Scholarships
-
I have an impression that majority of the scholarships were awarded to those kids with elite background. If so are they really smart and intelligent??
or there's something else...
Anyone knows how many were awarded to our friends and neighbours in the peasant districts and how many were given to those brats with uncaring elite face?? -
LKY scholarship! Waaaa......ELITE wor..!
-
Why award those elite student with cash scholarship when they are really very rich already? If I am not wrong, the elite student already have their parents forcing them to tuition and therefore they got good result. With soooo much resources at their disposal, why should we award the scholarship* to them where many more student need it urgently most.
*previous error corrected -
I agree!Originally posted by Darkness_hacker99:Why award those elite student with cash scholarship when they are really very rich already? If I am not wrong, the elite student already have their parents forcing them to tuition and therefore they got good result. With soooo much resources at their disposal, why should we award the scholar to them where many more student need it urgently most.
elite students with rich background still want to aim for those scholarships
this is stealing places for those who cannot afford but have the abilities lor
-
The "job positions" tag along with the scholarships is what those elites are afterOriginally posted by Mid9Sun:I have an impression that majority of the scholarships were awarded to those kids with elite background. If so are they really smart and intelligent??
or there's something else...
Anyone knows how many were awarded to our friends and neighbours in the peasant districts and how many were given to those brats with uncaring elite face??
-
didnt u read the elite girl article on cnn? only 7% awarded to the peasantsOriginally posted by Mid9Sun:I have an impression that majority of the scholarships were awarded to those kids with elite background. If so are they really smart and intelligent??
or there's something else...
Anyone knows how many were awarded to our friends and neighbours in the peasant districts and how many were given to those brats with uncaring elite face?? -
meritocracy mah, whoever earns it gets itOriginally posted by Diehard_89:I agree!
elite students with rich background still want to aim for those scholarships
this is stealing places for those who cannot afford but have the abilities lor -
Well, under the Singapore meritocratic system, civil service scholarships are awarded according to merit, not on a need-based system. Hence your academic and CCA achievements matter, but not your socio-economic background. The government uses scholarships to rope in the top talents, not to help those in need to attain higher education.Originally posted by Darkness_hacker99:Why award those elite student with cash scholarship when they are really very rich already? If I am not wrong, the elite student already have their parents forcing them to tuition and therefore they got good result. With soooo much resources at their disposal, why should we award the scholarship* to them where many more student need it urgently most.
*previous error corrected
I believe there are some scholarships in Singapore awarded on a needs-basis, but these are relatively rare, with only a handful given out each year. -
I guess there are two main arguements that can be identified from this issue. One is that the 'meritocratic' means in awarding scholarship irregardless of income background will allow individuals to be awarded for their academic achievements based upon their talents and not their income background. Hence, the scholarship system will effectively identitfy 'talent' and not be transformed into a welfarist mechanic. Others will argue that those who are academically inclinded possess the resources in the first place which enable them to succeed academically. Hence, Scholarships should function as a means to re-allocate resources to those who never had a chance to possess of equal opportunity.
-
More like whoever's parents can pay for it...(hardcore tuition, hardcore psycho elite...) Will get it...Originally posted by vito_corleone:meritocracy mah, whoever earns it gets it -
I got a local govt scholarship
my father has only sec 1 edn,my mother has o levels
Combined salary=<$2000.
How elite can I be???
-
Some 25 years ago, when we applied for PSC scholarships, I can say that a large proportion of those awarded scholarships were in the low to lower middle income groups. We all came from families with incomes below the tax bracket. Our parents are hawkers, taxi drivers, cleaners and housewives. Of my batch of friends who were awarded government scholarships, I cannot remember anyone who had tuition and certainly none of us were driven to school. Many of us could not afford to subscribe to the Straits Times and had to read discarded old newspapers to improve our language skills.
But we were hungry for success. We desperately wanted to escape the poverty we grew up with and saw that a good education was the only way for us to climb the social ladder. We didn't join the well-off kids in A&W restaurants (no Mac in those earlier days) or dance to John Travolta's songs in the tea dances that were the craze of the time. We spent all our spare time studying or giving tuition to buy a reference book. We did not even go to the canteen during recess...to save money we brought sandwiches and did our homework at the same time. We wanted to complete all the assignments so that we had more time to revise in the evening.
Scholarships were a great leveller and provided an opportunity for low income families to raise their stations in life, provided they possessed the ability.
Things have changed over the years. We see far fewer poor families than 25 years ago. Given that the distribution of talent in a given population is not necessarily skewed towards any particular income group, we now see more scholarship holders who are economically better off, because most families are better off today than they were 25 years ago.
There is no doubt that children of wealthy families still have a better start in life. That's a fact of life. But the odds against children of poor families are not as great as they were 25 years ago. The question is: Are these children as hungry as we were for success and how much are they prepared to sacrifice to achieve a better life? [/url] -
OM I might have agreed with you in a retrospective way .Originally posted by oxford mushroom:Some 25 years ago, when we applied for PSC scholarships, I can say that a large proportion of those awarded scholarships were in the low to lower middle income groups. We all came from families with incomes below the tax bracket. Our parents are hawkers, taxi drivers, cleaners and housewives. Of my batch of friends who were awarded government scholarships, I cannot remember anyone who had tuition and certainly none of us were driven to school. Many of us could not afford to subscribe to the Straits Times and had to read discarded old newspapers to improve our language skills.
