Viola's Dreamworld

Friday, August 10, 2007

0 comments

I refer to the article, "5 out of 100 points enough to enter varsity in Taiwan" published in today's issue of The Straits Times.

As my promotional exams approach, I feel a sense of dread and a nagging worry of not being able to score well at the final A levels to get into a good university keeps repeating itself in my head. Then as I flip open the morning papers, I stumble upon this particular article which says that 5 out of 100 points is enough to enter a university in Taiwan.

What is the world coming to? I think to myself. Over here, while I worry for my grades, students in Taiwan are able to breeze through university admission even with low scores.

The aim of education is to produce qualified people and train them for the workforce. It aims to develop one's mindset and introduce critical thinking, as well as to impart to the students skills that are essential in today's competitive society. As the competition grows more intense, it is not only working adults who are feeling the heat. Students, too, are feeling the pressure to do well. Changes are being implemented in schools' syllabuses to stretch students further. While it used to be that people were degree-holders were viewed as the "cream of the crop", and had better advantages over everyone else when it came to job applications, today that notion has changed. In modern society, a degree is seen as a minimum qualification by many. In my family, my sister and I have been told to attain at least a degree before we step out into the working world. We have been brought up to believe that people without a minimum degree certification will only fail in the outside world.

Which puzzles me how university admission requirements in Taiwan can be so low when the rest of the world is fighting for university places in their own countries.

The article credits it to a lack of students. Put in economic terms, it simply means a situation of having excess supply, but insufficient demand. The number of tertiary institutions surged from 139 a decade ago to the current number of 163. This is taking place as Taiwan faces a declining birth rate.

A question posed in the article is "It boils down to the debate over which is more important when it comes to promoting tertiary education: equity or quality?" According to Professor Fang Der-Long, who heads the Department of Education in a university, Taiwan seems to favour the former. It makes me wonder if Taiwan is compromising the quality of education in its move for a more educated workforce. If the Ministry of Education does not step in to regulate the criteria for university admission soon, there will be a sharp rise in the number of under-qualified people who will obtain university certificates. This will pose dire consequences to Taiwan's economy as these people step out into the workforce.

While I can understand Taiwan's rationale for wanting a larger educated workforce, I disagree with the decision to lower admission criteria just to achieve its aim. I personally feel that if there is a lack of demand, closure of a few universities would be a good idea rather than to lower the standards just to fill up its placings. After all, education is supposed to help develop people into qualified workers, who will then go on to contribute to the country's economy as they step out into the workforce. By compromising on the quality of education, a degree certification in Taiwan may very soon be deemed "useless" against degree-holders from other countries. When this happens, Taiwan will lose out.

-when are you coming back? ;

Saturday, August 4, 2007

0 comments

I refer to the article "China blacklists 13 academics for fraud", published in The Straits Times on 4 August, 2007.

"China has blacklisted 13 academics for falsifying scientific data, fabricating applications and plagiarism as it tries to foster innovation in a fraud-ridden climate" writes the article.

You could say that I was shocked when I saw this article. My first thought was, aren't academics supposed to know the rules? Mention the word "academics" or "scholars" or "researchers", and our immediate impression is of someone who is well-versed in literary speech, whose written work is of high quality, and whose works can be trusted.

Yet today we have a case of fraud. And the number is astounding. Not one, but thirteen, academics were found guilty for faking data and for plagiarism. Two included professors, one at Wuhan University and the other at the Civil Aviation University of China. Their punishment? Being "criticised" and suspended from receiving research funding for three years.

But wait a minute. If you have read the article carefully, you would have noticed that the word "criticised" is written as "criticised". What exactly does this mean? I am guessing that the author of this article is trying to say that the professors were not exactly criticised, with a stern tone to it. Perhaps they were only given a simple warning. But is this enough? Professors are supposed to know the rules, yet they still defied it. A harsher punishment should have been given to them instead.

The report also mentioned "a series of high-profile scientific scandals at China's top universities last year raised public concern over the supervision of academic research". Such cases are serious because they raise questions about the quality of academic work. Education is supposedly supposed to teach right from wrong. Plagarism and faking of data is definitely in the wrong. Since academics are people with a high level of education, such fraud cases should not be seen. Yet, this is definitely happening in China.

