BLUEPRINT FOR A NEW MERITOCRACY

This letter was published in the Voices Page of Today newspaper on 19 September 2014.

If meritocracy is the engine that drove Singapore from Third World to First, perhaps the real significance of SG50 is the reinvention of meritocracy so that a new version serves us for the next 50 years. Our aim should be the optimization of our human capital to bring about maximum improvement in our lives.

The Prime Minister’s call for a cultural shift, from a credential meritocracy based on paper qualifications to a performance meritocracy that values actual competence, is just the trigger for such a transformation.

As we recover from the initial confusion such an idea caused, we must think about how to proceed. I suggest that we take three vital steps.

Firstly, we must abandon the belief that intelligence is fixed and is the sole determinant of ability. We should believe that intelligence is fluid and can be increased through education, irrespective of the starting point. That should be the main role of schools. Examinations should only be used to gauge teaching and learning adequacy, not to judge or classify students.

Secondly, we should give up the notion that an intelligence quotient as represented by exam grades determines entry to university courses and suitability for jobs. Instead, the genuine interests and strengths of students should be identified and cultivated in school and made the main entry criteria.

Thirdly, university access to certain prestigious and lucrative professional jobs, such as in medicine, law and engineering, should be open to all ages as long as one is willing and able to undertake and pay for the rigorous training needed.

With these measures, the stress and expense of intensive tuition, the narrowness of studying to the test, wasted time from over-preparation for exams, manufactured exam results and the pain of irrelevant, hollow credentials will gradually fade away.

They will be superseded by the advent of true passion, commitment to lifelong learning and real expertise. People who thrive in such a system would fully deserve the respect they would naturally be shown. Others would know that they succeed because of both their wits and their diligence.

The elitism inherent in the credential system would eventually give way to a more egalitarian performance culture where everyone may have a chance to fail, but also every opportunity to succeed.

Daniel Lee

THREE TRULY LIMITING IMPEDIMENTS TO A PERFORMANCE MERITOCRACY

(Published as 'Three Main Reasons For Paper  Chase' in the Straits Times online forum page on 16 September 2014)

Education Minister Heng Swee Keat's three breakthroughs in fostering a performance meritocracy, lifelong applied learning in the workplace and an expanded definition of success, as well as his action plan of encouraging all citizens to learn at every stage and in every way in a climate of mutual respect are to be commended.

Sadly, in reality, there are three major impediments to such a rosy outcome. In fact, these are the three main reasons why people chase after paper qualifications in Singapore.

The first impediment is the belief that intelligence is fixed and determines the ability of people. So, if intelligence cannot be boosted through learning, schooling becomes merely a mechanism to classify and stratify people. The PSLE, the O-, N- and A-level exams, the SAT and university exams become part of an intelligence-test marathon.

Knowing that their potential will be prematurely and unfairly labelled, students' main priority in school is to play the exam game by over-preparation and intensive tuition, as credentials are the only proof of their intelligence.

The second impediment is the belief that suitability for jobs and university courses is related mainly to intelligence. So, students can qualify to study certain courses only if their exam results are good enough or at least better than other applicants'. If not, they have to settle for other courses that they may not be suitable for.

There is also a tendency for those with good results to choose courses based on the prestige conferred to them or the potential high income associated with them, and not according to their interests or strengths.

Lastly, certain prestigious and lucrative jobs are being treated as professions that require deep and special knowledge and skills. Therefore, only people with the relevant degrees and credentials are admitted to these privileged and protected fields. If students do not get admitted into these university courses in the first instance, it is difficult for them to enter later.

So, without removing these three impediments, people can only believe their economic destiny will still be predetermined early in their lives, and that the only way to good jobs and a good life would be to secure good credentials in the first place. Seemingly, no amount of belated effort, enthusiasm and lifelong learning is going to change that.

Daniel Lee

 5 11 0 0PRINTEMAIL.  

A PURPOSEFUL UNIVERSITY LIFE
(Background: This Straits Times Forum letter published on 12 September 2014 is in response to a National Post article "University should be a place for soul-searching, not just money-grubbing" by David Brooks at http://ww2.nationalpost.com/m/wp/blog.html?b=fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/09/10/david-brooks-university-should-be-a-place-for-soul-searching-not-just-money-grubbing) 

I refer to last Wednesday's article "The commercial, cognitive and moral purpose of university life" by David Brooks. It has restated the oft-repeated distinctions between the different purposes of university education as if they are mutually exclusive or even in conflict with one another.

