Elitism or meritocracy in the UK?
-
Ah well, it's not as if "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" is a new idea.
-
When worldwide economic depression hit again - as in the 1930s - lets see if you and your Oxbridge types will not scramble for the 1k jobs ?Originally posted by oxford mushroom:No point discussing anything with him. He is not capable of any intelligent discussion at all and is only good at flaming others.
Any administrative job offering 10k a year cannot hope to attract an Oxbridge graduate when such graduates in general disciplines of Science and Humanities are offered 20-30k in consultancy jobs.
What is the purpose of your post, if not another one of your regular and useless attempt at self-aggrandizement ?
Your effort at self-promotion is so obvious even when done in an oblique manner, does anyone need to waste time flaming you ? -
Originally posted by Hogzilla:
We should open our view to a wider perceptive, but we should be discerning to those who claim to be 'The Best amongst the Best', and even more 'Superior' simply for the fact that he is a pedigree from Oxbridge.
We should open our view to a wider percepective, so we must welcome everyone to have their own ideas. If not, what difference are we from the Gahmen, who is, controling the media?
Can we accept such boastful claims when such a self-acclaimed mind cannot distinguish the sufferings and agony of poverty ?
Is he suggesting 'that elitism does not exist outside Singapore', or has he implied that Oxbridge is 'THE Elite' amongst all other elites, and will not look at the crumbs that are meant for others ?
Well, so OM is trying to attack our idea that elitism does not exist outside Singapore. Btw, I never say, "elitism does not exist outside Singapore" before. It's just that elitism is spreading it's evil touch to the respectable institutes in Singapore, where it is the cradle for our future leaders. If this idea continue to manifest and not nibbed in the bud, how many Mr Tan Jee Suan will we see in the near future?
If 'being an elite of a society does not mean that the particular person is an elitist' - then how should one interpret what is an 'Elite'[/i] ?
Being an elite of a society does not mean that the particular person is an elitist. Getting into a better school, ended up with a better job with that qualification have NOTHING to do with making that person an elitist. It's the way of thinking that makes one an elitist.
As matters stand, is there any difference between MP Wee and his daughter and the manner in which Oxford Mushroom compare the likes of himself with all other ordinary Singaporeans ? -
Gedanken, your response to OM, Robertteh and my post has opened a new perspective to interpret this thread started by OM.
It will seem that ‘money’ is a necessary evil, but the over emphasis on money has largely destroyed morals and ethics, and it will be a surprise if even the quality of noblesse oblige will stand up to this assault on the human conscience and value system.
Meritocracy is but a thin disguise to keep out competition from any political ‘wannabe’ eager to challenge and change the established system created by the POWER OF ONE.
Yes, the world has changed, and the pace of this change has largely been forced upon the global society by the various GovernmentsÂ’ incessant urgings to change or face oneÂ’s own defeat in the Global Economic Competition.
Can Singapore survive the incompetence of the self-acclaimed Elitist leadership ?
Consider the idiotic waste of US$550 Million invested on the failed Micropolis plant, despite sound advice, and the incorrigible CEO - had boasted that she will follow the same course of action if given another chance. After eight years, we are now facing another crisis created by the incorrigible CEO, who got Singapore and Temasek to buy up the Shin Corp group.
In the short forty-five odd years of Singapore history, Singaporeans have pulled through so many crisis caused by world events, and exacerbated by the inattention of the Singaporean leadership – due to their petty pride, ignorance and incompetence.
Have faith in OURSELVES and the younger Singaporeans, and we will be in position to form the next government -
What a joke! If you chaps form the next government that will be the end of SingaporeOriginally posted by Atobe:
Have faith in OURSELVES and the younger Singaporeans, and we will be in position to form the next government
-
Speak for yourself dude. Your views are simply inclined towards defeating "anti-PAP" sentiments. Hardly the stuff of balanced views. This is probably something which no amount of education can impart.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:What a joke! If you chaps form the next government that will be the end of Singapore 
-
Trying to forget the real question again, mushy? Too bad I'm here to remind you.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:What a joke! If you chaps form the next government that will be the end of Singapore
Please substantiate your claim that, controlling for the different professions' pay scales, Oxbridge graduates earn more than graduates of other universities.
