Didn’t manage to catch the actual debate but saw the results show. UWC (an international school) beat the crap out of HCI. UWC had like 3 times the score of HCI.
Now, I didn’t watch the debate so I can’t be sure if UWC was actually much better. But I felt a bit of pride lost when I saw an international school beating all our local schools to be the champion.
So what does that mean? Is our education system not as good as the international schools? I remember recently there was a discussion going on about this.
Hmmm… as a product of the local education system, I believe that this system which I have been part of is probably like any system, it has its flaws but also its good points. The standard perception would be that we are well trained as workers, people who are exam smart and good at following orders but not good at being creative and eloquent.
I won’t go into that except say that I don’t believe that there is any national school system that can produce homogenous results with the heterogenous input of the youth of a whole nation. I also won’t defend our schools by saying that maybe we didn’t send our best debaters.
What I would like to offer is a suggestion about why it seems that the international schools produce better students (of course, by what measure I’m also not sure).
I know I’m treading on very thin ice here, but I would say family background. Not saying that ang moh got better genes. Not saying that the students in international sch got better genes. I’m just saying that on average, the student in an international school probably comes from a financially better background than the average Singaporean student. Of course, the whole of this paragraph is based on the assumption that to be an expat living in Singapore with your family, you probably have a well paid job and quite a decent education as does your spouse.
I have always believed that equal opportunity does not mean equal start. Starting well is very important and family background plays a big part in that. I believe that most expat families have the financial means to provide the head-start as well because of their own intellectual background can provide a better environment at home to cultivate the growth of their child.
So the reason why it seems that the international school might be better than a local school can be said to be the homogeneity of the students in terms of better family backgrounds (compared to the average Singaporean) which already puts them at an advantage compounded with the ability to afford to create what might be a better school system (hey..money really can buy good stuff) although I maintain the system plays less a part than the family background in this situation.
I’m not sure but it would be interesting to put an expat child into the local system and an average Singaporean into the international school system. I would say at the end, the expat child probably won’t differ much in the supposedly better qualities of the other expat children in the international schools but gain a bit of our positive local qualities and likewise for the Singaporean kid, he would probably be the most mugger toad and exam kiasu kid in the international school while gaining the purported creativity and eloquence that international schools are supposed to cultivate.
I know this is probably not ethical but how about a real case of “The Prince and the Pauper”.
Lee | 27-Mar-07 at 11:53 pm | Permalink
you are treading on thin ice by making so many generalizations that arent backed up with substantial proof. tell me, does winning a debate competition on tv mean UWC or international schools as you put it produce good students, or better students than those from our schools?define “good students” here dude. vice versa, does losing a debate competition mean we students are only “good at following orders” and lack “creativity”? gosh, hell no!
you’re using a debate competition as a yardstick to judge our country’s educational system? you’re pushing it. let me bring to your attention the fact that there are many other factors influencing the result of the debate. preparation, motion, the judges, and the list stretches miles. perhaps you had already taken a biased persperctive when watching the debate. don’t be swayed by slangs and twangs. we singaporeans have it as well. wit? checked. intelligence? checked. creativity? checked (go ceck out the IB and IP progs in singapore now). who says “international schools are better than local schools”? you simply can’t judge from one debate, and really, students from our top schools have proven to be doing better than the eurasians in society you know. we produce better leaders, capable students. so tell me, do we lack?
iantimothy | 28-Mar-07 at 12:29 am | Permalink
Err..Hello Lee…I think you misunderstood my post…I didn’t say our education system was worse. I only suggested why it might seem that an international school is better. Also, if you read my post carefully, and tried to comprehend it, you would notice that I said our system has its good points and its bad points. If you tell me our system is perfect, I would disagree with you.
I don’t deny we produce good students although I didn’t explicitly said we produced good students in my post. Never said we produced bad students either.
If you did read the post carefully, you would notice a small comment in brackets -> “(of course, by what measure I’m also not sure)”. <– which kinda implicitly says that I dont buy this whole students in international schools are (?all) better than local students.
Also, I wasn’t really judgining our country’s education system but commenting on why the current situation in Singapore might create the perception that international schools produce better students. Notice PERCEPTION. Notice MIGHT.
