman and a dishonest businessman you know ... -
like doh ... its not the government, its what an individual makes of an education offered..if u choose to apply the knowledge, good for you. if u study blindly its your own fault not the government's.Originally posted by robertteh:I notice that such a person usually further his study not because his continuing study in the uni will make him more effective but rather more successful in the eye of society. People have come to regard uni education as an end in itself without realizing what he might be losing out in other wothwhile endeavours. -
Originally posted by vito_corleone:if u study blindly its your own fault not the government's. can the government redmove the blind spot..so that our future generation can avoid study "blindly".
-
I think it is good to encourage our students to study hard and ultimately receive uni education wherever one can and wherever financial means permits.Originally posted by Fatum:well, is it the goverment, or our asian and rather confuscian society's mindset that prompts everyone to strive for higher education ? ... which parent or child would not want to be able to one day stand beside their offsprings wearing motar board and gown for photograph at a university lawn ? ... I don't think it's so much about the goverment promoting it, as the people wanting it, else there wouldn't be more polys and ITEs than Universities then, eh ? .... I don't mind telling you that to be able to take that set of pictures with my parents weaing a mortar board and gown is one of the key reasons I'm still a slave to books right now ... I have no illusions that a degree would get me a comfy life right now, in Singapore or anywhere else for that matter, degrees are 3 for $10 out on the job market now anyways, ... but still, wouldn't you like to see your children wearing the gown one day too ? ... I would.
One should always improve himself or herself educationally. Better still go for lifelong education.
However, university education or degree-acquisition education, should not become blind pursuit as there exist in life many more challenges.
In the past, the educational system appears to be too academic and general aimed at passing examinations with the highest grades without being too concerned with applying what one has learnt in works and business.
Students try to go to uni to acquire degrees e.g. laws, business adm, accountancy etc without regard to future needs in job market or our economic competitiveness.
It will be wasteful to educate the population in this manner - education for education or degree sake.
Many working adults today still believe in blindly educating themselves to obtain degrees for their own sake with many turning to uni to acquire degree just to have better self-esteem although they may not even need those knowledge to be more successful in whatever they are doing.
The relevant question to ask of our educators should be: do we equip students with knowledge that they can apply after the uni? Should our students be equipped with implementation of their learned or acquired knowledge in works or business start-ups ? Judging from the examination questions and syllabuses it will be found the education is mainly concerned with passing of examinations rather than relevance of competency in works or applications.
We are a Confucian society no doubt and as parents we usually wish our children to go for education and proud to have our photographs taken of them wearing the mortar boards.
Yet, the greater challenge in the new technology age, is not about education for education sake or paper chase but how to compete in technology application to raise standards of living.
That is why I have posted to Feedback Unit since 2002 against such blind pursuit of academic general education to broad-based practical learning where knowledge learned can be applied even in class to stimulate interests in practical application in real future jobs and businesses.
Broad-based education system is being practised by Finnish and Swiss people equally smaller countries, which has benefited their people excel in wider areas of "Knowledge application approach".
Some ministers have gone to these countries recently to try learn about broad-based education and knowledge application. Have they anything to report or recommend? What changes can be made to upgrade our academic general education to broad-based education approach urged by the people.
If we are too slow to change we might soon find that we are producing more and more highly or overly qualified people who become unemployed. Such look back to the last two deep recessions, to see how hopeless was our education.
If we want more students to become our future knowledge workers then we have to start at "O" level or even primary level. Then we can say our future generation will be able to start up new technology applications.
I hope our EDB will not keep talking about attracting foreign talents or producing more scholars. It should holistically go for knowledge application, researches and innovation so that the students are ready and well prepared to seize opportunities in all these challenges.
I think we should educate people for ther future jobs or business start-ups through practical applications and innovations and not just lip service.
Our ministers have not done enough in such areas of knowledge application aspects. It is time to find new challenges and open up and empower the masses.
More need to be done to open up new opportunities through knowledge application and empowerments of the people.
There seems to be restraint or conservativeness in seeking new ideas and challenges to make greater progress. Our ministers' constant talk to build a value-adding and technology-driven economy will not happen until there is real change in education.
