Elitism or meritocracy in the UK?
-
Don't worry, this won't happen. Their children were educated that way since they were toddlers, plus there is always counsellors in schools (from primary to Uni) making sure that they are thinking correctly. I visited my distance relative last year and I saw my cousin's patriotic study's textbook (Ya, I suppose that they make some time out for these lessons), I was like, "Huh?"Originally posted by miserable: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.
Btw, you know that there is a riot in an university in Jiang'xi going on, I think. ("I think" is for the "going on" part)? These things never found it's way to our news network right?
-
No, do not get me wrong. Education is a must but I personally feel, to judge a person's abilities with the number of As he obtain is a no no.
Looks at those successful people in the world, are all of them from so called elite insituation ?
Even former US president, Mr Ronald Reagan who bankrupted USSR an Harvard or Princeton graduate ?
For that I rested my case -
You are correct, I agree with you. Im just saying they need it for practical purpose, like something doable and quick. They see how is your academic results or maybe plus CCA, stuff.
You are also correct, not all great people have formal qualification. With meritocracy, they can still become successful.
I think elitism is just a tool to apply meritocracy quickly. -
Haha... what is new ? I gave up long time liaoOriginally posted by Hogzilla:Don't worry, this won't happen. Their children were educated that way since they were toddlers, plus there is always counsellors in schools (from primary to Uni) making sure that they are thinking correctly. I visited my distance relative last year and I saw my cousin's patriotic study's textbook (Ya, I suppose that they make some time out for these lessons), I was like, "Huh?"
Btw, you know that there is a riot in an university in Jiang'xi going on, I think. ("I think" is for the "going on" part)? These things never found it's way to our news network right? -
So that's your answer, huh?Originally posted by oxford mushroom: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
Where are the numbers? Where are the figures? Where's the evidence?
Can't produce it, can you? Of course not - you know why?
Because your point simply cannot be substantiated by facts - you've pulled yet another nonsensical argument out of this air.
You can bleat all you want about flaming, but it doesn't get around the fact that you still cannot substantiate your claim that an Oxbridge degree garners a higher wage.
As for the rest of your little theories, I'll have to disappoint you in saying that I've never failed to get a job I applied for, nor have I ever lost a job. Your information about Australia being a penal colony is more than 150 years out of date, but then again I've never seen a lack of facts bother you. -
Good points all, wisefool, but I'd like to clarify the key question here. It's not a case of whether or not someone should be rejected for a role because he/she is from an elite school.Originally posted by wisefool83: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.
The implication of your defintion of elitism is that anybody that is not from that select group is automatically deemed unfit to perform the role. The question is: is this a sound approach?
If only members of that small group are deemed to be capable, we'd be hard pressed to explain the success of the examples put forward by miserable, amongst other examples who are well known to the general population. These people constitute contrary evidence to the implication of elitism - where you studied neither makes nor breaks you.
Elitism proposes that your worth is defined by who you are. I suggest that a more realistic approach is that your worth is defined by what you do.
According to elitism, Sim Wong Hoo ought to be scratching out a living soldering PCBs for $1400 a month. Yet, going by what he's done, it's quite easy to understand how he's achieved what he has.
On the flip side, coming from a certain background is no guarantee of quality either. We have precisely such a case in this thread. Our lad mushy is supposed to be an Oxbridge PhD candidate. By the rules of elitism, everything he writes ought to be very difficult to debate. On the other hand, the reality reflected in this thread is that he cannot address simple challenges that undergrad students are expected to deal with.
An even better example is Dubya. Best schools, seriously powerful family, but do you figure anybody's going to award him the Nobel Prize for brains?
Certainly, if somebody claimed to be from such-and-such and elite background and matched the reputation with his actions, nobody would have anything to say about it. On the other hand, if someone comes in claiming the same elite background and goes on to act like a complete fool, would anybody even care if he did in fact sit at the right hand of God? -
G' Day,mate Heard Johnny O' Boy attended Earlwood Public School then publicly funded Canterbury Boys' High School before he studied law at the University of Sydney to be where he is now.
Btw how is Polly Hanny nowadays? Still in politics or back to her fish n chips stall ?
-
People are very often the products of the system they live in. Hard to think out of the box and look at many sensitive matters objectively.
The right will always think they are right. So do the wrong ones. -
Oh gee, I must have read Mr George Orwell's Animal Farm once too often.Originally posted by Rock^Star:People are very often the products of the system they live in. Hard to think out of the box and look at many sensitive matters objectively.
The right will always think they are right. So do the wrong ones. 
Feeling like old Boxer boy liao. Nevermind "*** is always right" and I will work harder. -
Dunno about that - this is the way I heard it:Originally posted by miserable:G' Day,mate Heard Johnny O' Boy attended Earlwood Public School then publicly funded Canterbury Boys' High School before he studied law at the University of Sydney to be where he is now.
