My Game of Life

Monday, September 15, 2008

Just one week left to the only academic thing that actually matters after four years of studying, and I guess it's about time I get my thoughts on education off my chest after ten gruelling years (+2 if you count kindergarten) of it. Here goes a long post on the shortcomings on the education system here.

I'll start this off by stating this outright: The current Singapore education system is not pragmatic. It's overly extensive and instead of focusing on the practical skills essential for the future, chooses to prepare students for the rigidity of examinations, passing on useless knowledge that's in most cases unneeded beyond that. By "practical skills", I'm referring to the skills which will actually count in the real world, in careers and relationships, thereby allowing people to make a living for themselves and lead a meaningful life in the future.

Let's begin by examining the Hwachong system. The one thing it does right is that it builds students' foundations in the first two years, in Sec 1 and 2, and lets them find their passion. Students are introduced to the basic concepts behind all subjects, and take the basic combination of English, Chinese, Maths, Combined Science (which is broken into three modules for each of the sciences), Computer Studies and the three Humanities as separate subjects. Students learn the basics of Trigonometry and Algebra in Maths and about electrons and compounds in Science, although the inclusion of certain subjects like History and programming in Computer Studies at this early stage already are signs of the bloated syllabus.

The real nightmare comes when students get to choose their "Special Programmes" in Sec 3. Despite Sec 3 and 4 supposedly being the years where students get to consolidate their knowledge and develop their passion, in reality the freedom of choice is minimal - the four or five programmes available differ mostly by just one subject. For example, if students chose the Humanities Programme, they would have to take Geography, Literature and History, with China Studies in Chinese also bundled in the package; but then again even in the Science and Math Training Programme, students have to take two humanities subjects anyway - Integrated Humanities Core (the equivalent of Social Studies) and an elective (one of the three humanities). Furthermore, Science gets separated into Chemistry, Physics and Biology, each making up one subject, and the former two are compulsory for all students in all programmes whereas Biology is the only one that is optional. The minimum combination already consists of seven subjects with two sciences and two humanities.

And this is where the problem lies. Choosing a "Special" Programme does not mean you get to specialise in that field; instead, extra subjects are simply added on. Compounding this issue is the fact that students are required to cover not just breadth, but also depth, with much of what is being taught in each subject pertaining only to specialisation in that field. Sure, Organic Chemistry is fine and all if you were going to be a pharmacologist, but do you need to know about European imperialism in Africa down to every detail and date as well? Similarly, if you were going to be a metereologist, you would see the value in studying Geography, but how about the use of irony in Macbeth's soliloquies? See where I'm getting at? The oft-used idiom "Jack of all trades, master of none" immediately springs to mind. Students in non-"elite" schools actually get it slightly better here: they are not required to take that many subjects for the 'O'-Levels, and also get to learn more practical stuff like Home Economics. Occasionally, teachers do try to bring in some real world applications of what we're learning in lessons as well, like how logarithms would help you to count money, but again the uses are highly limited and applicable only for that specialised field. (Besides, if I had that much money to count I'd have hired my own personal accountant in the first place!)

The school's argument for having such an all-encompassing (or should I say, over-encompassing) syllabus is that students are "not sure" of their future yet. "What if you initially had a passion for the Humanities but suddenly changed your mind and wanted to take Science in JC? What if in the future, the pay for electrical engineers rises and you decide you want to switch career paths?" and a whole other string of "what ifs". To this, I say: In that case, don't make students specialise in every subject, but instead teach them the fundamental concepts, sufficient for them to progress on to the advanced levels if they wish, but not too much that you rob them of their time and passion. It's good to be prepared for the uncertainties ahead, but there's a limit before this becomes counter-productive, and the education system has long crossed that line. Students are stretched so thin, they simply shut down and lose most, if not all of the passion that was painstakingly nurtured in the formative years. Perhaps this is why teachers lament that as students progress through the years, they become less and less self-motivated, ask less and less questions beyond the syllabus, and are content to learn only what is tested for examinations. The school needs to realise that no mortal can possibly prepare for all the possibilities out there and move away from this inherent kiasu syndrome.

This is one reason why I'm looking forward to JC, where you are actually free to choose your own subject combination and pick only the subjects which you are truly interested in learning, and where the number of subjects (i.e. breadth) is cut down dramatically so there's at least a certain degree of specialisation in just a certain field alone. As such, I will get to learn only the bits which I think will be relevant to my future job, all that while having more time to delve deeper into my passion.

Of course, there are some salient points about the current system, such as how some say that giving students thick stacks of readings for History would hone their reading skills, how comprehension exercises would develop their critical thinking, or how doing math practice questions would help to enchance their problem solving capabilities. Teachers do sometimes bring in moral lessons and national education as well, especially in the languages, which have a less damanding syllabus with no concrete content. As a result, there is more space for class discussions for students to debate over moral and philosophical issues and also for teachers to bring in their own personal experiences once in a while in shaping students' character and their perceptions towards the world.