But we were hungry for success. We desperately wanted to escape the poverty we grew up with and saw that a good education was the only way for us to climb the social ladder. We didn't join the well-off kids in A&W restaurants (no Mac in those earlier days) or dance to John Travolta's songs in the tea dances that were the craze of the time. We spent all our spare time studying or giving tuition to buy a reference book. We did not even go to the canteen during recess...to save money we brought sandwiches and did our homework at the same time. We wanted to complete all the assignments so that we had more time to revise in the evening.
Scholarships were a great leveller and provided an opportunity for low income families to raise their stations in life, provided they possessed the ability.
Things have changed over the years. We see far fewer poor families than 25 years ago. Given that the distribution of talent in a given population is not necessarily skewed towards any particular income group, we now see more scholarship holders who are economically better off, because most families are better off today than they were 25 years ago.
There is no doubt that children of wealthy families still have a better start in life. That's a fact of life. But the odds against children of poor families are not as great as they were 25 years ago. The question is: Are these children as hungry as we were for success and how much are they prepared to sacrifice to achieve a better life? [/url]
You have to know that in those days, they only take academic scores into considerations. Now you got the CCAs and what's not to get into JC - poor kids don't have that opportunity. Some scholarships have the criteria of doing community work....well how is the poor going to help the poor when they have to help their own parents out to survive? -
I agree with you that scholarships are indeed a great leveller as you say. They help provide kids with opportunities that their parents dare dream of. Scholarships are awarded to kids who have achieved outstanding acadamic grades in their respective fields...Originally posted by oxford mushroom:Some 25 years ago, when we applied for PSC scholarships, I can say that a large proportion of those awarded scholarships were in the low to lower middle income groups. We all came from families with incomes below the tax bracket. Our parents are hawkers, taxi drivers, cleaners and housewives. Of my batch of friends who were awarded government scholarships, I cannot remember anyone who had tuition and certainly none of us were driven to school. Many of us could not afford to subscribe to the Straits Times and had to read discarded old newspapers to improve our language skills.
But we were hungry for success. We desperately wanted to escape the poverty we grew up with and saw that a good education was the only way for us to climb the social ladder. We didn't join the well-off kids in A&W restaurants (no Mac in those earlier days) or dance to John Travolta's songs in the tea dances that were the craze of the time. We spent all our spare time studying or giving tuition to buy a reference book. We did not even go to the canteen during recess...to save money we brought sandwiches and did our homework at the same time. We wanted to complete all the assignments so that we had more time to revise in the evening.
Scholarships were a great leveller and provided an opportunity for low income families to raise their stations in life, provided they possessed the ability.
Things have changed over the years. We see far fewer poor families than 25 years ago. Given that the distribution of talent in a given population is not necessarily skewed towards any particular income group, we now see more scholarship holders who are economically better off, because most families are better off today than they were 25 years ago.
There is no doubt that children of wealthy families still have a better start in life. That's a fact of life. But the odds against children of poor families are not as great as they were 25 years ago. The question is: Are these children as hungry as we were for success and how much are they prepared to sacrifice to achieve a better life? [/url]
But more and more of these vehicles which helps promising students, are being given to those who are better off yet not necessarily of great intellect and maturity...
Tell me if i'm wrong...the average scholarship achiever now, has hardcore tuition which their parents are able to afford, and on top of that probably has studied in a top JC...And their parents drill them into success, where there is no room for failure...thats the elite child that Singapore is churning today...
And the normal Singaporean family (which you say is not poor), tells their kid who is studying in a lower-end JC, "study hard cause thats all you have. Sorry we cant give you anything extra, we can just pay you your school fees and thats that." The kid studies hard, but he cant achieve the same level of competency as the kid who has even better support.
And your question: Are these children as hungry as we were for success and how much are they prepared to sacrifice to achieve a better life?
I feel that abit sweeping, not all the children are not hungry, then again are you assuming the reason they dont get the scholarship is because they are not hungry?
25 years ago, i can say you were right. Now? It's not the same... -
Well done and good job..do us proud!!!! What scholarship ah?Originally posted by Marco_Simone:I got a local govt scholarship
my father has only sec 1 edn,my mother has o levels
Combined salary=<$2000.
How elite can I be??? -
but giving scholarships to ppl who can't study is like dumping the $$ into the sea.. so might as well give to the elites make them happy abit..
-
I agree with you fully....Originally posted by Diesel_Dimension:but giving scholarships to ppl who can't study is like dumping the $$ into the sea.. so might as well give to the elites make them happy abit..