I'm sure that wouldn't be too difficult a challenge for a PhD student. -
Originally posted by oxford mushroom:
It was the ordinary Singaporean Businessmen - without scholarly grades - who have suceeded in Suzhou with a more prudent and modest investment, when the Singapore Government had FAILED miserably despite an army of scholars to advise them.
What a joke! If you chaps form the next government that will be the end of Singapore
Do you seriously think that a bunch of scholars without experience can form the core leadership of Government, compared to the worldly wise ordinary Singaporean businessmen ?
The scholars with their disciplined minds will make good scholarly servants as proven through the ages; and may fair better under the tutelage of the wiser ordinary Singaporeans, if they are willing to humble themselves, and pick-up the threads of those who are more experienced.
Do Singapore need any characters who believe themselves to be mushrooms, but are no better than another parasite plant - that for its own survival and growth, will succour on the strength of other stronger breed in the jungle ?
The majority of Singaporeans will ignore the likes of you, and will not enter into useless debate concerning any outcome of a competition between scholars and non-scholars in the Real World - not until the likes of you will push your boastful obnoxious self into one's face.
You will perhaps have a more intellectually stimulating debate to prove your competence by addressing the issues lined up so clearly by Gedanken. -
It is a relatively simple issue - after 41 years of autocracy or top-down government dependent on the idea of one man and paying the million-dollar salaries and life-long pensions to our elite leaders are our citizens enjoying a better life.Originally posted by Atobe:
Gedanken, your response to OM, Robertteh and my post has opened a new perspective to interpret this thread started by OM.
It will seem that ‘money’ is a necessary evil, but the over emphasis on money has largely destroyed morals and ethics, and it will be a surprise if even the quality of noblesse oblige will stand up to this assault on the human conscience and value system.
Meritocracy is but a thin disguise to keep out competition from any political ‘wannabe’ eager to challenge and change the established system created by the POWER OF ONE.
Yes, the world has changed, and the pace of this change has largely been forced upon the global society by the various GovernmentsÂ’ incessant urgings to change or face oneÂ’s own defeat in the Global Economic Competition.
Can Singapore survive the incompetence of the self-acclaimed Elitist leadership ?
Consider the idiotic waste of US$550 Million invested on the failed Micropolis plant, despite sound advice, and the incorrigible CEO - had boasted that she will follow the same course of action if given another chance. After eight years, we are now facing another crisis created by the incorrigible CEO, who got Singapore and Temasek to buy up the Shin Corp group.
In the short forty-five odd years of Singapore history, Singaporeans have pulled through so many crisis caused by world events, and exacerbated by the inattention of the Singaporean leadership – due to their petty pride, ignorance and incompetence.
Have faith in OURSELVES and the younger Singaporeans, and we will be in position to form the next government
If our citizens within the middle or lower income groups do enjoy a better life with higher wages and less costly homes, then we should continue respecting autocracy and paying the elite leaders this kind of monies.
The problems and issues being debated in many forums including the youngpap are whether the elite leaders have succeeded in their leadership and entitled to be paid higher and higher wages and bonuses of the kind as found in the NKF saga. Can the elite leaders honestly tell the people that they have delivered a value-adding upgraded economy which pay most of the people in the lower and middle income groups higher wages while lowering costs of living and doing business as compared with the 1980s?
Look at what the common men and women are paying for housing, vehicles, utilities and essential services today.
Can the average joes retire at 55s-62s or are the elites still thinking of blaming them for their lack of skills or failures in their own economic restructuring plans over the last three recessions.
