I have not been following this matter closely. But my understanding is that this year, many Singaporeans haven't been able to secure a place in our local universities. This is despite scoring A-level grades which, in previous years, would have enabled them to do so quite easily.The question then arises - should Singaporean citizens get priority for university admission? After all, a high proportion of university places now go to foreign students.
I was rather surprised by these two bloggers' opinions on the matter - Bart JP and Aaron Ng. They didn't seem to think that citizens should get priority for university admission.
But of course citizens should get priority.
Let's take it one simple step at a time.
Should a country and its government provide education opportunities for its people? Certainly.
That's a big reason why citizens pay taxes. So that the government can build kindergartens, primary schools, secondary schools, universities etc.
After all, we want our citizens to be well-educated, don't we? Our economy needs a skilled workforce, doesn't it? (Duh. That was so self-evident that it's absurd I even have to point it out).
Next question. When is a Singaporean citizen good enough to deserve a place in our local universities?
Well, if you had access to the relevant data, you could simply check the "market rates" from previous years. They would be a good indicator.
For example, if you looked at data from the past five years, you could say: "To get a place in NTU Engineering, you should score at least ____. To get a place in SMU Business, you should score around _________. To get a place in NUS Law, you must usually score _________." Etc.
Check with your junior college principal. JC principals usually keep track of such things. The "market rates" may vary a little from year to year, but typically they wouldn't fluctuate that much.
But apparently, this year the "market rates" did jump wildly. Like the Shanghai stock market, the market basically went mad. Previous years' rates no longer apply. Everything went haywire. University places are sharply short; and at least part of the reason is that local universities are absorbing an ever-increasing number of foreigners.
The basic point still remains. It is the responsibility of the government to provide adequate education opportunities for its citizens.
And right now, it seems that the education opportunities are simply not enough.
So it looks like we just might be beginning to revert back to the 1970s, when Singapore was a 3rd world country and many citizens didn't have a chance for higher education.
So much for progress.
Anyway, how did this rather surprising turn of events come about - that students scoring quite decent grades are simply not able to get a place in our universities?
Heh. Actually there's nothing surprising about it. Look at our property market. Look at our residential rental rates. Look at the crowds on our MRT trains and in our food courts. Look at the endless jam on the CTE.
And then look at our university situation.
See the pattern? Due to a massive intake of foreigners in recent years, our resident population has exploded. We've become the 2nd most crowded country in the world. And our current infrastructure just can't cope.
To their credit, both the URA and the LTA already saw this coming and they've been scrambling to make the necessary changes.
But the Education Ministry didn't see it coming. Neither did the local universities.
And that, simply, is that.
Ask not what your country will do for you. Because in Singapore, the answer is - not much.
224 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 224 of 224oops, wrong calculation. That's 40% instead of 20%. But anyway, you get the idea!
same anon as above.
> I wonder how many of the foreigners in local universities are actually children of tax-paying Singapore foreign residents.
Near zero!
Most expatriates' kids are very young which is why they have a very big American school in woodland (and I heard they still want to expand it somemore), as well as other international schools catering to kindergarteners to high school goers. For the few who have university-going kids, most of their kids stay back in their home country and attend university there.
As for new PRs, firstly their kids are young too: mostly in our primary and secondary schools. Secondly, they don't pay enough tax to deserve such subsidy. Thirdly, tax or otherwise, they are not citizens and university government subsidy should be reserved almost entirely (even if not 100%) to citizens - that's how things work everywhere in the world, including USA (though some of you try to misinform us by painting half-true pictures).
Almost all of those foreigners who came to our university came directly from overseas, alone, without their parents. And they come on scholarships.
So Anon, don't speculate and invent wild ideas that do not tally with statistics.
MIT admits only 8% of its undergrad population from overseas. It offers no loan, (and mind you, we are talking just abt loans, not even scholarships!) to foreign undergrads in their 1st year. Neither does the US government offer any loan (again, just loan, not even scholarship) to foreign students in any year of study.
