All have equal chance in education
-
yes, i admit the rich do have an advantage in getting a better education because they probably have better tutors and teachers. but what is there we can do about it? to tax the rich heavily and give to the poor is what is being done now, the only way to eradicate this problem is to go back to communism.
since there is nothing anyone can do about it, the only thing not so well-to-do children can do is try their best and study harder than their richer counterparts. merely lamenting the unfairness of the system does not solve the problem. this is a competitive world where survival is for the fittest in the various aspects.
-
It's less about the rich being able to afford better tutors, although it would help.
It's more important for the student to adopt the correct studying techniques. A tutor is there not only to help the student understand, but more importantly, to impart the correct exam techniques and strategies (as well as bring up the student's interest) in the subject. This is what I believe in the most... Exam techniques are important, especially for Os and As... With the correct techniques and strategies, much time and effort could be saved during exams... and possibly leading higher scores...
An example of this is at Survival guide for the last-min Physics student
written by a current sec sch teacher
another written by me in homework forum: Physics in a Nutshell for Os and As
Of course, adopting correct exam techniques and strategies does not equate to understanding it well
-
0 x 1000000 = 0
1 x 1000000 = 1000000
1000000 x 0 = 0
1000000 x 1 = 1000000
1000 x 1000 = 1000000
1st term = intellect
2nd term = wealth
3rd term = how well the kid fares in school.. and perhaps even in life..
above eqns do not take into consideration stuff like recessions
-
Originally posted by maxtor:
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.
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.
I guess it depends on what you considering as equal.The rich family most likely start off poor at some stage, Singapore isn't old enough to have much old money.
Why wouldn't it be considered equal if i am from a lower income group but i work/study hard to get a high paying job and could then afford to give my children the best education?
The rich families obviously worked harder to get their better headstart for their children. Why is it so uncomfortable that they have more opportunities?
Granted, i find the idea of granting bursaries to families who can obviously afford it(*cough* *cough* Lee family) ridiculous.
-
Originally posted by maxtor:
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.
That's good clarification, maxtor, but the implicit assumption is then that learning styles and cognitive mechanisms differ across countries. Does a Singaporean child learn differently from, say, an Australian or American child? The fact that educational systems adopt models and teaching practices from other countries are testtament that the kids learn the same way across countries and cultures - what differs is how they are taught.
-
Originally posted by mrvictor:
yes, i admit the rich do have an advantage in getting a better education because they probably have better tutors and teachers. but what is there we can do about it? to tax the rich heavily and give to the poor is what is being done now, the only way to eradicate this problem is to go back to communism.
since there is nothing anyone can do about it, the only thing not so well-to-do children can do is try their best and study harder than their richer counterparts. merely lamenting the unfairness of the system does not solve the problem. this is a competitive world where survival is for the fittest in the various aspects.
Why assume that there is nothing that can be done about it?
In the course of this thread, despite the number of times it has been opined that some teachers and tutors are better than others, we have not yet paid enough attention to precisely what makes them better.
Without knowing what makes them better, we do not know if these qualities are innate, or if other teachers can be trained to teach the same way.
Without knowing if the qualities are innate or if they can be taught, it would be too early to decide that nothing can be done about it.
-
Originally posted by eagle:
It's more important for the student to adopt the correct studying techniques. A tutor is there not only to help the student understand, but more importantly, to impart the correct exam techniques and strategies (as well as bring up the student's interest) in the subject. This is what I believe in the most... Exam techniques are important, especially for Os and As... With the correct techniques and strategies, much time and effort could be saved during exams... and possibly leading higher scores...
Let's take it a bit broader, eagle. Teachers cannot actually make students learn - absorbing and internalising the information is entire the task of each student. What teachers can do is show them the best ways to learn, and to guide them in the learning process.
-
Originally posted by Gedanken:
Let's take it a bit broader, eagle. Teachers cannot actually make students learn - absorbing and internalising the information is entire the task of each student. What teachers can do is show them the best ways to learn, and to guide them in the learning process.
yeap!
