Template : An Attempt to Inject Intellectual-ness into my Life
Tuesday, July 26, 2011 ? 0 Atashinchi ?
Yay been reading some articles online and shall discuss some stuffz here to uhh sound more smart! xD1. Education
http://www.facebook.com/notes/janelle-nicodemus-lee/an-open-letter-to-the-education-minister/10150248404359401
I guess many people have seen this post before, though I just came across it. So here's some quotes that I like:
The beauty of education is to ask 'Why?' and have those questions answered. To be aware of knowledge one never knew about. To constantly discover new insights and new things every day, to answer questions lurking in our minds. But far too often, we are taught not to ask why, to just memorise. To get an A1, all we have to do is memorise our textbooks inside out and upside down, and be able to regurgitate them on the very day, tweaking them minimally to answer the questions asked. In the pursuit for grades, I believe we have lost the beauty of education: The ability to ask 'Why?'
I admit that I myself harbour this kind of mindset a lot of the time. E.g. as long as some part of lecture is 'optional' and won't be tested, I automatically shut off. (Although not that I don't sleep in lectures normally. :P) But I guess many of us are so used to studying along the supposed 'Learning Outcomes', ticking off what we know against a checklist, that we are too content with simply fulfiling the goal of memorising the syllabus. Especially as the syllabus is already too much for our brains to grasp, such that we are unwilling to 'waste' brain space on information that won't provide quantifiable benefit in the form of exam results. Of course, this does not apply to EVERYONE, as evidenced by the many smart smart people in our school who seem to know a lot of cheem out-of-syllabus things, but you get what I mean...
We may be a First World Country, but if our education system still holds the belief that we are in a Second or Third World Country, and need to furiously cram facts in our head to get out of the cycle of poverty fast, then we will never truly raise First World leaders.
Although I don't necessary agree with all of the author's arguments (I think she is generalising on some points), I do agree that education needs to evolve with the times. Just like how Lee Kuan Yew's style of leadership was critical to Singapore's survival post-independence but would hardly be well-received in today's context. One of the factors that contributed to Singapore's success is how its people are so industrious, but in a way the 'kiasu-ness' brings down our quality of life (or otherwise known as non-material standard of living in econs lol), which leads to high stress levels blah blah. Now that we have achieved economic success, ought we continue with the mindset that we're still 'not-there-yet' and need to keep on striving hard, or should we adopt another attitude in which we learn to be content with what we have and just sit back and 'chill'? To make a generalised comparison, are we willing to trade material well-being for non-material well-being?
Teachers often 'eat up' our CME lessons to have their own lessons, for one. Though this may not be a commonplace occurence, it happens extremely often for graduating classes when teachers are rushing to finish up the syllabus. Again, the system sends out another message: As long as you can get all A1s for your O levels, your character does not matter.
Ah. How familiar does this sound. Somehow over the years it's become very obvious to us which are the subjects that 'matter' and which are the ones that don't. Those that aren't tested, or do not contribute significantly to overall grades, don't require us to put in effort. So if we need energy for the next class we should just sleep in these 'unimportant' classes since well, it's not going to be tested anyway! (I'm referring to RG philo classes btw :P) And in response to the author's point about Civics and Moral Education, I think that giving us an NE quiz isn't a very good way to test our uh national identity either. Especially since non-Singaporeans take it also cos they have to fulfil the RD. -.-
http://www.facebook.com/notes/monica-lim/letter-to-heng-swee-keat/10150267225049783
And yes, another well-known letter.
This treatment of academic prowess as a “superior” skill can be seen throughout our system. Although we profess to embrace all talents, it’s often lip service... The message we seem to be sending is: we'll look at your other talents IF you have the academic ability.
Although there is supposedly more diversity in our education system now, what with all the specialised schools in arts, technology and whatnot, academics is still obviously the most 'desired' talent. And being in Raffles really reinforces that. How many of us would really sacrifice our schoolwork to pursue our talents in other areas? (With the exception of certain smartypants who excel in both academics and non-academics, which unfortunately excludes the majority of our school population. :X)
Even otherwise worthwhile activities, such as CCAs and community service, have lost their noble intent somewhat, as many students now perform these duties clinically for the sake of window dressing their resume.
