Why would you want to take the tougher route?
Why would you want to take the tougher route? - Hallo World !!! News Today in World, In this article you read by title Why would you want to take the tougher route?, We've prepared this article well so you can read and retrieve information on it. Hopefully the contents of the post
Article LIFT, What we write can you understand. Okay, happy reading.
Title : Why would you want to take the tougher route?
link : Why would you want to take the tougher route?
You are now reading the article Why would you want to take the tougher route? With link address https://newstoday-ok.blogspot.com/2018/04/why-would-you-want-to-take-tougher-route.html
Title : Why would you want to take the tougher route?
link : Why would you want to take the tougher route?
news-today.world | Hi guys, one of my regular readers Choaniki has asked me to respond to an article in the Straits Times about degrees from private universities and I have had a good discussion with him about the issue. I would like to talk about one of the people interviewed in the article Alicia Lum who chose to study at SIM despite having grades good enough to enter NUS - her story illustrates a really serious problem with the education system in Singapore and I would like to challenge the mentality that has led her to make this terrible decision. On one hand, I have nothing against this woman - it is her life, she can do what she wants, it is not for me to judge; but on the other hand, I can't help but feel that the journalist Sandra Davie who wrote that story didn't hold her to account enough. So Alicia, if you're reading this, I am going to apologize in advance if I hurt your feelings, it is nothing personal. I'm merely using your story as a case study to highlight a major problem in Singapore.
Alicia chose to study at SIM because she had her heart set on studying international politics and there was a course that offered her exactly what she wanted at SIM. She graduated with first class and is now working at a "volunteer welfare organisation" whilst waiting to start her masters later this year. Sounds pretty okay, right? She got her degree and now has a job, right? Well, let me explain why I think her decision was very bad. Firstly, there was no mention of what Alicia wanted to do as a career - her focus was purely on what she wanted to study. That's completely the wrong way to do it: she was cart before the horse. You need to identify what you want to do as a career then work backwards, so if you wish to become a doctor, then you need to find out about how to get into NUS medical school in order to become a qualified doctor. If you wish to become an engineer, then you identify the particular field of engineering you wish to pursue then find the right university course that will set you up for that career. But Alicia? She wasn't thinking so much about her career (at least the article gave no evidence of her having given that much though): no, she wanted to study something that she was interested in and she didn't consider whether or not an SIM degree in international politics would serve her well when she needed to find her ideal job (which I'm very interested to find out what it may be).
Before we go any further, I have to point out that NUS does offer a very respectable course in political science. Sure the wording of the degree is somewhat different and the course content may differ from SIM's course on international politics, but at the end of the day, they are dealing with the same subject matter. Why didn't Alicia apply for the NUS course then, when it is clearly the much better university? Why didn't the journalist do her homework and ask this vital question? Talk about bad journalism! Now did Alicia actually apply for it but was rejected because her grades were too bad? Maybe, we don't know - the journalist should have asked her. If that was the case, why did she consider other NUS courses that she could get into then? Or did Alicia look at the NUS syllabus and compared it to the SIM syllabus and thought, "ooh look, there are some interesting modules on the SIM syllabus that I really like, those are not available on the NUS course, so even if I can get into the NUS course, I would rather choose the SIM one because of those interesting modules." Of course the two courses are never going to be identical, but are those differences in the syllabus enough to justify picking an SIM course over the more prestigious NUS degree?
Look, I don't know how Alicia arrived at her decision or how she tried to justify it - but if it is the latter, ie. we assume her grades were good enough to get into the political science degree course at NUS but she chose the SIM merely for the syllabus she preferred, then we have a serious problem here. If that is the case, then we have an 18 year old teenager trying to pass judgement on which syllabus was superior when it was really something she was not qualified to do. What she should have done was gone to a qualified adult, someone who has experience with the industry and understands what it takes for young graduates to make that transition from student life to working life and ask for help. Would you try to self-prescribe medication when you're ill? No, you would ask a qualified doctor for help with that! So how is this any different? And if she did go to an adult and was told to pick SIM over NUS, then clearly she had gone to the wrong person for advice because there are no ifs and buts - the NUS option is clearly superior to the SIM course and if the NUS route was open to her, she should have gone down the NUS route given how similar the courses are. Again, there are just too many unanswered questions, the journalist didn't ask Alicia any difficult questions that could potentially embarrass her despite the fact that her choice to study at SIM does seem very odd.