And MIT is a privately funded university. In publicly funded universities, they won't even have a 8% quota - they will reserve almost all of their places to their own people. Eg. the University of X will reserve almost all places to residents of X, where X can be California or Michigan, or Washington etc. Oh, and 1 more thing. there will be enough satellite campuses (eg. University of California at berkeley, at LA, at San Diego etc) to accomodate a much higher % of each cohort, compared to sg's 20%.
And that's at the undergrad level. At the grad level, students WORK as assistant to either the university or to their professor and so receive a salary and/or tuition subsidy/waiver as compensation and that should not be confused with government subsidy at undergrad level.
And that's the truth about USA that some people (bart etc) always try to mis-represent, whether in this blog or other blogs, whenever education topics come up for discission!
I specially mention MIT because both NUS and NTU keep saying that they want to be like MIT - and not just in academic achievement. Tony Tan specifically said that he hope NUS alumni will follow the good example of MIT and Harvard alumni when it comes to donation!! So I did a search specially on MIT and you can do that too, and see for yourself how those sg government scholars of Bart type studying in USA think they can pull the wools over our eyes.
(Some people like to keep bringing up USA, as if USA is our lao3 da4, and we should behave like US's colony, imitating its every move. But the irony is, these people are not stating the the truth abt USA! Actually, we should indeed follow what USA is doing - those factual truthful things I mention in this comment!)
I have some comments to make.
Why must you keep the entry qualifications artificially high to keep qualify applicants away? I have seen many good students rejected by Singapore universities only to be accepted by (better) universities overseas. The reason these people want to study in Singapore is primarily cost. But the limited availability forces them to go overseas.
Then the question you should ask is why the government is not increasing the intake. A couple decade ago, as a developing country, you might not have the resource to have university education for many people even if they qualified. But now you are a first world country, at least in terms of per capital income, so why are you still limiting the intake? Is it to keep the so-called "standards" artificially high? The people who advacate for that are simply selfish. In North America and many EU countries, any child who is capable of studying at University level are not deprieved of the privilege. They have loans and financial aids for poor students. So why can't Singapore do it? Is it because it can't justify it economically? Being wary about government susidies in general? Come on, your country has huge reserved that is not used in social welfare or invested in its own people.
You should regonize that everyone who are capable should be given the opportunity to succeed. I have seen too many selfish people here.
Anon of June 14, 2007 4:08 AM,
you ask many WHYs. But the answer is just one:
because a society composed of well educated citizens is a threat to a dictatorial government! That's why!
What is the 1st thing LKY said when he went on TV recently? I think it went something like this: you journalists who questioned me about liberty and press-freedom are just a small bunch of young english-educated radicals with university degreers. But you people form only 30% of your cohort. The other 70% who have no degrees are more concern with bread and butter issue than liberties!!
This man has looked up those statistics even before going on tv, and that's the first thing off the top of his head when he hear some young people talk about liberty.
So you can draw your own conclusion on his mentality and direction of thinking.
Hash:
1. Scholarship given to PRC/HongKong students comes from the GICs, not the government. Whatever you say about the relationship between the two. The scholarship does not come from taxpayers. Nevertheless we know that one cent spent on us could have been spent on local students, so I am sincerely grateful to Singaporean people.
No. The scholarships are awarded by GLCs but funded by the MOE. You can check with your scholarship-awarding organisation if you don't believe me. The reason why they are awarded by GLCs, and not the MOE, is to provide the Singapore government with a plausible defence that they are not directly poaching young people from China or India.
Yeah ... That is an open secret, actually.
ironically there were not enough students to fill the available vacanies in UNSW Asia, to the extent that it has to close shop.
There WERE enough students to fill vacancies in UNSW...they just dint meet the standard set by UNSW
No. The scholarships are awarded by GLCs but funded by the MOE. You can check with your scholarship-awarding organisation if you don't believe me. The reason why they are awarded by GLCs, and not the MOE, is to provide the Singapore government with a plausible defence that they are not directly poaching young people from China or India.
Also allows them 1 less item to explain and account for in elections.
It may be the case that the Singapore government DID anticipate the situation, and HAD been trying to increase capacity for university education (for BOTH citizens AND foreigners).
