All have equal chance in education
-
Originally posted by eagle:
Therein lies the difference between A2, A1... or rather, grades ranging from 70 to 100.
I think that's where the potential varies.... :D
And the problem is that most students are not brought to their potential, and hence another reason why the grades vary so much...
Well eagle, in the study that I mentioned above, one of the findings is that teachers do need to remove obstacles to learning. An example of such obstacles is poor class discipline, which prevents students from focussing.
And yes, properly constructed exams do test the entire gamut of ability levels. That said, to do so, you'd need a pretty long test to cover those levels. My doctoral thesis was on the use of adaptive testing (like what the SAT or ASVAB use) to do the same job with fewer questions, and we actually managed to cut the exam lengths down by 80% - it's a complex and expensive process, though.
-
Originally posted by mrvictor:
read my above argument. i think that settles the whole problem and i agree that a poor but motivated student can do much better than a lazy rich student.
pardon me, but if the lower income has declining percentage in the top 5%, is it due to the increasing laziness?
-
Originally posted by Gedanken:
Well eagle, in the study that I mentioned above, one of the findings is that teachers do need to remove obstacles to learning. An example of such obstacles is poor class discipline, which prevents students from focussing.
And yes, properly constructed exams do test the entire gamut of ability levels. That said, to do so, you'd need a pretty long test to cover those levels. My doctoral thesis was on the use of adaptive testing (like what the SAT or ASVAB use) to do the same job with fewer questions, and we actually managed to cut the exam lengths down by 80% - it's a complex and expensive process, though.
I focus mainly on Os and As levels where the exams are not at all very properly constructed
Furthermore, poor class discipline happens frequently when classes get big. Eg in Sg, there are 30 to 40 students per class.
There's a trend in the group tuition market to cap at around 6 to 8 students per class. Nothing more than that.That should explain myself I guess
Thanks for your info :D
-
Originally posted by kilua:
pardon me, but if the lower income has declining percentage in the top 5%, is it due to the increasing laziness?
more poor students are working harder. however, there is an even greater proportion of rich working even harder. it is just like if you work hard, there is a greater chance for you to enter say, harvard. however, as there are even more people doing better than you, you are deprived of this chance. -
Originally posted by mrvictor:
more poor students are working harder. however, there is an even greater proportion of rich working even harder. it is just like if you work hard, there is a greater chance for you to enter say, harvard. however, as there are even more people doing better than you, you are deprived of this chance.I hope you didnt mean how George W bush got into Yale.
-
What I really hate about the education system in Singapore is the arrogant coercion of the students to conform to somebody's / some group's delusions.
Sure Math and Science is good, for example, but what people need are basic concepts since they are not going to be scientists and or mathematicians.
Yet there is so much coercion that the students do well in these two subjects to a very high level or they suffer the panalties, obvious or subtle.
You can be top student in art but you wil be spending all your time studying math and science, (and maybe second language) or else!
-
Originally posted by kilua:
I hope you didnt mean how George W bush got into Yale.
That is the difference in the educational systems. The primary schools are all under the Ministry of Education, while Yale is privately owned.Whether you can get into RI, RV and Hwa Chong is your PSLE results, no matter what sort of background you have. So rich or poor you still get access to it if you worked hard enough.
