Was talking to my secondary school teacher Ms Chow many weeks back. She shared with me her experience in teaching at a neighbourhood school.
It appears that the class she taught had 5 attention-deficit students. I asked if it was MOE's policy and whether famous schools such as RI would have attention-deficit students in each class as well, her answer was no. The parents chose to enrol them in a normal school. She commented that these students would be able to learn better at a pace more suited to their abilities if they had gone to a special school instead of a normal school. The reason is that they are constantly unable to catch up with the materials presented in class and some of them had really weird habits that would distract the rest of the class. For instance, she had this student who would stand up in the middle of lesson and just walk up to her and go in circles around her. At the same time mumbling "Ms Chow... Ms Chow... Ms Chow..." He's just so weird...the way i see it.
The issue of attention-deficit students not getting the best education suited for them is a very real issue in her school for every class had a few such students. And it is the parents who made the decision to put them in normal schools, for pragmatic reasons. These include the loss of 'face' as the Chinese calls it, imagine telling your relative your child is in a special school, how would your relative think of your child? Especially in this competitive Singaporean society where parents are willing to sacrifice hours to do voluntary work just to get their children into "good" schools such as Nanyang Primary.
The other issue was that parents are scared that their children would lose out if they went to special schools because
1) they would learn slower than their peers
2) in the future when they seek jobs, it would be reflected in their resume that they went to a special school -- this is a potential turnoff for employers
3) the children may develop an inferiority complex and find it difficult to integrate into society in the future.
Hence, nowadays teachers at normal neighbourhood schools also have to handle the added pressure of devising a way to teach these students without somehow holding back the normal students. This certainly makes work tougher.
Well, my personal take is that it is actually for the good of the child, if he has been identified to be attention-deficit, to send him to a special school. The curriculum there has been specially tailored made to suit his needs. It is added pressure for the child if he constantly falls behind in normal school and has to play catch up all the time. And when he doesn't perform well, this translates to additional pressure for the teachers and the parents as well. However, i might not be in the best position to comment since i'm not a parent yet. Perhaps my viewpoint might take 180 degree turn when i do become a parent and understand the various societal stress one has to take in that role.
Friday, November 14, 2008
Thursday, November 13, 2008
High school musical
This is good...
Quoted from talking cock.com
http://www.talkingcock.com/html/article.php?sid=2668
Quoted from talking cock.com
http://www.talkingcock.com/html/article.php?sid=2668
University donations
The next topic my prof touched on was about university culture.
He graduated from University of Chicago and contrast his undergraduate experience against the one we have at NUS.
A few months back, the Straits Times ran an article on the amount of donation local universities get from alumni. Interestingly, only a mere (get this!) 1% of the alumni donated to the university. My professor was not the least surprised. The question he asked was short and concise -- So, after 3 years in NUS, what do you think you have gotten out of your university experience? Well, seriously not much. And certainly not something you would brag to your friend about when you graduate. Now contrast that to your friends who received an university education in US universities. You can be sure that they can't wait to tell you what an awesome experience they had there. Well well, no surprise why graduates simply discard that letter asking for donation from local universities straight into the trash bin. The only time the school remembers about the student as an individual is when they are asking for donation. On the other hand, my prof immediately flashes out his cheque book when someone from University of Chicago approaches him for donation.
His exact comments were: "Here, take this and do for others what you have done for me!" It was obvious that his experience at University of Chicago had left an impact on him.
Another matter that he took issue with was the system of grading in NUS. He commented that giving someone a B- when he has worked hard, but simply hasn't understood the materials well enough isn't the best way to encourage someone to work harder. He used the module i was taking as an example. In the class, there are 25 students. There are 3 truly exceptional ones, who are a cut above the rest. Meanwhile, the rest are equally good and hard working. Now with the bell curve, 8 of them are definitely going to get a B- for the module, even though they have worked hard. And my prof is sad over this. He said that if he had the chance to really spend time with the student one-on-one for one whole semester and get them to read certain important publications to get them on track in terms of information and some fundamental knowledge on religions and customs, ie the subject matters, he is sure these students would be able to perform as well as those at the top of the class. The issue is: Singaporean students do not have the culture of meeting their prof every week for consultation, in fact, those who do go for consultation are in the minority! Of course, class size is another matter too. In US, size of the class is usually smaller. Hence, sadly, as much as he knows these students are no less bright than any other he came across, he would have to hand out a B-; after telling them repeatedly "i know you have the potential and you can definitely do well if you work harder". Makes him sound like a hypocrite when there is little he can do since the school imbued him with limited discretionary powers.