We ought to have more action- and result-oriented ministers who are able to make quick changes to solve fundamental problems caused by past policies which are mainly too narrow in conceptions and not open to mass participation. The new ministers need to be nimble to seize new opportunities in technology and knowledge application fronts.
The ministers in charge of EDB, MOM, MOE. MTI should be action-type of ministers and try to justify past policies and become more rhetorical and conceptual. So far very little has been made to upgrade the economy after so many economic restructuring exercises.
It is no use trying to appear on TV to outtalk or outwit journalists or students to gross over shortcomings.
It will be counter-productive trying to control the younger generation in their interactions in blogs with all sorts of top-down conceptualisation of sedition act.
Try new venues to get people more committed to building social and cultural vibrancy which will better stabilise our country.
Or else the stability will be at stake. It will be paranoid to keep worrying about people's criticism of government policies or wrongs. By starting on knowledge application approach in education government will learn better how to empower people to make a fresh good start. Have confidence in your leadership to open up and all will be well.
In the past leaders have been talking about concepts: (a) FT (b) investment creation (c) academic education (d) meritocracy. So far our leaders are losing in big ways in empowering and motivating people.
Today we need to identify and get people to accept greater challenges: (1) promoting practical knowledge application at all levels and (2) innovate and prepare through more broad-based practical education to create new technology start-ups like what the Taiwanese did with the promotion of IT back in the early 1970s.
We have produced many scholars who have become yesmen in cabinet not knowing how to come up with overall plan to enable the average citizens to compete and do well.
During the period of my work in various fields, I have found that many engineers have forgotten their formulas or knowledge due to lack of practical application.
I have found many non-graduates are able to excel in what they are doing through exposures in applying knowledge even in one or two specific fields of whatever they have learned. There is no reason students cannot be better schooled and trained through knowledge application training to prepare them ahead of life.
....to continue...(see next post) -
...Continued from previous post:
I agree on the broad based bit, but not the practical bit, I'm an SP alumni myself, and one of the greatest dangers of an overly technical education is skill obsolescence ... even though I was in a relatively static field of study (mech eng), practical stuff like drafting programs and CAD/CAM skills get eroded very fast, practical education in this present age should be an oxymoron, cos what's really worthwhile would be the academic fundamentals that underpins every technical field, knowing more about calculus, mechanics, etc, would be more valuable I think, than learning to manipulate sophisticated machines or programs ... these knowledge sets transcends what ever current technology there is. The onus is on the individuals to upgrade, update, and keep up, cos there's only so much that can be picked up in a classroom ... heck, I wished there were more on thermodynamics and higher calculus in the curriculum ! ...
The conceptual training of a student to make him able to think and do well in general areas of works and vocation is important. These areas might be too general too with graduates forgetting what they have learned after some years.
The broadbased education I have in mind encompasses a lot more things, three chief points being the cultivation of a stronger moral compass in the people, and graciousness in the people. Ethics and Moral compasses are contentious points of course, businessmen here may snigger at this of course, perhaps it stemmed from my awful experience during my business foray, so let's leave that aside eh, but graciousness and the civic mind are important things that makes Singapore bearable ... like it or not, we live in a pressure cooker, pigeon coops are a fact of life for our society, we don't have wide open spaces, nor can we gurantee everyone enough privacy or living space for everyone,.
It will help if they could learn more practical technology and business applications which they could use and apply soon after graduation to accomplish something more tangible and more enduring in entrepreneurship and creativity areas.
There have been much surveys which show that our best students are not able to think independently and pursue their knowledge in wider areas of endeavours.
Therefore while conceputal learning is important such learning is only the most basic and not strategic enough to take us higher up the value chains. There is a need for our million-dollar ministers to demonstrate they have the ability transform the whole economy and mobilise the people to meet greater challenges mentioned. The case of education for education sake versus education for innovations and knowledge application is for them to ponder in the midst of their leadership renewal. -
Originally posted by Fatum:I agree on the broad based bit, but not the practical bit, I'm an SP alumni myself, and one of the greatest dangers of an overly technical education is skill obsolescence ... even though I was in a relatively static field of study (mech eng), practical stuff like drafting programs and CAD/CAM skills get eroded very fast, practical education in this present age should be an oxymoron, cos what's really worthwhile would be the academic fundamentals that underpins every technical field, knowing more about calculus, mechanics, etc, would be more valuable I think, than learning to manipulate sophisticated machines or programs ... these knowledge sets transcends what ever current technology there is. The onus is on the individuals to upgrade, update, and keep up, cos there's only so much that can be picked up in a classroom ... heck, I wished there were more on thermodynamics and higher calculus in the curriculum ! ... The technology may erode very fast, the basis is still the same. Hence, with a good foundation, the rest are nothing.
