Rigid Education System - CHANGE!! (Just what I feel)
-
I lament a major drawback in our education system - its inflexibility. Being very much bureaucratic, students may only opt to take general core subjects at the Secondary 3 streaming exercise in the Math, Sciences and Humanities. I ask myself and question the system in this case, why not let us take whatever we wish to and subjects as we like it. I understand that the ‘O’ level syllabus has it that the subjects for testing may be restricted and limited, but at an age where everything seems to be of so much interest, I feel that the fervour and appreciation should be nurtured.
As a student myself, I do not take fancy to forgoing my ‘O’ level certificate simply to go for the Integrated Programme (IP). An alternative is provided from my sincere opinions.
Subjects taken at the ‘A’ Levels, such as economics, should be given a head start and taught at a more basic secondary level. This would provide students with a firm foundation for further studies in the tertiary education, very much like the reiterated ‘Foundation-based’ learning. But what I feel is really important is not just the foundation for learning, but the interest and passion for the aforementioned. However much of basic knowledge a student has at hand would do nothing to help in his or her course of education if things are restricted by the lack of personal interest.
Especially in this context of a major economic downturn, I feel take students should have the discernment to understand the cause of it all, and how the global economic works. Financial literacy could be part of this Economics course. With the understanding that a strong foundation in Mathematics may be necessary, an Economics course could be taken in tandem with both the Elementary Mathematics as well as Additional Mathematics.
If Economics is still dealt to be too difficult a subject for secondary school students, it could be excluded from the ‘O’ level Syllabi and just be an introduction to further studies in Junior Colleges or Polytechnics where the module would be continued. If students are already mature enough to make responsible decisions as to where their passion lies and what they want in life, we should not be so inhibitive as to only allow students to take general subjects. For an example, Pharmaceutical Studies could be offered as an additional non-examinable subject in the secondary level together with subjects like Chemistry and Biology - provided the student is really interested in medicine. This gives students an added push for their ‘A’ levels since it should be largely relevant to the tertiary curriculum.
Such additional courses should be available to all students who have credited themselves worthy of the chance in their internal school examinations. Benchmarks should be set either by schools or the ministry of education. As such programs may not be popular with all students, the courses could be conducted at Junior Colleges or Polytechnics by the lecturers there (similar to how students from various schools taking third language travel to language schools weekly). This encourages an efficient dispersion of manpower (which is also cost-effective) as all students who wish to take up a particular course could congregate at a Junior College of Polytechnic. This offers the tertiary institutions a chance to garner favour and support or even take in prospective students as well. The entire plan could be integrated as a post-secondary and pre-college study plan similar to that of the current DSA programme.
In this way, it widens the students’ horizons beyond simply examinations - like the ‘O’ levels which students would be taking, with may derail them from partaking in the aforementioned course - as students can pursue their interests while taking ‘O’ level subjects which helps build their foundation, and at the same time being assured of a place in a reputable institution they where they would wish to further their studies at.
The quality of students are also of standard as i have mentioned, students would have to go through a series of shortlisting exercises and interviews by either the prospective schools or the SEAB. The General Ability Test could be included among the series of assessments. This way, both parties - the schools and students - would all benefit, with the prospective schools receiving capable and able students, and with the students being assured a place in an institution of their choice, at the same time being able to sit for the ‘O’ level examinations (something I do not fancy about the IP programme), and take on subjects of interest.
Personally, I know I would want a place in the medical industry for myself in future, and there are many courses in JCs which I’ve already taken fancy to. So, if my ability permits me to learn such subjects in advance with me ensuring that I do not forsake my ‘O’ level Curricular, I do not see any hinderance against the Ministry of Education from taking this step forward.
If things were to remain as the status quo and we place emphasis only on foundation-building, then potential talents who may really be interested in a particular faculty of studies would be neglected - it is never too early to start, but delaying a chance could spoil an entire future of a student. A Chinese saying goes, 机ä¸�å�¯å¤±ï¼Œæ—¶ä¸�å†�æ�¥, which literally translates to ‘always taking every chance, because time and tide waits for no man, and the chance would never come again’. Since it is already within our ability to introduced higher-level H3 studies co-ordinated by Junior Colleges and Universities, it is definitely possible to do the same for Secondary Schools and Tertiary Institutions.
