Singapore Education - Chasing after meaningless glory at what price?

 

An update to the Times Higher Education (THE) World University Rankings for 2021 ranked the National University of Singapore (NUS) as the 6th most international university in the world, while Nanyang Technological University (NTU) comes in at 9th.

What does this mean?

Well, according to the THE website, the ranking of the most international universities takes into account a university’s proportions of international students, international staff, journal publications with at least one international co-authors, and a university’s international reputation. All these pillars are given equal weight in the calculation of rankings.

For clarification, a university’s international reputation is the measure of “the proportion of votes from outside the home country that the institution achieved in THE’s annual invitation-only Academic Reputation Survey”, according to the website.

Back in 2019, TOC raised a concern about the ratio of international to local students in autonomous universities—like NUS and NTU. Based on figures from the Quacquarelli Symonds (QS) website—a different yet equally respected global ranking—it seemed that about 25 percent of NUS’ spots went to international students. A similar ratio was recorded by QS for NTU.

This year, based on data from THE for 2021, about 26 percent of students at NUS are international students. THE records the number of full-time equivalent students enrolled in NUS at 30,493.

 

Above is quoted from singaporenewslive.com. Singapore now has the bragging right to be number 6 and number 9 in the world as international universities. So, what is so great about being ranked highly as an international university? Is it the same as useless piece of degree that cannot be eaten? As reported about, the ranking is based on number of international students and international staff. These two criteria means more university places for foreigners instead of Singaporeans, more international academic staff instead of Singaporeans.

We have often heard of the grievances of parents having to empty their life savings to send their childre overseas because they could not get into local universities, ie being deprived of the precious place by foreign students. And many local academics have lost their jobs to foreign academics. In the first case, who pays for the foreign students to study here, the foreign students or Singapore, how much it costs to bring in so many foreign students to steal the place that should rightly be reserved for Singaporeans, the children of tax payers?

Secondly, how many Singaporean academics have lost their jobs to foreign academics and ended up unemployed or underemployed? Why create good paying jobs for foreigners and places for foreign students just to have a fictitious and practically useless reputation of being a top rank international universities? Worth it? How much it cost to Singapore, to parents, how many jobs lost to Singaporeans that needed the jobs?

What is so good or so valuable or so financially rewarding to win such ranks? Is the cost worth it for such superficial glory? Can be eaten or not?

The cost over the years are in hundreds of billions and the pyschological and financial impact of this pro foreigner policy, at the expense of Singaporean students and good jobs for Singaporeans is another Uniquely Singapore Stupidity has no cure policy. Educating foreigners to steal our lunch, providing good jobs to foreigners instead of Singaporeans just for a stupid, meaningless ranking.

What do you think? Should billions of public money be spent on this stupid and useless title of being a top international university at the expense of university places for our tax paying Singaporeans and the loss of good jobs for our own academics?

Why Singapore's Education System Has Failed The People And Country

 

Why Singapore's Education System Has Failed The People And Country

If India's fake degrees are readily available and acceptable, and so cheap and easy to obtain, why need we send out children through the Singapore's cannot-get-good-jobs education system? Moreover, it is so stringent, tedious, rigorous and stressful, and cost lots of precious time and hard-earned money!

From Primary 1 to Primary 6 is six years.

From Secondary 1 to Secondary 5 is five years.

Polytechnic is three years.

University is another four years.

Adding play-school 2 years and kindergarten years 2 years, the total time spent for each child is 22 years.

What about the total amount of money to be spent?

Go make a calculation and see if the amount to be spent comes up to at least $150,000 for the 22 years of education, not counting food and lodgings.

How much does it cost to get a fake basic degree plus a masters degree, PLUS a PHD? Less than SG$10,000! Some fake universities can even offer you all three degrees for only SG$5,000.

And you can easily get six IT certificates in just one week, with someone sitting for the exams for you. All you need is to pay your ghost writers and bribe the invigilators (or the ones who supervises the exams) through the specialised exams-taking agencies that are flourishing in India.

Another aspect, for Singaporean boys, is that two more years of Fulltime National Service have to be added. That brings to a grand total of 24 years of time spent in pursuit of a piece of paper that cannot even get you an interview for a good-paying and promising job.

On the other hand, foreigners do not need to do National Service nor be called up for reserve liabilities every year. Therefore, they do not need to disrupt their employment. As such, employers will naturally shun those who need to go for in-camp training every year, causing not only disruptions but also loss of money and time to their organisations. So they will openly say, "Singaporeans do not have the necessary qualifications", instead of saying that Singaporeans have to be disrupted to do in-camp training every year!

Singapore's education system is a failure because of several factors, not attributable to the Ministry of Education alone. They are:

1. Failure of the education system to cater for the job markets by grooming the students to be street-smart wilh and with the necessary skills that the jobs required.

