Re: Of Fireworks and Meritocracy
Original post (by Daniel) here.
Yeah, pooch, you've stirred up quite a hornet's nest there. And the hornet in me can't resist stinging haha. I've no doubt my reflections will meander quite far away from the original topic but will be fruitful nevertheless. I think most of my ramblings will address your point on meritocracy, but we'll see as it goes along.
-----
Yes I agree with Daniel that you could probably sacrifice a few firework displays and put the money to scholarships - I'm sure the financial returns to sponsoring someone's uni is, at the very least, quantifiable, compared to the financial returns to fireworks-induced patriotism. And frankly, if you need to resort to a fireworks display to induce patriotism you're bloody pathetic. Besides, who gives a flying fish about NDP? Not me, unfortunately. (2 of my aunts' families did go, though I am guessing it was more for the goodie bags - which were also bloody pathetic this year!)
I really must say this again: If our national pride has to be burnished by a fireworks display, however nice it might be, it is an external pride of the shallowest nature. I've never experienced national pride for the values our nation upholds - materialism and the pursuit of wealth, shallow-mindedness and bloody meanness (that says a Myanmarese maid must not be allowed out even to the market just because she stopped to chat with a fellow Myanmarese maid - yes this happened in my neighbourhood), a depressing small-minded mentality that requires the crutches of ordinal rankings to affirm itself (in pursuing international rankings of every sort - biggest port, 22nd-highest GDP, 2nd fastest growing Asian economy, 25th-best university...)
I've been saddened and sickened by Singapore, many times, because as a nation we don't ever seem to grow up, because we demand (and what's worse, receive) respect for what we've achieved rather than who we are and what we stand for - and that is a false respect which only extends towards the external trappings of our achievements and neglects the rot inside. The rot that is the cigarette-smoky piss-stained lift in my block, and by extension the mentality that smoked those cigarettes and made that mess, just to give you an example.
Singapore you aren't half what you're made out to be, and it's time someone with a louder voice than me told you that. But since no one's being heard I'll continue to shout for what it's worth.
-----
Returning to scholarships, Daniel says there ought to be 2 types - those given based on talent, and those given based on financial need. True that would be nice, but given the scarce resources available and the obvious need to minimise opportunity cost, you'd have to award the financial-need scholarships to the most talented ones (subject to a financial consideration, of course). The two would eventually coincide, and given the inevitably self-interested nature of any organisation, over time lofty ideals like Daniel's will sadly be subordinated to the imperatives of cost and value.
I actually believe the overriding concern of scholarship providers (e.g. PSC) is self-interest and self-perpetuation; would-be scholars have to show their personality and leadership skills - like all those testimonials and 'anecdotes' for PSC, for instance, and the personality profiling they do. And you hear of scholars coming back to be high-flying leaders and managers in the civil service, military and police, promoted over the heads of non-scholars but also (and partially because of that) under tremendous pressure to perform. Simply put, scholarship providers want to see returns; they want bang for their buck, they want leaders to carry on with the system. And that is a partial economic explanation for the motives of scholarship providers; that's also why 'leadership' is valued as much as, if not more than, intellectual capability (demonstrated or potential). Which is a pity, for then scholarships lose their main purpose - to encourage the ideals of scholarship (n.) or the pursuit of knowledge. In my opinion, yes, many scholarships have already lost their main purpose (though not all, I think some are still pretty good - there's the Jardine scholarship right? and others I can't think of right now.)
-----
And on Daniel's examination of meritocracy, many people have pointed out that the socio-economic profile of scholars is changing; it wasn't uncommon to hear of Presidents' Scholars with taxi-driver fathers and hawker mothers. Now it is, and I can venture an explanation - self-selection. It's said that birds of a feather flock together; that's the same concept. Generally, good students do well because their parents are educated and have a general idea of how to guide them, in their early education and attitudes towards learning. They get past PSLE and into a good school (and this is where most parents reduce or stop their involvement in their kids' education - apart from nagging ^^). Then good teachers take over, and a competitive school environment stimulates educational growth because decent students come together, egg each other on, and become genuinely good. They get into a good JC (or these days, an IP programme) and ace their A levels, before going on to apply for scholarships which are, after all, evaluated by their predecessors and seniors. You could call this inbreeding; certainly the average RJ student is middle-class, has parents in professional jobs, lives in at least a large HDB if not a condo, and so on. And most importantly, has friends and peers (and later on in life, colleagues) who come from the same background as him/her.