If our elite leaders cannot answer positively that they have improved the lot of the common men and women why should the citizens continue to respect what they say and what the controlled newspapers are saying that the leaders have done well and GDPs have gone up.
What are our leaders talking about - are the elite ministers and MPs really successful and should be continued to be paid millions of salaries? -
Haha...do you not have any power of deduction at all? Must everything be laid out for you? Here's a link for the financial sector from the UK government's website..go and do your own research.Originally posted by Gedanken:Trying to forget the real question again, mushy? Too bad I'm here to remind you.
Please substantiate your claim that, controlling for the different professions' pay scales, Oxbridge graduates earn more than graduates of other universities.
I'm sure that wouldn't be too difficult a challenge for a PhD student.
"FRBS institutions deliberately maintain a consistent high profile within an elite group of universities, such as Oxford, Cambridge and other members of the Russell Group, in order to appear a natural choice for high calibre graduates."
http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/77A68583-D0B5-4B33-BAFB-4077DC6D1F3B/0/BC_RS_graduateskills_0610_FR.pdf
Here's something from a career service centre for the banking sector, since you want to focus on one industry:
"Banks want it all – broad experience with specialist expertise, and a newcomer needs to maneuver to avoid getting stuck in just one area. Graduates can be pigeon-holed, says another recruiter: “Organisations are quite rank-based – you are officer grade or not officer grade. If you went to Oxbridge, that opens a lot of doors, so does a good degree from one of the top ten universities.”
Graduates who get stuck can always leave after a year or two. The grads who get into front office roles are likely to stay, while ambitious staff who wind up in back office jobs are apt to leave.
“Some of these programmes are so large a junior person can get lost,” warns Heise. “The person coming in should constantly be looking for their managers and making suggested so they don’t get stuck. Take on responsibility and don’t be content with what you are doing.”
Pay and potential
Anna Symons at IT recruiter McGregor Boyall says a new grad in a bank should have three or four rotations in the first year. Starting salaries should run £25,000-30,000 depending on the quality of the degree. Within two years a top grad with skills such as object-oriented programming could be earning £50,000-£55,000.
Heise at Project Partners says, “It goes without saying that if you have a first class degree from a strong university and you come across well you should not have too much of a problem securing a role in a graduate programme. They are looking for people who can think outside the box and can demonstrate they can suggest solutions or enhance the way existing solutions work.”
One danger for new graduates is coming across as arrogant, Heise says. “I have seen a number who are extremely confident of getting a new role and they have a real problem because they think they are better than they are.”
Symons says grads can help their careers by learning to get along with others in the workplace. “Someone with a First from Oxbridge in science can probably do what they want, if they have the soft skills.” Smart grads learn how to get along, from managing expectations to knowing what to say and what not to say."
http://news.bankingtech.efinancialcareers.com/GRADUATE_ITEM/newsItemId-4577 -
Looks like you're the one who lacks education. You can't tell the difference between an opinion and a fact - where are the facts?
Okay, it looks like you're going to need this one drawn out in crayon for you.
Opinion:
"Ai yoh, jobs so hard to find these days, unemployment is definitely going up".
Fact:
"The unemployment figures were 4.5% in October 2006, compared to 3.5% in October 2005. Unemployment has risen over the past 12 months".
The fact is backed by objective measurements making the stated case self-evident. The opinion is vague and presents no supporting evidence. Can you see the difference, or do you need your Mommy to help you read?
Just because some recruiter is quoted as saying "If you went to Oxbridge, that opens a lot of doors, so does a good degree from one of the top ten universities" does NOT make it true.
Let me spoon feed you even more because it looks like you need it. Compare Oxbridge graduates and graduates from other universities in the same job in the same companies. What salaries are they paid, and is there a systemic difference? If you're going to make your claim that salaries are different and you can't produce the figures to back it up, you haven't got a leg to stand on.