2. The compulsory National Service liabilities are a pain in the ass for both the employees and employers because of their disruptive nature. This discourages all employers from hiring Singaporeans, preferring foreigners instead.

3. Foreigners are made readily available by the government's open arms and open legs policy and have a very vast and extensive pool of choices from 193 countries in the world.

4. Foreigners are cheaper to hire and, for various reasons, they are more willing to work longer hours, often going against Singapore and International labour laws, to satisfy the employer's demands and profit motives.

5. Fake qualifications are now acceptable in Singapore, either legally or illegally. The MOM's feeble attempts to curb this malpractice is way too little too late. The disease has already infested the entire employment environment of Singapore, since the beginning of the CECA explorations, exploitations and infestations.

Since the critical problem is at the national level, remedial actions have to be coordinated by a special task force comprising the Permanent Secretaries of MOE, MOM, MHF, MTI and NTUC, closely supervised by the PMO.


Conclusion:

Unless, a coordinated, integrated, vigorous and determined counter-measure campaign is launched to revamp the whole education system, the National Service policy and the open legs foreign talents policy, to right the wrongs, this slippery road of further deterioration and destruction for Singaporeans is there to stay and Singaporeans will have to bite the bullets and cringe the pains.


LIPS, At Your Service.

Singapore Education - What price to pay for a piece of paper that cannot be eaten?

 

ST 25 Sep had an article titled 'Lack of local talent a big challenge for Singapore business'. What is pertinent in the survey is this, the respondents said the lack of local talent was the biggest challenge, but this was not the case in Taiwan, India, Hong Kong, New Zealand, Indonesia and Malaysia. And what are these talents they are referring to? Sales professionals, people skilled in technology business development, digital marketing and e-commerce.

Who or which organisation should be responsible to churn up such talents for the industries? The talents must be trained or educated and feed the market. The demands from the industries are ready talents, not talents that the industries would be producing or trained.The industries did not see it taking up the responsibility train talents for their own needs. Practically every organisation expects to fill their positions from trained and experienced people from the open market or from the rest of the world.

With this kind of mindset, the burden of providing educated and in some way trained talents must come from the institutions of higher learning, the polytechnics and universities. The irony here is that Singapore often boasts about its world class and very expensive universities, high fees because they are the best, at least better than the countries mentioned above. The why is it that these countries, with universities that mostly ranked at the tail end of surveys, are able to provide the talents but not Singapore?

A survey like this, and all craps coming out from employment agencies, even from third world countries, are as good as a dressing down on Singaporean talents, Singapore's institutions of higher learning. Useless universities, but very expensive, unable to provide talents for the industries. Are these real? Such smearing of local universities and their products is kind of being spread and supported even by the who's who in Singapore. Not only they did not dispute such disgusting smears, they also supported them by their actions, by employing foreigners to fill top management positions and often seen engaging foreign head hunters to hunt around the world for top management positions. And such disgraceful thoughts and comments are repeated quite often by the local media as if this is the truth, this is the fact, Singapore has no talents. Why are local media celebrating such lies, backing up such lies, like the survey mentioned above?

As long as the stupidity has no cure idiots keep allowing this narrative to go on and on, who would want to employ local graduates? On the other hand, the third world countries are praising their own graduates from their funny universities as better than Singapore graduates. And the Singapore;s idiotic who's who accept this without protest, without question, and happily filled even govt positions with funny foreign graduates from funny universities, including fakes and cheats.

What do all these mean to our institutions of higher learnings and Singapore education as a whole? Would it be cheaper and more productive to close them all down and send all our young to the funny universities around us, cheaper and better?

What do you think? What pay so much for a piece of a paper that cannot be eaten, and cannot get a good job?

PS. There are many Singaporean talents overseas but unable to return, unable to find equivalent positions in Singapore, simply because the imbeciles allowed the foreigners to set the narrative, to control the employment industry, to decide who is talent, who to be employed.  This is a crime committed by the imbeciles against our very own talents, with many local PMETs now retrenched, unemployed, underemployed or forced to retire prematurely.

General heading Childhood Education

 

“Early childhood leadership certification is needed for preschool teachers to be qualified to be a principal. Even with a degree of early childhood and numerous ten years of experience does not qualify,” said a netizen. “So may I ask what kind of qualifications and pre-experience this general has in regards to early childhood? We are talking of education of your young children…not the army.” 

Meanwhile, Facebook user Catherine Dee asked if “retired generals could stop being allowed to lead ministries,” particularly those they have no experience in. “If the government really has to do this, please start them from the bottom to gain experience and work their way up first rather than dropping them from a helicopter,” she added in a comment liked by over 200 netizens. 