One thing that I am looking for as a gatekeeper is maturity in young candidates: are they selfish young people only capable of seeing things from their own point of view, or are they mature enough to realize that other people will have a different perspective and will not see things from the same point of view? So in this case, I am perhaps being rather cruel in placing the decision making process of an 18 year old under a lot of scrutiny - that was Alicia's age when she picked SIM over NUS. Was she completely focused on what she would rather study? Or did she once take a moment to consider what a gatekeeper might be looking for when they look at an applicant's CV? We have a saying in Chinese目空一切 that describes someone who is so arrogant that they dismiss and ignore the opinions of others: someone like that would be very hard to work with in a group and will have trouble following instructions. I'd much rather work with someone who will be humble enough to consider the opinions of others when working in a group and will gladly follow the managers' instructions. Alicia would have to join the work force after graduation and have to compete with NUS graduates for jobs in the rather crowded work market - did she consider how her SIM degree is going to look against the competition? Did she consider how a gatekeeper might react to her degree? #目空一切
Let's give Alicia the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps the journalist didn't ask her the right questions - maybe Alicia did think about what she wanted to do for her career in the past, but that was not reflected in the article (and if so, why not?) But if I were to take the article at face value, then this is a serious lapse of judgment at best: the young student wanting to study something she was interested in rather than caring about her career prospects. Perhaps you could argue, what if Alicia wanted a career in international politics? Perhaps she wanted to join the civil service and serve the government in an international capacity? Or perhaps she wanted to spread her wings and go join an international organisation like the International Red Cross, the World Health Organisation, UNICEF or ActionAid? Surely a degree in international politics would prepare her well for a career path like that, no? Well, obviously you know what I am going to say and let me explain why I have such a problem with anyone even willing to touch an SIM course in international politics and why it was such a bad option.
Firstly, Singaporean students have a terrible reputation for being spoon fed all the time and they completely incapable of taking their own initiative. That could be a result of the education system whereby students can pretty much get great results at O and A levels without having to do any critical thinking, as long as they can memorize vast amounts of information for their exams. That creates a culture where the students are fed 'model answers' by their teachers and this is reinforced by tuition teachers forcing even more of the same shit down the poor students' throats. So even if the student isn't stupid - like Alicia, she made it to VJC, so she must have had some intelligence - when it comes to university, they still pretty much expect to be spoon fed and they put a lot of faith, way too much faith in their teachers at university. So if Alicia had a genuine interest in politics, she didn't need a degree in international politics, hell no. She could have become politically active right from the time she was in VJC: she could have joined a political party, she could have identified a cause that she felt passionately about and start campaigning for it, she could have joined a worthwhile charity locally or took time out to go volunteer for a charity abroad. In short, there's so much she could have done to have proven herself without a degree.
But no, instead, it seems she wanted to sit in a classroom and have a teacher spoon feed her everything she needed to know about international politics when really, I don't think she got the memo that this is really not how politics actually works. Besides, if you wanted a career in international politics, you don't need a degree in international politics. Let's look at some of the most successful politicians in our recent times and see if we can identify what they studied: Lee Kuan Yew, Vladimir Putin, Barrack Obama and Tony Blair studied law, Donald Trump studied economics, Angela Merkel studied physics, Justin Trudeau studied literature whilst Emmanuel Macron studied philosophy (how French). Xi Jinping studied chemical engineering and Lee Hsien Loong studied mathematics. Whilst law seems to be a rather popular choice for these politicians, there is one common theme here: none of them actually had a degree in anything to do with politics per se. I could go on but the common theme that emerges from looking at the choice of degrees of the most prominent politicians in our time is that very few of them have actually studied anything related to do with politics at university - instead, they became highly respected professions in their chosen fields before turning to politics at a later stage in their lives. The fact that Obama had a brilliant career in law or that Macron had such a successful career as a banker gave them a lot of credibility with their supporters - that enabled them to step into politics very successfully. That's credibility you earn in the real world, not in a university course.