Dear God, I can't believe I have to explain something so simple to a supposed Oxford PhD student - this is something that any first-year undergraduate in any backwater university knows! If the dons at Oxford are going to give you a PhD when you can't even tell the difference between an opinion and a fact, the university's reputation is in more serious trouble than I thought. -
Don't hold your breath, Atobe. Once again, the mush has demonstrated a staggering lack of competence by not being able to distinguish between opinion and fact.Originally posted by Atobe:You will perhaps have a more intellectually stimulating debate to prove your competence by addressing the issues lined up so clearly by Gedanken. -
Go on...rant and flame will not touch me....
Must have touched a raw nerve...lost your job to an elite?
Not surprising for a loser who kiicked out of Singapore to join some racist penal colony with one of the highest crime rates in the world -
Woah, quite a bit of gunpowder smell in here. Seems like we've got the few big forumites of Sgforums in here debating topics related to Elitism.
Question: Lets get to the basic, what is Elitism? Or who do we classify as an elite. Sure there are sterotype, if you go from RI to RJC, you are an elite. If you are a President Scholar, SAF Scholar and so on, you are an elite. But what are the exact criteria and definition of an elite?
The dictionary defines Elite: the most powerful, rich, or talented people within a particular group
Elitism: the belief that a society or country should be ruled by a small group of people who are superior to everyone else.
In Singapore's context, I would believe that elite refers to the most talented people rather than the rich. For all of MM Lee's might and power, if our current PM Lee had been born an idiot or chose not to study hard, he would not be deemed an elite, no? We also often associate elite to top notch schools such as RI, RJC, HCJC. Despite all your critics against PAP, would you not agree with me that generally one's progress within the education system still depends on one's own talent and hardwork. If one's father is a serial killer or earns about $800 per month, you will not be rejected by RJC as long as your results are up to it. On the otherhand, even if your dad or mum is the MP of such and such, if you flunk your O level, you either take a trip oversea or go ITE no?
So an elite in Singapore's term would be one that had displayed their academic talents consistantly from a young age. Elitism in Singapore's context would therefore be to form a government by choosing those that had performed well in school since a young age, irregardless of family background (generally, unless you share my family background)
So.....what's wrong with a society that trains its best students to become the next generation of leaders? I mean the alternative sounds strange, would you rather deliberately not choose the best students to be a state's next generation's leaders?
But I think most people's issue is not with choosing these students as potential leaders, but rather the trend that these leaders do not listen to opinions or at least perceived to be not listening to others, namely the vast majority of the population. I said perceived, because at times it is really hard to actually show that you "listen" to the population. The population is often divided and thus its opinion differs, take the casino as an example, there are people who wants it and those who doesn't want it, poor or rich, the views are diverse. Either decision, the government will appear to be not listening as there are always a part of the population holding opposite view.
Having said so, the transperancy of Singapore government and the lack of independent checks such as Ombudsmen does give rise to suspicious of "how many skelatons are there in the closest?" However, a rise of suspicious cannot amount to a conviction and it would be rather irrationale to equate lack of transperancy to bad governance. China (our partial cultural ancestor), has had Emperors who did very well despite the lack of transperancy. Western thinkers such as Isben in his play "Enemy of the Public" also suggest that the vast majority of a population may not always or rather tend to not, come up with both morally and rationally correct decisions.
The western liberal democracy is really the dominant political theory only in very recent times and it is hardly a panacea. But suffice it to say that Singapore is hardly the only state in the world that has not had all the necessary checks. But even if these checks are in place, there is no guarantee that the government will be better than one without these checks. Checks are artificial and as the Chinese saying goes, Dao Gao Yi Chi, Mo Gao Yi Zhang, people will always find ways to get round the checks. The US for example, is hardly a popular one, but Bush did win both elections, despite the conspirarcy theories out there, the fact remains that a much disliked person currently seats in the Whitehouse.
*its currently late here, and I shall stop here for now but will continue it on another day. And people, with regards to the name callings, try to ease on it. -
Sorry, I really dont agree that high pay for ministers and civil servants is a bad thing.