And while we as undergraduate complained about the heavy workload, the fact of the matter is that we are spending more time doing unnecessary stuffs rather than truly rigorous academic work. In other words, there is definitely a better way to do things and learn more. He cited the honours thesis proposals he received from honours students over the years. According to him, these are students he has seen over the years and are certainly as bright as any he had ever seen. However, when they reached year 4 and submitted their thesis proposals, my prof was appalled by the lack of depth in their argument. Having taught them over the years and knowing that they are capable of more, he was convinced that it couldn't have been the student who was at fault. He concluded that there were inherent problems in our education system that led to this issue occurring year after year. (And him being disappointed year after year, with what was not been done for the students)
However, it looks like things is going to stay this way for quite some time. Changes doesn't seem to be heading our way.
He graduated from University of Chicago and contrast his undergraduate experience against the one we have at NUS.
A few months back, the Straits Times ran an article on the amount of donation local universities get from alumni. Interestingly, only a mere (get this!) 1% of the alumni donated to the university. My professor was not the least surprised. The question he asked was short and concise -- So, after 3 years in NUS, what do you think you have gotten out of your university experience? Well, seriously not much. And certainly not something you would brag to your friend about when you graduate. Now contrast that to your friends who received an university education in US universities. You can be sure that they can't wait to tell you what an awesome experience they had there. Well well, no surprise why graduates simply discard that letter asking for donation from local universities straight into the trash bin. The only time the school remembers about the student as an individual is when they are asking for donation. On the other hand, my prof immediately flashes out his cheque book when someone from University of Chicago approaches him for donation.
His exact comments were: "Here, take this and do for others what you have done for me!" It was obvious that his experience at University of Chicago had left an impact on him.
Another matter that he took issue with was the system of grading in NUS. He commented that giving someone a B- when he has worked hard, but simply hasn't understood the materials well enough isn't the best way to encourage someone to work harder. He used the module i was taking as an example. In the class, there are 25 students. There are 3 truly exceptional ones, who are a cut above the rest. Meanwhile, the rest are equally good and hard working. Now with the bell curve, 8 of them are definitely going to get a B- for the module, even though they have worked hard. And my prof is sad over this. He said that if he had the chance to really spend time with the student one-on-one for one whole semester and get them to read certain important publications to get them on track in terms of information and some fundamental knowledge on religions and customs, ie the subject matters, he is sure these students would be able to perform as well as those at the top of the class. The issue is: Singaporean students do not have the culture of meeting their prof every week for consultation, in fact, those who do go for consultation are in the minority! Of course, class size is another matter too. In US, size of the class is usually smaller. Hence, sadly, as much as he knows these students are no less bright than any other he came across, he would have to hand out a B-; after telling them repeatedly "i know you have the potential and you can definitely do well if you work harder". Makes him sound like a hypocrite when there is little he can do since the school imbued him with limited discretionary powers.
And while we as undergraduate complained about the heavy workload, the fact of the matter is that we are spending more time doing unnecessary stuffs rather than truly rigorous academic work. In other words, there is definitely a better way to do things and learn more. He cited the honours thesis proposals he received from honours students over the years. According to him, these are students he has seen over the years and are certainly as bright as any he had ever seen. However, when they reached year 4 and submitted their thesis proposals, my prof was appalled by the lack of depth in their argument. Having taught them over the years and knowing that they are capable of more, he was convinced that it couldn't have been the student who was at fault. He concluded that there were inherent problems in our education system that led to this issue occurring year after year. (And him being disappointed year after year, with what was not been done for the students)
However, it looks like things is going to stay this way for quite some time. Changes doesn't seem to be heading our way.
Singapore education system
Had a good chat with my history prof on fri.
(Or rather had a good time listening to him voice his opinions)
He commented that if he had been brought up in Singapore, he would probably be selling chicken rice right now; instead of being a history professor at the university. The reason he stated was the rigid and highly stratified education system in Singapore. It is a system that has little tolerance for failure and severely skewed towards academic results.
Since primary school, the people are classified into different types based solely on academic ability. There are the pri 4 streaming, the PSLE, the O level, the A level etc. By the time one reaches university, he would have gone through no less than 4 stages of streaming and classification. Even then, these so-called 'talents' are also differentiated.
The true cream of the crop gets picked up by the government and sent abroad to prestigious universities such as Princeton, Harvard, Yale and Imperial College to name a few. Then, the second best are in USP and the likes in NUS and other local universities. Next, there are those could make it to local universities. Finally, the rest would have either self-finance and go to SIM or less well-known universities abroad.