Now this is when I am going to get really nasty: you can't expect SIM's lecturers and teachers to teach you anything useful. You can't possibly put so much faith in a group of individuals like that. If these lecturers at SIM were really such experts when it came to international politics, why aren't they in the civil service then? Why aren't they working for a major NGO then? Or at least, why aren't they teaching at a more prestigious university? Did it occur to you that if they were of a better calibre, then they wouldn't be doing this job at all? Here's the problem with our culture - sure we are taught to have a healthy respect for figures of authority from a young age. So in primary school for example, we are conditioned to be polite and respectful to our teachers; now I'm not saying that's a bad thing of course, but do we want our young Singaporeans to extend that kind of unconditional respect to SIM teachers to the point where they think, "if you're a teacher, then you must be really good at what you do." Well, everything is relative I'm afraid - you don't need to be say an expert mathematician to be able to communicate a PSLE syllabus to a bunch of primary six students but to be a university professor, the standards are a lot higher. So why are the students like Alicia putting so much faith in the people who end up teaching at SIM? Is this an issue she has even contemplated or has she simply offered them unconditional trust and respect like a good Asian student?
So this is when I can hear some students protesting and offering the counter argument, "oh we don't expect the lecturer or the professor to deliver miracles, they are just delivering the syllabus and if the syllabus is good, then we don't really have to split hairs about how good the professors are as the things we are learning are still very useful." My response to that would be that there is a wealth of information out there for free - all you need is a membership of the national library along with fast wifi and you would be able to access a huge amount of information on any topic under the sun. If all the professors are doing are giving you a reading list, then what on earth do you need them for? By that token, why are you going to university if all you need is a reading list? Heck, you can get the reading lists from other top universities like Harvard or Oxford if that's all you want - those reading lists aren't a secret at all. But the fact is, going to university is a lot more than reading these books and demonstrating that you've read them by vomiting the facts back out into an essay under exam conditions. Actually at university level, the difference between having a brilliant professor and having one who is merely dishing out the curriculum is absolutely huge - that's why the professors at places like Harvard and Oxford are quite well paid, otherwise they'll be looking to make more money in the private sector instead. Yet the moment I question the credentials of the staff at SIM, the Asian mentality of 'don't disrespect your teachers' would kick in for many Singaporeans and they would not even dare to ask those questions.
Coming back to the case of Alicia - she is now working for a local "volunteer welfare organisation" or VWO for short. Here's the thing: as I glanced through the list of local charities under the VWO umbrella, one thing became clear. You don't need a freaking degree in international politics to work for any of these charities. Don't get me wrong, I have a lot of respect or these charities and in a country where there is no welfare state, a lot of these charities do step in and offer some kind of safety net for the most destitute and desperate in Singapore. However. most of the vital work that they do daily has absolutely nothing to do with the things that would have been on Alicia's syllabus. I'm not saying that the work she is doing isn't meaningful or important (I'm sure it is), my point is that she could have probably done the same job with a different degree or indeed without any degree at all and still have made a meaningful contribution at these charities. So this brings me to my next point: perhaps we're expecting way too much from our degrees - as one of my readers Di has pointed out, going to university can just be a great experience for growing up, experiencing something new and finding out what you want to do as an adult rather than being so focused on learning per se.