--------------------------------------
Comments are very very much welcome. What do you feel? Will this work?
-
Btw, i am sec 3 this year so i might not know a lot of stuff. Correct me if i am wrong.
I agree that it is bureaucratic and to add on, meritocratic. Better students get better subject combinations. I do not think that the subjects which is test in 'O' levels are limited and restricted. At this stage, secondary school, what students have to do is to build up a strong foundation. It also applies for primary school. Purpose of:
English and Mother Tongue: Communications, comprehension, literacy.
Amaths and emaths: Analysing data and statistics
Sciences (Physics, Chemistry Biology): 3 main branches of Science. And quite general too.
Social Studies: Inference, comparism, utility and even more. This subject will help a student to analyse an article or source and make them form their own opinions.
Geography and history: Makes you a holistic person with a bit of everything?
So, as you can see, all these are the fundamentals and essentials needed for tertiary education. Hence, it should be like that and not too complicated.
Economics is a very interesting subject. But subjective as different students have different perspective and mindsets. Most of the students will think it is boring.
Social Studies is a bit of everything, from governence to a little bit of economics. When it is a little bit, i mean a very little bit. My teacher just went through several slides on the Singapore budget. I am reading up on economics myself.
"If Economics is still dealt to be too difficult a subject for secondary school students, it could be excluded from the ‘O’ level Syllabus" Economics is not included in the 'O' level. It is only included in tertiary education level. There is no economics in secondary education.
This is all i can comment. Afterall, i am only sec 3.
-
I feel that our education system has been designed to serve the architect, ie the administrators or the government.
Along the way, they must have realised that this is not workable. Changes after change has been carried out.
Untill they decide who education really serves, that debate will go on and on. -
The western nations have a liberated style of learning ...for so long already.
-
And.....how long did it took for them to build the infrastructure to support that liberated style of learning?
A liberated style of teaching and learning also requires a great deal of professional teachers, not just the ones they churn out of the Teachers College. With plenty of experience working as professionals working in the industry, the sort of people who could tell you what that F Maths formula is actually used for.
Besides, in Singapore you earn far more as as an engineer/programmer/accountant and if you have a firm grasp for the fundamentals getting a job in the industry would be far more preferable to managing a bunch of pre puberty/puberty kids and putting up with parents who shove the responsibility of bringing up their kids to you.
Saying it's the problem of the system or because we can just switch to a liberated style of learning with a snap of the fingers kinda ignores the actual human resources required.
Of course, to provide the other side of the argument the MoE has too firm a grasp on who gets to teach and who don't. Making it difficult for old boys/girls to go back and give a brief series of lessons or lectures.
My views at least.
-
Originally posted by TTT203:
I lament a major drawback in our education system - its inflexibility. Being very much bureaucratic, students may only opt to take general core subjects at the Secondary 3 streaming exercise in the Math, Sciences and Humanities. I ask myself and question the system in this case, why not let us take whatever we wish to and subjects as we like it. I understand that the ‘O’ level syllabus has it that the subjects for testing may be restricted and limited, but at an age where everything seems to be of so much interest, I feel that the fervour and appreciation should be nurtured.
As a student myself, I do not take fancy to forgoing my ‘O’ level certificate simply to go for the Integrated Programme (IP). An alternative is provided from my sincere opinions.
Subjects taken at the ‘A’ Levels, such as economics, should be given a head start and taught at a more basic secondary level. This would provide students with a firm foundation for further studies in the tertiary education, very much like the reiterated ‘Foundation-based’ learning. But what I feel is really important is not just the foundation for learning, but the interest and passion for the aforementioned. However much of basic knowledge a student has at hand would do nothing to help in his or her course of education if things are restricted by the lack of personal interest.
Especially in this context of a major economic downturn, I feel take students should have the discernment to understand the cause of it all, and how the global economic works. Financial literacy could be part of this Economics course. With the understanding that a strong foundation in Mathematics may be necessary, an Economics course could be taken in tandem with both the Elementary Mathematics as well as Additional Mathematics.