I think it is one of the main tenets of Singapore's progress.
Singapore has efficient civil service, and people working there are relatively intelligent just like another sector in a private company.
I dont understand really, why is high pay considered bad?
If you want to establish an organization......or a company......you will want to run it with the best people, correct?
Seems to me a little weird why it's considered bad.
I often read about passion, wanting to help others, etc as being mentioned as reasons why people should work in politics with less motivation for money. I just simply dont trust this kind of argument.
I mean, people work. If people work, salary should be given. Serious job with serious salary. I think being a minister is a serious job, technical, intellectual, being in a leadership position in a big organization, dealing with many people.
Really, why is it keep being mentioned as a bad thing?
I keep thinking that this is actually a big strategic advantage for Singapore to have this kind of system. -
I read a bit on this thread about some UK democracy stuff, about power, checks, and so on.
I just have an opinion about this issue.
UK is UK.
Singapore is Singapore.
The people who consists of UK are different with the people who consists of Singapore.
The people living in UK have different culture, different history, different way of talking, than the people living in Singapore.
Their democracy or political system is an expression and manifestation of their society.
In order to follow UK political system, UK democracy, first the people and society of Singapore must change.
But why?
Do you see what I mean?
Also there is another very important thing.
Singapore is a young nation. The founding basics, the foundation of the house is already laid out. The house is already built up, and there is only a certain way to continue to build the house.
If you change the house building process, you must first destroy the existing house and the foundations.
It will be very disorientating. And it will not be the same house anymore.
It will not be 'Singapore' anymore. -
Sorry guys, can I check which university did Mr Li Kar Shing graduated from ?
-
If I may continue with the previous idea.....
Let's take a look at the world around us. Let's take a look at other societies and their political systems.
There are several countries where the government was strong and a party was strong for a long time.
Japan LDP, last time they had a bit problem, but look what happen, now LDP is still in power.
Indonesia Golkar, last time they had also abit problem, but now Golkar is still in power.
Russian experience, after the Soviet Union collapse, look at what happen now, Vladimir Putin is the president. He is former KGB, he is not shy to revoke some things like governor autonomy.
Taiwan KMT, currently having problem in recent time. Possibly return to power with Ma Ying Jeow.
Why.....?????
Because simply in all these cases, the house has already been built for a long time by a certain contractor who laid the basics and work on the house for a long time.
If you change contractor then the house will take new shapes and you will get disoriented with the disruptions and finally you prefer to return to your old contractor.
I really dont think PAP can be unseated, nor will it be good. Nor should.
PAP is Singapore's builders. They are the same people.
The thing of the 'problem' with Singapore is, how should I say, these PAP contractors copy a masterplan from some other contractor instead of using its own masterplan. Singapore is trying to copy a form of democracy, but dont really implement it. Singapore just take UK legal system, UK political system, even UK interior layout of the parliament seats. Have you all noticed?
This is the problem because there will always be people who notice and complain. They notice the masterplan idea is different with the house which got built.
A real pity. Because they are actually pretty good house builders. -
Ah sorry, looks like I digress from the topic title 'Elitism or Meritocracy'.
Firstly this thingy about Elitism......and meritocracy...is just a bit vague to me.
What is this term elitism?
I understand meritocracy, it means based on your ability, isnt it?
If meritocracy is competence, then elitism is a form of meritocracy, is it not?
I sometimes read these sorts of threads on elitism, scholarships, top schools like RJ, etc etc, but I really dont understand the gist of the idea that people are talking about when they say elitism, and how it is supposed to be changed.
Scholarships is a form of meritocracy, correct?
It seems maybe, to me, the bad thing of elitism is, in the meritocracy system some people are so competent that they are ahead, like rich people poor people, and therefore some people think there is a division, there is a gap. Therefore some people say there is elitism.
Ok.....maybe.