Some years back, I met a student who did just that, let's call her Lian since her hometown is Dalian. Lian was from a very wealthy Chinese family and they gladly paid for her to come to London to get her degree. They weren't too fussed about her going to a top university as they were very traditional - Lian was expected to get married and have a child before she turned 30, so it wasn't that important whether or not she had a career as her husband was expected to support the family. So Lian ended up in London, studying in one of the universities languishing at the bottom of the league table - was she bothered? No. She just wanted to improve her English, live independently away from her family, make many friends with people from outside China and have a lot of fun. To be fair, Lian achieved all of that and got a degree at the same time, though that degree wasn't worth the paper it was printed on, but who cares? She had a great time in London! Lian then went back to China after graduating and within a few years, married a rich man and became a housewife, staying at home taking her of her baby before she turned 30 - just as her parents had planned. Did going to university in London benefit Lian? Of course it did, it definitely helped broadened her horizon and gave her loads of new experiences. Yes, in some cases, some people just don't need a degree but they can just treat it as a fun experience and in Lian's example, her parents are very rich and could afford to give her that wonderful experience.
But in the case of Alicia, her parents weren't rich at all - in fact, they were hawkers. Heck, I accepted a scholarship in order to lessen the financial burden on my parents; my parents were primary school teachers, we weren't rich but at least teachers were paid more than what your typical hawkers earned. I hate to point out the obvious: her family is poor, it is not like they couldn't afford to send her to university (obviously they managed to find the money), but when your money is tight (imagine if it was her parents' life savings) then you need to be a lot more careful and carefully consider what kind of degree you are spending your parents' life savings on. Contrast this to Lian's parents in China who are extremely rich, well they didn't bat an eyelid when paying for Lian to study in London - Lian rented a stunning apartment in an expensive part of town, enjoyed shopping at the designer boutiques on Bond Street and often went to the best restaurants in town. Yeah, if you are lucky enough to have rich parents like that, then you don't have to think twice before spending £2000 on a handbag from a designer boutique. But if your parents are poor like Alicia's, then you have far more of an moral duty to spend their money a lot more carefully - such as by choosing a more useful degree if she was merely in it for a fun experience like Lian.
Here's a crucial point that a lot of private universities don't tell you: an SIM degree is not really cheaper than an NUS degree. The fee for Alicia's cost is currently about S$28,400 whilst an equivalent course at NUS would cost approximately £29,350 - sure it is slightly cheaper but it is not as if you're getting a massive bargain by opting for SIM instead of NUS. Don't forget these universities are not like your ordinary primary or secondary schools which are essentially funded by the government and heavily subsidized. The price tag should tell you that these universities are essentially run like a business and they see each student as a paying customer, as yet another opportunity to generate profit. So I am trying really hard to find the justification for Alicia to have chosen to go down the SIM route when really, her parents are paying about the same amount of money as an NUS degree. Once again, this is yet another crucial point that was not touched upon in the ST article, much to my frustration - the journalist conveniently avoided this rather tricky issue about money. How did Alicia's parents feel about funding her choices I wonder?
At the end of the day, Alicia is going to be alright - she will probably go on and get her masters and get another job after that. But I shall finish with an analogy that will help put things in perspective - I saw a funny video on social media about Japanese runner Yuki Kawamuchi running a half marathon in Japan dressed as a panda. To be fair, that's not the first time someone has ran the marathon wearing a ridiculous costume - in fact, people often do that when raising money for a charity as the ridiculous costume often goes viral very quickly on social media, hence raising the profile of the charitable cause. Some of these costumes are very heavy and uncomfortable, making the marathon so much harder to run but these brave runners pull of these incredible feats in the name of charity. Yes you can run a marathon dressed as a rhinoceros, elephant or panda - it will be difficult, it will slow you down but you will still cross the finish line eventually with a lot of determination. The title of the ST article is, "private school route is tougher but it gets them there". Likewise, if you choose to go to SIM rather than NUS, nobody is saying that it is game over for you - you will run the rat race like everyone else, but you are always going to be several steps behind those who have better degrees. Should you be surprised that a marathon runner wearing the right running gear is going to run faster than the runner dressed as a rhino or a panda? It is hard enough to run a marathon, why make it any harder by wearing a ridiculous costume? Likewise, it is hard enough to establish a successful career, why make it any harder by having an SIM degree?
