Wow, it seems like everyone is talking about education recently :D I was just reading an article on Singapore meritocracy (with regards to scholarships) that my prof for another mod had uploaded into the workbin. I googled for it, and you can read it here:
http://www.smu.edu.sg/news_room/smu_in_the_news/2008/sources/TODAY_20080825_1.pdf
Basically, most scholarship awardees aren't people who live in HDB flats, although most Singaporeans live in HDB flats.
And it reminded me about another article I had read a few months back, which basically discusses the problem of French elite universities having very few poor students here (it isn't that they don't; they do, but few, those who meet the criteria. I'm not going to speculate anything else):
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2c12012a-fa2a-11de-beed-00144feab49a,dwp_uuid=a9543bac-edcc-11db-8584-000b5df10621.html
While I am all for individuals succeeding in school "whatever your social origins", I find it strange that in order to do so, they have to set quotas. I do think it will lower the average standard, so why is that regarded as a "scandalous" statement? It does make sense. As the Today article has stated, the way to tackle this is early intervention schemes. Setting a quota does not address the root of the problem, and merely solves the symptoms. This isn't meritocracy, is it? It would be un-meritocratic, if say, a poor student does even better than a richer student, but the richer student is given the place. In this case, the poorer students aren't as strong as the richer students. (though it is unfair since they are disadvantaged in the sense that they don't have as much opportunities to develop themselves)
Of course, while we should not base it on grades alone. Yet it is not uncommon for schools to give admission advantages to minorities, even if they may not be as strong as other candidates in a complete, all rounded aspect (I think it sucks to e.g. come from India or China especially when you are applying to college). Is that a way of "righting" what is "wrong"? I don't think so. But it is certainly much easier than solving the real problem of giving poorer candidates individual help. Perhaps it is the best that can be done in the mean time, even - I don't know. But it seems to me that it undermines the real problem in doing so (which is what I am afraid of) - notice how they seem to completely reject the reason the French elite universities give? There's not even a slight agreement. Is this the right way to go about achieving meritocracy?
---
Saw on Chris Henry's FB that's relevant
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/03/education/edlife/03alien-t.html?pagewanted=2
Still, he was selected because they possibly felt he deserved it
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Thanks for posting those links, Shannon. The NYT article in particular was a great read.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I think the present system is fine. Scholarships should be awarded based on merit without regard for wealth.
ReplyDeleteI was a scholar and my family was relatively poor which meant that I did not have the so-called advantages of the rich upbringing. That didn't stop me and it shouldn't stop those after me.
Bill Gates said this (and he's right), "Life isn't fair. Get used to it". I have thought about this issue a lot and I still think that the present system which tries to hand out scholarships on basis of merit without regard for family wealth introduces the least distortions and is "fairest". :-)
Of course, I might be wrong. Philip Yeo for example doesn't agree with me. He prefers that scholarships be given to the heartlanders. Life is complicated. We can't always be right. :-P
Ya... teared reading that article, though there are probably other cases like that also.
ReplyDeleteI like the current system also (though I wish they made admissions essays mandatory for students who study here also :P), though I'm not exactly rich or poor. So I'm afraid my judgment may not be completely fair, but I think "wealth" should strictly not be taken into account in giving out scholarships as well. Those are financial aid/grants. But "wealth" can be a factor if they can link it to how it has helped them develop or what they've learnt and such.
But I do think they are addressing the issue in SG better than in France.
Despite my strong belief that education performance is more affected by economic and social class for most people, I have to agree with Shannon- setting quotas and criteria is not the way to go. In many cases where affirmative action is base on race, it simply reinforces stereotypes and reinforce myths about the causes of a race's underperformance - rather than help lift the race from all these problems.
ReplyDeleteBut i think the assumption Shannon have is that if both are equally smart, they will do just as well in schools, regardless of wealth. This is where, base on personal experience, I have to say that it is highly flawed.
Indeed, life is not fair, but if you want talents, chances are, you might have short-changed yourself if you did not take this into consideration.
@Boss: I thought Philip Yeo's case was if both are EQUALLY qualified, he'll prefer to give it to someone poorer than someone richer? I have to agree with him - if someone is much poorer and/or have lesser support with regards to education from family, if they do just as well as someone who is rich, chances are, the poorer chap is more zai.
@Shannon: Scholarships is not just give you money to study - it gives you opportunities, and a fast-track career path if you prove to be good. Scholarship is not an endowment fund, it is an investment in someone. Thus, I don't think your counter-claim with endowment fund and financial assistance is fair.
Indeed, it is up to the organisation to choose who they want to invest in. But if you were to reject someone poorer soley because of poorer grades without consideration for other things, I can only say is that that organisation is quite stupid. But I'm quite sure not many organisations are like that la.
@boss: do you have the support of your family, or a family that place a lot of emphasis on education?
ReplyDeleteBut i think the assumption Shannon have is that if both are equally smart, they will do just as well in schools, regardless of wealth. This is where, base on personal experience, I have to say that it is highly flawed.
ReplyDelete"Wealth" helps in the nurture aspect (a significant advantage), "smart-ness" is tha nature aspect. I never assumed they will do just as well if they are equally "smart" if nurtured differently :P Drive can be a part of nurture or a separate, but important entity also.
---
@Shannon: Scholarships is not just give you money to study - it gives you opportunities, and a fast-track career path if you prove to be good. Scholarship is not an endowment fund, it is an investment in someone. Thus, I don't think your counter-claim with endowment fund and financial assistance is fair.
Precisely my point. As prof has mentioned, some people prefer giving scholarships to poorer students. But scholarships do not just represent money, but a wealth of opportunities - why should a richer student not be just as deserving as a poorer student just because they are wealthier? That *isn't* equal opportunities for all.
"why should a richer student not be just as deserving as a poorer student just because they are wealthier?"
ReplyDeleteDoesn't mean they are just as good!
obviously I mean that if they are just as good la :P If a rich student with nature and nurture is just as good as a poor student who had less "nurture", they should both had an equal chance. The poorer student should not be given any advantage.
ReplyDeleteJust to clarify, we are referring to scholarships, and not the quotas set in universities right?
ReplyDeleteThe thing is what is "just as good"?
What we perceive to be "just as good" is different from the people who are interviewing. We may see it as a certain set of criteria, but employers may have more that we didn't see.
Eg: Poorer student are stereotyped to be more street-smart and resilient. So despite on paper, having the same grades, CCA record, interview performance etc., they may still be perceived to be more qualified for something that is hard to quantify and qualify. There are also issues of ethics, morals, moral courage, personal integrity etc. that is hard to quantify. That is not the official requirement, isn't it?
So I think the term "equally qualified" is non-existent realistically speaking. I think the interview alone, which is something so qualitative, will already make it obvious as to who is better, regardless of economic background. Perhaps it might co-relate with a certain economic class, but base on what I've mentioned so far, that's definitely not the cause as to why the interviewers give the scholarship to them.
I don't really want to go into discussing the definition of "equally qualified" and how to quantify it - that's a different argument altogether, so unless you want to... it's really something that applies to ALL candidates, the same problem will arise if you have 2 rich kids against each other, or 2 less wealthy kids.
ReplyDeleteYes, I have never denied interviews are a way it's done, or said it was a bad thing. It's simply impossible to interview everyone. In whittling down students, my point is that "wealth" alone should not be a factor. Similarly,it isn't one in rewarding the position/scholarship. However, I have no qualms about taking into account whatever a richer student has LEARNT through the advantage of/ aided by wealth. Similarly, I have no problems with taking into account what a poorer student may have learn, say, through a "tougher" life.