Does this not remind you of a certain RD Application that we've recently had to submit? Being the guinea pig batch we would perhaps have been less affected, but I can just imagine future batches designing their extra-curricular activities around the criteria listed by the RD. Sometimes I really wonder if students would be so active in CIP work and such if not for the fact that, well, we have to fulfil certain requirements. I used to cringe when writing CIP reflections and exaggerating about our 'noble intents', but now I'm so used to it that I don't even THINK about why I do community service anymore. Does that mean that I've cultivated the habit of doing service to the community? Or that I'm used to doing such projects because it is encouraged by the school?
Also, our supposed 'diversity in talents' unfortunately is limited to the range of 'talents' listed by the school. Let's say a student is gifted in a skill such as knitting, which obviously does not fall into any of our 5 categories, how is his/her talent less desirable than another skill such as being able to perform Carmen Fantasy on violin or winning the sports championships? While some students may persist in their hobbies, such as some of my friends who are cosplay fanatics, but in the end academics always come first. In a way many of us will never realise how 'talented' we are, simply because our abilities aren't recognised as 'talents' or we never get the opportunity to develop them since we always prioritise other things above them.
No education system is a one size fits all but we need to consider the best interest of the majority of students. If half your students fail in an exam, it doesn’t reflect badly on the student – it reflects badly on the teaching. I find that in setting the curriculum and exam papers, there seems to be some semi-sadistic streak in MOE and schools, to trip kids up and make them feel stupid.
I'm not sure how I stand on this point haha. While this seems to be a trend in certain departments in RJ (econs cough cough), it seems to have turned out good results for A levels over the past years. But I do wonder if de-moralising students will necessarily spur them on to work harder and whether this is a better strategy as compared to making the bell curves for school exams more similar to that of the actual A levels.
Does having one less ‘A’ make you less of a person?
And to conclude my longggg part on education, while supposedly character is more important than academics, undeniably more opportunities are open if one possess outstanding school grades. Though of course a good character would enable one to succeed in the long run. I guess in this case an interesting question to ponder would be whether the social system is fair in rewarding people equally according to the strength of both ability and character?
2. Transport
http://motoring.asiaone.com/Motoring/News/Story/A1Story20110719-289947.html
Came across this interesting article. It's so econs-ish! While Singapore's public transport industry is ostensibly an oligopoly with 2 major firms, SMRT and SBS, government regulation effectively makes the industry a monopoly as these firms have to operate distinct routes. Along individual routes, there is no competition, and consumers have no alternative to turn to even if they are unhappy with increases in price. As such, the government's argument that the privatisation of this industry would achieve efficiency seems rather shaky indeed. Although I guess we can consider the POV that the competition comes in at the stage of tendering for these routes, it remains that once the services come into operation, the prices and standards of service are only influenced by market forces to a limited extent.
Public transport is of course a merit good, which makes its provision a delicate subject. It is difficult to say if the nationalisation of the public transport industry would lead to inefficiency. On one hand, Singapore does have an effective civil service that is not burdened by problems like corruption, yet on the other hand a profit motive would provide a good incentive to maximise efficiency. However, with merit goods there is also the issue of societal welfare. While currently the government's measures ensures that profits are not the sole driving force behind the firms, such that less profitable routes are still provided, it IS true that there are several problems now, including over-congestion of trains, etc. that are sore issues with the residents here. Other than expanding our infrastructure to pre-empt the rise in population size due to immigrants (easier said than done, given our limited land size), I can't think of any solution to this problem, since raising prices is obviously not feasible (the public already damn whiny lol). So err all that I can say is good luck Minister Lui Tuck Yew. :X
3. Miscellaneous
http://news.xin.msn.com/en/singapore/article.aspx?cp-documentid=5083368
This was in today's news haha. It's actually about improving the pay and working conditions for nurses, but what caught my eye was this particular phrase:
They want more training opportunities — our locals actually want to be better educated now, they just don’t want to stop at diploma, they want to have degrees and masters.