If Economics is still dealt to be too difficult a subject for secondary school students, it could be excluded from the ‘O’ level Syllabi and just be an introduction to further studies in Junior Colleges or Polytechnics where the module would be continued. If students are already mature enough to make responsible decisions as to where their passion lies and what they want in life, we should not be so inhibitive as to only allow students to take general subjects. For an example, Pharmaceutical Studies could be offered as an additional non-examinable subject in the secondary level together with subjects like Chemistry and Biology - provided the student is really interested in medicine. This gives students an added push for their ‘A’ levels since it should be largely relevant to the tertiary curriculum.
Such additional courses should be available to all students who have credited themselves worthy of the chance in their internal school examinations. Benchmarks should be set either by schools or the ministry of education. As such programs may not be popular with all students, the courses could be conducted at Junior Colleges or Polytechnics by the lecturers there (similar to how students from various schools taking third language travel to language schools weekly). This encourages an efficient dispersion of manpower (which is also cost-effective) as all students who wish to take up a particular course could congregate at a Junior College of Polytechnic. This offers the tertiary institutions a chance to garner favour and support or even take in prospective students as well. The entire plan could be integrated as a post-secondary and pre-college study plan similar to that of the current DSA programme.
In this way, it widens the students’ horizons beyond simply examinations - like the ‘O’ levels which students would be taking, with may derail them from partaking in the aforementioned course - as students can pursue their interests while taking ‘O’ level subjects which helps build their foundation, and at the same time being assured of a place in a reputable institution they where they would wish to further their studies at.
The quality of students are also of standard as i have mentioned, students would have to go through a series of shortlisting exercises and interviews by either the prospective schools or the SEAB. The General Ability Test could be included among the series of assessments. This way, both parties - the schools and students - would all benefit, with the prospective schools receiving capable and able students, and with the students being assured a place in an institution of their choice, at the same time being able to sit for the ‘O’ level examinations (something I do not fancy about the IP programme), and take on subjects of interest.
Personally, I know I would want a place in the medical industry for myself in future, and there are many courses in JCs which I’ve already taken fancy to. So, if my ability permits me to learn such subjects in advance with me ensuring that I do not forsake my ‘O’ level Curricular, I do not see any hinderance against the Ministry of Education from taking this step forward.
If things were to remain as the status quo and we place emphasis only on foundation-building, then potential talents who may really be interested in a particular faculty of studies would be neglected - it is never too early to start, but delaying a chance could spoil an entire future of a student. A Chinese saying goes, 机ä¸�å�¯å¤±ï¼Œæ—¶ä¸�å†�æ�¥, which literally translates to ‘always taking every chance, because time and tide waits for no man, and the chance would never come again’. Since it is already within our ability to introduced higher-level H3 studies co-ordinated by Junior Colleges and Universities, it is definitely possible to do the same for Secondary Schools and Tertiary Institutions.
--------------------------------------
Comments are very very much welcome. What do you feel? Will this work?
While i can see the value of adding subjects that are more practically used in the industry why should we limit it to just Economics though?
And could the average student really handle the additional subjects considering it's already tedious as it is with the current subjects?
-
our system is best described as studying theories and formulas, getting a cert to show we are capable and forget about them
-
Originally posted by Worldlybusinessman:
our system is best described as studying theories and formulas, getting a cert to show we are capable and forget about them
That's the whole point of having an educational system, what you chose to do with the theories and formulas is up to how you were brought up.
An educational system that creates entrepreneurs sound pretty much like a oxymoron to me.
-
Originally posted by Stevenson101:
That's the whole point of having an educational system, what you chose to do with the theories and formulas is up to how you were brought up.
An educational system that creates entrepreneurs sound pretty much like a oxymoron to me.
theorires and formlas did not help me. But broad style learning did. Like in australian unis..
-
Originally posted by Worldlybusinessman:
theorires and formlas did not help me. But broad style learning did. Like in australian unis..