That is why it has been trying to get foreign universities to set up shop in Singapore.
But you know what happened to Warwick (pulled out at the last minute - due to academic concerns of the lack of freedom of speech in Singapore)
... and you know what happened to UNSW (pulled out AFTER the last minute, during its 1st semester, due to reasons that EDB is unwilling to openly and transparently discuss)
and that is why there is a shortage now.
If UNSW and Warwick were both up and running, things would be better.
Well, as I said in my post, we've been taking in too many foreigners too fast, and we don't have adequate infrastructure to cope.
As an analogy, think of 3rd world countries which don't have enough schools for their population, and you'll get my point.
If spaces are inadequate, priority should be given to citizens. That is my simple point - which some people here keep missing.
"If spaces are inadequate, priority should be given to citizens.
Mr Wang, quoting just for highlighting your point and value add, not counter.
1) We want degrees so that we can find good jobs.
2) Singaporeans must be given priority in our own country.
3) Universities must be good so the degrees are recognised. Hence, quality of students must keep improving to gain further recognition.
On the foreign quota, until we understand how it qualifies, I am neutral. It could be a protection for Singaporeans, which many percieve as a protection for foreigners. I am thinking of quality to quality vs numerical intake.
On the "deserving Singaporeans", we must have a definition. I can define "deserving" as BBB, you may think it's CCC, B3, another person may think it's DDO, D7. What is "deserving"?
Point 2. "Deserving" to which course? Medicine? Law? IT? Deserving to gain admission to top notch NUS or pom pom dancing SMU? Do we establish "deserving" standards per course per Uni?
Final pt. Performances and candidate numbers differ every year. What if this year, everyone gets "deserving" grades? Then does relative or comparative standard apply or it is an absolute performance indicator as compared to last year?
This word "deserving" is as good as "national interest" being used in parliamentary debates. It says everything, but tells nothing.
Perhaps we can improve on this idea.
We could look for severely ill, but curable bright people from poorer countries.
Tell them that they will be treated for free in our medical hub. But after that they will have to work for x number of years in our financial hub or industrial hub or teach in our education hub.
Hubba hubba!
Mr Wang,
Let's say, UNSW stuck around (and saying that it was really a move on MOE's part to preempt the shortage of place). Hypothetically speaking, how many would go to UNSW looking at the cost of the courses there? Most wouldn't pay that kind of money to study locally, the enrolment numbers are self-evident.
Besides, if THAT is really MOE's solution to solve the shortage issue, then perhaps the idea and implementation of which is poor to begin with.
"ironically there were not enough students to fill the available vacanies in UNSW Asia, to the extent that it has to close shop.
There WERE enough students to fill vacancies in UNSW...they just dint meet the standard set by UNSW"
so do u mean that those who didn't meet the standard set by UNSW have been flooding NUS, NTU & SMU?
this is a silly question actualli..obviously those who are qualified for UNSW Asia prefer local uni becos of cost subsidies
That's not the point. The question to ask why UNSW Asia is such a big failure in Singapore. Is Singapore the problem or gov is the problem ? The answer is both is the problem because Singapore=PAP=GOV=ERP=GST=MeeSiamMaiHum=Money=DoseOfIncompetentGov
That's why EDB may not want to discuss other face the wrath of LCY
erm,
I thought UNSW found its 'quota' of local students? It was their failure to secure enough full-fee-paying foreign students that led to their leaving? (or as their official line went?)
So I don't think there's a shortage of local students who can meet uni adminissions qualifications... not just in SG, but in most countries.
The debate has drifted so far away from the question of Singaporeans being treated like 2nd-class citizens in their own home country.
Are we a country or are we just Sg.INC?
E.o.M.
[pragmatism will be our own worst enemy!]
I think that foreign students are instrumental in adding diversity to the local university scene and also to raise the bar and standard of our local graduates.
While most of these foreign students may not be the top scholars in their country, they are often the better performing students. They left home for a purpose and they are hungry. They remind us that a university education should not be taken for granted and force us to work hard to excel.