-
exactly ... but isn't that what I said ? ...Originally posted by king108: The technology may erode very fast, the basis is still the same. Hence, with a good foundation, the rest are nothing. 
-
Originally posted by Fatum:exactly ... but isn't that what I said ? ... Next time go to the point straight...I studied no much..
-
if the government is God..then yes. but unfortunately, noOriginally posted by king108: can the government redmove the blind spot..so that our future generation can avoid study "blindly". -
Everything is always easier said than done.
How do you define broad-based education and how do you even teach it?
Whether one goes to Uni or not does not matter. If one has the drive to go be an entrepreneur he will be one regardless of Poly or Uni. Poly is no entrepreneur factory. -
The practical knowledge application contents referred to can be found in various courses taught in polytehnics where the teaching is to equip students with projects or trades skills so as to prepare them to go into businesses and be entrepreneurs one day.Originally posted by jianfish9:Everything is always easier said than done.
How do you define broad-based education and how do you even teach it?
Whether one goes to Uni or not does not matter. If one has the drive to go be an entrepreneur he will be one regardless of Poly or Uni. Poly is no entrepreneur factory.
To a certain extent, certain courses at the university e.g. medicine, architecture, civil/structural engineering too prepares student to be their own bosses one day. Medicine and lawyers now dominate our courses but these do not spin our export-drives to earn foreign exchange. Many such traditional courses only serve us in domestic consumption which is not giving us the value-added technology-driven new competitive edge.
Vocational institutes and ITE too and many private schools offering trade-related courses will equip students of all streams to do well in life.
Academic education e.g. general science, art, sociology, economics and many others have been taught for years and students from such faculties cannot find jobs easily or set up their own business, trade practices etc or new technology start-ups. We have now too many traditionally trained lawyers who cannot do much in technology areas except to be ligitious or adminster but the latter workers are seldom able to contribute much in new technology environment.
We are critically short of business-oriented talents and entrepreneurs to start new industries of the future which require knowledge workers in such areas such as IT designers, bio-tech researchers and new-age nano-engineers and professionals.
By changing the academic type of uni education to technology driven types of courses and equipping students with applications and knowledge on start-ups of ventures, we can create more future new ventures from new talents who will be good in starting new businesses and trades. -
that's not the government's fault that people dont start big businesses...its the people that can't or are unwilling to take risks to do soOriginally posted by robertteh:The practical knowledge application contents referred to can be found in various courses taught in polytehnics where the teaching is to equip students with projects or trades skills so as to prepare them to go into businesses and be entrepreneurs one day.
To a certain extent, certain courses at the university e.g. medicine, architecture, civil/structural engineering too prepares student to be their own bosses one day. Medicine and lawyers now dominate our courses but these do not spin our export-drives to earn foreign exchange. Many such traditional courses only serve us in domestic consumption which is not giving us the value-added technology-driven new competitive edge.
Vocational institutes and ITE too and many private schools offering trade-related courses will equip students of all streams to do well in life.
Academic education e.g. general science, art, sociology, economics and many others have been taught for years and students from such faculties cannot find jobs easily or set up their own business, trade practices etc or new technology start-ups. We have now too many traditionally trained lawyers who cannot do much in technology areas except to be ligitious or adminster but the latter workers are seldom able to contribute much in new technology environment.
We are critically short of business-oriented talents and entrepreneurs to start new industries of the future which require knowledge workers in such areas such as IT designers, bio-tech researchers and new-age nano-engineers and professionals.
