I screwed up my PSC interview.
I feel extremely lucky to be able to say that without too much regret. Yeah I didn't prep; I haven't been paying attention to current affairs or developing my lines of thought (of which there are many), but the bottomline is that I didn't really care about it. Well, I don't need it, it sure doesn't need me, and I've only a tepid interest in working in the civil service.
The main interviewers (there were 8 I think, but only 2 asked anything while the rest frowned) were elderly gentlemen, true civil service mandarins, who given a subtle change of context and clothes wouldn't look out of place at a void deck playing chess at a senior citizens' corner and drinking tea in singlets, shorts and slippers on a Sunday morning. But their minds are incredibly sharp and I got pwned in a really wide-ranging discussion.
There were a lot of things that got thrown up, and a lot of arguments that I didn't bring up or couldn't remember in time. I probably came across as extremely opinionated and something of a crackpot - my arguments were provocative and unfortunately not very well-supported. Didn't think through my stuff. Also I've picked up a habit from Zhaohan: speaking in subclauses. Sentences that meander off the tongue. Extended paragraphical monsters of gothic construction that incorporate masses of mini-sentences, commas, semicolons, and end up contradicting themselves. Ugh. Yeah ZH I shouldn't have called you up last night haha.
So yes, I won't be too surprised if they end up opening an ISD file on me rather than giving me a PSC.
-----
Just two of the issues we talked about
Public service remuneration: Yeah I brought this one upon myself. As usual I argued that tying ministerial pay to private sector salaries was misguided; according to economics, the sole aim of firms is profit maximisation, and private sector management is paid based on the fulfilment of that aim. Thus pegging ministers' pay to private sector pay is akin to paying ministers according to how profitable Singaporean firms are, which makes no sense to me. (I believe there are further intricacies in which doctors', lawyers' and engineers' salaries are also involved; that makes even less sense). Of course, they were kinda bemused and stunned, and they asked, if not private sector salaries, what then?
Well I have no answer to that, frankly. I'm not prepared to be drawn into value judgements and messy ethical and moral stuff. That's both the beauty and the downfall of economics; economists hover above the fray, ready to pass judgement based on the framework of economic reasoning, but never to decide anything. There are many answers to this type of question, but they all follow either of two forms:
My beliefs: This one was about my application essay in which I wrote about secular humanism. The main interviewer (I can't remember his name) equated this to 'human rights activist', which in Singapore and in his tone of voice, was something of an accusation. Well, no if you, sir, mean human rights activist in the sense of long-haired hippies picketing City Hall, I'm not a human rights activist.
But to me, the term 'human rights activist' is kind of tautological. I mean, all activists are human, and if you were human wouldn't you be interested in your rights? After all, all humans are interested in their well-being. So in a sense, everyone is a human rights activist. Of course the problem is in defining what those rights actually are. Well, shucks.
-----
Yeah ok those were really tedious arguments. Other stuff... the main interviewer asked stuff like if I'd consider going into politics (no f-ing way) and if I'd ever migrate (uhh probably not, despite all that I say/dream about). Anyway it was all over in half an hour and it didn't go as deep as the EDB interview.
The thing about economics is, it never gives you straight answers; it just forces you to dig deeper and think more. That's what I ended up doing, I guess, and it backfired. lol oh well nvm ^^ I think I've lost a bit of my mental faculties.
The main interviewers (there were 8 I think, but only 2 asked anything while the rest frowned) were elderly gentlemen, true civil service mandarins, who given a subtle change of context and clothes wouldn't look out of place at a void deck playing chess at a senior citizens' corner and drinking tea in singlets, shorts and slippers on a Sunday morning. But their minds are incredibly sharp and I got pwned in a really wide-ranging discussion.
There were a lot of things that got thrown up, and a lot of arguments that I didn't bring up or couldn't remember in time. I probably came across as extremely opinionated and something of a crackpot - my arguments were provocative and unfortunately not very well-supported. Didn't think through my stuff. Also I've picked up a habit from Zhaohan: speaking in subclauses. Sentences that meander off the tongue. Extended paragraphical monsters of gothic construction that incorporate masses of mini-sentences, commas, semicolons, and end up contradicting themselves. Ugh. Yeah ZH I shouldn't have called you up last night haha.
So yes, I won't be too surprised if they end up opening an ISD file on me rather than giving me a PSC.
-----
Just two of the issues we talked about
Public service remuneration: Yeah I brought this one upon myself. As usual I argued that tying ministerial pay to private sector salaries was misguided; according to economics, the sole aim of firms is profit maximisation, and private sector management is paid based on the fulfilment of that aim. Thus pegging ministers' pay to private sector pay is akin to paying ministers according to how profitable Singaporean firms are, which makes no sense to me. (I believe there are further intricacies in which doctors', lawyers' and engineers' salaries are also involved; that makes even less sense). Of course, they were kinda bemused and stunned, and they asked, if not private sector salaries, what then?
Well I have no answer to that, frankly. I'm not prepared to be drawn into value judgements and messy ethical and moral stuff. That's both the beauty and the downfall of economics; economists hover above the fray, ready to pass judgement based on the framework of economic reasoning, but never to decide anything. There are many answers to this type of question, but they all follow either of two forms:
- It depends; and (my favourite)
- There is insufficient data to reach a conclusion.
My beliefs: This one was about my application essay in which I wrote about secular humanism. The main interviewer (I can't remember his name) equated this to 'human rights activist', which in Singapore and in his tone of voice, was something of an accusation. Well, no if you, sir, mean human rights activist in the sense of long-haired hippies picketing City Hall, I'm not a human rights activist.
But to me, the term 'human rights activist' is kind of tautological. I mean, all activists are human, and if you were human wouldn't you be interested in your rights? After all, all humans are interested in their well-being. So in a sense, everyone is a human rights activist. Of course the problem is in defining what those rights actually are. Well, shucks.
-----
Yeah ok those were really tedious arguments. Other stuff... the main interviewer asked stuff like if I'd consider going into politics (no f-ing way) and if I'd ever migrate (uhh probably not, despite all that I say/dream about). Anyway it was all over in half an hour and it didn't go as deep as the EDB interview.
The thing about economics is, it never gives you straight answers; it just forces you to dig deeper and think more. That's what I ended up doing, I guess, and it backfired. lol oh well nvm ^^ I think I've lost a bit of my mental faculties.
Labels: Everything
posted by Unknown at
5:29 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home