To give up these students for the locals who couldn't make it in the first place would probably dilute the strength of a vigourous education. (This is a hypothesis. Perhaps it may not happen this way but having a lowered university standard is too much of a risk to bear)
Another hypothesis is that the existing students may not work as hard to perform due to a lack of competition. This will also erode the standard of university education.
Therefore, I think that the locals with good grades and didn't make is to uni are unfortunate. But they're just aren't as good as the locals who made it in.
The uphold of the local universities standards will benefit the society as a whole.
For every local who is deprived of a place in local uni, there are four others who made it. IMO, this is a balanced approach in maintaining standards by introducing diversity and competition, and to ensure that most locals gets a university education.
Bart (aka Bartholomew Jang Ping Thia), an economics phd student, appears to view education as merely a "signaling mechanism".
He must have read and misunderstood academic papers by Stiglitz, Akerlorf and etc. In those landmark papers, the key message is that even if we assume that a student does not learn anything useful from the years of education, the process of education is still useful as it serves as a signaling/screening device for potential employers.
On the contrary, I believe Mr Wang's more enlightened viewpoint (and that of most of his readers) is that we do learn something useful from the years of schooling. And that depriving our local citizens an opportunity to learn solely to boost the signaling purpose of education is simply stupid.
To Bart/Aaron and all others who thinks that education plays mainly a signaling role: I suggest that you apply to our universities, but should not accept the offer of a place, since you believe that the offer letter in itself will indicate to future employers that you are a smart chap.
I disagree with your perception that local students should get priority in admission into local universities. This is like a case of overcompensation. If the problem now is between choosing a lousy foreign student and a lousy local student, then obviously I will prefer the local student to get the place.
Yet, this is not the issue. Foreign students have generally performed better at universities as compared to their local peers.
My point is that universities should admit their students based on merit and not on nationality. Admitting local students who do not make the mark merely place them to struggle, or should the school lower their standards so that these students can graduate eventually.
In either event, this leads to a lack of credibility for our local universities, which in turn results in a lack of credibility for our local graduates.
Students should be admitted on acadmic merit. What we should be looking into is whether students who have the academic merit face other problems like financial wise that prevents them from getting into the universities.
As of all economic goods, places at universities should rely on the market rationing mechanism and not on intervention based on nationality.
"As of all economic goods, places at universities should rely on the market rationing mechanism"
Yes, if the university is privately funded and does not depend on taxpayers' money.
Mr Wang,
It appears that this July 18th article from ST seems is specially drafted to alleviate concerns from your post. :)
Singaporeans 'get priority' in varsity entry
Wed, Jul 18, 2007
The Straits Times
SINGAPOREANS get priority over foreigners when they apply for a place in universities here.
Also, the universities have been progressively increasing the number of places for Singaporeans. For the past 10 years, it has risen by an average of 5 per cent each year.
Last year, it was increased even more - 10 per cent - to accommodate the swell of 19-year-old girls born in the Dragon Year, which is considered auspicious by the Chinese.
These points were highlighted in Parliament yesterday by Minister of State (Education) Gan Kim Yong.
He also produced figures to allay fears that local students were being crowded out. The numbers show foreign students get only a fraction of the places.
For instance, 28,000 local students applied to study at the three universities here this year: National University of Singapore, Nanyang Technological University and Singapore Management University.
Half of them - 14,000 - were offered places. In contrast, out of 23,000 foreigners who applied, only 987 - or 4 per cent - got the nod.
'We want to demonstrate that the university does give priority to local students,', said Mr Gan as he assured MPs that the drive to get more foreign students is not being done at the expense of locals.
He was replying to three MPs - Mr Zainudin Nordin (Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC), Mr Zaqy Mohamad (Hong Kah GRC) and Mr Liang Eng Hwa (Holland-Bukit Timah GRC) - and Nominated MP Siew Kum Hong.
Among their concerns was that local students who do not get into universities here may feel as if their places were being taken by foreigners.
Parents have also written to The Straits Times Forum page in the past few months, complaining especially about the 'Dragon Year' effect.
To cope with the 'Dragon girls', Mr Gan said the universities are offering 14,685 places, 10 per cent more than last year.