By changing the academic type of uni education to technology driven types of courses and equipping students with applications and knowledge on start-ups of ventures, we can create more future new ventures from new talents who will be good in starting new businesses and trades. and have you ever considered political factors? if there were so many huge local businesses to challange the GLC's...where the hell would the government exploit...*ehhmm... make their money from? large businesses mean political influence and surely the dynasty doesnt want any challange to their influence.. and have u been to university? a university course is also a largely academic one with lectures, tutorials, reports, thesis etc...if not where the hell are you going to get knowledge if not from books? you think so much opportunity to intern here and there ah? like this might as well go and work. -
I think you have missed my point. I am not suggesting that the government is totally wrong. People have their shortcomings. But education can be more creative and holistic keeping an eye on preparing students to become more entrepreneurial and ready to start up his own trades or businesses.Originally posted by vito_corleone:that's not the government's fault that people dont start big businesses...its the people that can't or are unwilling to take risks to do so and have you ever considered political factors? if there were so many huge local businesses to challange the GLC's...where the hell would the government exploit...*ehhmm... make their money from? large businesses mean political influence and surely the dynasty doesnt want any challange to their influence.. and have u been to university? a university course is also a largely academic one with lectures, tutorials, reports, thesis etc...if not where the hell are you going to get knowledge if not from books? you think so much opportunity to intern here and there ah? like this might as well go and work.
Such an education system whether at the uni or poly will go a long way towards making the economy competitive.
Any objection to such a suggestion? If we do not recognise our shortcoming and introduce improvements to our academic education system as posted with examples, we might be caught with structural unemployment as feared by many people. If there is something the government can do to make the education system more relevant to the needs of industries and jobs whey not?
My suggestion stems largely from my observation that many of our engineers and professions do not practise what they have learned and such knowledge or degrees as they have acquired are in a way wasted.
Had they started in schools knowledge applications in specific areas of passion even in arts, music, cooking, hostel or business management, IR management, they will be more effective with whatever they may be doing in later life. A collorary of this is the life-long learning people have been talking about for sometime now. To be excellent in vocation, trades or professions, the primary success factor is passion, dedication and determination.
So I have given my points and illustrations with example on how there could be more knowledge applications in the course of learning with projects identified to equip student to cast their thinking on how to be more competitive as knowledge workers in later life.
Such education approach or philosophy I am sure will not cost us anything but we will have a great deal of gains as students will become more passionate being involved in real work and applications. A lesson on computer is a good example of practical knowledge application at work where students are immediately exposed to practical works like designing and application of different parts of IT. How good if all students become passionate in something rather than being overly driven to pass examinations alone for examination sake.
Such practical knowledge application will provide an alternative to our narrow academically driven grade driven meritocracy approach in training up our talents. There will then be larger mass participation instead of confining the choice of our best to the few good in academic study. We will enlarge oru talent pools as a result.
So I believe it is right to emphasise on preparations to help students to start their own businesses and become bosses, a great deal of our problems can be solved.
May be people have short memory, Singapore was hit by mass retrenchments numbering by hundreds of thousands during the last two prolonged recession
with many academic graduates from uni finding problems in securing jobs. They will have no problem if they are practically trained in uni to excel in usable application packages beyond laws, social sciences, art and general degrees. -
erm......Robert, I think ur idea of broad-based education is true and false to certain extent. Yes, true, entrepreneurship is veri important and creating some international brand names for our country is veriimportant. BUT, not everi one is keen or totally excited abt being a successful businessmen like u. Singapore as a country needs to have various ppls with different skill base to cater for different sectors of the economy. Both Polytechnic and University are two different education approach that caters for different audience, BUT at the same time being absolutely vital to Singapore...... Poly's approach like wat u say from all your previous posts, teaches wat the industries require or wat is expected and at the same time introduce some business skills for the student. While university concentrates more on academic and R & D stuffs......
Yes, true, u do not need a degree to do business or become a successful entrepreneur. But in the Science and engineering arena, it just boils down to upgrading of skills and knowledge based economy. I would like to point out that one of the previous poster laments on how his skills become obsolent after time and how he wished he studied more on thermodynamics. By moulding students to the requirements of the industry or just plainly teaching the hands on stuffs may look like a smart move........ as the students are able to get jobs immediately. But, in this process the students may face problems of being obsolete in a few years time, unless he upgrade himself. With the advent of globalisation and internet revolutions, new stuffs are coming up very quickly. Thus if ur education is just solely based on skills, a huge amount of the population will become obsolete. Thus many poly students go to the uni to study, is to upgrade themselves, not solely because they want to be more social-norm accepted. I'm currently a student from NTU, watever I typed above is based on my interaction with frens from poly that enter NTU. I'm not trying to defend the uni system or try to down play the poly system. But more of to show a more balanced picture.