-
Originally posted by mrvictor:
yes, i admit the rich do have an advantage in getting a better education because they probably have better tutors and teachers. but what is there we can do about it? to tax the rich heavily and give to the poor is what is being done now, the only way to eradicate this problem is to go back to communism.
since there is nothing anyone can do about it, the only thing not so well-to-do children can do is try their best and study harder than their richer counterparts. merely lamenting the unfairness of the system does not solve the problem. this is a competitive world where survival is for the fittest in the various aspects.
1.the only way to eradicate this problem is to go back to communism.
There was an Elite "Wee Shu Min" who mentioned that the only way to give equal oppourtunities is communism. Quite to the contrary, in communist state, the rich and well connected still get "more than equal" treatment. Did President Kim and his the top officials get "equal treatment"?
Its the natural law for those with power and resources to put their offspring in an advantage position.
2.there is nothing anyone can do about it
Have you read about Finland education system?
Its an egalitarian system where each child has a chance to developed to their full potential.
Students have different learning abilities
Singapore's solution?
Streaming by exam results. EM1 EM2 EM3
Finland's solution?
Ability grouping - A child could be weak in maths and science but very strong in languages.
A 9 year old child could be attending a 7 year grouping in maths but 12 year old grouping for language. Once the child maths and science improves he can join the normal 9 year old grouping.
Its only until the recently years, Singapore quietly copied Finland system by allowing for different subject grouping for EM3 student.
Sadly the age grouping is only for EM3 students but not other students.
Finland Average Class Size
Primary school - 21 students
Secondary schools - 24 students
Source : http://www.tucs.fi/education/graduate/finland.pdf
There are a lot of other things that we can emulate from other education systems.
-
>> What specifically is it about those questions that would disadvantage the lower-income groups? If you've ever gone for an interview, you will probably know how important preparation is. Knowing the right things to say will make all the difference in getting a job, or in this case, a scholarship. And my point is, teenagers from lower-income families are now disadvantaged, as they are less likely to be "trained" by their parents on what to say during these interviews. Basic questions, like "What is your aim in applying for this scholarship?" and "What do you know about this sector?", might be easy for the interview-seasoned adult, but a teenager who has had no experience and no guidance will probably fumble when answering the questions. But unlike a job interview where if we fail to make the cut, we can always try to apply to another company in the same industry, for an undergrad scholarship interview, usually, that is the only chance that the teenager has got to prove himself or herself. They only have one chance to get the undergrad scholarship - after their A levels. And if they screw up, they will not get a chance to apply for the same scholarship again. >> This point seems to address equal employment opportunities rather than equal education opportunities. Yes, but employment opportunities are often a function of education opportunities, don't you think? The point addresses the impact of unequal opportunities in education on the future life of a person. >> What specifically would finances or education contribute to the parents' ability to help? The importance of financial assistance for the poor has been understated. I think many people believe that money won't make a difference, choosing instead to believe in the power of the individual to overcome all odds. But usually, these people are the very ones who don't need financial help. Try asking a poorer family struggling to make ends meet if they would rather have financial assistance, or if they would prefer to be left alone to overcome their odds by themselves. The answer seems to be a no-brainer. At the moment, I don't think the financial assistance for students is sufficient. I believe the MOE in Singapore has an extra-curricular fund for every student. But this is across the board. The poorer students do not get more help. So, in the event that the funds are insufficient, those students who are unable to pay out of their own pockets for expensive programmes, such as overseas trips, will lose out, in terms of the experience. >> What resources would specifically help lower-income-bracket kids? Money. An education contribution, maybe tied to low-income parents' CPF accounts, for their kids' welfare? And I mean, specifically, for the children before they enter the university. When they reach uni level, of course, they can use their parents' CPF for their tuition fees. Currently, only "baby bonuses" are given for parents of young children. This is tied to how many children one has, and doesn't evaluate the financial status of the parents. Lower-income families, unlike those who can afford to contribute to endowment funds, often do not save up for their kids' education. That's usually the last thing on their minds. So, more money for extra activities, to fund overseas trips, to provide tuition teachers for those who need them, would be extremely useful. Often, these extra activities may be subsidised, but still not fully paid for. The student would also need to co-pay. But even with subsidised rates, the poorer kids will have a problem paying, and may not be able to join as many activities as their peers. In terms of helping with paying for tutors, it's because it's not reasonable to expect a school teacher to offer intensive remedial for students all the time. Now, poorer kids who are lagging in their studies either don't do anything abt it, or they go to social NGOs where free tuition is provided. But the quality of such volunteer tutors is not being controlled. Also, the environment in which this takes place, having been a volunteer tutor myself, is not always conducive for teaching a child, leading to a haphazard type of learning that doesn't really help. Kids who grow up in money-scarce families are very conscious of that fact. Some of them may appear wayward, but they actually do care very much abt their pride and their family's money woes. In fact, there are many bright students who do part-time jobs just to supplement their family's income (and not just for branded goods). Surely that would affect their studies? Why shldn't the govt do more to help them?