But this is like....in capitalist system there is rich and poor, and in meritocracy there is elitism and commonism. Simply something which exists, a by-product. Cannot really be rid of without changing the bigger picture. -
I beg to differ in your view on the Japanese LDP group. The Japanese government of more than 50% opposition mainly The Democratic Party Of Japan and The Shin-Ryokufukai and others in their House of Representatives and House of Councillors.
While the rest of countries that you mentioned has an invisible force behind them i.e the military.
I have no wish to see PAP to be unseated which will probably create a change in our political and economical climate. But I do like to see an healthy opposition group as so to keep the government in check.
Even in UK, there is the Conservative and Labour Party, in US, the Democratic and Republican Party. -
Ah sorry....I actually dont really know much. I only read sometimes, and it seems the LDP secretary general is the PM.Originally posted by miserable:I beg to differ in your view on the Japanese LDP group. The Japanese government of more than 50% opposition mainly The Democratic Party Of Japan and The Shin-Ryokufukai and others in their House of Representatives and House of Councillors.
While the rest of countries that you mentioned has an invisible force behind them i.e the military.
I have no wish to see PAP to be unseated which will probably create a change in our political and economical climate. But I do like to see an healthy opposition group as so to keep the government in check.
Even in UK, there is the Conservative and Labour Party, in US, the Democratic and Republican Party.
What's interesting is the latest part of your post......again we reference to UK and US. Isn't that interesting? Nobody wants to reference to China or whatever.
It maybe is interesting after all.
I mean, maybe, westernization and globalization mean something.
In Singapore, alot of the chattering classes, the intellectuals, and the young people, they look to UK and US. Not to China, the cultural origins of more than 75% of the population composition.
I only have a nagging suspicion about this somewhere in the back of my mind.
That it wont work.
Just a feeling. -
Elitism is an crappie stuff. Can anyone tell me where Mr Steve Job and Mr Steve Wozniak graduated from ? If you know they are.
-
Gee...mate...if we goes into the Chinese way of govern then you and me will not have pleasure of talking craps here. They are Communists i.e you are with them or else in some re-education camp reciting "Our Beloved party and leader is always right. Even so,they are indirectly trying to discard that image and embrace capitalism selectively.
-
Abe Shinzo has not been tested in an election yet, his opposition looks poised to defeat in next year's election, LDP's leadership in Japan might collapse under him.Originally posted by #$%^&*:Ah sorry....I actually dont really know much. I only read sometimes, and it seems the LDP secretary general is the PM.
What's interesting is the latest part of your post......again we reference to UK and US. Isn't that interesting? Nobody wants to reference to China or whatever.
It maybe is interesting after all.
I mean, maybe, westernization and globalization mean something.
In Singapore, alot of the chattering classes, the intellectuals, and the young people, they look to UK and US. Not to China, the cultural origins of more than 75% of the population composition.
I only have a nagging suspicion about this somewhere in the back of my mind.
That it wont work.
Just a feeling.
If we discuss this issue in Mandarin, and Mandarin is our main daily language, I think we might use China's example, but we are using English as our main language, so it's not that difficult to understand why. Besides, we aren't taxi drivers in China, (yes, THEY know politics a lot more than the average Joe in China) how do we know the factions within CCP? CCP kept their mouth shut about this, you find it hard to look for it in their media, neither can you find any trace in our media. Since we are almost ignorant about their politics, how do we use something that we don't know as a reference? -
Do you mean, there should be less emphasis on educational formal qualifications?Originally posted by miserable:Elitism is an crappie stuff. Can anyone tell me where Mr Steve Job and Mr Steve Wozniak graduated from ? If you know they are.
Is that the main idea?
I think formal qualifications are simply there for practical bureaucratic purpose, especially in a big organization like the government, they need to filter many thousands of people, it's there for a purpose, dont you think?
Judging people from formal qualifications, I agree is not good and whole. But I think they just decide to settle on something practical. I mean, it's impossible to interview each person and then develop his hidden potential.