she says that entry requirements at JC are more stringent. yes, partially i agree with that. you have to get 20 points and below to qualify for jc. but increasingly, there are poly courses that also require low points to enter. there are courses whose entry requirements are just as tough as a jc entry. no poly automatically accepts anyone with dismal marks either. anyway, she says that large numbers of students are forced to enter the poly because they can't enter the jc. perhaps this is true. no dispute because realistically the other option is the poly. she says that a minority enter poly because they want to. i find that a bit hard to digest. from my own experience, ALL my poly friends (after SAC) entered poly because they wanted to. because they felt that JC is not the place for them. and one of these people was the top student of SAC.
her other reason for saying that jc is better is becasue jc students are the ones who have the opportunity to receive the Public Service Commission awards scholarships. i say that yes, jc students have more opportunity to get scholarships and recognition, but what percentage of them? to my experience, any recognition or prize tends to be given to students of the top jcs. ie, these things are skewed towards the more 'prestigious' jcs. those in the 'worse' jcs seldom, if ever get this chance. another thing she didn't mention, but implied, is that jc is a direct route to the uni. these days, this isn't too true either. jc is no longer a guranteed route into the uni. like all students, even like the poly students, jc students have to fight to enter into the unis. so, it makes no difference.
i feel that in some ways, poly students have it better. they get a diploma at the end of their 3 years, with relevant work experience and skills. what do jc students get? an a-level cert. what can we do with that? absolutely nothing. then, when we go into the uni, say the arts faculty. get a degree in english language for instance. what do we do with that? teach? nothing in the jc route prepares students for the work place. all jc students can do for work experience is part time jobs such as sales and tution. this is not sufficient preparation. jc, then uni students are supposed to be the future managers and leaders. but there is nothing to train them into becoming that. if i was an employer, i would look to skills rather than to the academic paper. what use is getting a first class honours degree, or a masters degree if it doesn't pertain at all to that line of work? wouldn't a diploma be better in this case? singapore's education is very weird imo. it emphasises pragmatism but at the same time forces students to do useless things.
lastly, i take offence that the writer of this article is an honours student at nus, and yet she writes such judgmental articles. yes, she admits that she is being politically incorrect in what she writes. yet, i feel she isn't being politically incorrect as being elitist. true, singapore has taught about the idea of meritocracy. however, the problem is, what is a common yardstick with which to compare the two? she looks solely at academic results in her argument. of course you can't compare academic inclination in this. no question, academically jcs will win. but she does not consider any other aspect of the comparision, such as practicality and non-academic aspects. in such a case, i feel that polys will win. i can tell, she was probably from a jc, one of the top jcs. and probably had little mix with poly students. because of this, she becomes biased against them and makes such value judgements against them.
mood: awake
listening to: fishtank running water
No comments:
Post a Comment