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
Dear Pug,
ReplyDeleteThe concept of intelligence and its measurement are not as simple as you make them out to be. They are, in fact, very complex and psychologists are not in agreement as to what really constitute 'intelligence', how to measure it reliably, how much is it affected by genetic or environmental factors and what its practical importance is in terms of work ability and general competence in everyday life. Do some reading and you'll know what I mean.
If academic ability is all you want, then Intelligence tests (of whatever scale) are reasonably valid measures of academic ability. However, if intelligence is to be of any use to anyone, then the practical definition of intelligence would be the 'capacity to acquire and apply knowledge'. In such a context, IQ tests (and exams) would not be reliable indicators of ability and potential for success.
There are many other social, educational, environmental, cultural, human and personal factors that complicate the issue. So, the new 'performance meritocracy' that I'm advocating gives everyone a chance to prove their aptitude, worth and ability in an empirical way without prejudice against those with less glowing credentials.
Raw visuo-spatial and logic intelligence are genetically predisposed but highly affected by childhood nutrition (lack thereof). Cranial capacity reduction due to nutritional deficiency is unlikely to be recoverable after 6 years of age.
ReplyDeleteIn Singapore's context, due to the right shift in IQ scores to a mean of 107, you might be correct since more than 95% are not intellectually disabled.
However, you have not answered the disturbing question of training doctors at age 35.
Even if financial resources are unlimited, a society cannot afford to start medical training for middle-aged citizens. Medical training requires cadavers and a minimum number of live sick patients for practice. To give these things to a trainee, society expects that they are able and should serve society for as long as possible. (Which was the original argument for a low percentage of female doctors in Singapore)
That is the social compact between doctors and the society that supports them.
Dear Pug
DeleteYou still seem to be talking about IQ scores. I don't blame you because most lay people think that intelligence=IQ and IQ=intelligence. Believe me, it is not so simple. Please refer to my last reply and please read further on your own.
As to your query about mature medical students, it is already a reality in Singapore since Duke-NUS Graduate Medical School Singapore (Duke-NUS), a collaboration between Duke University in North Carolina, United States and the National University of Singapore accepted the first batch of students in 2007. The first batch of students completed their 4-year MD program in 2011 and are already practicing in the hospitals! These students began their medical studies after already having a bachelor’s degree in some other discipline. They were selected based on their MCAT score, academic qualifications, voluntary or community work experience, research experience and social maturity. So, what I'm saying is really nothing new. The process has already started. What I'm advocating is the widening of this option.
Perhaps, you are not aware, but cadavers are no longer used to teach Anatomy to medical students for many years. My daughter, who was a medical student between 2006 and 2011, told me about it herself.
The impairment of surgical skills brought about by age is only of concern in certain specialized surgical disciplines, but even in those cases, the advent of robotics and computer-aided equipment would increasingly compensate for the subtle deterioration of their finer hand movements.
Whether it is for doctors, surgeons, or other professionals, I think it is foolhardy to write them off prematurely at 35 years of age when our life expectancy will go beyond the 80s and 90s or further.