<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR>If they dun do this, how would they fulfill the the Old Fart's decree of reserving 75% vacancies for his FTrash pets on free scholarships?
Sep 9, 2008
VARSITY PLACES
</TR><!-- headline one : start --><TR>Not a question of standards
</TR><!-- headline one : end --><!-- show image if available --></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->I REFER to last Saturday's letter from the Ministry of Education (MOE), 'Varsity standards must be maintained'.
At no time do we ask that admission criteria to public universities be lowered. By all means continue to uphold high standards so our universities maintain international recognition of their high quality. We are asking that, instead of arbitrarily setting a 'quota' of 25 per cent of each cohort this year or 30 per cent by 2015, the Government should base its supply of places in public universities on the number of students in each cohort that meet the 'minimum standards' of the universities. 'Minimum standards' in this sense are not the lowest standards, but rather the base standard a student must score in his A-level examinations to ensure a better than reasonable chance to pass his degree course.
Now the Government has accepted that the number of places available be increased to 30 per cent of each cohort by 2015, it is only correct to infer that, over the next eight years or so, some 5 per cent of each cohort are deprived of the opportunity of higher education in a local university. Five per cent of each cohort of, say, 30,000, means the talent of some 1,500 students will go to waste if they cannot afford a costly overseas degree course. Over the next eight years, this pool will swell to some 12,000. The Government laments that we have a small pool of talent to choose from for future leaders, yet we are not developing the potential of these students to the maximum.
As for the number of places in each course, planners have not been very successful over the years. There is always the fear of producing too many doctors and lawyers, and look at the situation in these two professions. Today our hospitals have many foreign doctors and medical fees are high because of short supply. Demand increases not only from citizens but more from wealthy patients from overseas which Singapore has unwittingly been so successful in attracting. If planners had provided places in accordance with students' choice of course, we might have more doctors, specialists and consultants and people need not pay such high fees.
As for opportunities for late bloomers, why does MOE subsidise part-time degree programmes offered by only three institutions? These institutions have limited places and, if it is the Government's aim to upgrade every Singaporean's skills and potential, subsidies must also cover part-time degree programmes offered by reputable foreign universities in Singapore. This will also be fair to those who are deprived of a place in the local universities because of the limited number of places. Roland Chia
Sep 9, 2008
VARSITY PLACES
</TR><!-- headline one : start --><TR>Not a question of standards
</TR><!-- headline one : end --><!-- show image if available --></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->I REFER to last Saturday's letter from the Ministry of Education (MOE), 'Varsity standards must be maintained'.
At no time do we ask that admission criteria to public universities be lowered. By all means continue to uphold high standards so our universities maintain international recognition of their high quality. We are asking that, instead of arbitrarily setting a 'quota' of 25 per cent of each cohort this year or 30 per cent by 2015, the Government should base its supply of places in public universities on the number of students in each cohort that meet the 'minimum standards' of the universities. 'Minimum standards' in this sense are not the lowest standards, but rather the base standard a student must score in his A-level examinations to ensure a better than reasonable chance to pass his degree course.
Now the Government has accepted that the number of places available be increased to 30 per cent of each cohort by 2015, it is only correct to infer that, over the next eight years or so, some 5 per cent of each cohort are deprived of the opportunity of higher education in a local university. Five per cent of each cohort of, say, 30,000, means the talent of some 1,500 students will go to waste if they cannot afford a costly overseas degree course. Over the next eight years, this pool will swell to some 12,000. The Government laments that we have a small pool of talent to choose from for future leaders, yet we are not developing the potential of these students to the maximum.
As for the number of places in each course, planners have not been very successful over the years. There is always the fear of producing too many doctors and lawyers, and look at the situation in these two professions. Today our hospitals have many foreign doctors and medical fees are high because of short supply. Demand increases not only from citizens but more from wealthy patients from overseas which Singapore has unwittingly been so successful in attracting. If planners had provided places in accordance with students' choice of course, we might have more doctors, specialists and consultants and people need not pay such high fees.
As for opportunities for late bloomers, why does MOE subsidise part-time degree programmes offered by only three institutions? These institutions have limited places and, if it is the Government's aim to upgrade every Singaporean's skills and potential, subsidies must also cover part-time degree programmes offered by reputable foreign universities in Singapore. This will also be fair to those who are deprived of a place in the local universities because of the limited number of places. Roland Chia