I remember there was a time when I seriously considered a career in Early Childhood Education. However reality kicked in when I realised how limited the career opportunities were. Being a typical human being, I want the opportunity to stretch my academic potential and I am not selfless enough to throw myself into an industry where the pay and career advancement opportunities are not as good as what I can get elsewhere. While in many industries such as teaching, nursing, etc., the conditions have been improved such that they attract high-ability Singaporeans who are passionate to establish careers in these fields, perhaps more could be done to cover more industries in which there is the problem of a lack in talent. In this case the government definitely needs to intervene, as pure profit motive may not motivate firms to undertake these measures.
http://theonlinecitizen.com/2011/07/the-singapore-that%E2%80%99s-great-for-everyone-except-singaporeans/#.TiT9ZuwcVIw.facebook
This article covers many issues. I won't talk about the stuff that I've already discussed, but there are some other interesting ideas that I'd like to bring up.
Whilst public healthcare remains relatively attainable, the quality is shoddy and apathetic.
Although um I may not necessarily agree with the author's possibly extreme view, it is true that the excessive demand for public healthcare reduces the quality of its service as compared to the private sector. While this is in accordance with the market system, this should ideally not be the case as all Singaporeans should receive equal standards of healthcare. (Not happening in a million years of course) Hopefully the imminent opening up of new hospitals like Sengkang General Hospital and Jurong General Hospital (i think?) will alleviate this problem to some extent. Which brings us to another problem - how to retain capable doctors against the competition from private hospitals.
(Btw irrelevant fact: Minister of Health Gan Kim Yong is in my GRC xD)
Can we not explore a tiered system in public housing to ensure that the folks who are in need get properly subsidized housing?
This is an interesting suggestion which I guess a lot of people have considered. (Including me lol) But easier said than done haha. It is really hard to differentiate between who needs them and who needs them more! :P Also, in this case the welfare of two different groups of stakeholders are conflicting - Singaporeans who want to buy houses, and Singaporeans who already have houses. An alternative is new housing projects, which is difficult since Singapore's land is already highly saturated, not to mention problems like the longggg waiting time and sky-high demand.
Personally I toyed with the idea of eyeing the older HDB estates to see if they can be part of the solution, especially as many of these estates consist of low-rise flats, which is obviously an inefficient use of land. Also, the residents there tend to be older, so erm there may be a highly rate of the residents moving out? (Trying to be politically correct here...) As of now, the houses would probably be unpopular on the resale market (cos they're old mah) but if they can be redeveloped it could be a valuable alternative for house-buyers. Haha does anyone have input on thsi idea? I'll be interested to discuss. xD (Eh I'm quite proud of this idea leh cos I didn't read it from anywhere else for once. Though probably other people also thought of it lol. Or spotted the loopholes. :P)
But the issue is that we haven’t yet developed the infrastructure to support this influx of people. Clearly, Singaporeans are bearing the brunt of sky rocketing home prices, over-crowded public transport and spaces, and lack of proper assimilation of immigrant communities. We boast of top-tier healthcare and education yet the regular Singaporean encounters something quite different.
Shall end off with this quote. I think it's a good evaluation of our current scenario right now. While foreign talent supposedly do help to propel the economy, perhaps the key of the problem really lies in the inadequacy of our infrastructure to support them (actually in a way that includes me as well :X). And actually I think Singaporeans should appreciate the government more for their efforts to solve these problems lah, like they should stop whining unless they really think they can do a better job running the country lol. :X
(Oh and in reference to the part about education, I think the fact that I feel SUPER DUPER EXTREMELY guilty for spending time writing this as opposed to doing work/mugging, kind of shows something. Including but not exclusive to the sad lives that J2s facing A levels lead. :( )
< edit> whoa my post seriously damn long leh O_O And I kinda sound like i'm doing an AQ haha < /edit>
An Attempt to Inject Intellectual-ness into my Life