-
i tink all the younger generation of pple in singapore have the chance to have a generally gd education. for myself, i am fr a low-income family... but still managed to get thru the system and do pretty well... "equal" chances to an education... i can't dispute that. but nt everyone has an "equal" chance to be the best tt they can be... i really believe tt there is a disparity in singapore in terms of how much we can achieve apart fr the basics, which nowadays is majority up to poly or jc and uni... to take a specific example... in terms of getting scholarships... interviewers are usually looking for a certain kind of answers... chances are, kids fr lower income families who are not well educated will lose out to someone fr a better family backgrd, who has the resources and the knowledge to tell their kids what to say or do during the interview... that's why... it's unfortunate that the scholarships here seem to go to the pple fr families who dun need them. also, in terms of which schools they can go to... tho my grades were gd enough for a so-called "sap" school then, i had to pick a govt school tt did nt have certain programmes cos i was afraid tt i wld nt be able to get the bursaries to afford the expensive independent school fees... (u forgot abt the school fees, stevenson101) we can argue tt what we do is make the best of what we have in life... but no matter how motivated the kids are, when those fr poorer families have to make choices like tt... it will have an impact on their future life... and certainly their careers... (considering the alma mater connection in getting jobs) wld tt still be considered equal opportunities for all? it's nt really abt gd parenting too. if parents dun have the right financial resources or a high educational backgrd, there will be limitations to how much they can help... i tink MOE shld make more resources available to help those kids who fall into the lower-income bracket... i dun deny tt there are kids fr poorer families who have done v well... but there are just as many of them who can do even better, but have somehow fallen back along the way... due to the financial constraints... and the opportunities tt have passed them by in favour of those kids who speak better n are fr wealthier familes...
-
Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:
What I really hate about the education system in Singapore is the arrogant coercion of the students to conform to somebody's / some group's delusions.
Sure Math and Science is good, for example, but what people need are basic concepts since they are not going to be scientists and or mathematicians.
Yet there is so much coercion that the students do well in these two subjects to a very high level or they suffer the panalties, obvious or subtle.
You can be top student in art but you wil be spending all your time studying math and science, (and maybe second language) or else!
And...andrew comes to hijack this thread.
I don't see why you would call it delusions. From Singapore's independence we need a lot more engineers than we do artists. Artists only have value when the society is well to do.
And right now, the system is being slowly geared to promoting the arts as well.
I know, because i work in the creative industry.
-
Originally posted by Stevenson101:
That is the difference in the educational systems. The primary schools are all under the Ministry of Education, while Yale is privately owned.Whether you can get into RI, RV and Hwa Chong is your PSLE results, no matter what sort of background you have. So rich or poor you still get access to it if you worked hard enough.
i do agree that those who got good results most did worked hard. But have you ever considered this.
1. The grades to get into the local university has been higher and higher due to student getting better grades.( possibly due to rising private tuition) For example, 8-9 years back, BBC would have secured a place in NUS business but now the grade is AAA. Education is increasingly more competitve
2 In a highly competitive enviroment, every little advantage makes a big difference. Private tuition may make the difference BBC and AAA
-
Originally posted by Stevenson101:
And...andrew comes to hijack this thread.
I don't see why you would call it delusions. From Singapore's independence we need a lot more engineers than we do artists. Artists only have value when the society is well to do.
And right now, the system is being slowly geared to promoting the arts as well.
I know, because i work in the creative industry.
I call it delusions because money isn't everything, when you have enough to cover the basic necessities, you can be happy and if you are not, you are under the influence of delusions...
-
Originally posted by kilua:
i do agree that those who got good results most did work hard. But have you ever considered this.
1. The grades to get into the local university has been higher and higher due to student getting better grades.( possibly due the rising private tuition) 8-9 years back BBC would have secured a place in NUS business but now the grade is AAA
2.. As such, every little advantage makes a big difference. Private tuition may make the difference BBC and AAA given the same amount of hard work.
Then what do you suggest? Postive affirmative action like they do for the minority races in the USA?
From what i've read, it hasn't exactly been working very well either.
And wouldn't it be unfair to the students who just happened to be rich but didn't receive tuition to get their grades? Is the system going to punish them for being well to do? How much more fair would that be?
-
Originally posted by Stevenson101:
Then what do you suggest? Postive affirmative action like they do for the minority races in the USA?
From what i've read, it hasn't exactly been working very well either.
And wouldn't it be unfair to the students who just happened to be rich but didn't receive tuition to get their grades? Is the system going to punish them for being well to do? How much more fair would that be?