My conclusion is that Alicia and I are more similar than you think - we both went to VJC, we both have somewhat uneducated parents who were in no position to give us any kind of practical career advice and we both have a desire to work in international development and have a keen interest in international politics. Then only difference was that I was lucky enough to have a kind teacher at VJC who cared enough to offer me the guidance I never had, who made sure I applied for the right scholarships at the right time - whilst I suspect that Alicia was either left to her own devices to make some important decisions or she was given some very misleading and bad advice from the people whom she did approach for help. I suppose the journalist was also constrained by the fact that if she had asked Alicia too many difficult questions, Alicia could have just walked away and said, "stop it, I don't feel comfortable, you're going to make me look like an idiot in your story, I'm not going to do it anymore. Don't contact me ever again." The journalist needed her story and if she had pushed Alicia too far, well, there would be no story. Mind you, I'd be interested to sit down with Alicia and ask her the questions the journalist never asked - but then again, I think difficult questions usually push people away, especially when they are not obliged to answer them. That's it from me for now on this topic - what do you think? Leave a comment below and let me know what you think, many thanks for reading.
 |
| Why did the journalist avoid difficult questions? |
Alicia chose to study at SIM because she had her heart set on studying international politics and there was a course that offered her exactly what she wanted at SIM. She graduated with first class and is now working at a "volunteer welfare organisation" whilst waiting to start her masters later this year. Sounds pretty okay, right? She got her degree and now has a job, right? Well, let me explain why I think her decision was very bad. Firstly, there was no mention of what Alicia wanted to do as a career - her focus was purely on what she wanted to study. That's completely the wrong way to do it: she was cart before the horse. You need to identify what you want to do as a career then work backwards, so if you wish to become a doctor, then you need to find out about how to get into NUS medical school in order to become a qualified doctor. If you wish to become an engineer, then you identify the particular field of engineering you wish to pursue then find the right university course that will set you up for that career. But Alicia? She wasn't thinking so much about her career (at least the article gave no evidence of her having given that much though): no, she wanted to study something that she was interested in and she didn't consider whether or not an SIM degree in international politics would serve her well when she needed to find her ideal job (which I'm very interested to find out what it may be).
Before we go any further, I have to point out that NUS does offer a very respectable course in political science. Sure the wording of the degree is somewhat different and the course content may differ from SIM's course on international politics, but at the end of the day, they are dealing with the same subject matter. Why didn't Alicia apply for the NUS course then, when it is clearly the much better university? Why didn't the journalist do her homework and ask this vital question? Talk about bad journalism! Now did Alicia actually apply for it but was rejected because her grades were too bad? Maybe, we don't know - the journalist should have asked her. If that was the case, why did she consider other NUS courses that she could get into then? Or did Alicia look at the NUS syllabus and compared it to the SIM syllabus and thought, "ooh look, there are some interesting modules on the SIM syllabus that I really like, those are not available on the NUS course, so even if I can get into the NUS course, I would rather choose the SIM one because of those interesting modules." Of course the two courses are never going to be identical, but are those differences in the syllabus enough to justify picking an SIM course over the more prestigious NUS degree?