Personally I was fairly atypical for RI/RJ, and it particularly stung whenever JX talked as if we all had money to burn - just because you learn music DOESN'T MEAN YOU'RE LOADED. I certainly didn't, and wasn't - I survived on an allowance of 100-120 bucks in RI before it became patently impossible and was bumpted up to ~150 in RJ. I was always fairly conscious that most of my friends lived in landed homes, paid quite a bit for tuition and actually went overseas for holidays (none of these apply to me). And subconsciously I guess it might have prodded me to work a bit harder just to prove I deserved my place there among company that I didn't otherwise fit into. It's not something I dwell on, and I don't get any hangups over Remus's place being 35 times the size of my family flat (built-up area only, I believe); but maybe it's something that should finally be recognised, that not all RJ student's a rich kid.
Family income is certainly an important factor in education (if you can't afford it you can't have it) but it isn't the most important. We have fairly rigorous schemes that basically mean MOE subsidises lots of smart kids in the top JCs and secondary schools; I think at least 3/4 of RJC gets it. To be honest, I know at least in my schooling years my family income was never been enough to qualify to pay tax. And so I think I can offer myself up as proof that it's still possible in Singapore for people to succeed based on sheer merit (though I'm not suggesting that I'm particularly meritorious or anything!). Though no doubt it's getting harder; as time goes and generations come and go, class distinctions of HDB | Condo | Landed are becoming increasingly permanent, cast in stone, and I'm afraid this has got to be addressed starting with a paradigm shift in the mindset of heartlanders.
That's a point that requires further elaboration for it to stand properly but I'm tired and I've just rescheduled a coffee appointment to 9 saturday morning - this morning (I'll really need the coffee) - so I've got to sleep now.
Yeah, pooch, you've stirred up quite a hornet's nest there. And the hornet in me can't resist stinging haha. I've no doubt my reflections will meander quite far away from the original topic but will be fruitful nevertheless. I think most of my ramblings will address your point on meritocracy, but we'll see as it goes along.
-----
Yes I agree with Daniel that you could probably sacrifice a few firework displays and put the money to scholarships - I'm sure the financial returns to sponsoring someone's uni is, at the very least, quantifiable, compared to the financial returns to fireworks-induced patriotism. And frankly, if you need to resort to a fireworks display to induce patriotism you're bloody pathetic. Besides, who gives a flying fish about NDP? Not me, unfortunately. (2 of my aunts' families did go, though I am guessing it was more for the goodie bags - which were also bloody pathetic this year!)
I really must say this again: If our national pride has to be burnished by a fireworks display, however nice it might be, it is an external pride of the shallowest nature. I've never experienced national pride for the values our nation upholds - materialism and the pursuit of wealth, shallow-mindedness and bloody meanness (that says a Myanmarese maid must not be allowed out even to the market just because she stopped to chat with a fellow Myanmarese maid - yes this happened in my neighbourhood), a depressing small-minded mentality that requires the crutches of ordinal rankings to affirm itself (in pursuing international rankings of every sort - biggest port, 22nd-highest GDP, 2nd fastest growing Asian economy, 25th-best university...)
I've been saddened and sickened by Singapore, many times, because as a nation we don't ever seem to grow up, because we demand (and what's worse, receive) respect for what we've achieved rather than who we are and what we stand for - and that is a false respect which only extends towards the external trappings of our achievements and neglects the rot inside. The rot that is the cigarette-smoky piss-stained lift in my block, and by extension the mentality that smoked those cigarettes and made that mess, just to give you an example.
Singapore you aren't half what you're made out to be, and it's time someone with a louder voice than me told you that. But since no one's being heard I'll continue to shout for what it's worth.
