Is something wrong with our education system?

[kiwi2]

I don't think so. Learning and understanding relies on some degree of repetition. E.g., when you get introduced to addition and subtraction in primary school, you start with integers. You extend that knowledge later to fractions, real numbers, complex numbers, vectors, matrices, etc. Learning is like climbing up a helical staircase - you see the same things many times, but you see them from a higher level every time (recognizing more abstract concepts), and you can see a bit further every time (your horizon widens)

You "don't think so" perhaps cos you didn't experience it b4 or didn't have an exact picture of what it was like. I was stating based on the fact that my contemporaries and I had gone thru the system and it was truly like dat!

In our first year math class, we deliberately took modules which had a fair bit of overlap with our A level math. We did learn new stuffs, but there was also definitely a heck of overlap. Of cos in uni math, you have to know and use stuffs that you learnt in pri, sec, and JC. I'm not saying they still teach you how to add 1+1. But when I said "overlap" I really mean stuffs that they taught from scratch as if you had not learnt it at all earlier.

Needless to say, most common undergrads like us wanted the best results with the least effort. I got A+ for some of them. At that time, it felt shiok, but now when I look back, it doesn't mean much as far as learning is concerned. Anyway, I've thrown back almost all of the stuffs I theories and formulas I knew so well back then.

You're right here. I've seen straight-A students from one of the "elite" JCs struggle with a simple quadratic equation, and a student from an uber-elite JC (the one that dresses like a *** convention) told me something like "yes, we did this in class, but I immediately forgot it after the exam was over". (I've also met some good and even excellent JC students who could actually find out and apply new things on their own, but again they're more the exception than the norm.)

Yes, indeed. There's a difference between education and creativity. Our educational system here is good and can compete with the better ones internationally. The big problem is, it is good for producing a mass of citizens who are educated. It is not good for instiling creativity and nurturing learning thru curiosity. I can't overemphasize how many times my classmates have been chided by teachers in sec and jc for not following "instructions in the book" and asking questions that are not relevant. (More like they didn't know the answers and didn't want to embarrass themselves?)

And another thing I'd like to add regarding why those who go overseas can get good grades despite not doing well here. It's not always that overeas unis have poor standards. But rather, those fortunate ones whose parents are rich enough to sponsor their kids for an overseas education choose something they are interested to study. Over here, people just wanna get into uni. Unfortunately, many are given choices they dun want. But they have to live with it for 3 - 4 years at least. Sadly, you can't excel in something not of your interest.

My friend wanted to be a doctor but was not successful here. He aced in his A levels but just couldn't make it during the interview for some reasons. Ended up studying something not quite his forte, Engineering, and ended up with a not-too-impressive Honours. Not surprising. Also given that his China lecturers spoke with hard to understand accent and explanations!

Another reason I have is that overseas lectures tend to be more lively and interactive. Over here, perhaps surprising for those who haven't been to uni, lecturers still let you copy slides word for word or even allow you to make copies of the notes! No such thing overseas. They want you to think, make your own notes and argue back and forth. Overseas they use toys, real life egs and a lively lecture to bring forth a point. Mine? A good many lecturers spoke with low boring tones and flashed transparencies. Stuffs which I'd rather read myself at home sometimes.

 

[LittleWolf]

You "don't think so" perhaps cos you didn't experience it b4 or didn't have an exact picture of what it was like. I was stating based on the fact that my contemporaries and I had gone thru the system and it was truly like dat!

In our first year math class, we deliberately took modules which had a fair bit of overlap with our A level math. We did learn new stuffs, but there was also definitely a heck of overlap. Of cos in uni math, you have to know and use stuffs that you learnt in pri, sec, and JC. I'm not saying they still teach you how to add 1+1.