Btw how is Polly Hanny nowadays? Still in politics or back to her fish n chips stall ?
Three dock workers are sitting around their lunches, and one of them says, "You see this arm? Five years ago it got ripped off by a forklift. I went down to St Vincent's hospital to get it fixed up and it came back so strong I put five men out of work".
The second one says, "That's nothing! See these legs? Eight years ago a container dropped on them and chopped them clean off. I had them sewn back on at the Royal Melbourne Hospital and they got so good I put ten men out of work".
The third guy goes, "You guys haven't heard anything yet. Ten years ago, some poor bastard in Sydney got run over by a train, a tractor-trailer and a combine harvester. All that was left was an arsehole, but they took it down to the Royal Prince Alfred, stuck it in a suit, made it Prime Minister and he put half the f*cking country out of work".
Seriously, though, I can't complain too much about Little Johnny. He's run roughshod over more than a few people, and he's still hellbent on kissing the Queen's arse for no good reason, but on the other hand he's done a half-decent job of managing the economy.
As for Pauline ... Pauline who? -
Elitism actually doesn't place barriars only those that were not from top notch education institute, but rather invest limited resources on those that displayed talents. For example, the top student of RJC may be awarded some prestigeous scholarship and had his/her career planned while some ITE grad are left fending on his/her own. But this is not the state's way of saying to the ITE grad, "You are dumb, get out of my sight" but rather tell both RJC and ITE student, "Look, I've got some money here and I can only send one of you to study. Since you (pointing the RJC student) had showed your talent in studying, you are most likely to maximise the use of this money, go study. And you (pointing to the ITE student), I'm sorry, but I don't have the means to sponser you, but if you have any means, you are welcome to upgrade yourself."Originally posted by Gedanken:Good points all, wisefool, but I'd like to clarify the key question here. It's not a case of whether or not someone should be rejected for a role because he/she is from an elite school.
The implication of your defintion of elitism is that anybody that is not from that select group is automatically deemed unfit to perform the role. The question is: is this a sound approach?
If only members of that small group are deemed to be capable, we'd be hard pressed to explain the success of the examples put forward by miserable, amongst other examples who are well known to the general population. These people constitute contrary evidence to the implication of elitism - where you studied neither makes nor breaks you.
Elitism proposes that your worth is defined by who you are. I suggest that a more realistic approach is that your worth is defined by what you do.
According to elitism, Sim Wong Hoo ought to be scratching out a living soldering PCBs for $1400 a month. Yet, going by what he's done, it's quite easy to understand how he's achieved what he has.
On the flip side, coming from a certain background is no guarantee of quality either. We have precisely such a case in this thread. Our lad mushy is supposed to be an Oxbridge PhD candidate. By the rules of elitism, everything he writes ought to be very difficult to debate. On the other hand, the reality reflected in this thread is that he cannot address simple challenges that undergrad students are expected to deal with.
An even better example is Dubya. Best schools, seriously powerful family, but do you figure anybody's going to award him the Nobel Prize for brains?
Certainly, if somebody claimed to be from such-and-such and elite background and matched the reputation with his actions, nobody would have anything to say about it. On the other hand, if someone comes in claiming the same elite background and goes on to act like a complete fool, would anybody even care if he did in fact sit at the right hand of God?
But among the top notch scholars, there will be some who will stuff up along the way and some not so top notch people late bloomers who will excel in the later stage of their life. The state does not deny that, but until they bloom, it make sense to invest in RJC grads. Further more, the percentage of stuffed up RJC grads are less than stuffed up errr...... worse students.
You say that a person's worth should be define by what you do. I fully agree with that, but I don't think that is in contradiction with elitism. Afterall, you get into elite institue by what you've done.... in school. And when newly grads are applying for a job, they are judged by what they had done..... in school. They can't really be judged by what they had done in the society, simply because there's hardly any record of that, how to record it is another challenge and also because they are still too young to really have a chance to do something in the society, so they are judged by what they had done..... in school.
But certainly along the way if the grad with better school result stuffed up, the elite system will kicked him/her out of the game. I personally knew a Presidential Scholar (long time ago), who obviously done pretty well in school, but stuffed up badly in his career. And last time I saw him, he's winding up his unperforming education center, which incidentally was where my mum was employed. On the other hand, my gf's brother was rather shabby in school, went to Normal Sec, took A levels 2 times to squeeze into Uni and took longer than others to grad from Uni. But performing well in his job, he rose high and received a monthly 5 digit pay.
Sim Wong Hoo, as you raised as an example, succeeded despite not graduating from a Uni. But rather than proof that meritocracy is not working, they are actually proof that the system works. The state certainly did not tell Sim to earn a living by soldering PCBs, and when Sim suceeded, he received the recognition. I mean if Sim applied for a governmental position today, do you think the government will reject him?