But what about those kids who come from normal families who also make the cut for those scholarships, yet dont make it?
this is the growing number of kids we're seeing... -
I'm sure nobody has any qualms about giving scholarships to those deserving, irregardless of financial background. However, more has to be done to aid those who are not as academically inclinded, but are determined to craft up a life for themselves and are curtailed by their financial background. Afterall, one of the failings of meritocracy are those who get left behind becuase they do not measure up with the 'cream of the crop'. Adopting a mentality that these are 'social repurcussions' is just unacceptable and inhumane. I believe there is a need for trust or funds to be set up not just for deserving students, but for those eager and yearning to reach a higher plateau, but are held back because of their social and financial situation.
-
which person made the cut got rejected? lets have some names lehOriginally posted by Wakus:I agree with you fully....
But what about those kids who come from normal families who also make the cut for those scholarships, yet dont make it?
this is the growing number of kids we're seeing... -
I dont have names ah....hence i cant support this argument that well...
even if i have those names, i dont think you can help them...
but thats besides the point...
Since i cant support it i'll take it back...
The point i was trying to make is more and more are going up. but hey open to arguments -
You are right about this, but I don't believe scholarships are the way to help these type of people. Scholarships can be viewed as a sort of opportunity for socio-economic advancement, of which there are many others. These people don't need scholarships; they need other things, like say, venture capitalist funds, to help them set up businesses and live their dreams.Originally posted by Quincey:I'm sure nobody has any qualms about giving scholarships to those deserving, irregardless of financial background. However, more has to be done to aid those who are not as academically inclinded, but are determined to craft up a life for themselves and are curtailed by their financial background. Afterall, one of the failings of meritocracy are those who get left behind becuase they do not measure up with the 'cream of the crop'. Adopting a mentality that these are 'social repurcussions' is just unacceptable and inhumane. I believe there is a need for trust or funds to be set up not just for deserving students, but for those eager and yearning to reach a higher plateau, but are held back because of their social and financial situation. -
Tell me if i'm wrong...the average scholarship achiever now, has hardcore tuition which their parents are able to afford, and on top of that probably has studied in a top JC...And their parents drill them into success, where there is no room for failure...thats the elite child that Singapore is churning today...
What's the evidence for that statement? On the other hand, you will find that the scholars selected have all performed well both in academic studies and in extra-curricular activities, based on the stringent selection criteria of the PSD. But I agree scholars tend to come from a top secondary school or JC but that has nothing to do with wealth. Any poor but talented student can get into a top secondary school or JC, based on his PSLE and O level results.
Sure, many may have had lots of tuition, but if most students have it nowadays, it will not help. In any case, the truly talented will do well despite not having any tuition at all, whether he be rich or poor. Tuition may push the mediocre into consideration for a scholarship but at the end of the day, the poor but talented student will not lose out. There are a serie sof rigorous interviews and assessments before a scholarship is awarded and the selectors are experienced enough to distinguish the truly talented from the mediocre made good with tuition.
And getting a scholarship is not the end of the matter. You have to do well consistently in your examinations in University to retain it. Many people do not realize this but I know of a President's scholar who lost his scholarship because he failed his examinations in Uni and made to give back his scholarship. Of course that is a rare, isolated instance and despite the care taken in selection, the selectors are human and can be wrong. That chap is now very successful in his career in any case. But it sends the message loud and clear: a scholar who does not perform will be thrown out unceremoniously. -
Ok proven wrong...Originally posted by oxford mushroom:What's the evidence for that statement? On the other hand, you will find that the scholars selected have all performed well both in academic studies and in extra-curricular activities, based on the stringent selection criteria of the PSD. But I agree scholars tend to come from a top secondary school or JC but that has nothing to do with wealth. Any poor but talented student can get into a top secondary school or JC, based on his PSLE and O level results.
Sure, many may have had lots of tuition, but if most students have it nowadays, it will not help. In any case, the truly talented will do well despite not having any tuition at all, whether he be rich or poor. Tuition may push the mediocre into consideration for a scholarship but at the end of the day, the poor but talented student will not lose out. There are a serie sof rigorous interviews and assessments before a scholarship is awarded and the selectors are experienced enough to distinguish the truly talented from the mediocre made good with tuition.
And getting a scholarship is not the end of the matter. You have to do well consistently in your examinations in University to retain it. Many people do not realize this but I know of a President's scholar who lost his scholarship because he failed his examinations in Uni and made to give back his scholarship. Of course that is a rare, isolated instance and despite the care taken in selection, the selectors are human and can be wrong. That chap is now very successful in his career in any case. But it sends the message loud and clear: a scholar who does not perform will be thrown out unceremoniously. -
If we could file a request for information relating to the household income of all recipients of PSC and President's Scholarships for the last 10 years, that would settle the debate more or less.
I don't care how talented a minister's son is. I would like to see more means-testing introduced into our scholarship selection process. If the chap can afford his education, why do we have to pay for his education? Not to mention giving him another head-start in the Civil Service?
-
Like it or not... Education is the only out for the Poor... Fight for the scholarship or be prepared... The poverty disease could spread from generation to generation... Scary...