Would i be correct to assume you're hardworking enough to study in a university in Singapore THEN go to an Australian university?
-
Originally posted by Worldlybusinessman:
theorires and formlas did not help me. But broad style learning did. Like in australian unis..
and you complain constantly about australia and its universities?? -
we are always taught to stay in the boundaries and not exceeding the boundaries.
Yeah our education is world-class but i don't see them produce steve job, warren buffet, Alan Greenspan, picasso and whatever genuis they can be..
-
Originally posted by Smosh:
we are always taught to stay in the boundaries and not exceeding the boundaries.
Yeah our education is world-class but i don't see them produce steve job, warren buffet, Alan Greenspan, picasso and whatever genuis they can be..
You know, when you guys quote these successful men do you ever read up on their history before you quote them as examples of a world class educational system?Short of Warren Buffett, all of them dropped out of school. Even then Warren Buffett was rejected by the best business school of his time.
-
"Incentive to invent" is sometimes difficult for students to grasp because they assume that all societies are equally inventive, or that "necessity is the mother of invention," or
that invention is somehow related to innate, hereditary biological talent (so that there are "inventive races" and "noninventive races").None of these things is true.
Some societies, like Mesopotamian civilization or our own Western civilization, are very inventive. Others, like many primitive tribes, or civilizations like the Egyptian, are very uninventive. Nor does "necessity" have much to do with inventiveness.
If it did, those peoples who are pressed down upon the subsistence level, or even below it, in their standards of living, like some of the Indian tribes of the Matto Grosso, would be very inventive, which they are not. Or, if invention were in any way related to necessity, the povertystricken fellahin of Egypt or Trans-Jordan or the equally hard-pressed coolies of China or the peasants of India would have devised some new and helpful methods for exploiting their available resources. This is far from being the case.
Or, again, if biologically inherited talent had anything to do with inventiveness we would not have seen the great decrease in invention by the Chinese in the last thousand years, or the decrease in inventiveness among Anglo-Saxon Americans in the last hundred years, or the sudden appearance of inventiveness among noninventive peoples of eastern European stock when they migrated to America.
Inventiveness depends very largely on the way a society is organized.
Some societies have powerful incentives to invent, because they are organized in such a way that innovation is encouraged and rewarded. This was true of Mesopotamian civilization before 2700 B.C., of Chinese civilizations before A.D. 1200, and of Western civilization during much of its history.
On the other hand, many societies are organized so that they have very weak incentives to invent. Suppose that a primitive tribe believes that its social organization was established by a deity who went away leaving strict instructions that nothing be changed.
Such a society would invent very little. Egyptian civilization was something like this. Or any society that had ancestor worship would probably have weak incentives to invent.
Or a society whose productive system was based on slavery would probably be uninventive, because the slaves, who knew the productive process most intimately, would have little incentive to devise new methods since these would be unlikely to benefit themselves, while the slaveowners would have only a distant acquaintance with the productive processes and would be reluctant to invent any new methods that might well require the ending of slavery for their successful exploitation.
For these reasons, slave societies, such as Classical civilization or the Southern states of the United States in the period before 1860, have been notoriously uninventive.
No major inventions in the field of production came from either of these cultures. The significance of this can be realized when we recall that at the very time that the South was inventing so little, the North, and especially the people of the Connecticut River Valley, were passing through one of the greatest periods of invention in history (cotton gin, mass production and interchangeable parts, steamboat, screw propeller, revolver, electric motor, vulcanizing rubber, sewing machine, anesthesia, and so forth)...
http://www.archive.org/details/CarrollQuigley-TheEvolution
Is Singapore society organised to promote innovation and creativity?
Or is it organised so as to destroy innovative thinking and creativity and to conform to the norm?
-
....For someone who preach so much about Western propaganda, you pull out this piece talking about how Western civilization is superior?
The Egyptians invented
- Black Ink
- First Ox-Drawn Plows
- 365 Day Calendar and Leap Year
- Paper
- Organized labor
- Hieroglyphics as an early system of writing
- Sails
How the hell do you think they built the Great Pyramids if they didn't had a firm grasp of Maths and proper workflow? Suddenly they're not inventive?