However, it still seems as though this development of character and fundamental cognitive skills takes a back seat in the face of the acquisition of hard (and often impractical) knowledge required for examinations. If the former were truly to be the aim of education, why can't it be taught directly instead of going the long way round by numerous worksheets and readings, wearing the student out (and killing god knows how many trees) in the process? For example, you don't need 6 cm thick History readings to improve one's reading skills; instead, make students read the papers and printouts of articles in class, which for the average student will be eons more interesting than dreary notes from some professor on an event that occurred decades ago. In the same way, provide lessons dedicated to moral development and national education alone, such as the "counselling" periods I observed in the Muar and Beijing schools which I had the privilege of visiting on my overseas school trips, rather than relegating them to something extra that teachers impart only if they're in the mood for it. As it stands right now, this is not part of teachers' official duty, and the teachers who actually integrate it into what they teach are considered the outstanding ones. But why is it that only good teachers make an effort to nurture students to be good citizens? Shouldn't it be the fundamental duty of all teachers? The education system does not do these essential aspects justice; they should be placed at the top priority, not something "extra-curricular". And no, allocating just one PCME period every week is not enough to do the trick.

While I appreciate the efforts by MOE to place a greater focus on creative and critical thinking and shifting away from rote learning to that of life-long skills, it still isn't enough. Indeed, t's a step in the right direction, but fails to change the underlying flaw in the entire system: attitudes. No amount of "Future School" programmes will work - the infusion of IT might make lessons more fun, but nurturing passion is a whole different ball game altogether, and IT or not students still need to cover the same expanse of subject matter anyway. On the other hand. project work is a great way to allow students to pick up teamwork, research and presentation skills, and should certainly be continued, even possibly increased in weightage. However, the truth is, the Singaporean education system, as has been criticised much too many times before, is ultimately still a "limited and often unimaginative meritocracy and is usually too narrowly focused on examination skills". (I got that quote from an SRQ article, so that's one thing English is good for I suppose.) When the day comes when the education system breaks free from its current rigidity, when students do truly get the space to develop their creative talent, when greater emphasis is placed on character devlopment than acing examinations... when that day comes, perceptions will change. But till then, the current education system is little more than a tool designed to get students past the repressive examination system we put in place ourselves.

Going by my arguments, perhaps ITE actually provides better education in that it focuses mainly on providing essential skills required for the workforce. But the very fact that only students who are unable to cope with the exam-oriented system and do not make it past the examinations are put into ITE shows that the system still favours rote learning over that of practical skills. Not to mention that it's a running joke that ITE actually stands for "It's The End", but then again this actually reveals the inherent belief that examinations are everything.

So with all that pessimism, one wonders why I still subject myself to such a system? It's mainly because I've accepted the fact that the education system here is just a means to an end of getting that certification, and I've been conditioned to believe that having a degree would assure me on success in future. Whether that is true remains to be seen, of course. I guess our forefathers were not wrong in thinking that education would lead to a better life, and look at where it has landed us: a stable economy, a skilled workforce, one of the best living standards in the world. But things have changed since then. Back then, the aim of the education system would be to produce a labour pool for the emerging industries, so there were subjects like carpentry and metalwork. That aim was fulfilled, and now that we're progressing towards a knowledge-based economy, it's not surprising that the education system has "progressed" over the years to reflect this. The only problem being that the students' knowledge is in the wrong places, or rather all over the place. Yet, society (me included for some reason) still clings on to the belief that education is the key to success, and you would be nothing if you failed in it. And sadly that's also the way modern society has come to be engineered.

Yet, one could point to the several successful entrepreneurs out there who managed to make it big (at least in their careers) even though they did not manage to achieve very high level of educations, such as Steve Jobs and Sim Wong Hoo, and how being street smart is more important than being book smart. To that, I say: Tell the education authorities that and convince the other people that education is not the only way to be successful. Besides, that was in the past when honours and degrees were a rarity; now, with everyone getting them, you are forced by societal pressure (and usually parents as well) to get one too, as its "for your on good" or else you'll "lose out". Indeed, certification nowadays is no longer used to set apart the bright students from the mundane; it's becoming the norm. Even Imperial College has acknowledged this, making students sit for entrance exams rather than just relying on A level results since they "cannot use A levels any more as a discriminatory factor". In the same way, that certificate no longer allows you to lead the pack, but it's to make sure you don't get left out of the rat race, as overall education levels - which do not actually reflect true ability in the first place - just keep rising up and up. And soon such a large proportion of people will be getting PhD's that they will have to introduce even more degrees and set the bar at an even higher level.

Frankly, I would certainly much prefer a laxer education system (in the West perhaps?) that would give me more room time to enjoy my youth and explore whatever passion I still have that hasn't been snuffed out yet, but unless I want to be labelled as a school dropout and migrate far away from this repressive system there's not a chance of a transfer. So the only thing I can do despite my misgivings is to resign myself to its failures, since that's how the grown-ups want us to do it.

"An educational system isn't worth a great deal if it teaches young people how to make a living but doesn't teach them how to make a life." Right now, it seems as though ours is falling short of the former, much less the latter. As I heard from one of my father's friends recently, you will not even use 90% of what you learnt in in the 'A'-levels. And considering that secondary school students actually take twice the number of subjects of college students, one can only begin to fathom how much time is actually wasted on teaching all that unnecessary knowledge, which could have been better use even if left as free time for students' self-exploration or relaxation. And one wonders why Singapore regularly ranks top when students compete in international science and mathematics competitions and assessments, yet produces a meagre number of entrepreneurs.

Recently, a friend who was weak in A-Maths came over to my house for some extra help in trigonometry. Halfway through, she asked me: "You know hor, what is the use of trigo identities anyway?" I explained to her that it had various applications particularly where triangles were involved, if one were to become an engineer or something. Shen then replied that she did not take Physics and had no intentions at all of becoming an engineer. I went, "Er, it has use in tests lor." And we both laughed and I continued with teaching her how to use the formula sin² x + cos² x = 1 to solve example questions in the textbook.

'Twas teh winnar at 12:00 am.