One thing that I am looking for as a gatekeeper is maturity in young candidates: are they selfish young people only capable of seeing things from their own point of view, or are they mature enough to realize that other people will have a different perspective and will not see things from the same point of view? So in this case, I am perhaps being rather cruel in placing the decision making process of an 18 year old under a lot of scrutiny - that was Alicia's age when she picked SIM over NUS. Was she completely focused on what she would rather study? Or did she once take a moment to consider what a gatekeeper might be looking for when they look at an applicant's CV? We have a saying in Chinese目空一切 that describes someone who is so arrogant that they dismiss and ignore the opinions of others: someone like that would be very hard to work with in a group and will have trouble following instructions. I'd much rather work with someone who will be humble enough to consider the opinions of others when working in a group and will gladly follow the managers' instructions. Alicia would have to join the work force after graduation and have to compete with NUS graduates for jobs in the rather crowded work market - did she consider how her SIM degree is going to look against the competition? Did she consider how a gatekeeper might react to her degree? #目空一切
Firstly, Singaporean students have a terrible reputation for being spoon fed all the time and they completely incapable of taking their own initiative. That could be a result of the education system whereby students can pretty much get great results at O and A levels without having to do any critical thinking, as long as they can memorize vast amounts of information for their exams. That creates a culture where the students are fed 'model answers' by their teachers and this is reinforced by tuition teachers forcing even more of the same shit down the poor students' throats. So even if the student isn't stupid - like Alicia, she made it to VJC, so she must have had some intelligence - when it comes to university, they still pretty much expect to be spoon fed and they put a lot of faith, way too much faith in their teachers at university. So if Alicia had a genuine interest in politics, she didn't need a degree in international politics, hell no. She could have become politically active right from the time she was in VJC: she could have joined a political party, she could have identified a cause that she felt passionately about and start campaigning for it, she could have joined a worthwhile charity locally or took time out to go volunteer for a charity abroad. In short, there's so much she could have done to have proven herself without a degree.
 |
| You can't learn about politics from books. Get out of the library already. |
But no, instead, it seems she wanted to sit in a classroom and have a teacher spoon feed her everything she needed to know about international politics when really, I don't think she got the memo that this is really not how politics actually works. Besides, if you wanted a career in international politics, you don't need a degree in international politics. Let's look at some of the most successful politicians in our recent times and see if we can identify what they studied: Lee Kuan Yew, Vladimir Putin, Barrack Obama and Tony Blair studied law, Donald Trump studied economics, Angela Merkel studied physics, Justin Trudeau studied literature whilst Emmanuel Macron studied philosophy (how French). Xi Jinping studied chemical engineering and Lee Hsien Loong studied mathematics. Whilst law seems to be a rather popular choice for these politicians, there is one common theme here: none of them actually had a degree in anything to do with politics per se. I could go on but the common theme that emerges from looking at the choice of degrees of the most prominent politicians in our time is that very few of them have actually studied anything related to do with politics at university - instead, they became highly respected professions in their chosen fields before turning to politics at a later stage in their lives. The fact that Obama had a brilliant career in law or that Macron had such a successful career as a banker gave them a lot of credibility with their supporters - that enabled them to step into politics very successfully. That's credibility you earn in the real world, not in a university course.
Now this is when I am going to get really nasty: you can't expect SIM's lecturers and teachers to teach you anything useful. You can't possibly put so much faith in a group of individuals like that. If these lecturers at SIM were really such experts when it came to international politics, why aren't they in the civil service then? Why aren't they working for a major NGO then? Or at least, why aren't they teaching at a more prestigious university? Did it occur to you that if they were of a better calibre, then they wouldn't be doing this job at all? Here's the problem with our culture - sure we are taught to have a healthy respect for figures of authority from a young age. So in primary school for example, we are conditioned to be polite and respectful to our teachers; now I'm not saying that's a bad thing of course, but do we want our young Singaporeans to extend that kind of unconditional respect to SIM teachers to the point where they think, "if you're a teacher, then you must be really good at what you do." Well, everything is relative I'm afraid - you don't need to be say an expert mathematician to be able to communicate a PSLE syllabus to a bunch of primary six students but to be a university professor, the standards are a lot higher. So why are the students like Alicia putting so much faith in the people who end up teaching at SIM? Is this an issue she has even contemplated or has she simply offered them unconditional trust and respect like a good Asian student?