-
repeated post.
-
go to good schools and c
many parents all drive good cars
go to normal schools and c
not many cars going in and out of schools
so what does this shows?
I wonder why schools like Raffles still asking for donation.?
so many rich parents around
-
go to good schools and c
many parents all drive good cars
go to normal schools and c
not many cars going in and out of schools
so what does this shows?
I wonder why schools like Raffles still asking for donation.?
so many rich parents around
-
go to good schools and c
many parents all drive good cars
go to normal schools and c
not many cars going in and out of schools
so what does this shows?
I wonder why schools like Raffles still asking for donation.?
so many rich parents around
-
>> 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. Exactly. That's why all is not lost. In the case of students who do not have a conducive or helpful environment for learning at home, the MOE can step in to ensure that they are not deprived simply because of their family background. I believe MOE is the ministry that shld step in, rather than MCYS. Frankly, I think the social services here are are really not up to par compared to those in other countries. We can perhaps discuss this in another thread next time. >> To get to the point, how many of your university classmates dropped out because of financial difficulties? Did you drop out for that reason? Nope. It's not abt "dropping out". That would be the extreme. I think most of us basically have the means to *not* drop out. What I'm saying is that getting the basics is not a big problem, but those who come fr low income families are disadvantaged when it comes to the extras that would've enhanced their education, such as further readings, immersion programmes, even hostel stays. They can only afford the basics, but not the rest tt wld enhance their education (the things that other students who have money can afford). By university, we would be able to apply for the tuition fee loan, with interest, of course. But the bursaries would have been very useful in paying for other items, and certainly, in ensuring that I would not have to resort to giving private tuition to get pocket money, which I did, sometimes, at the expense of time spent on my studies. While it's true that lots of uni students work part-time, it would be better if these jobs were taken out of choice (such as, they have gauged tt they wld be able to cope even with the job), rather than out of necessity. >> Could you specify (to phrase the question bluntly) what kind of help could be bought? Lots of things can be "bought". Money has been taken for granted, perhaps unwittingly, by the people who have it. Try living on two dollars a day for a month, and you will see how important money is, and what a difference it makes to have and not have money. Again, I think this idea that people from poorer familes ought not to be given "too much" financial assistance is an idea that is perpetuated by the very pple who do not need such assistance. And who would rather spend money on other areas, like, as mentioned, reconstructing school buildings, creating impressive structures, rather than helping the "soul" of the schools, which are the students.
-
No money very hard to survive.
Haiz.
-
Originally posted by cathykitty:
If you’ve ever gone for an interview, you will probably know how important preparation is. Knowing the right things to say will make all the difference in getting a job, or in this case, a scholarship. And my point is, teenagers from lower-income families are now disadvantaged, as they are less likely to be “trained” by their parents on what to say during these interviews. Basic questions, like “What is your aim in applying for this scholarship?” and “What do you know about this sector?”, might be easy for the interview-seasoned adult, but a teenager who has had no experience and no guidance will probably fumble when answering the questions.But unlike a job interview where if we fail to make the cut, we can always try to apply to another company in the same industry, for an undergrad scholarship interview, usually, that is the only chance that the teenager has got to prove himself or herself. They only have one chance to get the undergrad scholarship – after their A levels. And if they screw up, they will not get a chance to apply for the same scholarship again.
The problem here is not with the students or their abilities. The interviewers have failed in their job, which is to identify the academic potential of the students and to accommodate for the applicants' different interviewing styles.
