-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
Scholar Director: Successful Parents Will Have Successful Kids. U Agree?
- Thread starter makapaaa
- Start date
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2008
- Messages
- 5,481
- Points
- 113
Invest so much in education? -compared to what Temasek invest in Shin Corp and all the troubled western banks, its peanuts. I think the amount Temasek has lost from Micropolis, Shin Corp, UBS, Merrill ,Citi ect2(and what else not revealed,including those of GIC) will enable
ALL CITIZENS FREE EDUCATION FOR GENARATIONS.
Just look at Brunei, education (till tertiary level) and health care is free for all.
In fact streaming at Primary Schools ,the Gifted Education Programme and the Integrated Programme are all very elitist and served to discriminate against those whoes parents are unable to provide them with tuition or the necessary home environment and support.
Our students are so bogged down with work that they have no time to
sit back and take a bird's eye view of the society they live in.
The old man must have realised that very often, social change are initiated by students who are at their most idealist stage of their life-just look at Korea, Thailand,Indonesia,ect2 where students activism have helped to bring down corrupt or dictatorial regimes.Or even our Chinese High School students in the past.With our present education system,our students are so laden with work that many don't even have time to exercise or take up hobbies-not to talk about being socially active .In the long run which is better for our society?
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2008
- Messages
- 1,975
- Points
- 0
Anything that is associated with past policies such as eugenics have proven to be absolute failures and should be discarded with immediate effects. Its just shameful, as I add, that many in the government service, especially the higher ones believe in such outdated crap.
Its nothing short of nazism and absolutism when one tries to justify such a brutal, micro-managed, and disrespectful policy. Its time to jettison it, honestly.
Its such BS that gets me angry.
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2008
- Messages
- 647
- Points
- 0
What is the definition of meritocracy? I guess for scholarships, the panel of interviewers will also look at the candidates' history. For me, an applicant that comes from a less privileged background but has managed to perform/improve over the years almost as well as someone from a highly privileged background would be more deserving of the award as he has shown potential in overcoming adversity and given a boost, will most likely be able to outperform the other candidate. For the other person, he may have already been performing near his peak.
However, judging how much potential a person has at eighteen years old is subjective and I would rather an emphasis be placed on helping those from poorer families as the rich will be able to afford a good education anyway.
The scholarships should not come with any bonds and there should be no career paths for scholars. It should simply be meant to provide a financial boost for those who have shown outstanding achievements (need not necessarily be academic). Get rid of the prestige/career tie-ins and you will find that most of the rich will not be bothered applying for them.
However, judging how much potential a person has at eighteen years old is subjective and I would rather an emphasis be placed on helping those from poorer families as the rich will be able to afford a good education anyway.
The scholarships should not come with any bonds and there should be no career paths for scholars. It should simply be meant to provide a financial boost for those who have shown outstanding achievements (need not necessarily be academic). Get rid of the prestige/career tie-ins and you will find that most of the rich will not be bothered applying for them.
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2008
- Messages
- 6,684
- Points
- 113
Sep 12, 2008
BONDS AND SCHOLARSHIPS
Meritocracy best yardstick
I HAVE been following the recent discussions on meritocracy, in particular, its practice in awarding undergraduate scholarships. Until I retired, I was directly involved in grooming many student leaders, so I hope to provide a better understanding of the 'relative merit' of the system.
First, I believe meritocracy is the only viable system that provides equal opportunity. Undeniably it has inherent flaws, but in a world where total equality is a myth, it holds the only hope of some semblance of equality. I myself went to university on a scholarship; without it, I would have been denied tertiary education. The scholarship literally allowed my family to get out of the poverty trap. This was the message I passed to my students, especially those who could do with help and had the talent to qualify. How else could a student from a three-room HDB flat whose father had died be able to study at Stanford and go on to work all over the world?
Of course, there are many cases where recipients seem less deserving in the eyes of the public. They come from well-to-do homes and could afford to go overseas on their own. They do well in interviews, being polished and versed in the ways of the world.
The point to note is that scholarships are awarded on merit. As long as the grades are there, the student is eligible. Period. Background is immaterial. Bursaries and no-interest study loans exist as avenues for other students - who are, of course, no less deserving.
Of course, students from wealthy families have an unfair advantage of being able to afford expensive tuition classes. However, we should not conclude that these students are not brilliant in their own right, or that tuition will produce results.
It is also necessary to put to rest the assumption that all poor students are 'hungry' and therefore motivated. Some carry a chip on their shoulder and indulge in self-pity.
So before we criticise the meritocratic system of awarding scholarships, we should realise it does try to be as fair as it can and it remains a source of hope for many. What is important is that recipients realise their heavy responsibility to do justice to taxpayers' money and return to contribute their talent, to improve opportunities of the less privileged so they, in turn, are ready for scholarships.
Ang Lai-Kuin (Mrs)
BONDS AND SCHOLARSHIPS
Meritocracy best yardstick
I HAVE been following the recent discussions on meritocracy, in particular, its practice in awarding undergraduate scholarships. Until I retired, I was directly involved in grooming many student leaders, so I hope to provide a better understanding of the 'relative merit' of the system.
First, I believe meritocracy is the only viable system that provides equal opportunity. Undeniably it has inherent flaws, but in a world where total equality is a myth, it holds the only hope of some semblance of equality. I myself went to university on a scholarship; without it, I would have been denied tertiary education. The scholarship literally allowed my family to get out of the poverty trap. This was the message I passed to my students, especially those who could do with help and had the talent to qualify. How else could a student from a three-room HDB flat whose father had died be able to study at Stanford and go on to work all over the world?
Of course, there are many cases where recipients seem less deserving in the eyes of the public. They come from well-to-do homes and could afford to go overseas on their own. They do well in interviews, being polished and versed in the ways of the world.
The point to note is that scholarships are awarded on merit. As long as the grades are there, the student is eligible. Period. Background is immaterial. Bursaries and no-interest study loans exist as avenues for other students - who are, of course, no less deserving.
Of course, students from wealthy families have an unfair advantage of being able to afford expensive tuition classes. However, we should not conclude that these students are not brilliant in their own right, or that tuition will produce results.
It is also necessary to put to rest the assumption that all poor students are 'hungry' and therefore motivated. Some carry a chip on their shoulder and indulge in self-pity.
So before we criticise the meritocratic system of awarding scholarships, we should realise it does try to be as fair as it can and it remains a source of hope for many. What is important is that recipients realise their heavy responsibility to do justice to taxpayers' money and return to contribute their talent, to improve opportunities of the less privileged so they, in turn, are ready for scholarships.
Ang Lai-Kuin (Mrs)
Most cases yes :p.... but one or two cases can be mayhem. It depends on his or her "Ci Sun Bark Jee" !!
A
Alu862
Guest
You don't get 4As 3S in SG, you are considered to be a nobody. Unless you use money politics.
Still not good enough. Understand that PSC selection panel is still very an old school and cynical lot that make applicants feel that they are beggars. Children of celebrated parents would likely be treated differently. Know of an academically brilliant and spirited youth from a top JC who found them such a turn off that it instantly killed his enthusiam of public service which the schools had painfully inculcated. He declined all scholarships but excel over scholars in uni. There are of course applicants accepted by psc that year including a schoolmate whose father happen to be pm. Instead of worrying about lack of talents, the pm should ensure the talent searchers are talented in their task in the 1st place and that they do not let talents slip pass.
Similar threads