 |
| How should we judge our teachers then? |
So this is when I can hear some students protesting and offering the counter argument, "oh we don't expect the lecturer or the professor to deliver miracles, they are just delivering the syllabus and if the syllabus is good, then we don't really have to split hairs about how good the professors are as the things we are learning are still very useful." My response to that would be that there is a wealth of information out there for free - all you need is a membership of the national library along with fast wifi and you would be able to access a huge amount of information on any topic under the sun. If all the professors are doing are giving you a reading list, then what on earth do you need them for? By that token, why are you going to university if all you need is a reading list? Heck, you can get the reading lists from other top universities like Harvard or Oxford if that's all you want - those reading lists aren't a secret at all. But the fact is, going to university is a lot more than reading these books and demonstrating that you've read them by vomiting the facts back out into an essay under exam conditions. Actually at university level, the difference between having a brilliant professor and having one who is merely dishing out the curriculum is absolutely huge - that's why the professors at places like Harvard and Oxford are quite well paid, otherwise they'll be looking to make more money in the private sector instead. Yet the moment I question the credentials of the staff at SIM, the Asian mentality of 'don't disrespect your teachers' would kick in for many Singaporeans and they would not even dare to ask those questions.
Coming back to the case of Alicia - she is now working for a local "volunteer welfare organisation" or VWO for short. Here's the thing: as I glanced through the list of local charities under the VWO umbrella, one thing became clear. You don't need a freaking degree in international politics to work for any of these charities. Don't get me wrong, I have a lot of respect or these charities and in a country where there is no welfare state, a lot of these charities do step in and offer some kind of safety net for the most destitute and desperate in Singapore. However. most of the vital work that they do daily has absolutely nothing to do with the things that would have been on Alicia's syllabus. I'm not saying that the work she is doing isn't meaningful or important (I'm sure it is), my point is that she could have probably done the same job with a different degree or indeed without any degree at all and still have made a meaningful contribution at these charities. So this brings me to my next point: perhaps we're expecting way too much from our degrees - as one of my readers Di has pointed out, going to university can just be a great experience for growing up, experiencing something new and finding out what you want to do as an adult rather than being so focused on learning per se.
 |
| What is the purpose of a degree then? |
Some years back, I met a student who did just that, let's call her Lian since her hometown is Dalian. Lian was from a very wealthy Chinese family and they gladly paid for her to come to London to get her degree. They weren't too fussed about her going to a top university as they were very traditional - Lian was expected to get married and have a child before she turned 30, so it wasn't that important whether or not she had a career as her husband was expected to support the family. So Lian ended up in London, studying in one of the universities languishing at the bottom of the league table - was she bothered? No. She just wanted to improve her English, live independently away from her family, make many friends with people from outside China and have a lot of fun. To be fair, Lian achieved all of that and got a degree at the same time, though that degree wasn't worth the paper it was printed on, but who cares? She had a great time in London! Lian then went back to China after graduating and within a few years, married a rich man and became a housewife, staying at home taking her of her baby before she turned 30 - just as her parents had planned. Did going to university in London benefit Lian? Of course it did, it definitely helped broadened her horizon and gave her loads of new experiences. Yes, in some cases, some people just don't need a degree but they can just treat it as a fun experience and in Lian's example, her parents are very rich and could afford to give her that wonderful experience.
But in the case of Alicia, her parents weren't rich at all - in fact, they were hawkers. Heck, I accepted a scholarship in order to lessen the financial burden on my parents; my parents were primary school teachers, we weren't rich but at least teachers were paid more than what your typical hawkers earned. I hate to point out the obvious: her family is poor, it is not like they couldn't afford to send her to university (obviously they managed to find the money), but when your money is tight (imagine if it was her parents' life savings) then you need to be a lot more careful and carefully consider what kind of degree you are spending your parents' life savings on. Contrast this to Lian's parents in China who are extremely rich, well they didn't bat an eyelid when paying for Lian to study in London - Lian rented a stunning apartment in an expensive part of town, enjoyed shopping at the designer boutiques on Bond Street and often went to the best restaurants in town. Yeah, if you are lucky enough to have rich parents like that, then you don't have to think twice before spending £2000 on a handbag from a designer boutique. But if your parents are poor like Alicia's, then you have far more of an moral duty to spend their money a lot more carefully - such as by choosing a more useful degree if she was merely in it for a fun experience like Lian.