Nothing could be further from the truth. I would say that tertiary education is the activity that progressively teaches you how to gather, understand and utilize information to hone your mind, to cultivate your interests and to motivate you to become a useful member of society. It also helps you to create your self-identity and to make sense of the world so that you can respond to it morally.

Such a deeper and enlightened experience would endow you with useful skills to be a productive person in your future career, to be able to make better life decisions and to be a morally-reliable citizen; all in one process.

So, it is not either one or the other purpose being the flavor of the current times, but rather the harmonious integration of all three purposes that makes university education so rewarding.

The reason why universities seem to be singularly absorbed into the commercial ethos is that students have now adopted a narrow and misguided view of education as a launchpad for getting ahead. In my view, the fault of their failure to instead embark on a authentic journey of self-improvement, intellectual excitement and moral awakening lies almost solely with the students themselves.

Daniel Lee

MOVE TOWARDS PERFORMANCE MERITOCRACY 

A Straits Times Forum Page letter published on 4 September 2014

I BELIEVE Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's call for a "culture shift" is not a call for perfect parity between graduates and non-graduates in terms of job opportunities, promotion prospects or starting pay ("Culture shift a matter of degrees"; last Saturday). Neither is he saying degrees and paper qualifications have become worthless.

His real message is that one should not go on a paper chase just for the sake of it.

To progress, you need to know what you are good at and interested in, master your skill in it and advance your expertise continually.

If paper qualifications and degrees help in this process, you should pursue them. If not, you can do it through apprenticeship, self-study and work experience.

So, credentials by themselves are not crucial; they are important only insofar as they boost your competence. If your credentials are irrelevant or do not help you to be a better worker, then your degree or qualification would be worthless.

In effect, PM Lee has clarified for us the definition of a new "performance meritocracy", which values people for their qualities, competencies and contributions as workers and leaders in our economy, whatever their fields or credentials. In such a meritocracy, discriminating between graduates and non-graduates becomes irrelevant.

In fact, we should move from our present elitist "credential meritocracy" to a more egalitarian "performance meritocracy" based on competence and expertise.

One practical measure to help foster the new meritocracy is to minimise the income disparity of the top performers in all fields. This would rationalise the system of rewards and inspire Singaporeans to work harder by valuing excellence in all fields, rather than over-rewarding only certain prestigious fields.

Daniel Lee

UTILITARIAN VIEW OF EDUCATION SHORT-SIGHTED
My Forum Page letter published in The Straits Times on 1 September 2014


(Background: This letter was written in response to another Straits Times Forum Page letter written by Dr Anne Chong Su Yan published on 28 August 2014 advocating a 'no-frills' university education in Singapore. In it, Dr Chong opined that a utilitarian view of the purpose of higher education is justified in the light of the limited national financial resources and the contention that most freshmen would have already known where their strengths and interests lie. So, she thinks that from the get-go, they should get on with acquiring 'the skills and knowledge to enable them to support themselves and their families, as well as contribute to the nation's economy', without having 'to take up irrelevant modules they have "no real interest in and no aptitude for", only to obtain an F grade that will be discounted later'.)


I disagree with Dr Anne Chong Su Yan ("Stick to 'no-frills' education"; last Thursday) on two counts. 

First, her statement that most freshmen are already certain about where their strengths and interests lie is not convincing. Exposure to a broad-based education during secondary school and junior college, attending career fairs and having industry attachments are no guarantee of that. 

Given the instrumentalist attitude of most local students, these are approached merely with the aim of securing a place in university. In my experience, few see beyond that, other than a vague idea of wanting to be on the most efficient path to a high-income future.

Second, Dr Chong's contention that non-discipline-specific modules and subjects are frills we can ill afford must not go unchallenged. A utilitarian view of education is very short-sighted and does not serve the purpose of preparing our students for the 21st century.

To be truly educated, it is not enough to just have the capacity to find employment. More than being useful in the workplace, undergraduates need to develop into mature, thinking adults and responsible, active citizens. Having just discipline-specific skills and competencies are not enough; communication and social skills, as well as curiosity and a positive attitude, are also essential.

Our present university curricula are on the right track and I fully support them. If we succeed only in producing one-dimensional and narrow-minded graduates, our educational resources will truly be wasted.