An article I read two days ago said that China's literacy rate was growing. This is a good thing, but I wonder if such fraud cases will then increase? Perhaps with the increased literacy rate of the population academics are more pressurised to produce high quality work, or be eliminated from the competition. This may push them to extremes, resulting in such fraud cases. This could hold serious implications because many companies and various organisational bodies refer to such academic articles to make many important decisions. If data in these articles are false, dire consquences may result. Take for example a paper highlighting the increasing consumer preference for branded goods. Companies producing these goods may then use the information to decide whether to raise prices or stock up on their goods. If the statistics were faked, the market response may not meet the companies' initial expectations, and thus incur huge losses. This could spell bad news for the economy.

"Last year, My Chen Jin, a US-educated dean at Shanghai's elite Jiaotong University, was sacked for faking chip research". From this example we could perhaps question the rationale behind all these fraud cases. Clearly, the institution of education which they went to is not a question, because even a US-educated dean was found guilty of fraud. It is not just China's academics. A possibility may be that academics in China face too much pressure to churn out quality papers in a short time. This is even more so for academics specialising in enviromental studies. With the increased media scrunity on China's enviromental control and pollution levels, these academics are pushed to the limits to investigate the causes and identify the root causes. It may be that with tight deadlines to meet but with insufficient materials, they may then be tempted to forge data.

Yet, it is important for China to "pour more resources into scientific breakthroughs or risk being left a minor player in global technological advances". However, this can only be done if academics take their work seriously and bear in mind not to forge data at any cost. I suggest reducing the pressure on them to churn out work in a short period of time to solve this problem.

After all, the people look up to the well-educated to guide them. If these people make mistakes, then what are the rest of the country's population supposed to follow?

-when are you coming back? ;

Thursday, August 2, 2007

0 comments

I refer to the article "S'porean takes up senior UN post", dated August 1, 2007.

"Singaporean Noeleen Heyzer, a veteran development expert, was appointed yesterday to be the head of the United Nations Economic and Social Programme for Asia and the Pacific."

It is a huge accomplishment, one that makes us fellow Singaporeans feel proud for her.
Over the years, Singapore has been steadily gaining recognition internationally. Through its good diplomatic ties with other countries, as well as its membership in ASEAN and the UN, has put Singapore in the spotlight. While we used to be a small country that few people knew of, we have progressed into a prosperous nation today. Simply say the word "Singapore" to any foreigner. Most will be able to tell you that they have heard of us before.

One of Singapore's first international recognition took place when a Singaporean chaired a UN Forum many years ago. Our economic growth and development throughout the years have made others sit up and notice us. From a tiny red dot we have grown into a successful nation today, and I am certainly proud to say that Singapore is my country, for this is my home, where I belong.

Noeleen Heyzer was quoted in the article as saying that Singapore had taught her many things, and that she was proud of being a part of this country at a time when "it was a country that came out of poverty into a successful city state". She is not the only one who's proud of Singapore, that's for sure.

I was proud to hear the news that a fellow Singaporean had managed to take up a senior UN post, one that is highly respected and deeply admired. Although in the past I never knew of the name Noeleen Heyzer, today I am more aware. Reading this article brought to light her contributions to the world, and this makes me respect her even more. Few people, not to mention women, are able to do this much. She was even awarded the UNA-Harvard Leadership Award and the Dag Hammaryskjold Medal in 2004, given to "a person who has promoted...compassion, humanism and commitment to international solidarity and cooperation".

This article is another example of how traditional gender roles are changing. While women used to be stay-at-home housewives, whose jobs included looking after the children and taking care of the family, today all this is changing. More and more women are becoming involved in the workforce, and slowly but surely, the number of women taking up leadership roles is increasing. Take another example of India's first woman president, sworn into office only last week.

I certainly look forward to the day when I will be able to see a fellow woman Singaporean step in as our country's first woman president.

-when are you coming back? ;