I am not for affirmative action too . i dont have clear solutions myself, but i would think its important to acknowledge the problem first. We sure could look into different countries and see how the playing field could be more even. Finland could be a good place to start with.
-
are the grades cut-off really AAA for NUS business school? where did this info come from? :/
-
Originally posted by cathykitty:
are the grades cut-off really AAA for NUS business school? where did this info come from? :/
i met one NUS undergrad and she told me... Regardless, the entrance grades for the local universities has definitely been rising rapidly.
-
Well, i did had a Finnish colleague in my company.
But he went off to study Digipen because the embassy sponsored him $40,000 for a $70,000 course.
I'm not quite sure where Finland gets their money from, so i can't quite comment.
-
Originally posted by kilua:
i met one NUS undergrad and she told me... Regardless, the entrance grades for the local universities has definitely been rising rapidly.
local universities entrance grades must definitely rise, and at a pace faster than the current one, otherwise the average joe in colleges would just make it into university, which renders getting into university as not a privilege or upper hand over your counterparts. currently, the top 25% of each cohort make it to either overseas or local universities. this is too much. the government is thinking of making it 30% by having a fourth university. in the not so far future, the percentage might even be 50%. how about the government just give every person in a cohort a university degree? the percentage entering local universities should be fixed at 10% so that our standard can be improved and we can progress forward, or rather upward in the top 50 universities list.to cathykitty: you do not have to worry about school fees or bursaries if you work hard. our system rewards hard work and perseverance. if you really had put in enough effort, you would be able to get into a top school and achieve a bursary. if you did not manage to get one, it might be because your "good enough" is not in line with society's "good enough". as for the interviews for scholarships, if poorer people really wanted to excel in interview, they do not need to have rich parents to tell them what to do and what not to do in interviews. There are low-priced courses and even free online material teaching how to ace in your interviews. you shape your own future.
-
maybe the A levels has become too easy for teachers to "spot" answers to? perhaps it's not the fault of the university... if many students score triple As, naturally, it does not make sense if the uni were to take in students who score Bs and Cs. unless, of course, you know that the university has deliberately decreased its intake. (in which case, it might be due to a lack of jobs in that particular sector.) mrvictor: i think that scholarships and bursaries here are way too limited and competitive! i am not referring to those students who are not academically inclined. but what abt those who are in the top 10 percent, yet who are unable to get financial help? do you think these students are "not good enough" too? i think our education system has fallen short because it privileges the "haves" but is less willing to help the students who come from families that are "have-nots". i agree that we shape our own future. however, as a national education system tt seeks to be truly meritocratic, i think it can do much, much better. ultimately, i think it's self-defeating for someone to believe that he or she did not get a scholarship or bursary simply because he or she is "not good enough". tt is not sound analysis, because tt is simply following the standards of the day that have already been established. but it doesn't seek change to improve things. if we examine our system further, we will find there are many kids who may not be so good academically, but who have gotten the chance to be nurtured, because they have people (ie parents who are better educated or good teachers) who can act as mentors and help them clarify their goals. the kids from poorer familes do not have access to such mentor figures, and it seems to be only thru luck that they can get good teachers who will help them all the way. and even then, the teachers can't help much financially. if finances and social status are not an issue, then maybe you can try to explain to me why students in the top two colleges in Singapore, as well as those in the medicine faculty, on their way to one of the most highly-esteemed professions in society, are mostly from well-to-do families to begin with? how many kids from poor families do you know, who became doctors? one? two? majority of the doctors here are born into higher income families. going by mrvictor's earlier argument, the logical conclusion would be that students from poorer families didn't manage to become doctors because they are not good enough to be doctors. do you really believe that? if the educational institutions and ministry here can spend millions revamping their buildings, why shldn't they spend more on providing financial assistance to kids from lower income families? ask ard and you will know. it is extremely hard to apply for students to get financial assistance. for myself, for example, my dad's salary was barely 1K a mth and he was already working beyond retirement age (over 65), yet I still did not manage to get bursaries throughout my university career, despite having above average grades. do the scholarships and bursaries really need to be so competitive? i think if we relax the rules a bit, and give more resources, we can help a lot of bright kids with dreams achieve what they never thought was possible for them. i think the system here helps poorer kids to get thru school up to a point. and in tt sense, it is "equal" because everyone can have an education. but if the kids shld need more help, they will have a lot of problems finding it.