Please don’t assume also that just because you have miscomprehended my post that I am swayed by slangs and twangs. I won’t comment on why you made this assumption…
Thanks for leaving your comment though. It always gives me a warm fuzzy feeling that there are still people who will defend Singapore’s honour. I too believe that Singapore ain’t that bad. high five.
lee | 28-Mar-07 at 10:05 am | Permalink
gosh..i really must apologise for my earlier comment! i realise now, after re reading it that it was highly melodramatic.Notice i commented at at 11 plus in the night, right after the results show of the arena. and that comment, was made after reading countless comments from other blogs degrading HCI and the singaporean education system.( i mean, they worship the UWC). and with all those baseless things that were said and hurled into cyberspace by them, i guess i automatically arrived at the conclusion that your post content contained equally anal retentive infomation though i simply browsed through it. This explains the use of terribly emotive language which were uncalled for, the melodrama and hysterics. doesnt help either especially if you have close connections with HCI and their speakers. so for that comment, and the agitation, i must apologise.
on hindsight, i appreciate your pov now( after reading it again in a calm state of mind:)
might i suggest though, that you have a tendency to be verbose in your writing. isnt really reader-friendly. and other people might misunderstand, if not read carefully and comprehended clearly.. like the mistake i made.
noticed from your other posts that you do have a knack for analysis.. and critique. i would like to challenge you, if i may, to take on the topic of “suicide”. here’s the motion: ” suicide should be made legal in singapore”.Might i suggest that you be proposition?
I look forward to your response on this topic with great anticipation!
iantimothy | 28-Mar-07 at 11:17 am | Permalink
Hello. Yup..i think even sometimes my gf thinks i am long winded.hahaha. it is something I definitely have to work on.
about suicide. hmmm…that would really be treading on thin ice…I think a person should be free to decide whether they want to live or die. If they want to die, then so be it. I know this sounds callous. I’m not saying that we shouldn’t help people who have somehow lost the will to live. We definitely should. We as a society should prevent anyone from reaching the stage in their life where they decide they want to die, but once they do reach that stage, the choice is theirs although that doesn’t mean we stop fighting to convince them life is worth living.
Personally, I don’t think making suicide legal or illegal will affect the rate of suicide so much. No stats to back up though. I don’t think its even possible to get these sort of stats. But I mean, if you do succeed in committing suicide, then why worry that it is illegal. I mean, you won’t be around to bear the consequences…unless of course you don’t succeed…
Having said that, I do believe suicide has wider repercussions than just for the person who killed himself. I mean, seriously, did you read about the guy who jumped and landed on a young girl. I mean..wtf… If you want to kill yourself, do it cleanly.
Like, for example, don’t jump off a building. It is hard to clean off blood stains. The cleaning auntie doesn’t get paid a lot. Don’t slit your wrist. If you family members find you, especially a younger sibling, it would be damn traumatic for them. I think taking sleeping pills and lying down on your bed would be nice, simple and clean, though not 100% effective. Your parents or someone could find you and then rush you to the hospital. So maybe lock the door first? Or maybe, go for a holiday and then kill yourself in the hotel room. But do it cleanly lah. The hotel cleaning staff also don’t get paid a lot.
On a serious note, suicide really impacts the loved ones of that individual and every individual should realise that while it is a personal choice, it has a bigger impact (and not just for the loved ones) than just on the self.
The thing is, I think the question shouldn’t be so much if we should make suicide legal or illegal in Singapore. While it might be a valid question within the larger debate on freewill and personal choice, I think when it comes to suicide, the two questions that we should be focusing our energy on are “how did those people who want to commit suicide reach that point?” and “how can we as a society prevent people from reaching the point where they find it better to take their own lives?”.
SM | 10-May-07 at 8:01 am | Permalink
United World Colleges are set up on a scholarship basis- most of these schools are designed to provide an equal opportunity to all students, regardless of financial background. The majority of students from this international school are not necessarily more priveleged, as you seem to imply, but rather were selected from a large field of students from a wide variety of socioeconomic classes. While some students at UWC schools do pay some tuition for their education at the schools, most are there because they have been awarded substantial scholarships. You make some interesting arguments, but don’t include UWC schools in the general bracket of private international schools- they fall in a category of their own…
iantimothy | 11-May-07 at 6:54 pm | Permalink
Hello. Thanks for pointing this out. You are right about the assumption that I made.