The West went through their Dark Ages as well after the Fall of Rome, they've inherited their discoveries from the Muslims, Greeks and Egyptians. Even silk were smuggled in from China now suddenly they are arrogant enough to declare Western civilisation is more superior?
The Western Civilisation were built upon the knowledge of others, they didn't create all that knowledge from scratch. Suddenly they declare they were the source of all knowledge?
Inventiveness arises from the abundance of resources, not the lack of it. Would you encourage your children to study when you need them to work in the fields? You have to be well to do to be able to afford tutors and schools for education. Art cannot flourish if the next meal is not guranteed.
I do not deny that modern inventions are mainly based on their discoveries. But let's not forget what they did with the advances they had, they certainly did not share it with the inferior cultures they met. They pillaged, exploited and robbed, then send the loot back to provide fundings for furthur research and development.
Our ancestors were lowly educated immigrants, they certainly did not see the value of education, of innovation and creativity if they were unsure of their future that's why they insisted we get stable jobs as soon as possible.
We certainly didn't had the building blocks and infrastructure to support an innovative and creative society then but that's what we've been trying to head towards now with the funding for biomedicals and the creative industry.
Whether you want to be innovative and creative is up to you. But if you're going to spend your time expecting the government to do everything for you and then be disappointed when they do a bad job. Then good luck to you, because there's no way you're going to do it with a blame someone else mentality.
-
Whether you want to be innovative and creative is up to you. But if you're going to spend your time expecting the government to do everything for you and then be disappointed when they do a bad job. Then good luck to you, because there's no way you're going to do it with a blame someone else mentality.
Hell no.
-
...
-
Originally posted by 4sg:
I feel that our education system has been designed to serve the architect, ie the administrators or the government.
Along the way, they must have realised that this is not workable. Changes after change has been carried out.
Untill they decide who education really serves, that debate will go on and on.
Changes is inevitable, the world keep changing, and we hv to keep pace with it inorder to stay relevant, at least our education system are changing from time to time, unlike some countries, whereby after 10 years, the system still remain the same. -
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:
Hell no.
You want LKY to stay out of our lives and yet you still want him to do things for you?A man can only get as much as power as other men are willing to give. Expecting others to assume the responsibility for your well being is giving him the power to decide what's best for you.
-
Originally posted by Stevenson101:
You know, when you guys quote these successful men do you ever read up on their history before you quote them as examples of a world class educational system?Short of Warren Buffett, all of them dropped out of school. Even then Warren Buffett was rejected by the best business school of his time.
My point is that our education system does seem to produce any world-class talented people, thought it claims that its education is world-class.. -
whether a education can produce an inventor, a genius or a creator, it depend on each individual, consider USA with a population of over 300 millions producing a few genius is nothing comparing to a mere 4 millions citizenship here producing millionaires. And yet, today, if you look at Wall street scholars and business people trained from Harvard and MIT or any other american universities, what have they created...nothing but Cheater, and that is where the crisis begin, so is American going to change their view on their education to more focus on ethical management or cheating management.
As far as i am concern, if a person is educated to have good disciplines, social responsibility and gracious in behavior, that is good enuf. Whatever trade he/she mastered is another issue. So what if you are top scholar or PhD from some renowned modern changed western university that make you a great entrepreneur but lack of social responsibility and full of greed that eventually lead to many to suffers because of your unethical gain.
-
to be fair, how many students does our education system produce p.a. as compared to those countries with 'world-class' talents?
then again, it is rather uniquely Singapore to have such a thriving tuition community out there... Perhaps it's an indication that Singapore education system is insufficient?
-
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:
Hell no.
then u want heaven ar?? -
Originally posted by Smosh:
My point is that our education system does seem to produce any world-class talented people, thought it claims that its education is world-class..
Considering the amount of people migrating out every year, i think we have pretty good world class emigrants heh. -
Originally posted by Smosh:
My point is that our education system does seem to produce any world-class talented people, thought it claims that its education is world-class..
world class does not mean to produce top talented pple, it meant that we can produce discipline and honest people like you and me.