According to what he said, his attention wasn't focused on his studies until he reached high school, equivalent to JC over here. As such, he didn't exactly score too well when he was in Middle School, ie Secondary school. Now, if we translate that to the Singapore education system, it probably meant that he would have to go to an ITE at the end of sec sch and his path in life pretty much decided there and then. Becoming a professor is almost impossible. But luckily, he was born in the US and he was thankful that the US education system was much more tolerant and allowed him the time and space to pursue his dream when he regained his interest in studies in high school.
Now selling chicken rice and teaching history at a world renowned university are worlds apart, what does this tell us about our education system? What about the many could-have-beens that have been buried by the education system?
(Or rather had a good time listening to him voice his opinions)
He commented that if he had been brought up in Singapore, he would probably be selling chicken rice right now; instead of being a history professor at the university. The reason he stated was the rigid and highly stratified education system in Singapore. It is a system that has little tolerance for failure and severely skewed towards academic results.
Since primary school, the people are classified into different types based solely on academic ability. There are the pri 4 streaming, the PSLE, the O level, the A level etc. By the time one reaches university, he would have gone through no less than 4 stages of streaming and classification. Even then, these so-called 'talents' are also differentiated.
The true cream of the crop gets picked up by the government and sent abroad to prestigious universities such as Princeton, Harvard, Yale and Imperial College to name a few. Then, the second best are in USP and the likes in NUS and other local universities. Next, there are those could make it to local universities. Finally, the rest would have either self-finance and go to SIM or less well-known universities abroad.
According to what he said, his attention wasn't focused on his studies until he reached high school, equivalent to JC over here. As such, he didn't exactly score too well when he was in Middle School, ie Secondary school. Now, if we translate that to the Singapore education system, it probably meant that he would have to go to an ITE at the end of sec sch and his path in life pretty much decided there and then. Becoming a professor is almost impossible. But luckily, he was born in the US and he was thankful that the US education system was much more tolerant and allowed him the time and space to pursue his dream when he regained his interest in studies in high school.
Now selling chicken rice and teaching history at a world renowned university are worlds apart, what does this tell us about our education system? What about the many could-have-beens that have been buried by the education system?
Monday, November 03, 2008
Game without Nash eqm
Take a 2 person and 2 choice game.
Rule of the game:
A coin is tossed.
For Person A, he can call head (H) or tail (T).
If Person B calls the same, ie HH or TT, then A gets $1.
If A calls H and B calls T, then A loses $1.
The reverse is true for B.
In other words, if B calls H and A calls H, then B loses $1.
But if B calls T and A calls H, then B gets $1.
The game is played infinite number of times.
Interestingly, the following result is observed...
When A calls H and B calls H, A gains $1 and A continues to call H.
But B loses $1 and will switch to T.
Once B switches his choice, A realizes that he is losing money, so he will switch to T too.
They can keep playing and continue switching but neither party will gain or lose!
Well~ I thought this is an amazing game. No winner or loser and no Nash equilibrium!
Rule of the game:
A coin is tossed.
For Person A, he can call head (H) or tail (T).
If Person B calls the same, ie HH or TT, then A gets $1.
If A calls H and B calls T, then A loses $1.
The reverse is true for B.
In other words, if B calls H and A calls H, then B loses $1.
But if B calls T and A calls H, then B gets $1.
The game is played infinite number of times.
Interestingly, the following result is observed...
When A calls H and B calls H, A gains $1 and A continues to call H.
But B loses $1 and will switch to T.
Once B switches his choice, A realizes that he is losing money, so he will switch to T too.
They can keep playing and continue switching but neither party will gain or lose!
Well~ I thought this is an amazing game. No winner or loser and no Nash equilibrium!
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Coca Cola Story
One of my favourite stories from one of my favourite Professors...
You take $1 and you slot it into a vending machine,
You press the right buttons,
A Coca Cola comes out.
You take the same $1,
You throw it out of the window,
You wait for 1 hours, 2 hours, 3 hours...
Nothing happens!
You must know what result you want to get! Then you can get the result~
Moral of the story:
Begin with the end in mind.
The method comes naturally thereafter.
You take $1 and you slot it into a vending machine,
You press the right buttons,
A Coca Cola comes out.
You take the same $1,
You throw it out of the window,
You wait for 1 hours, 2 hours, 3 hours...
Nothing happens!
You must know what result you want to get! Then you can get the result~
Moral of the story:
Begin with the end in mind.
The method comes naturally thereafter.
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Financial illiteracy
The recent subprime mortage crisis has finally hit home and hit hard on the heartlanders. MAS estimated that around 10,000 Singaporeans are affected by the collapse of Lehman Brothers and may end up losing their hard-earned savings amounting to around 0.5 billion dollars in total.