That's funny, because when I studied in Europe, I also had gone through a high school education that provided me with basic knowledge of calculus. Yet "1+1" was exactly where math classes at university started (Peano's axioms, which lead to methods like proofs by induction, or distinctions such as countable and non-countable manifolds), and these classes were quite challenging. It wasn't wasted time at all because many "simple" things are actually not that simple once you start asking questions instead of just accepting them.

How often do I need to use some of this stuff? Not too often. But it has expanded my horizon so I can look at problems from different angles, and it enables me to understand/appreciate things that are beyond my field of study.

Another reason I have is that overseas lectures tend to be more lively and interactive.

That's more due to the nature of the students. Bring an exciting US lecturer to Singapore, but as soon as he/she starts asking questions to the class to make it interactive, there will be silence because none of the students dares to open their mouth.

 

[Parchiao]

Of course there is something wrong with our educational system!

There is simply too many subjects to study, there is only so much time to study and so little time to go beyond what is really necessary to learn to master each subject. This process tends to seperate the naturally smart people from the ordinary ones because the smarter ones by their own means will be able to extrapolate beyond the boundaries of what has been taught while the majority will do what is necessary to reach their aim i.e. pass the tests, nothing else matters, this is what most of us can only handle in our youth, and we suffer from it later in life.

An attitude that is quite obvious in most people new to the workforce that I have come across goes like this. While they are normally able to comprehend problematic situations, they often wait for answers from managers or bosses like students waiting for answers from teachers. A good degree of people cannot even identify problems, let alone provide solutions. This is like some student who is waiting for a test paper. The expectation for an employee at work as always been to identify problems and provide solutions while the manager only provides the direction and facilitates the processes. The behaviour of most employess is an extension of their learning attitudes from the past!

A simple example here. Most of us would have learnt statistics. The problem is that most of us only know textbook stuff statistics and cannot describe with any degree of accuracy the whole point of what statistics is all about.

Another example. In your daily conversations outside , how much in depth do your topics go into? There is a difference between gossip and fact. Even if the topic is about photography, most people will only know what they are exposed to e.g. Canon vs Nikon or Film vs Digital, but don't have the slightest clue about anything outside their preferences. Cannot be bothered? Not necessarily, more like you don't realise what you are missing out on, but you were programmed this way since young, i.e. just focus on what you think is necessary, which inhibits your ability to learn.

Does this make sense?

 

[espion]

The emphasis in SG so-called education is on answers, namely right answers.

(And then a child gets confused when he is told sometimes there is no right and wrong, but only your choice.)

Beyond a certain level, it is not answers but questions, namely right questions, and PhD is about asking the right questions, especially those without answers.

I once asked a graduating varsity guy the question, "What is being educated?", and he said lots of incoherent things but never answered the question.

(Of course you must have an idea of a thing to know if something is not it.)

But maybe there is no right and wrong answer.

 

[psychobiologist]

can IQ be something that is taught?

 

[psychobiologist]

US universities embrace foreign talent. Without the influx of talented foreign students and scientists, the US would not be the world power it is today.

US universities are egalitarian. you come on your own accord, no spoon feeding, no subsidy, no this no that.

not like SG, we have to use $$ to get people to come over. in the states, people are willing to pay and go there.

worst off, when we bond those who come over, they flee.

in the US, there is an influx of talented people, because talented people choose to go to the US, they see it as a land of opportunities still.

Will a talented individual choose to come to SG instead of the US?

 

[shojibake]

The reason why you see a lot of academically poor students at the lower levels in the states, is because public education there sucks, plus the student population is more in tune with getting their hair done vs educating themselves. So at the end of it, the bunch that actually do make it to tertiary level usually want to be there.

 

[night86mare]

Singapore has always been proud of the achievement by students excelling in maths and sciences in many international competitions and its education system is said to be envied by many other countries. On the other hand, students in USA have always fared poorly but once it reaches tertiary level, USA does so much better and it is an undisputed fact that most of the top universities in the world are in USA. If Singapore has been able to produce students with very good results going into our universities, why are we lagging so far behind compared to the American universities.