In the past my teachers have been talking abt the challenge the rising China and India have on Singapore. In the past, I dun understand, but after first-handed experiencing in the campus itself, I starting to feel the heat. NTU is literally turning to a mini China or India. Many of these folks come from all over China or India under the government scholarship. Throngs after throngs. We also must not forget China and India by in their homeland, are both growing at an amazing rate. A China fren of mine from Fujian once told me that his area itself have at least 8 to 10 technological university and countless number of polytechnic.
. This really serve as a wake call to me to strive harder and push myself harder so a to survive the competition. Cheap, abundant resources and manpower, China and India are slowly eroding all the manufacturing sector and also some low level R & D stuffs. Thus for Singapore to survive, we must go for those veri high end R & D things. Even in Singapore, we could see China and Indian nationals taking up jobs like engineering here. Bcos they are veri cheap, for every Singaporean, u can employ 4 to 5 of theirs. To make a matter worst, many of the China ppls need to serve a 6 yrs bond and may even be offere PR-ship if they choose to stay. Just to quote u how large the China wave is......... I'm currently studying material engineering, which is a course having onli 8yrs history and onli a small student population. But you could see quite a fair number of PRCians. Why? Bcos the EEE faculty is SATURATED with their own citizens, so they try their luck in this field instead. Dun worri, soon, MSE is going to be SATURATED too 
-
what has a bad economy got to do with education? what about the early 90s then before the dot com bubble burst when companies were practically begging graduates(who btw did not recieve a very "broad-based education given singapore's then system) to join them?? actual fact there is no such perfect education system if there were everyone would be super rich entrepreneurs by now..nature dictates there must be workers and there must be employers..if every one was capcable and rich this world would not exist. do you happen to have somewhat distorted neo-marxist ideals?Originally posted by robertteh:I think you have missed my point. I am not suggesting that the government is totally wrong. People have their shortcomings. But education can be more creative and holistic keeping an eye on preparing students to become more entrepreneurial and ready to start up his own trades or businesses.
Such an education system whether at the uni or poly will go a long way towards making the economy competitive.
Any objection to such a suggestion? If we do not recognise our shortcoming and introduce improvements to our academic education system as posted with examples, we might be caught with structural unemployment as feared by many people. If there is something the government can do to make the education system more relevant to the needs of industries and jobs whey not?
My suggestion stems largely from my observation that many of our engineers and professions do not practise what they have learned and such knowledge or degrees as they have acquired are in a way wasted.
Had they started in schools knowledge applications in specific areas of passion even in arts, music, cooking, hostel or business management, IR management, they will be more effective with whatever they may be doing in later life. A collorary of this is the life-long learning people have been talking about for sometime now. To be excellent in vocation, trades or professions, the primary success factor is passion, dedication and determination.
So I have given my points and illustrations with example on how there could be more knowledge applications in the course of learning with projects identified to equip student to cast their thinking on how to be more competitive as knowledge workers in later life.
Such education approach or philosophy I am sure will not cost us anything but we will have a great deal of gains as students will become more passionate being involved in real work and applications. A lesson on computer is a good example of practical knowledge application at work where students are immediately exposed to practical works like designing and application of different parts of IT. How good if all students become passionate in something rather than being overly driven to pass examinations alone for examination sake.
Such practical knowledge application will provide an alternative to our narrow academically driven grade driven meritocracy approach in training up our talents. There will then be larger mass participation instead of confining the choice of our best to the few good in academic study. We will enlarge oru talent pools as a result.
So I believe it is right to emphasise on preparations to help students to start their own businesses and become bosses, a great deal of our problems can be solved.
May be people have short memory, Singapore was hit by mass retrenchments numbering by hundreds of thousands during the last two prolonged recession
with many academic graduates from uni finding problems in securing jobs. They will have no problem if they are practically trained in uni to excel in usable application packages beyond laws, social sciences, art and general degrees.