“Why doesn’t the ministry look at promoting someone with understanding, experience and track record in the sector instead of parachuting someone without the relevant experience or knowledge of the ground despite his impressive military credentials?” asked Facebook user Shermin Chen. 

“A military guy in early childhood education…and none of the existing early childhood education personal can take up…seriously…,” added a netizen.  theindependent.sg

BG Tan Chee Wee to be CEO of early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA). And this has raised eyebrows in the education industry and parents for obvious reasons.  The objections were understandable. Ask a foreign recruitment agency, they will throw out his application for lack of relevant experience and qualification. The general is so lucky that the govt did not contract the search agencies to go hunting for a foreign talent overseas. It was purely a parachute drop from the sky. Retired generals need not apply for jobs. Jobs would be offered to them, as CEOs here and there.

Look at the positive side, they are lucky that they did not appoint a third world funny graduate with funny experience from a funny university to take over this job, aka fake or cheat. If they did, the children would turn out funny as well, if not illiterate. Be grateful.

Another good thing that may come out from this is that the children will be well prepared for NS, with a good foundation in military jargons and way of life. The children are likely to be tougher than otherwise with boot camps modified as child play.

If one is prepared to look at the good side, there are many. If one is looking from the negative side, there will also be many, just like CECA. You can bet, just like CECA, the govt would have all the good things to say about this appointment.

Education statistics - Shall we be concerned?

 Indranee Rajah presented the latest Singapore population statistics in a media briefing yesterday. The ethnic population distribution of residents, not Singaporeans,  74.3 per cent Chinese, 13.5 per cent Malays, 9 per cent Indians.  What is the distribution of Singaporeans? Why this is not provided or not reported? What is the distribution of Singaporeans?

What I see as alarming is the data on university graduates last year. 34.7 per cent Chinese, 10.8 per cent Malays and 41.3 per cent Indians. Where have all the Chinese students gone? With a 74.3 per cent population, only 34.7 per cent of the graduates. Indians make up 9 per cent of the population and with 41.3 per cent of the graduates. Is this something to be concerned about? The Malays are just about right, could have more graduates.

Is the data saying that the Chinese have given up on tertiary education, taking the advice from some politicians that it is a piece of paper that cannot be eaten, so don't waste time and money? To make a career in hawking or taxi drivers no need to be graduates? Or is it that the Chinese are getting duller, not interested in education any more, while the Indians getting smarter and deserved all the increase in university places?

What is going on?

PSLE - Another change in grading system

 

Another big exercise involving a lot of expertise from the education industry has just been completed. This musical chair or merry go round exercise has been going on for years and it seems that it would never be satisfactory as far as the parents are concerned.  The results only helped to meet some of the needs and expectations of the parents but would never be enough as the demands would keep on changing as the moods and expectations of clever and rich parents keep changing.

By now the education ministry and ministers and experts must have known what the parents really want. If they are still guessing or not wanting to face the truth, or knowing the truth but trying to meet the parents half way or a quarter way but still wanting to maintain certain educational objectives and standards, then the cycle will go on and on and every new minister would have his hands full when new sets of parents would have new demands and new axe to grind.

What the parents really want are very simple. Less stress ie less work, less study, and good results and easy to get into branded schools. Actually all three demands are very easy to meet. Less work and less study can be QED.  Just tell the teachers to go slow and teach less and just pretend that the children will then learn more. As for good results for all students, this is even easier. Grades should just be good and excellent and all students would be marked Merit or Excellent. Children will be happy, parents would be happier.

The next big demand is good schools. This is also easily done by a little restructuring and renaming of schools. Pick the best 10 schools that are most desirable by the parents and children. All the schools should be renamed under these 10 schools.  As an example, there can be 50 Raffles Institutions and 50 Hwa Chong Institutions to choose from. Raffles Institution, Bishan, Raffles Institution, Radin Mas, Raffles Institution, Tanglin, Raffles Institution, Ang Mo Kio, Raffles Institution Bedok etc etc The same would apply to Hwa Chong Institution and the other top 8 branded schools.

Now, would that make all the parents and children happy?  Oh, school placement would be very much easier. Can still give preference to citizens and location of homes and the top 6 choices in order of preference.

 Now what is so difficult about this? It took me 5 minutes to solve all the angst of parents. There will be no more stress for parents and students.  No more needs for expensive tuition and spending so much time studying. Go to school and play and enjoy. Many great countries are producing great talents by just giving their students distinctions in all subjects even if they failed. This is only a piece of paper.  What is important in life is whether the student eventually can work or can bluff their way through in life.

No need to sweat the small stuff. No need to put so much pressure on the Education Minister and the teachers and principles.  Singapore will be a very happy place to bring up children and with good grades in good schools without having to study and mug.

I rest my case. It is very hard work to formulate such a big change in the education grading system to please everyone.