I don't have an answer to this but it is clear something is wrong with our system that is over emphasizing the importance of academic results. I know of someone whose kids had average results but he had the money to send them to good high schools in USA and they are now studying at Harvard and MIT. Perhaps, our system is good up to ''O" level but wonder how many of our "A" students actually qualify for places in top American universities. In my opinion, it is about time our Education Ministry should do some soul-searching to revamp our system but for a start, it must find out what makes American universities tick when its schooling system prior to that level can't even compete at international level.

the usa system is very much different from singapore/uk system. in general i would not say it is EASIER to enter uk unis per se, more that the system is much more well-linked up compared to singapore --> us.

to be honest though, a lot of top american universities (ivy league) etc, do not seem to have any clear criteria for acceptance of students. i have had friends who were strong candidates, top cca records with key positions held in extremely important societies, pristine results, great SAT scores, you name it they had it and they got rejected while someone else with everything below significantly got in. i don't really understand why, but i suspect it's something to do with the american "drive" to add variety to their schools.

btw, american universities average standard i think compared to singapore is much much lower. it's just that they have so many, so that the "top ones" seem to be a lot. in any case, coming from a top jc i can tell you very confidently that the brain drain from jc --> university is pretty severe. most of the top students are heading overseas, whether on scholarship or not, so to be frank, your situation described about how top students are supposed to make nus/ntu/smu a super university because of brilliant talent is literally non-existant, with exceptions being nus medicine. even nus law, from what i've seen and observed lowers its standards sometimes.

 

[night86mare]

The system here is all based on academic and basically it's the paper that you get (PSLE,O &A level) that counts. Here's a good example: I've brought an American guest with her 6 year old daughter (1st grade) to the recent Chingay Parade. After the parade, she asked me for the tickets, flyers and even collected the conffetti on the floor. I asked her why and the mother says she wants to write a paper on her visit to the Parade with all the stuff she collected and it seems this is what she also do whenever she goes on special outings. She's been doing this since she was in kindergarten. I don't think any of our 4 or 6 years old will ever be doing that unless they are forced to do so. Most of our kids will probably be spending time with all kinds of homework instead (no time for such project).

not to put the kid down - i think in some cases the american way of doing things is a little extreme as well, at times. i don't mean it in this context though, but it's sort of similar.

i like to term it "ra-ra", when i say that it generally means that a lot of hot air and smoke and mirrors with not much substance. no offense meant to anyone, but sometimes, the psyched-up spirit of the americans i have come into contact with really takes the cake. a friend once met this bunch who didn't know each other before hand, at some function - he was a solo singaporean amongst a few of them.. suddenly before the group discussion they started doing a group cheer thing.

yeah, i know, showing that you have team spirit is one thing, but doing unnecessary actions which seem a little too.. artificial is another thing altogether. maybe it is culture shock though, the above example is probably a positive outcome, and the example i have described is well, not exactly negative, but you catch my drift, i hope.

 

[night86mare]

US universities embrace foreign talent. Without the influx of talented foreign students and scientists, the US would not be the world power it is today.

that is true.

to be frank, i have not seen any online articles slamming us funding of students, i.e. financial aid. us universities are extremely strong in this aspect, compared to uk universities.

i wil not even elaborate on the general attitude towards such practices in the universities in singapore. it has been debated since forever. every society has some form of animosity towards perceived competition for showering of attention from the government..

 

[night86mare]

frankly, your university education is as good as you and your peers make it. when i was doing my course in NUS, the majority of the students only want to get things over and done with, that was extremely unfair to the minority who want to get much more out of the classes. this isn't a problem unique to Singapore anyway, i see the same thing happening in Tokyo as well.

ditto in london :bsmilie:

i guess it is the same everywhere la

we also have:

1) students who like to act smart in class and waste the entire class arguing with the teacher, thereby deprieving their classmates of being able to go through an exercise, important as it may be. all nationalities included.