 |
| Are you as rich as Ms Lian from China? |
Here's a crucial point that a lot of private universities don't tell you: an SIM degree is not really cheaper than an NUS degree. The fee for Alicia's cost is currently about S$28,400 whilst an equivalent course at NUS would cost approximately £29,350 - sure it is slightly cheaper but it is not as if you're getting a massive bargain by opting for SIM instead of NUS. Don't forget these universities are not like your ordinary primary or secondary schools which are essentially funded by the government and heavily subsidized. The price tag should tell you that these universities are essentially run like a business and they see each student as a paying customer, as yet another opportunity to generate profit. So I am trying really hard to find the justification for Alicia to have chosen to go down the SIM route when really, her parents are paying about the same amount of money as an NUS degree. Once again, this is yet another crucial point that was not touched upon in the ST article, much to my frustration - the journalist conveniently avoided this rather tricky issue about money. How did Alicia's parents feel about funding her choices I wonder?
At the end of the day, Alicia is going to be alright - she will probably go on and get her masters and get another job after that. But I shall finish with an analogy that will help put things in perspective - I saw a funny video on social media about Japanese runner Yuki Kawamuchi running a half marathon in Japan dressed as a panda. To be fair, that's not the first time someone has ran the marathon wearing a ridiculous costume - in fact, people often do that when raising money for a charity as the ridiculous costume often goes viral very quickly on social media, hence raising the profile of the charitable cause. Some of these costumes are very heavy and uncomfortable, making the marathon so much harder to run but these brave runners pull of these incredible feats in the name of charity. Yes you can run a marathon dressed as a rhinoceros, elephant or panda - it will be difficult, it will slow you down but you will still cross the finish line eventually with a lot of determination. The title of the ST article is, "private school route is tougher but it gets them there". Likewise, if you choose to go to SIM rather than NUS, nobody is saying that it is game over for you - you will run the rat race like everyone else, but you are always going to be several steps behind those who have better degrees. Should you be surprised that a marathon runner wearing the right running gear is going to run faster than the runner dressed as a rhino or a panda? It is hard enough to run a marathon, why make it any harder by wearing a ridiculous costume? Likewise, it is hard enough to establish a successful career, why make it any harder by having an SIM degree?
My conclusion is that Alicia and I are more similar than you think - we both went to VJC, we both have somewhat uneducated parents who were in no position to give us any kind of practical career advice and we both have a desire to work in international development and have a keen interest in international politics. Then only difference was that I was lucky enough to have a kind teacher at VJC who cared enough to offer me the guidance I never had, who made sure I applied for the right scholarships at the right time - whilst I suspect that Alicia was either left to her own devices to make some important decisions or she was given some very misleading and bad advice from the people whom she did approach for help. I suppose the journalist was also constrained by the fact that if she had asked Alicia too many difficult questions, Alicia could have just walked away and said, "stop it, I don't feel comfortable, you're going to make me look like an idiot in your story, I'm not going to do it anymore. Don't contact me ever again." The journalist needed her story and if she had pushed Alicia too far, well, there would be no story. Mind you, I'd be interested to sit down with Alicia and ask her the questions the journalist never asked - but then again, I think difficult questions usually push people away, especially when they are not obliged to answer them. That's it from me for now on this topic - what do you think? Leave a comment below and let me know what you think, many thanks for reading.
That's an article Why would you want to take the tougher route?
Fine for article Why would you want to take the tougher route? This time, hopefully can benefit for you all. Well, see you in other article postings.
You are now reading the article Why would you want to take the tougher route? With link address https://newstoday-ok.blogspot.com/2018/04/why-would-you-want-to-take-tougher-route.html