-
Hrm...that's certainly enlightening. And very worrying at the same time.
Did they say why you can't get the bursaries?
-
Originally posted by cathykitty:
to take a specific example… in terms of getting scholarships… interviewers are usually looking for a certain kind of answers… chances are, kids fr lower income families who are not well educated will lose out to someone fr a better family backgrd, who has the resources and the knowledge to tell their kids what to say or do during the interview…
What specifically is it about those questions that would disadvantage the lower-income groups?
Originally posted by cathykitty:we can argue tt what we do is make the best of what we have in life… but no matter how motivated the kids are, when those fr poorer families have to make choices like tt… it will have an impact on their future life… and certainly their careers… (considering the alma mater connection in getting jobs) wld tt still be considered equal opportunities for all?
This point seems to address equal employment opportunities rather than equal education opportunities.
Originally posted by cathykitty:it’s nt really abt gd parenting too. if parents dun have the right financial resources or a high educational backgrd, there will be limitations to how much they can help…
What specifically would finances or education contribute to the parents' ability to help?
Originally posted by cathykitty:i tink MOE shld make more resources available to help those kids who fall into the lower-income bracket…
What resources would specifically help lower-income-bracket kids?
-
Originally posted by mrvictor:
local universities entrance grades must definitely rise, and at a pace faster than the current one, otherwise the average joe in colleges would just make it into university, which renders getting into university as not a privilege or upper hand over your counterparts. currently, the top 25% of each cohort make it to either overseas or local universities. this is too much. the government is thinking of making it 30% by having a fourth university. in the not so far future, the percentage might even be 50%. how about the government just give every person in a cohort a university degree? the percentage entering local universities should be fixed at 10% so that our standard can be improved and we can progress forward, or rather upward in the top 50 universities list.
Why set a specific percentage? If indeed 50% of the cohort demonstrate the capacity to handle university studies, why arbitrarily set a 10% limit and deny the other 40% of the education they deserve?
Conversely, if 2% of a third-world country's population is capable of handling subjects of a university level, would you waste university training on 8% to make up the quota on an arbitrary 10% figure?
When I was an undergrad, there was (and still is) a furore about the concept of "education for sale" - the perversion of tertiary's raison d'etre in service of the demands of industry. Students were being churned out to make up the numbers of graduates demanded by employers, and in the process being trained what to think instead of how to think, and the intent of tertiary education was lost, producing degree holders who really had no business holding degrees.
To provide or deny anyone an education for reasons other than the purpose of education is simply shortsighted.
-
Originally posted by cathykitty:
if we examine our system further, we will find there are many kids who may not be so good academically, but who have gotten the chance to be nurtured, because they have people (ie parents who are better educated or good teachers) who can act as mentors and help them clarify their goals.
the kids from poorer familes do not have access to such mentor figures, and it seems to be only thru luck that they can get good teachers who will help them all the way. and even then, the teachers can’t help much financially.
Can't say I disagree with this one, but to expand the point, the benefit is not so much a matter of financial or educational advantage on the parents' part as it is the environment's influence on the child's level of efficacy. Specifically, a child growing up in a highly-educated environment is less likely to believe that high educational achievement is impossible, compared to a child from a less-educated environment.
Originally posted by cathykitty:ask ard and you will know. it is extremely hard to apply for students to get financial assistance. for myself, for example, my dad’s salary was barely 1K a mth and he was already working beyond retirement age (over 65), yet I still did not manage to get bursaries throughout my university career, despite having above average grades.
do the scholarships and bursaries really need to be so competitive? i think if we relax the rules a bit, and give more resources, we can help a lot of bright kids with dreams achieve what they never thought was possible for them.