2) students who literally go to school to avoid working and to extend their socialising period.

3) etc etc etc, i'm sure you can add on, i don't want to sound too bitchy

 

[night86mare]

This has also led to certificate/degree inflation. Why would one need a university degree for most generic office jobs? Or an engineering degree just to peddle equipment to companies as a "sales engineer"? Wouldn't a polytechnic course be more than enough for that? Conversely, what is the quality of a university course that has to cater to a large number of students who will go into office and sales jobs? You cannot automatically assume anymore that someone who made it through university is a suitable for academic or intellectual tasks, you have to search for the few pearls in an ocean of mediocrity. (This problem is also prevalent in the US; I've seen a documentary video of freshly baked MIT engineering graduates who couldn't for the life of it made a light bulb glow when given a bulb, a battery, and some wire.)

someone once told me that university training is not to train you for the job. the investment banking line takes in all sorts of degrees, from law to economics to even chemical engineering, sometimes to do something totally unrelated to whatever the candidates have done during their university. the idea is that there is no other clearcut form of measurement, as much as you like it, for a mixture of discipline, determination and intelligence. for everything else, the interviewers and recruiters are supposed to differentiate using whatever methods they have, assessment done for social skills etc, which cannot be measured with the previously mentioned.

i mean, at the end of the day, if you have a person who say, failed at an unknown university, versus a magna cum laude (first class honours) from a top us ivy league university. as much as the former can claim that he will be better at the job, he is more streetsmart blah blah blah.. who would you trust more with your billions? let's be honest with ourselves.

one of my lecturers likes to joke about how university is a positive form of signalling (in economic terms) to recruiters, in the sense that it gives the idea that anyone going through university must be extremely tolerant to torture and suffering.. in preparation for the working life. :bsmilie:

 

[night86mare]

My friend wanted to be a doctor but was not successful here. He aced in his A levels but just couldn't make it during the interview for some reasons. Ended up studying something not quite his forte, Engineering, and ended up with a not-too-impressive Honours. Not surprising. Also given that his China lecturers spoke with hard to understand accent and explanations!

Another reason I have is that overseas lectures tend to be more lively and interactive. Over here, perhaps surprising for those who haven't been to uni, lecturers still let you copy slides word for word or even allow you to make copies of the notes! No such thing overseas. They want you to think, make your own notes and argue back and forth. Overseas they use toys, real life egs and a lively lecture to bring forth a point. Mine? A good many lecturers spoke with low boring tones and flashed transparencies. Stuffs which I'd rather read myself at home sometimes.

1) not that good lecturers are never a bonus, but essentially university learning is very much different from foundation education. you are expected to know the material yourself, before you go to class. many of my OVERSEAS UNIVERSITY (note hor, a lot of people everytime anyhow talk anyhow compare without knowing the truth, just use hearsay) lecturers go at an extremely breakneck pace. and yes, we have a china lecturer too, who pronounces "count" as well.. something else missing a vowel.. which makes for extremely muffled laughter when he says.. "to get a good set of data, we must compress our counts". go figure.

2) your other reason is FALSE. when i compare the lectures i happened to crash in nus (eh, not because i very hardworking hor, cos everytime friends mix up their timetables then end up having to attend with them).. i think it is almost on par. most other uk university experiences described also sound the same.

maybe it is different in the us, i won't know, but at least i would not pass judgement first-off without hearing it from a reliable source.

 

[Yatlapball]

Would you... take a module knowing full well that it would be near impossible to score better than a B- or take one that is virtually guaranteed of an A+

If you know that your GPA has some direct influence on your pay.

I'm asking in the context of civil service where your 1st class honours are on a different pay scale than your run of the mill graduates.