As a result, 23.5 per cent of the local cohort will enter university this year, compared to 20.8 per cent in 2000 and 15 per cent in 1990.
Singapore is aiming to give subsidised university education to one in four Singaporeans in each cohort.
'As we move towards (it)...the universities will continue to look at additional places to accommodate our students and to provide them with opportunities to pursue university education here,' said Mr Gan.
But the increase will be done at a pace that will not compromise the quality of graduates, he added.
Eventually, he sees four in 10 Singaporeans having a university degree, as polytechnic students increasingly pursue a university education.
Mr Gan's remarks have given hope to Miss Lydia Leong, who is born in the Dragon Year.
The 19-year-old scored 2 Cs and a B for her A levels - grades that could not get her into the social science faculty at any of the three universities here.
She is working as a temporary research assistant in a statutory board and wants to re-apply next year.
'I know people with similar grades in earlier batches who got into the universities here. I had a feeling the Dragon Year would hurt my chances.
'Hopefully, I'll be second-time lucky next year, with no Dragons around.'
I, personally, do not feel that Singaporean STUDENTS should be given any more priorities than they are already given. I am a student waiting to get into NTU soon in August, and as one of the people who 'made the cut', i feel that all Universities everywhere, should look more into grades and capabilities and not citizenship.
of course i am not denying that holding a local citizenship has granted me alot of opportunities and privileges of which i would have missed given my very lazy nature. and definitely, i can understand why governments and citizens would like to give the children the best possible education. since it would be most likely that in the future, at least half of the working population would be Singaporeans.
however, i would think that universities, the tertiary education institutions, should be grooming people who have shown excellence in their academic and project studies, citizenship should be secondary on their priority. a certain degree of protectionism is of course necessary, thus it is the government's job to come up with a transparent system of allocating places between foreigners and locals.
perhaps, foreign students with grades much better than a local like a difference of at least 2 grades in more than 2 subjects should be given the place. and if both parties performed similarly well, places should ideally be given to the local. this is probably one of the most feasible systems to stop all the negative voices that is questioning this and that.
and i believe that people should stop blaming the system or the universities or the government for the lack of places or opportunities. if you are really that interested in a place in a tertiary educational institution, then, my advice to thee is study hard. if 100% of hard work doesnt seems to be enough, then put in 200%! there is no privileges waiting for locals to pluck off in the working society.
most companies, SMC or MNC, wouldnt really employ a local second lower class honors over a foreign second upper class honors. the capabilities in the employee is the key feature employers is looking out for, not the pink I/C. at least in Singapore, where industrial protectionism isnt as prominent as perhaps US or as someone said, Malaysia.
if the students couldnt put in the effort to study and work for their place in Universities, what makes you think that they would excel in Universities, where the system is more or less simulated in JC? just because their parents have the good(?) sense to have their kids in Singapore, DO NOT give the children any advantages over people who have work their butts off just to enter Universities in Singapore!
well, my point is quite simple here, forget that you are a Singaporean, just remember, you are a STUDENT like anyone else out there. if you want to stand inside an university and proudly said that you have survived and pass the system, please, for Pete's sake, work for it, if you are too lazy or too assuming to think that a Singaporean would or should have a place in the Universities, then you are also too naive! wake up and put away that 'i am a Singaporean, so i have a right!' attitude and work for it. because the rest of us did.
and i am a Singaporean, so i think i am not really being biased to say all this right? anyway, that's all my two-pence worth on the topic. if i offend anyone, my apologies! =D
(I am posting this article in this thread so that future researchers have a clear idea about MOE and our media)
ChannelNewsAsia (July 19th, by Pearl Forss) lied when they said "Top universities in the world, such as MIT, have more than 40 percent foreign students". (Recall that their context was made to support the govt's stance on why our universities reserved 20% of the undergraduate seats for foreigners?)
MIT website stated clearly that "International citizens" comprises only 8% of the undergraduate student profile!!
FYI, this year, NUS, SMU and NTU combined accepted a total of 786 full-time international students.
http://nubeals.blogspot.com/2007/07/admission-into-nus-this-year-2007.html
Post a Comment