To get to the point, how many of your university classmates dropped out because of financial difficulties? Did you drop out for that reason?
Originally posted by cathykitty:i think the system here helps poorer kids to get thru school up to a point. and in tt sense, it is “equal” because everyone can have an education. but if the kids shld need more help, they will have a lot of problems finding it.
Could you specify (to phrase the question bluntly) what kind of help could be bought?
-
Originally posted by fudgester:
x2.In the first place, it's up to the kids themselves. There's only so much that private tutors can do.
Speaking as a private tutor, I say this: I would far rather teach a motivated and hardworking kid for a pittance than teach a lazy and bo-chap kid for a load of dosh.
Why? Because in the end, if the kid is unmotivated and unwilling to learn, then there's nothing that a tutor can do to help him succeed.
Fair enough, ceteris paribus, a wealthy kid may end up doing better than one from a poor background. But once you take out the 'ceteris paribus' from my last sentence, the tables can be turned. A rich kid may be bo-chap with his studies because he's already rich, and a poor kid may be fired up by his poverty to succeed in life.
The reverse can be true as well, and a poor kid may be too demoralized by his poverty to succeed, whereas a rich kid would be fired up to succeed even more.
At the end of the day, who are we to punish anyone for being rich?
If the child is dull and unmotivated, it's not the job of a private tutor to think of ways to motivate the child? A bo-chap kid is more likely to come froma poor family. If he/she has rich parents, what's the problem?
A good govt in a meritocratic society will see this as a problem if more children from poor family background didn't do so well in their studies.
-
Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:
What I really hate about the education system in Singapore is the arrogant coercion of the students to conform to somebody's / some group's delusions.
Sure Math and Science is good, for example, but what people need are basic concepts since they are not going to be scientists and or mathematicians.
Yet there is so much coercion that the students do well in these two subjects to a very high level or they suffer the panalties, obvious or subtle.
You can be top student in art but you wil be spending all your time studying math and science, (and maybe second language) or else!
So it appears Andrew flunked his math and science :) -
Originally posted by Gedanken:
My charge-out rate to do this stuff is three grand a day, so yes, I think I know a thing or two about research. Your "two sides of a story" defence would apply if I picked a random sample and extrapolated it to the general population. The strength of the findings is that it is census data - we literally surveyed everybody, so there's no "two sides" to it.
Gedanken, i appreciate your expertise on this subject and the fact that you have extensive experience in doing research. However as i was reading this i was considering that perhaps there might be 'another side' to it. U have taken census data and while i recognize that while the data is taken from a populationary model, populationary might in this sense mean Australia or Melbourne as a population. I do not doubt that. However if this data was taken in the context of the world's educational institutions it would just be a sample amongst the different countries.
The point of me pointing this out is in relation to kilua's post.
Originally posted by kilua:Given 2 groups of motivated students,
One group from rich family and free access to competent teachers for private tuition,
the other from lower income group and no access to any private tuition.
Under Singapore's education system, which group would perform better?
I'm going to alter his example a little.
Consider 2 groups of motivated students,
one group from rich family and the other from a lower income group.
Group A = Rich family
Group B = Poor family
It turns out that these 2 groups both scored comparable results for their 'A' Levels. However both groups marginally missed being admitted into the local university. That means they were ranked immediately after the last person that was admitted into the local university.
Group A being rich, can afford to send the child overseas to study. US/UK, to pursue a higher quality education.
Group B is resigned to looking for a private university in Singapore to get their much needed degree.
In your opinion, would you say that these people have had an equal chance to education? Forgive me for saying this, but I dont see how the private universities in Singapore compare to those in the UK/US. Even if they do, future employers would look at those UK/US graduates much differently than the graduates of Singapore private universities. But that is another topic for discussion.
I am of the view that richer people get better opportunities. It just isn't equal although it's made out to be that way by our local papers.