Originally posted by cathykitty:Yes, but employment opportunities are often a function of education opportunities, don’t you think? The point addresses the impact of unequal opportunities in education on the future life of a person.Irrelevant. We're discussing educational opportunities here, so employment opportunities and even the impact of lack of educational opportunities are red herrings. Let's not muddy the waters here.
Originally posted by cathykitty:The importance of financial assistance for the poor has been understated. I think many people believe that money won’t make a difference, choosing instead to believe in the power of the individual to overcome all odds. But usually, these people are the very ones who don’t need financial help. Try asking a poorer family struggling to make ends meet if they would rather have financial assistance, or if they would prefer to be left alone to overcome their odds by themselves. The answer seems to be a no-brainer.At the moment, I don’t think the financial assistance for students is sufficient. I believe the MOE in Singapore has an extra-curricular fund for every student. But this is across the board. The poorer students do not get more help. So, in the event that the funds are insufficient, those students who are unable to pay out of their own pockets for expensive programmes, such as overseas trips, will lose out, in terms of the experience.
This still begs the question - I didn't ask if people got enough money, I asked how education and finances would help parents do more for their kids. I'll put it to you bluntly: if I gave you ten grand today, what precisely would your plan be to help your kid get better grades, and how would it work?
Originally posted by cathykitty:Money. An education contribution, maybe tied to low-income parents’ CPF accounts, for their kids’ welfare? And I mean, specifically, for the children before they enter the university. When they reach uni level, of course, they can use their parents’ CPF for their tuition fees. Currently, only “baby bonuses” are given for parents of young children. This is tied to how many children one has, and doesn’t evaluate the financial status of the parents.
Nope. This is the pitfall of all policymakers - those that believe that throwing money at a problem only find that at the end of the process they're broke and they haven't achieved a thing. It's not what you've got - it's how you go about solving the problem.
Originally posted by cathykitty:Lower-income families, unlike those who can afford to contribute to endowment funds, often do not save up for their kids’ education. That’s usually the last thing on their minds. So, more money for extra activities, to fund overseas trips, to provide tuition teachers for those who need them, would be extremely useful. Often, these extra activities may be subsidised, but still not fully paid for. The student would also need to co-pay. But even with subsidised rates, the poorer kids will have a problem paying, and may not be able to join as many activities as their peers.
In terms of helping with paying for tutors, it’s because it’s not reasonable to expect a school teacher to offer intensive remedial for students all the time. Now, poorer kids who are lagging in their studies either don’t do anything abt it, or they go to social NGOs where free tuition is provided. But the quality of such volunteer tutors is not being controlled. Also, the environment in which this takes place, having been a volunteer tutor myself, is not always conducive for teaching a child, leading to a haphazard type of learning that doesn’t really help.
All of the above is based upon the assumption that the teaching that students receive during class time is ineffective. That's like going out and buying a Ferrari because you assume that a Toyota isn't going to get you from Point A to Point B. Why not focus on solutions to make classroom teaching more effective?
Originally posted by cathykitty:Kids who grow up in money-scarce families are very conscious of that fact. Some of them may appear wayward, but they actually do care very much abt their pride and their family’s money woes. In fact, there are many bright students who do part-time jobs just to supplement their family’s income (and not just for branded goods). Surely that would affect their studies? Why shldn’t the govt do more to help them?
It would affect their studies if you assume that the only predictor of academic performance is the amount of time spent studying, ignoring other factors like efficiency of study techniques.
Certainly if a kid spent all his time after school and weekends helping run the family chicken rice stall with absolutely no time to do homework, you would have a problem there. On the other hand, I'd wager that such cases do not constitute a significant proportion of Singaporean students.
Let's take a step back here and be solution-focussed rather than problem-focussed.
-
But unlike a job interview where if we fail to make the cut, we can always try to apply to another company in the same industry, for an undergrad scholarship interview, usually, that is the only chance that the teenager has got to prove himself or herself. They only have one chance to get the undergrad scholarship – after their A levels. And if they screw up, they will not get a chance to apply for the same scholarship again.
From personal experience, this is not true most of the time.