In the recent gathering over at Hong Lim Park, many told a depressing tale. Most of these heartlanders who have invested in the minibonds in their 60s. They had invested their hard-earned savings; some as much as $100,000 to $200,000, after getting assurance from the relationship officers in local banks that minibonds were low-risk yet offered returns of 5% or more, which is a lot higher than the amount they are getting from putting their money in fixed deposits. Many of them could not read English and never fully understand what kind of product they were investing their money into. They trusted what the bank officers said and took the minibond to be simply another kind of 'fixed deposit' (the bond period was 5 years), which was low risk but could earn them higher returns of 5%. With Lehman Brothers filing for bankruptcy, there is a possibility that these investors could lose all their hard-earned savings. It's worthy to note that most of them were extremely low-risk investors. Capital preservation was of paramount important to them and they only agreed after repeated assurance from bank officers that their capital is protected. For many of them, it was the sum of money they had saved for retirement. Now they can forget about retiring~
Amazingly, as an Economic major, I have never been taught how to read a financial product throughout my 4 years in University! I can barely imagine how the aunties and uncles, most of them uneducated, were to make sense of what SWAP, bonds, minibonds and structured deposits were! Yet, it is amazing how these structured products were a huge sellout! Think about the thousands who bought the minibonds. Something doesn't quite fit right here. Of course, i know relationship officers and financial planners go through a lot of courses and as such i shall not question their professionalism. But seriously, if the potential investors cannot understand what the whole product is about, how are they supposed to invest in them? I was watching this tv news report in which the reporter got a copy of the minibond agreement. Yes the details were inside but it was not reader friendly at all! Any layman who looks at it will not be able to make good sense out of what the agreement talks about. In short, the whole thing was just too technical and too confusing, even for some of the financial consultants the reporter interviewed! It's such a complex product!
However, sadly, this is not the only structured product in the market. When we invest our money in something other than deposits, i wonder how many of us really know what we are investing into? My guess is not a lot, in fact, only a small proportion of the population who has studied in the relevant courses. Other than blaming the bank officers who made such products simpler than they were, and in some sense, making the product into something they were not, perhaps we should also acknowledge our serious financial illiteracy for it's our financial illiteracy that will cost us in the long run.
Simple rule: If you can't understand it, don't touch it.
In the recent gathering over at Hong Lim Park, many told a depressing tale. Most of these heartlanders who have invested in the minibonds in their 60s. They had invested their hard-earned savings; some as much as $100,000 to $200,000, after getting assurance from the relationship officers in local banks that minibonds were low-risk yet offered returns of 5% or more, which is a lot higher than the amount they are getting from putting their money in fixed deposits. Many of them could not read English and never fully understand what kind of product they were investing their money into. They trusted what the bank officers said and took the minibond to be simply another kind of 'fixed deposit' (the bond period was 5 years), which was low risk but could earn them higher returns of 5%. With Lehman Brothers filing for bankruptcy, there is a possibility that these investors could lose all their hard-earned savings. It's worthy to note that most of them were extremely low-risk investors. Capital preservation was of paramount important to them and they only agreed after repeated assurance from bank officers that their capital is protected. For many of them, it was the sum of money they had saved for retirement. Now they can forget about retiring~
Amazingly, as an Economic major, I have never been taught how to read a financial product throughout my 4 years in University! I can barely imagine how the aunties and uncles, most of them uneducated, were to make sense of what SWAP, bonds, minibonds and structured deposits were! Yet, it is amazing how these structured products were a huge sellout! Think about the thousands who bought the minibonds. Something doesn't quite fit right here. Of course, i know relationship officers and financial planners go through a lot of courses and as such i shall not question their professionalism. But seriously, if the potential investors cannot understand what the whole product is about, how are they supposed to invest in them? I was watching this tv news report in which the reporter got a copy of the minibond agreement. Yes the details were inside but it was not reader friendly at all! Any layman who looks at it will not be able to make good sense out of what the agreement talks about. In short, the whole thing was just too technical and too confusing, even for some of the financial consultants the reporter interviewed! It's such a complex product!
However, sadly, this is not the only structured product in the market. When we invest our money in something other than deposits, i wonder how many of us really know what we are investing into? My guess is not a lot, in fact, only a small proportion of the population who has studied in the relevant courses. Other than blaming the bank officers who made such products simpler than they were, and in some sense, making the product into something they were not, perhaps we should also acknowledge our serious financial illiteracy for it's our financial illiteracy that will cost us in the long run.
Simple rule: If you can't understand it, don't touch it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)