 

[night86mare]

after reading through this thread, and having brought up this topic before - albeit with a different focus during ot in antoher thread, i still think that many of the suggestions here are no different from the misguided approach taken throughout recent years. what is largely supported is artificial promotion of something, which might not even be there in the first place.

to be honest, i am more than happy with my primary school years, my secondary school years, my jc years. education is often what you gain out of what is taught to you. in all fairness, the fault is not entirely at the doorstep of moe. it is a vicious cycle - you see, every employer in the world which is more highly desired than most cares about your results. if you end up getting a mere pass in university, it is often not enough. not just in singapore - in many places in the world which are touted (much to my disgust, and slight disdain, i must say) to be the glorious lands of second chances, you don't get one in actuality. how did this situation come about where people started thinking that america is a land where people will soft touch you if you flunk out of school? or europe? from where i am, london is no less forgiving than singapore in terms of the inability to succeed. it might even be worse. in singapore if you do badly you might still eke out a living. here, heh heh heh.

like i've said before, the trouble with university education in singapore is the fact that everyone has to be fit into a box. kuo pao kun's work, the coffin is too big for the hole would probably be a good analogy here; the word is compartmentalisation. the definition of success in university in singapore, not just by the schools alike, but also by society, seems to me very rigid - when one speaks of success during his or her university days you can almost paint a virtual picture in your mind:

1) someone who's been involved with school activities, best case scenario is sports
2) good results, duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
3) added bonuses (which just top the cake off with that little sparkle) like community involvement, doing silly projects overseas for the sake of one's resume, etc

one thing i'd say for sure, singaporeans like to follow the crowd. i don't mean to insult anyone but you plant 3 people screaming "four legs good, two legs bad" in kopitiam for 2 months, soon the whole place will be saying "four legs good, two legs bad" like mantra. for most, there is no individualism, no passion, no drive. one does things for the sake of doing so, with no clear direction and purpose. i've been there before, it's just sooooo easy to jump on the bandwagon.

the thing is, i'm not exactly sure where this syndrome comes from. is it just education? i don't think it's just that, to put it that way would be too simplistic.

 

[night86mare]

If you know that your GPA has some direct influence on your pay.

I'm asking in the context of civil service where your 1st class honours are on a different pay scale than your run of the mill graduates.

to say that one's gpa has no direct influence on one's pay ANYWHERE is hogwash, for correction and clarification

better companies offering better pay have a reason to do so, they want a better choice of candidates, it is not because they are paris hilton and have a lot of money to hurl around like paint on white walls.

it is only natural - if you are given a choice between one offering to work for food, and one offering to work for 1 million a year, assuming that 1 million is nothing to you, i would think that most humans (and rightly so) would give the latter a lot more respect. as the old saying goes, give peanuts, you will get monkeys.

 

[LittleWolf]

US universities are egalitarian. you come on your own accord, no spoon feeding, no subsidy, no this no that.

not like SG, we have to use $$ to get people to come over. in the states, people are willing to pay and go there.

Have you been to the US? Of course there are subsidies and scholarships to help get the brightest, not only the wealthiest. Or to support underrepresented/disadvantaged groups. Or to support foreign students. Without bonds, by the way.

worst off, when we bond those who come over, they flee.

US universities don't mind if foreign students go back to their home countries (in fact, US visa regulations encourage or even mandate it to prevent brain drain from some countries and for some fields of study, such as medicine). It is seen as developing aid/outreach that also generates valuable goodwill for the US, international alumni networks for the universities, and benefits US students by exposing them to a multicultural environment.

By the way, Singaporeans also break bonds. On the other side, it is difficult for some really good foreign NUS/NTU graduates to find jobs where they could contribute best (they WANT to work here, despite not being bonded) because hiring policies greatly favor Singaporean graduates, even if their academic record is less than stellar.

Will a talented individual choose to come to SG instead of the US?

Of course. There's opportunities everywhere, and many kinds of reasons why one would go to non-mainstream places. Many also leave again once they figure out that SG doesn't nearly live up to all the marketing hyperbole. Others will stay and take it as a challenge to build up something, despite all the bureaucracy, clueless management, and other adversities. But that may be difficult to understand for people who are used to following the crowd (to the US) or going the path of least resistance.