The governmental elites are not necessary all scholars, but they had all done well in their individual fields before being admitted into the core structure. There's also no barriar placed on them because of family background (generally). I mean, Goh Chok Tong came from a poor family background, his family had no political connection whatsoever, but he rose tru the ranks. Some might want to argue that he was PM only to pass the baton to Lee junior blar blar blar, but even so, he was at least cabinet minister by his own merits.
Elites can still stuff up. As the saying goes, Titanic were built by experts while the Ark by ametuer, but certainly the percentage of ships that were built by experts and sunk are much lower than the ones built by ametuer. You may think that not all Oxford grads are great, but the fact remains that Oxford produced more talents than some crappy uni and if you want to bet on someone without a crystal ball, its safer to bet a oxford grad.
*b4 I kenna flame till I chao ta, RJC in this post doen't really mean RJC and ITE doesn't really mean ITE, its just use the name to show some extremity. You get what I mean lar, so don't get too edgy if I didn't list your school as an elite. I personally come from school that no longer exist liao, so you know lar, cannot be elite.
ok k, need to hit the books liao, exams tomorrow. hmm..... exams tomorrow and I'm still in Sgforums......wonder why I didn't get into elite school....
[/b] -
I disagree with you on a number of points, wisefool.
First, elitism is not so much a matter of distribution of resources as it is of maintaining a closed circle based upon a sentimental (towards membership of a group by definition) rather than rational decision-making process. The group membership criteria in elitism constitutes a heuristic, and heuristics, while handy, are often subject to flaws owing to inflexibility.
Second, selection systems such as structured interviewing and assessment centres provide employers with tools for assessing candidates beyond their achievements at the time. Without going off-topic with too much detail, established methods exist to assess people's leadership potential, providing a viable alternative to exclusive dependence upon academic performance.
Third, Sim Wong Hoo's success has been achieved through the free market, which really doesn't care who the person is or where he came from, as long as the product or service appeals to them. This, of course, is the antithesis to elitism, where certain prerequisites must be fulfilled before entry is even considered.
Finally, while I agree that the consequences for stuffing up can be dire for scholars in government-appointed positions, the decision-making process is still subject to arbitrary choices made by a select group of people, which does not adequately represent the larger group of people affected. Accountability as such is dramatically reduced.
Example. In 2004, Temasek Holdings posted an average 3% annual return over the preceding ten years. In a commercial organisation, the shareholders would have had the CEO's head on a stick for such paltry performance, but Temasek just carried on with business as usual. What's wrong with this picture?
In such a system, what will it take for change to take place, and will the change be in time to save the people? Will the people put their faith in an Oxbridge college graduate like Neville Chamberlain and let the country go to ruins before they put a three-time RMC reject like Churchill in charge?
The bottom line is that elitism is very much a brand-name mentality. I'd much sooner draw my own conclusions rationally than be blinded by brand names. -
Originally posted by wisefool83:
ok k, need to hit the books liao, exams tomorrow. hmm..... exams tomorrow and I'm still in Sgforums......wonder why I didn't get into elite school....[/b]
All the best for your exams!
-
Meritocracy in namesake sounds good but in practice is subjected to manipulation. Streaming of students into EM1 and EM2 etc is certainly very elitist for we know for a fact that many successful scientists and engineers who have won the Nobel prizes were only ordinary graders.
Einstein or Newton did not come across as people who belong to the scholars or elites categories.
Scholars in name sound good talents but in real life are they capable in creating jobs and helping to restructure the economy to value-adding economy, lower costs of living or are they only looking after their own million-dollar jobs and afraid to make mistakes which may cause them to lose their jobs.
Today many highly educated are joining the rank of the unemployed or under-employed. Why ? Because elitism has failed and educational attainments are not necessarily a measure of a person's entrepreneurship or abilities which is truly and finally what the society needs and wants.
Today under the nice-sounding name of meritocracy many scholarships have been won by children of the elites and ministerial groups amounting to almost 40% of total scholarship awarded although they are many more deserving and better endowed children who may be more deserving based on true grades and abilities to contribute to society.
The whole interview and selection process is not accountable and transparent. How is the panel to decide on the exceptional qualities that candidates possess in terms of passions, commitments in awarding such scholarship. Don't say that when a child of nearly top grades of a minister will be bypassed by the panel in selection in competing with top graders or near-equal top graders from poorer families.
Of course we can talk about children from certain poorer families being given scholarship. Of course there will always be some exceptional children from non-elite or poor families who win on clear-cut criteria of academic grades in which the panelists will be hard put to bypass.
We are talking not about the exceptions but the possibility of assessments based on panelists' own personal judgement in the event of a tie between a child from non-elite and elite families.
How do we decide who gets the job of a million-dollar CEO or a scholarship in the event of a tie in such a situation.
It is the lack of accountability and transparency which turns people off about all the elitist education and public sector senior recruitment system which smells.