I have been reading in the papers recently the complaints that have emanated about the fall in ranking globally for the National University of Singapore and about the rankings given to the other local universities. Of course, the fall in rankings for Singapore's premier university caused a huge stir about how accurate the rating system is. This issue got me thinking seriously about this matter of how status in the Singaporean society affects how we look at ourselves and our prospects in life.
As background, I am educated in 4 different countries and have lived in numerous cities around the world and experiencing life in these countries including working amongst the locals. Mind you, I worked as a local in each of these countries and did not have the luxury of an expat package that shielded me from the challenges that the local population in each country faced. However, my most amusing experience still comes from working in Singapore in terms of how the school that you come from affects your prospects in life.
Let me give you an example. I had a friend who recently met up with a local professor who headed a department about entrance into a program. The professor stated that graduates with a Bachelor degree from either NUS or NTU would be given priority as these were known entities. When my friend expressed that she was graduating from an Australian Group of 8 university, the professor's remark was that she would have to check if the credentials of that university were recognized in Singapore. Surprising remark coming from a supposed academic in a Singapore university.
Another experience I had was with a client who remarked that they would only hire university graduates who had undertaken their degree full time in the university (local or overseas) and not through their overseas campus in Singapore. When asked why this was the case, the client's remark was that the standard of the degree from the university's campus was not as good as if the graduate studied full time in that country - something that I find hilarious should these overseas schools hear about it.
Yet another example pertained to my credentials. I undertook my degrees in recognized universities in the US (albeit they were smaller schools) but when I applied for jobs in Singapore, I was asked all kinds of questions because I did not graduate from an Ivy League school; I was even told that had I graduated from an Ivy League school, they would be interested as these credentials were easy to ascertain.
The combination of the three examples got me thinking about the views in Singapore society with regards to education. In addition, I am utterly surprised that the importance that people place on the school that one comes from. Why do I say this?
Let's look at example one (the one involving the university professor). The remark by a university academic (albeit a Head of a Program) is surprising considering that you deem yourself to be someone familiar with the global academic scene. Even though she was a graduate from the Singaporean education system (NUS graduate), I am sure that she is aware that higher education involves schools other than local Singapore universities. The very fact that she was unfamiliar with the credentials of the Group of 8 Australian universities is shocking as the public service commission had recognized these and other Australian universities for years. In addition, such a professor would be the person who is going to assess if an applicant were eligible to apply for a course of study at the school. Based on this theory and remark, shouldn't this university state in their application that "only graduates of Singapore universities need apply because we are ignorant of the credentials of schools around the world"? If they had stated this, I am sure things would be clear but again, schools here cannot discriminate based on ignorance right? With professors like these, I would ask who needs apply anyway because the eligible pool is limited anayway.
In terms of the second example, again, I am appalled by the ignorance of the client. Singapore's government has time and again emphasized one of their desire to make Singapore a regional education hub. The government has continuously encouraged foreign schools to set up programs here in order to increase opportunities for the population to gain higher education. Noble ideals indeed. However, again, there are people out there who discriminate against others because they undertake distance learning. Bear in mind, these programs set up by the foreign universities are quality programs that undergo similar rigor in terms of assessments and course requirements. With this in mind, I am curious how anyone can justify their statements to say that such programs are below the level (as such should be viewed as 2nd class) of comparable onsite programs? Again, I am surprised by the ignorance.
In my last example regarding the schools I had attended. The same ignorance comes through which I feel trickles from the academics in local universities (i.e. the narrow mindedness). For any readers who have been educated overseas, especially in the US, they would learn that the term Ivy League doesn't mean anything. For the information of anyone who is reading this and is not familiar with the US education system, Ivy League actually refers to the sports conference that the particular group of universities belong to and does not refer to their academic prowess. I would challenge anyone to list out the Ivy League schools apart from Harvard and Yale that comprise the schools (BTW, UCLA and UC Berkeley are not Ivy League schools!). Let me place another example of this...what would be your reaction if I were to tell you I received my degree from Brown University in the US? Would anyone take me seriously? Surprise...surprise...no one would but it is an Ivy League school!
The point that I am making is that just because one has never heard of a schoold does not mean that it is not as good as your own school. We have to be cognizant of the fact that different countries have different education systems and setups. For example, schools in the US have strengths in particular courses of study. For example, MIT is strong in technology studies, Harvard in business and law etc. Lesser known schoold like the University of Missouri is strong in broadcast journalism etc. Again, without this understanding, we may assume that a Graphic Design graduate from Harvard is definitely better than all because of the Harvard name; a flaw that I believe needs to be corrected in Singapore.
The key to a bachelor degree should be to teach the candidates of such degrees to think and create a thought process; the fact that one graduates from a particular school does not necessarily make this person a better employee or candidate than another. As we all know, as we progress through life and learn, it is the experience we gain (both work and life) that define us and not the school we graduated from. Also, what's the use of a degree from the best school in the world when you are ignorant about the world and cannot see beyond your own nose because education is a lifetime process involving learning new things, experiencing new things and innovating things; this is the true value of the education and not what school one comes from.
Lastly, Thomas Edison and Albert Einstein did not receive degrees or get their education from notable schools. Based on my above discussion, should we now discount their theories and contributions in Singapore as we are not sure of their backgrounds? This has now gotten me thinking...
A last thought from the Chancellor of my university when I graduated: "Today is your graduation. As you embark on your journey out of this school thinking you know everything with your degree, you will soon find out how little you know". I was angry with him at the time but this statement is ringing through now as I see the ignorance of many who have refused to grow beyond their university days.
I hope everyone gives some thought to this as I feel it is time for change in Singapore and it begins in the schools with the so-called elite academia....
2 comments:
the scary thing is that this narrow-mindedness is spread out nicely throughout the entire system.
combine narrow-mindedness and fear of losing, and you get reasons why a lot of parents tend to see normal, decent neighborhood schools as a dead end for their kids.
they want nothing but the best for their kids. but how do they define the best? by getting them to conform to the rigidity of the system? or by giving them the idea that they will be highly superior compared to the rest after gaining entry into a prestigious sch?
I agree with what you had written. I think the point about parents taking the "kiasu" (scared to lose) approach to their kids' education is a big issue. Couple with this the fact that many parents are ignorant about what constitutes a good school or education and you have the makings of a disaster and perpetuation of the narrow minded mindset.
For example, it is interesting but sometimes scary to note that (as in my 2nd example) that people blindly follow others as they speak about Ivy League universities without an understanding of what it means. This, then, gets transmitted to the next generation and the mindset perpetuates.
Thanks for your comment though. Excellent points...
Post a Comment