-----
Returning to scholarships, Daniel says there ought to be 2 types - those given based on talent, and those given based on financial need. True that would be nice, but given the scarce resources available and the obvious need to minimise opportunity cost, you'd have to award the financial-need scholarships to the most talented ones (subject to a financial consideration, of course). The two would eventually coincide, and given the inevitably self-interested nature of any organisation, over time lofty ideals like Daniel's will sadly be subordinated to the imperatives of cost and value.
I actually believe the overriding concern of scholarship providers (e.g. PSC) is self-interest and self-perpetuation; would-be scholars have to show their personality and leadership skills - like all those testimonials and 'anecdotes' for PSC, for instance, and the personality profiling they do. And you hear of scholars coming back to be high-flying leaders and managers in the civil service, military and police, promoted over the heads of non-scholars but also (and partially because of that) under tremendous pressure to perform. Simply put, scholarship providers want to see returns; they want bang for their buck, they want leaders to carry on with the system. And that is a partial economic explanation for the motives of scholarship providers; that's also why 'leadership' is valued as much as, if not more than, intellectual capability (demonstrated or potential). Which is a pity, for then scholarships lose their main purpose - to encourage the ideals of scholarship (n.) or the pursuit of knowledge. In my opinion, yes, many scholarships have already lost their main purpose (though not all, I think some are still pretty good - there's the Jardine scholarship right? and others I can't think of right now.)
-----
And on Daniel's examination of meritocracy, many people have pointed out that the socio-economic profile of scholars is changing; it wasn't uncommon to hear of Presidents' Scholars with taxi-driver fathers and hawker mothers. Now it is, and I can venture an explanation - self-selection. It's said that birds of a feather flock together; that's the same concept. Generally, good students do well because their parents are educated and have a general idea of how to guide them, in their early education and attitudes towards learning. They get past PSLE and into a good school (and this is where most parents reduce or stop their involvement in their kids' education - apart from nagging ^^). Then good teachers take over, and a competitive school environment stimulates educational growth because decent students come together, egg each other on, and become genuinely good. They get into a good JC (or these days, an IP programme) and ace their A levels, before going on to apply for scholarships which are, after all, evaluated by their predecessors and seniors. You could call this inbreeding; certainly the average RJ student is middle-class, has parents in professional jobs, lives in at least a large HDB if not a condo, and so on. And most importantly, has friends and peers (and later on in life, colleagues) who come from the same background as him/her.
Personally I was fairly atypical for RI/RJ, and it particularly stung whenever JX talked as if we all had money to burn - just because you learn music DOESN'T MEAN YOU'RE LOADED. I certainly didn't, and wasn't - I survived on an allowance of 100-120 bucks in RI before it became patently impossible and was bumpted up to ~150 in RJ. I was always fairly conscious that most of my friends lived in landed homes, paid quite a bit for tuition and actually went overseas for holidays (none of these apply to me). And subconsciously I guess it might have prodded me to work a bit harder just to prove I deserved my place there among company that I didn't otherwise fit into. It's not something I dwell on, and I don't get any hangups over Remus's place being 35 times the size of my family flat (built-up area only, I believe); but maybe it's something that should finally be recognised, that not all RJ student's a rich kid.
Family income is certainly an important factor in education (if you can't afford it you can't have it) but it isn't the most important. We have fairly rigorous schemes that basically mean MOE subsidises lots of smart kids in the top JCs and secondary schools; I think at least 3/4 of RJC gets it. To be honest, I know at least in my schooling years my family income was never been enough to qualify to pay tax. And so I think I can offer myself up as proof that it's still possible in Singapore for people to succeed based on sheer merit (though I'm not suggesting that I'm particularly meritorious or anything!). Though no doubt it's getting harder; as time goes and generations come and go, class distinctions of HDB | Condo | Landed are becoming increasingly permanent, cast in stone, and I'm afraid this has got to be addressed starting with a paradigm shift in the mindset of heartlanders.
That's a point that requires further elaboration for it to stand properly but I'm tired and I've just rescheduled a coffee appointment to 9 saturday morning - this morning (I'll really need the coffee) - so I've got to sleep now.
Labels: Everything
posted by Unknown at
11:59 pm
1 Comments:
Hmm.. how are scholarships losing their original purpose again?
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home