In terms of helping with paying for tutors, it’s because it’s not reasonable to expect a school teacher to offer intensive remedial for students all the time. Now, poorer kids who are lagging in their studies either don’t do anything abt it, or they go to social NGOs where free tuition is provided. But the quality of such volunteer tutors is not being controlled. Also, the environment in which this takes place, having been a volunteer tutor myself, is not always conducive for teaching a child, leading to a haphazard type of learning that doesn’t really help.
That's why I help out at Homework Forum and created ExamWorld free :D
In fact, there are many bright students who do part-time jobs just to supplement their family’s income (and not just for branded goods). Surely that would affect their studies? Why shldn’t the govt do more to help them?
I taught a lot of tuition during my uni days, not to supplement family income, but to increase my savings. Don't feel that my studies were affected much leh.
-
Originally posted by Stevenson101:
I guess it depends on what you considering as equal.The rich family most likely start off poor at some stage, Singapore isn't old enough to have much old money.
Why wouldn't it be considered equal if i am from a lower income group but i work/study hard to get a high paying job and could then afford to give my children the best education?
The rich families obviously worked harder to get their better headstart for their children. Why is it so uncomfortable that they have more opportunities?
Granted, i find the idea of granting bursaries to families who can obviously afford it(*cough* *cough* Lee family) ridiculous.
no reason given. but prob due to the limited amt allocated for the bursaries, my dad's 1K income was still considered "too high" and my above average grades were still "not good enough". i am sure there are poorer kids out there who had better grades. i just tt think it begs the question of why the bursary amt has to be so limited.
and believe it or not, despite the uni having millions of dollars and being able to spend on rebuilding just every structure fr the bus stop to the canteen (even though the old ones were fine), bursaries are still v strictly limited, and yet former students are being mailed yearly to "donate" to the university.
the ideal world of course wld be tt rich and poor kids had the same chances so tt the poor kids have a chance to get themselves out of poverty. if the rich had better chances, and the poor had fewer, tt might lead to a widening gap between the rich and poor.
-
Originally posted by eagle:
From personal experience, this is not true most of the time.
i tink it's not true all the time, but surely most of the time tt's the case.
do u mean to say tt most of the time students can still apply for undergrad scholarships after they have started uni?
i believe most undergrad scholarships are awarded not yearly, but on a three-year or four-year basis.
-
Originally posted by cathykitty:
i tink it's not true all the time, but surely most of the time tt's the case.
do u mean to say tt most of the time students can still apply for undergrad scholarships after they have started uni?
i believe most undergrad scholarships are awarded not yearly, but on a three-year or four-year basis.
There are scholarships that you can apply all the way from year 1 to year 4. Means there's also 2-year and 1-year basis. The difference is the bond period.
-
and these scholarships are they in the minority, or are most scholarships like tt?
i guess u had a choice then. lucky u! but my pt is, let's say the student can't cope, yet still has to give pte tuition? some courses of study require more time than others.
-
My suggestion for dealing with elitist education:
Shoot the Elites.
-
Originally posted by cathykitty:
and these scholarships are they in the minority, or are most scholarships like tt?
i guess u had a choice then. lucky u! but my pt is, let's say the student can't cope, yet still has to give pte tuition? some courses of study require more time than others.
Most scholarships are like that. In addition, you can even apply for busaries. Furthermore, there are bank loans (at 4% p.a.) which only need to be repaid after you graduate.
My point of view is, if the student can't cope, it wouldn't be any better if he/she do not need to give pte tuition.
My schedule that I packed for myself in uni definitely requires even more time than most other courses (with the exception of medicine and perhaps, law). The number of modules I took is quite a bit over the requirement (5 extra), such that most pple would need another extra semester to do it. This is already on top of a full sem of Industrial Attachment and Student Exchange (which is agained, sponsored). This is all about personal time management.
-
Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:
My suggestion for dealing with elitist education:
Shoot the Elites.
It's more about personal goals sometimes. There are many people smarter than me around, yet though they have a goal to do well in their studies, it's a half hearted goal. Thus, no concerted effort was made to achieve it.... and this usually explains why they do not succeed as well as they like to...