 

[Parchiao]

Would you... take a module knowing full well that it would be near impossible to score better than a B- or take one that is virtually guaranteed of an A+

If you know that your GPA has some direct influence on your pay.

I'm asking in the context of civil service where your 1st class honours are on a different pay scale than your run of the mill graduates.

I had a vice pricipal who majored in zoology. :sweatsm:

 

[psychobiologist]

Have you been to the US? Of course there are subsidies and scholarships to help get the brightest, not only the wealthiest. Or to support underrepresented/disadvantaged groups. Or to support foreign students. Without bonds, by the way.

haha what you think leh? i dont talk without experiencing it myself.
subsidies/scholarships for the brightest etc, that depends if you are at a public uni, or a private one.

foreign students can apply for half-merit scholarships, based on their academic performance in the first year, several of my friends did it that way. but its still egalitarian.

US welcomes foreign talents, but they dont make it a privilege for them. look at what singapore uni's are doing now? are there any constant efforts grooming local talents locally?

US universities don't mind if foreign students go back to their home countries (in fact, US visa regulations encourage or even mandate it to prevent brain drain from some countries and for some fields of study, such as medicine). It is seen as developing aid/outreach that also generates valuable goodwill for the US, international alumni networks for the universities, and benefits US students by exposing them to a multicultural environment.

By the way, Singaporeans also break bonds. On the other side, it is difficult for some really good foreign NUS/NTU graduates to find jobs where they could contribute best (they WANT to work here, despite not being bonded) because hiring policies greatly favor Singaporean graduates, even if their academic record is less than stellar.

yesh! singaporeans do break bonds, and they will pay the LD. but my sister's father in law (a businessman in china) was speaking to one of the chinese nationals over there and they got onto the topic of education, the chinese national said he graduated from nantah a year ago etc.. and when he was asked on whether he was serving out the bond (simple one, just work in sg for a few years), the conversation went silent.

are singaporean graduates preferred over foreign students that is? in a HR point of view, foreign students less demanding on wages, no need to give cpf, dont have reservist etc, can do the same job for a lower salary etc. what do singaporeans have to offer as an advantage to companies when they compare us against the rest? (this is something that many lack, we just cannot be differentiated against them, and we cannot justify the higher wages too)

Of course. There's opportunities everywhere, and many kinds of reasons why one would go to non-mainstream places. Many also leave again once they figure out that SG doesn't nearly live up to all the marketing hyperbole. Others will stay and take it as a challenge to build up something, despite all the bureaucracy, clueless management, and other adversities. But that may be difficult to understand for people who are used to following the crowd (to the US) or going the path of least resistance.

and why do people figure out that singapore doesnt live up to the marketing hyperbole? and why did they even come in the first place. i believe you are a researcher yourself. you can see some of the topbrains that are in singapore, but not for long. are we able to retain them? are you with IBN? btw is alan coleman still with ESI or shifting his focus back towards research? sir david lane, probably back in the uk already?

all the life science in singapore, what field do you think one has to specialize in to choose to come to singapore for a post-doc?

 

[psychobiologist]

Yes, indeed. There's a difference between education and creativity. Our educational system here is good and can compete with the better ones internationally.

singapore's education system is one of the very top for formal learning.. just look at the tourists buying assessment books in popular cuz they've never seen something like this before :bsmilie:

but singapore's definitely have a long way to go, based on informal learning.

you can be the god of physics and math. but when you come out to the real world to work, how many % of your academics do you utilize in your work? or is everything shelved? what do most people learn out of uni, apart from all that math and calculations? ;p

go interview a uni student, what is your strength and your weakness, why should we hire you when we have 100 other applicants having the same qualifications as you and some with better results etc? listen to their replies, and based on their reply, you can see how "mature" some can be, whilst others are just.. unable to answer these questions properly..